Amazon Union Drive

The important news that you may not be aware of is a unionization drive at an Amazon warehouse in Alabama.  This is a very, very big deal that could have an impact far wider than just one of the many Amazon locations.  I consider myself mostly neutral when it comes to unionization; by and large, I think employers which have a labor union are in that situation because they deserve it.  

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/26/tech/amazon-bessemer-union/index.html

Amazon is a test case though in what's wrong with many employers in the United States today.  As my former Labor Law instructor at Villanova recently said on LinkedIn...

Amazon's pitch is "Don't let the unions come between our relationship".

A warehouse employee counters that by saying "But we don't have a relationship.  We have a relationship with a computer and an app".  

The above also exists in an environment where Amazon employees are afraid to use the bathroom while at work* as the company relentlessly drives for more efficiency and productivity.  Oh, and the company was founded by one (if not the) richest man on Earth.  Now I like getting my Amazon packages quickly with my Prime membership, but I would not complain if I waited an extra day for delivery in order to make sure that Amazon employees are treated more like human beings than a piece of machinery.

Granted, unionization isn't always the best answer to addressing employee issues, but sometimes it may be the only answer that's left for employees.  As a professional, this makes me truly sad.  I believe to my very core that individuals are capable of representation themselves...they don't need an intermediary...but what happens when the leadership of an organization won't actually listen to individuals?

There are better ways out there to do things from a labor-management perspective.  It's worth looking at, for example, how things are done in Germany.

https://www.howtogermany.com/pages/german-workplace-organizations.html

As it stands though, I can't help but support the workers who want to organize in Alabama.  What other choice is left for them?

(*) Citation:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/16/17243026/amazon-warehouse-jobs-worker-conditions-bathroom-breaks

Scranton's Teachers, Learning a (Biblical) Lesson

"Do not be deceived:  God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap."

(Galatians, Chapter 6 - Verse 7)

As noted in a recent Scranton Times article (link HERE), unionized teachers in the Scranton School Distract are upset.  You can read the article for the particulars, but that's not the point of this posting.  Rather, and as noted above, this is about a lesson of almost biblical proportions.

For decades, unionized teachers in the Scranton School District financially supported and campaigned for school board candidates are where, at best, incompetent.  At worst?  Well, according to the Pennsylvania Attorney General, there is more to come on the "at worst" front (link HERE).  It was this history of union-supported candidates who...

...drove the district to insolvency & at the doorstep of a state takeover
...approved to no-bid, dramatically over-priced, busing contracts
...allowed a non-employee to receive employee healthcare benefits
...looked the other way as a former Business Administrator was committing felonies

...and I could go on (and on), but the point is made.  Call me unsympathetic, but the union knew exactly who they were supporting, and what these individuals stood for, such as no-bid busing contacts.  What was the underlying thought process of union leadership?  That the money would never stop flowing, so what's some graft here or there?  Maybe it was that "better the known and incompetent than the alternative"?

Now the teachers' union has an absolute right to support the political candidates who they believe will benefit its membership.  They don't, however, have a right to be exempt from the rightful criticism that comes with aiding and abetting (at best) incompetence.  What's called for here is an examination on the part of the union leadership as to their role in the downfall of the Scranton School District and how such a role can be prevented in the future. The teachers' union is just one of many with dirty hands in the sorry state that is the Scranton School District; as learning professionals, they should be at the forefront of culling some important lessons from it all.

Scranton School District - "It's the expenses, stupid"

During Bill Clinton's first presidential run, one of his chief advisor (and dead-ringer for Skelator), James Carville, was famous for saying "the economy, stupid" as a way to keep the campaign focused on the issue(s) that matter the most.  I keep hearing that phrase in the back of my head whenever I read about the Scranton School District's (SSD) decades-long fiscal crisis.

By the way, it's less of a "fiscal" crisis than it is a crisis of ineptitude.

One of the things you read in the local press about the SSD's financial picture is the fact that the district is dramatically short-changed when it comes to state-provided funding.  That's actually true.  The reasons behind that are outside of my scope for this posting, but it's worth reading about if you're interested.  However, I think there is danger in focusing too much on the SSD's funding level. 

Now, should the state funding formula be changed? Sure, it should. But placing too much emphasis on the income side of the ledger is an enormous mistake. Ask anyone who ever had excessive credit card debt: Additional income sometimes just feeds additional excessive spending. 

Given the SSD's long history of horrible governance:

1. Nepotism - Some things never change, even in the midst of a crisis.  A case in point is the fact that the most recently appointed SSD Director just happens to be the brother-in-law of the district's transportation director.  This would be the same person who, shockingly, also oversees the (twice no-bid) busing contract.  Why wasn't this family relationship disclosed during the selection process for the new director?  Board members should be on record as to whether or not they knew about the family connection prior to the appointment vote.  This is the same newly minted director who owed the City of Scranton over twenty thousand dollars in back taxes and garbage fees (citation HERE).  Why does this matter?  Simply put, the SSD has a long history of making appointments and hiring decisions based on political/familial expediency, not actual talent, which in turn permeates incompetence throughout the organization.
2. Failed Fiduciary Responsibilities - The SSD has a horrible track record when it comes to creating and exercising reasonable fiscal (and other types of) controls.  Whether it's a twice enacted no-bid busing contract, poor information technology asset management or paying benefits to non-employee who just happened to fix select administration member's vehicles for free, the SSD has repeatedly violated its responsibility to prudently manage taxpayer resources (for more details, read THIS).  
3. Inconsistent Labor Relations - The SSD and the Scranton Federation of Teachers (SFT) have an interesting relationship.  At times adversarial, for sure.  At times quid pro quo, as the SFT has known about the scourge of nepotism, but yet looked the other way when it knew that the best-qualified individuals were not always being hired.  There is also a history of the SFT endorsing grossly incompetent individuals for SSD director positions (see the above points).  The SFT has a bad habit of blaming the SSD administration only when it's convenient to do so and looking the other way the rest of the time.  As the old saying goes, "if you lay down with dogs, don't then complain about getting fleas".

...I have absolutely no doubt that more money would have either resulted in simply delaying the current crisis or perhaps spawning even worse decisions making.  Think about it:  Would the no-bid busing contract have been challenged if the SSD were flush with cash?  Maybe yes, maybe no.  What is certain though is that the SSD would be under far less scrutiny, which would be a very, very bad thing.

By all means, Pennsylvania's public school funding policy needs to change, but for Scranton any more funding needs to come only with significant oversight attached.

Random Bites of Hard Reality (Road Apples, #168)

If you are looking to food for comfort, well then you're going to be horribly disappointed...starting at about 2 minutes after you've finished eating.

Every Presidential candidate is flawed...because all humans are flawed; we need to adjust our expectations.

Scranton has a structural budget deficit because it spends too much money...both in the past and now.

Competition in the healthcare system is a great concept that falls apart in the face of reality; next time you have a heart attack try shopping for the highest quality doctor who charges the lowest reasonable price.

If you employ a child molester and you protect that person from prosecution that makes you an accessory to a very serious crime...regardless of your title (*cough* "bishop" *cough*).

If something has value it's worth paying and sacrificing for...college included (granted that sacrifice shouldn't be the monetary equivalent of a small home in Dupont).

Sometimes the best friend you can have is a furry one who never says a word.

Religion relies on faith, but faith doesn't rely on religion.

Any financial solution that relies on selling things (be they possessions or sewer authorities) is doomed to fail simply because at some point there will no longer be things remaining to sell.

If you want a completely unbiased media you'll first have to find completely unbiased human beings to run it...and good luck with that one.

Anyone who earns a commission selling your things (be they appliances, cars or financial services) is first going to look out for their own financial interest...the trick is to find out where that interest intersects with your interests.

One hundred years from now someone will still be singing "Hey Jude"...and a Fetty Wap will be a deli sandwich.

Healthcare may not be a right, but just try and live without it.

Employers who have employees in labor unions no doubt did something to deserve it.

Hunter S. Thompson was right:  The truth is never told between 9 and 5 business hours.

The only person responsible for your happiness is you.

Response to Mike Sporer's Comments, SFT Strike

Writing in response to Mike Sporer's comment made to THIS posting.

* * * * * *

Thanks, as always, for commenting Mike.

I think we basically agree on most points when it comes to the strike.

Regarding education in the United States, I also agree that it's lackluster...at best.  More realistically, I think it's broken beyond a simple repair.  Everything, from the length of the school day to the school year, from teaching methods to materials needs to be examined.  Therein lies one of the problem I have with teacher unionization though:  Through the union, teachers will fight most core/structural changes to education by treating them as bargaining chips (in order to get something in return).  Put another way, public school teachers should be at the forefront of bold experimentation and innovation in education, yet we don't see very much of that, simply because the labor unions will want to negotiate every little change made to work rules and methods.  Why?  Because that's what labor unions do:  They are designed to protect and promote union members, not, in this case, students.  That's one of many reasons why I think professionals should not be unionized.

Another problem?  Older teachers aren't necessarily better teachers, yet seniority based systems, such as those required by labor unions, are designed around that very concept.  I want the best performing teachers to be paid the most; schools shouldn't simply be rewarding "sticking around for a long time".  One can be the same as the other, but not always...at least not in the real world of performance management.

I'll reaffirm though that while philosophically I don't think teachers should be unionized, practically speaking they have to be under the current circumstances, as there needs to be something to protect them, as individuals, from grossly incompetent and politically motivated school boards.

With regards to Ms Boland, I actually think I had her as an Art teacher at East Scranton Jr High.  I could be wrong, and I've tried to find a biography on her to verify that fact, but I've come up empty.  Assuming she was my teacher back then, I'll say that she made a positive impression on me, and I can't say that about most of the teachers I had back in those days.  Present day she does sound tough, but her union members should expect that of her.  Truth be told, I don't have a problem with a tough union negotiator.  Where things break down for me is when there are falsehoods repeated as facts and thuggish tactics are employed by unions.  Two examples -

a) Falsehoods - I actually heard a few weeks ago, from a very good source, that the "35 kids in a classroom" mantra that the union was spouting as being a chief reason for the strike was sheer and utter nonsense.  That fact was confirmed by the Scranton Times in its Saturday edition.  Simply put, the union lied about this one because it makes them seem more sympathetic to the parents of children who are not currently being educated.  It's a better story than "we want more money".

b) Thuggery - I was very glad to hear that the SFT decided not to demonstrate in front of the school board president's home, although it was disheartening to hear that it was seriously considered.  Board President Douaihy deserves a fair amount of grief for this whole situation, but he...like everyone else...should be allowed respite in his own home.

Nothing and no one in this situation is clean, but in the end it's the students who continue to suffer because the adults can't act like adults.

Now as alluded to above, I don't share your opinion regarding unions being the savior of the middle class in this country.  I do think they have their place in the working world, but my opinion has always been that organizations with labor unions have them because they deserve them...with the possible exception of Walmart (who does deserve them but doesn't have them...and that's a whole different topic)...because they failed to treat their employees as true assets.  Unions can, in many instances, create as many problems as they solve.  For example,  unions homogenize employees into buckets not based upon performance and unique contributions to results, but instead based almost exclusively on tenure.  That's simply wrong, as compensation and opportunities should always be based upon performance.  What's more, unions encourage the notion that individuals are incapable of speaking for themselves, which I find demeaning, harmful and encouraging of a victim mentality.

Finally, while I don't think unions (as currently constructed in the United States today) are the answer to the problems that plague the modern workplace, and speaking as an HR professional, I do recognize that a new model for the workforce is definitely needed.  There is a need to protect employees from unreasonable demands, and in some instances employees should have the benefit of expertise available to them to help solve problems with management in an organization.  Personally, I think a good place to start can be found in the concept of co-determination in the workplace, as, for example, practiced in Germany.  It's not a perfect model, but that's okay, as it doesn't have to be.  Either current extreme in the U.S. today, be it the insane anti-union tactics of a Walmart or the thuggish tactics employed by some unions*, is not getting us anywhere.




(*) True story told to me by a colleague who used to work at a unionized employer:  During a strike, he, as a member of management, had to cross a picket line in order to go to work.  Approaching the door, he got wet, even though there wasn't a cloud in the sky.  The liquid in question had a particular odor to it...the kind of smell that you might encounter in a men's room at Fenway Park during a Dropkick Murphys concert.

Labor Day 2015

Few things get folks more riled up than the subject of labor unions, and many take Labor Day as an opportunity to tout their value.  I'm not going there today.  Well maybe I am.  I have issues with labor unions, but I also recognize that sometimes they are essential.  Case in point:  Public school teachers.

There was a time when I thought that public school teachers should not be unionized.  How many other professionals (doctors and lawyers) have you known to go out on strike?  Then I had something of an epiphany:  Given how corrupt local school boards are, can you imagine just what kind of shenanigans would be happening if good teachers didn't have the protection of a labor union?

"Teacher Fran Jones fired for poor performance." 

Could very well actually mean...

"Teacher Fran Jones fired for not contributing to school board director Ty Goodwaddy's re-election campaign.".

Granted that teacher's unions are far from perfect.  For example, it's too hard to fire ineffective teachers.  In fact, given the debate centering on teacher evaluations, unions are making it difficult just to figure out who the ineffective teachers are (although if you get a good teacher aside and ask, they all can point out the rotten eggs), let alone performance manage them out of a district.  There are other issues as well (innovation, as in changing the construct of a school year, is another), but I don't want to pile on because in the arena of public education there are no clean hands.

In the end, I do think that labor, as a general concept, is under-valued in this country.  In many corners of the country working is not valued at all.  Perhaps in our desire to make the lives of our children better, we've gone too far, failing to teach the nobility that comes from working hard at any endeavor.  That needs to change.

I'll end this with a nice prayer from the Facebook page of The Episcopal Church.

Response to Tom Borthwick's posting, Bernie Sanders for President

In response to Tom Borthwick's latest blog posting, promoting the Presidential campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.  You can link to Tom's posting HERE.

* * * * * *

Hey Tom, glad to see you posting again.  I'd say "keep it up", but I don't want to jinx anything.

I view Bernie Sanders like many other politicians.  While Rafael Cruz panders to the far right, sometimes (well most of the time) Senator Sanders does the same to far left.  He's right about climate change, but  he's also guilty of sound-byte commentary on the equal pay issue, quoting an incorrect 78% statistics.   Here's a very good & quick read on the issue by the not-conservative Pew Research Center that proves my point -

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/14/on-equal-pay-day-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

In summary, he's simply wrong when citing a 78% wage gap.  Sloppy and pandering.

I'll also call him guilty of pandering on the promotion of trade unions as well; "card check", in place of secret ballots for union elections, is bad policy that opens the door for strong-arm tactics.  If a union is right for an organization, then what's to fear from a secret ballot election?  That employees will actually vote their conscience?

Lastly, as for "taking on Wall Street", well don't you see just a bit of irony in the U.S. federal government, the ultimate expression of "too big to fail" telling others that they are "too big to fail" and therefore should be broken up?  Now conceptually I actually agree that too much power is concentrated in too few financial institutions, but I simply don't trust the federal government enough to make those decisions.  Who gets broken up?  Who gets to own the pieces?  If anything, "too big to fail" targets are a smoke screen for the federal government's inability to actually prosecute the bad actors in the last financial crisis.  How many big CEOs went to jail after the 2008 collapse?  I know, that's a trick question, in part because greed isn't really a crime, but then again stupidity isn't either (and large financial institutions count on the financial illiteracy of Americans).

Anyway, welcome back Tom.  It's going to be an interesting summer.

Regards,
- Steve

Road Apples, #157

Rob Lowe's DirectTV Commercials...are actually really well done, at least as far as commercials are concerned.  Here's "scrawny arms Rob Lowe"...

I do have a suggestion:  Hippster Rob Lowe.  It could go something like this..."Hi, I'm Hippster Rob Lowe, and I only watch the television on this retro black-n-white set from 1976.  I also only get three channels, sometimes."  Hippster Rob Lowe could have an iconic beard, black glasses and of course be wearing a sweater vest.  Think Mumford and Son, or the guy half of Pomplamoose.

Reason #126 Why Planning a Wedding When You Are Older is Complicated...Attempting to explain why you don't want your DJ to use props and a disco ball, this despite the fact that virtually all the videos he shows you feature, you guessed it, props and a disco ball.  No props.  No disco ball.  No chicken dance.  No funny hats.  Just good music.  Now I may give, just a little, and allow the electric slide (if, for no other reason than the fact that I can actually do it).  But that's it.  Maybe.

Bloggers:  Want to dramatically increase your number of hits?...Just mention a local politician in your posting titles.  Trust me, it actually works.  I have metrics to prove it.

Lackawanna County Commissioners Race...As best I can tell, my Facebook friend Kevin Haggerty is no longer running for county commissioner, a fact (well at least I think it's a fact) that is somewhat disheartening.  As I've note before in this space, Kevin is genuinely crazy, and I mean that is the best of ways...I really do.  He's not the the typical political hack that you get in these parts, as he speaks his mind even when it involves being critical of his own party.   The current two majority county commissioners?  They look like walking billboards for everything that's wrong about local governance.  One need only look at the utter bashing each gave the other...when they were running as opponents...that magically turned into a love fest the moment they became a "team".  Sincerity anyone?  I guess all those old campaign flyers were just lies.  Anyway, and not to belabor the point, but I do hope that Kevin returns to elected office one day, as the area need more leaders like him (and less like the current country crew).

Speaking of Political Insincerity...we have the concessions offered by the Scranton Fraternal Order of Police, as negotiated by a Scranton Mayor well known for being a pal of the police union, Bill Courtright.  Now I don't blame the police union for negotiating a good deal for their members, as that's what they do.  However, I do blame the Mayor for pushing an agreement that is actually pretty far from being full of concessions.  Sure, the union did give on some points, but they also "got" on several others.  Funny, but I'm thinking that the nature of these negotiations, what with Scranton being distressed for longer than Justin Bieber has been alive*, was for one party to just "give".   My favorite anti-concession?  Allowing a police department leader to spend a day a week, on the taxpayer's dime, to conduct union business.  Smooth Mayor Courtright, smooth.   At best this agreement will forestall the inevitable even further, a trick which Scranton's political leaders are (in)famous for doing time and time again.  This agreement will not significantly sure up the police pension fund, which is so dramatically under-funded that it is practically insolvent.  As I have said time and time again Scranton is already bankrupt; all that's missing is the formal, legal designation.  Oh, and let's see what the true NET savings are for this agreement, as well as what the city gets from the infamously hard-nosed firefighter's union.

Speaking of Unions...I read recently in the Scranton Times that two local teacher's unions are involved labor disputes.  Another sad state of affairs, with well represented public employees who enjoy better-than-average (for NEPA) wages and benefits facing off against ambitious but mostly incompetent local politicos and their connected lawyer friends.  No wonder the unions win more than they loose.  It's also, by the way, the only reason why I can understand the need of teachers to be in a union, namely because in the absence of that kind of power they would subject to all manner shenanigans by elected school board members and their relative administrators.

Anyway, what's the solution?  I have one:  A single master contract for teachers, negotiated at a state level with the union(s) that sets wages and benefits for all teachers in Pennsylvania.  This kind of agreement would then have built-in geographic distinctions for salary so that teachers working in high cost of living areas would automatically make more than those in low cost of living areas.  Simple, huh?  Here are two reasons why it won't happen:

1. Union leadership would balk at the prospect of the best contracts having to make concessions in order to meet the requirements of the new state-wide master contract.
2. Local lawyers and politicians, now out of the labor negotiating picture (something for which they seem ill-equipped for anyway), would fight their loss of power.

Just an idea.






(*) "The Biebs" was born on March 1, 1994; Scranton was declared a distressed municipality on January 10, 1992 (citation HERE).




 

Everything Wrong with the Scranton School Board (in one short paragraph)

From the Scranton Times, July 3, 2014 edition:

"Mrs. McGuigan, a member of the minority, also questioned whether Mr. Casey, Mr. Douaihy and Mr. Martinelli should be involved in negotiations. Mr. Douaihy and Mr. Martinelli are retired Scranton teachers, and Mr. Douaihy’s wife, Mr. Martinelli’s daughter and Mr. Casey’s mother are all Scranton teachers."

Article link HERE.

By way of context, the school directors noted above went to meet with the state appointed arbitrator involved in board and (teacher's) union negotiations.

So what we have are three sitting board directors who have close family members that would benefit from a contract favorable to teachers.  In fact, Director Douaihy would personally, financially benefit from such a contract.  This is, in fact, wrong on so many different levels.

Please, someone try to defend this nonsense.

Response to Tom Borthwick's Comment, RE: Abington Heights Teachers

You can read my original posting and Tom's comment HERE.

* * * * * * * * 

Tom, with all due respect, you're trying to rationalize bad behavior, plain and simple.  Put yourself in the shoes of a student:

"You are nervous as heck about getting into college in the first place.  You are equally nervous as heck about asking a teacher...one that you trust...one that you have build a rapport with...to write you a recommendation letter for college.  You finally work up the courage and ask the teacher, only to be told no."

How does this make you (again, putting yourself in the shoes of the student) feel?  Words like "crushed" and "devastated" come to my mind. 

Now if you detect a note of passion in my writing here, it's because my three daughters all went through this same process; fortunately for them, they had teachers at Scranton High School who were willing to take the time (as you indicated you do) to do this in support of their students.  That's part of what makes teaching and teachers special:  truly being there for the students when they are needed the most.  Trust me, a student nervous about getting into college is about a needy as they come.

The above noted, what makes this whole mess even worse?  The fact that it's all about money.

Teachers can not simultaneously claim to be "for the students" while also being "for their own economic interests" when those two concepts collide.  They can't have it both ways, no more so than school district administrators can either, and I've been pretty critical of how school districts are run as well (case in point:  school districts allowing sports when academics are suspended during teacher strikes).

What's left for teachers?  Well pick one:

• Informational pickets
• Holding public forums
• Stop chaperoning ski club trips (and other similar types of non-academic activities)
• Binding arbitration (you know, the process by which taxpayer interest are secondary)
• Striking

What shouldn't be on the list?  That would be forgoing the writing of recommendation letters.

Tom, this is a shameful act on the part of Abington Heights teachers and I suspect you darn well know it.  While I applaud you for standing by your union brothers and sisters, at the end of the day I can't help but think that you...yourself...would not abide by this kind of union edict if that anxious student came to you and said "Mr Borthwick, I'm really nervous about getting into college.  Could you write me recommendation letter?".  No, I suspect that you'd write the letter, simply because I don't think you could live with yourself otherwise.

Doing Wrong: Abington Heights Teachers

The Scranton Times reported on Friday (03.28.2014) that high school teachers in the Abington Heights School District are refusing to write letters of recommendation for students.  The reason?  A dispute with the district over labor contract issues.

Now for those unfamiliar with what's going on, these letters are very important for high school juniors and seniors as they make college plans.  By refusing to write any recommendation letters, teachers are directly harming the students that, in theory, they supposedly care about.

I know, the above is very harsh language, but so be it:  it's one thing for a unionized teacher to go on strike and simultaneously claim to "care about the kids", for after all in Pennsylvania the law governing public schools guarantees a certain number of instructional days per school year.  The net result of a strike therefore is a lot of inconvenience, but in the end it all works out.  More or less.  The same can't be said for the refusal of teachers to write recommendation letters.

Now I had wanted to write this posting yesterday, but I smartly put it off until today, as I was far too angry to write something yesterday that would make a ton of sense.  It would have been just a written rage.  Time has helped in that regard, but I still have a few choice words for the teachers in the Abington Heights School District who are refusing to write recommendation letters:

You are shaming yourselves.

You are bringing shame to your profession.

You are harming the children you claim to care about...for money, no less.

You are proving that what your worst critics say about you is true.

You are using children as cannon balls in a war they are not a party to at a time when they need your support the most.

Stop this nonsense now.  Give up the "holding the kids hostage" approach and start writing recommendation letters again.  Prove that you are better than this blatant display of union thuggery at its worst.

Teachers reviewing Principals? Why how dare they!

The Scranton Times reported yesterday that a proposal by Scranton School District teachers to evaluate district principals has drawn the ire of at least one group.  According to the article, Attorney Frank J. Tunis Jr, representing the Scranton Association of Administrators and Supervisors said that...

"The last thing we're going to accept is to have the people we supervise evaluating us."

Having just gone through my own employer's performance evaluation process, I reacted to the article with a mix of amusement and disgust.

Now I've said many times on this blog that I have mixed feelings about labor unions, which makes me at least somewhat suspicious of the underlying intentions of the Scranton Federation of Teachers (SFT, which is the union representing district teachers) in this matter.  They have helped to create the adversarial relationship that exists within the professional ranks in the Scranton School District, so feigning shock at the sad state of teacher - administrator relations is silly (at best).  This noted though, I think that it's a GREAT IDEA for those who are supervised to provide feedback on their supervisors.  Furthermore, I'm of the opinion that this kind of feedback should be a formal part of the the performance evaluation of every leader, in just about every organization.

Why?  I think that performance feedback is a lot like chocolate:  a little is good, a lot is great.  What's more, feedback shouldn't just flow upward, it should also flow from the sides as well.  Think of the process as providing "360 degree  feedback": from the below (those who report to a leader) from the top (the person to whom the leader reports) and from the sides (peers that the leader interacts with on a regular basis).  A leader should be welcoming the perspective of others, especially those that rely on the leader for guidance and support.  This is in keeping with my perspective that leadership is, in fact, a form of service. What successful service provider doesn't solicit feedback from customers?

By the way, my 2012 performance appraisal included feedback from the person I supervise, just as every performance appraisal I've had going back 10+ years has included feedback from my direct reports.  I'm not just advocating upward feedback as part of some intellectual exercise...this is cooking that I, in fact, eat myself.  Have I agreed with all of the feedback I receive from my direct reports over the years?  Of course not.  Then again I've not agreed with all of the feedback I've received from the leaders I've reported to either.  Disagreeing is not the same as discounting though, and in fact most of the feedback I have received from direct reports has been very insightful.  What's more, the process of determining why you may disagree with a particular piece of feedback can be very educational.

In the end, the statement by Attorney Tunis sounds elitist, is shortsightedness and is in keeping with circa 1950 leadership theory.  Mark my words:  this whole mess will not end well.

Labor Union to Police Chief: Don't Actually Fight Crime

This is an incredibly stupid decision.

Labor Board:  Scranton Police Chief can't actually fight crime

This almost reads like a segment from the Daily Show.

Want to know why some folks have such low opinions of labor unions?  Read the above.

Please, someone try and defend this decision.  Fighting crime shouldn't be held hostage by some nuance in a collective bargaining agreement.

A victory for common sense & fiscal responsiblity

Local news outlets (such as WNEP) have reported that a three judge panel in Lackawanna County has denied the City of Scranton's request for a 1% commuter tax.  You can read more HERE.  This is a victory for common sense & fiscal responsibility.

Common Sense.

The approximately 20,000 commuters that work in Scranton didn't create mess that Scranton is in, so simply put, they shouldn't be responsible for fixing it.  Period.  Who is responsible?  Well in my opinion, the order goes something like this:

1) Elected officials
This includes the Mayor and just about every member of city council for the last quarter century.  These elected officials have regularly spent more than they had and made up the difference using just about every silly idea (including the current silly idea de jour, lease-backs) and borrowing trick known to accountancy. Also, successive City Councils have routinely put members political interests ahead of those of taxpayers by constantly bowing to public safety union member demands.

2) Public safety union officers
I specifically mean the leaders of the police and (especially) fire departments labor unions.  They have used scare tactics and taken advantage of the political ambitions of elected officials to blunt just about every attempt at seriously controlling costs.  When your employer is bankrupt, only in Scranton do workers demand (and get) raises.

3) PEL
For providing spineless guidance.  I also fault them for the city's loss in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which cost the city a $30 million award (which public safety union members "generously" reduced to a paltry $15 million).  If you advise the city...and your advice is wrong...you should be held accountable. As far as I can tell, PEL is accountable to no one.

4) Taxpayers
See item #1...ultimately taxpayer apathy is to blame for poor city administration.


Now the above may sound like "union bashing", but so be it.  More than half of the city's expenses are in the area of personnel costs, and when workers control the terms and conditions of employment...which they do in Scranton...it's no wonder that the city is run basically for their exclusive benefit.  In one sense I really can't blame them:  over the decades, union leaders simply took advantage of elected officials desire to remain in office at all costs.  They get an "A" for strategy, but an "F" for overall impact.

So what should be next?  The city needs to declare bankruptcy and open up all of its contracts for re-negotiation.  This includes labor contracts.  No one...and I mean NO ONE...employed by the city of Scranton should be getting a raise as long as the City is unable to pay its bills.  No one has a "right" to be employed by the city.  No one has a "right" to a raise.  City residents are going to have to...

...accept higher costs for city services
...accept fewer police and firemen on duty

...and most importantly...

...start to demand some accountability for results.

It all starts with the Mayor and City Council, but will soon have to move to the Scranton School Board, which has it's own set of fiscal nightmares.  The connection though is that both the City and School District are funded by the same group of taxpayers, so it's high time for some coordination and cooperation.

In the end, this can either be a new beginning for the city or it can be the last spiral down the drain.  It's time for Mayor Doherty and Mayor (I mean Council President) Evans to face reality and stop pretending as if we can simply kick Scranton's problems down the road a few more years.  A "few more years" is now.

Time to put on the big-boy pants ladies and gentlemen.

Scranton's Commuter Tax Hearing (Today)

Today the City of Scranton's leaders will attempt to convince judges that they have made every possible budget cut, trimmed every expense imaginable and taxed city taxpayers to the brink SUCH THAT they should now be allowed to tax non-residents who work in the city.

This is, as I've noted before, ridiculous.  And I make this statement as a resident and taxpayer of the City of Scranton.

The best website/blog I've found for information on the city's farce (known as its budget) is Consolidated IZA (click to link), which provides far more detail than I would ever attempt here.  However I just can't help but offer a few opinions of my own.

So what have the city's leaders done to get Scranton's fiscal house in order?

• Provided multi-year contracts to unionized public safety workers that guarantees them a raise each year.  Note that when my employer was trying to cut costs, they eliminated raises for everyone.  Then again my employer has to actually balance a budget.
• Proposed raises ON TOP OF other financial awards (from bond proceeds) for city lawyers.  
• Somehow transported themselves into a magical land where TAX EXEMPT organizations should be paying TAXES to the tune of over a million dollars a year in fantasy revenue.  Note to City Council President Janet Evans:  "TAX EXEMPT" means that they "DON'T HAVE TO PAY TAXES".  
• Continued to kick the ball down the street with a DRAMATICALLY UNDERFUNDED pension plan.

Not to be outdone, city hall employees continue to work as if nothing bad at all were happening.  Hell, public  safety workers GENEROUSLY agreed to reduce an arbitration award from $30 million to JUST $15 million.  They do realize that the city doesn't actually have the money, right?  That's okay, as they can probably arrange for another loan from union affiliated bank at an interest rate akin to what someone with bad credit pays for a used Dodge Caravan at a "buy here/pay here" car sales establishment.  Tell me, who really is running Scranton these days?

So yes, the hearing is today.  Here's what I am hoping for:  No to the commuter tax.  While I agree that commuters benefit from Scranton's infrastructure, the simple fact is this - they didn't create Scranton's fiscal mess, and as a result they shouldn't be required to help fix it.  Period.  A "no" today could hopefully lead to the only real solution to Scranton's financial mess:  bankruptcy, where someone without political motivations will make the tough decisions (including opening up labor contracts) that actually will solve the city's problems.

Mark my words:  as "yes" on the commuter tax only forestalls Scranton's eventual bankruptcy.

Road Apples, #122

Mittens vs Santorum...apparently both are neck-n-neck for the GOP nomination in Pennsylvania.  Rather astounding actually.  As of about 9am this morning, I think that Rick Santorum has offended everyone other than white males between the ages of 42-60 who are devoted and practicing Catholics.  Maybe.

Steve Ballmer...Is it just me or does Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer look like Gru from Despicable Me?  Judge for yourself:

Still not the best celebrity look-alike I've seen lately; that would go to the Guy Smiley/Mittens comparison.

Scranton City Councilman Jack Loscombe...A story in today's paper (I'd link to it, but the Scranton Times has this pay-per-view deal that I don't care to support) documented the lawsuit by Scranton City Council member Jack Loscombe.  In his suit, Mr Loscombe seeks to have his pension reinstated while serving as a member of council.  By way of background, there is a law in Scranton, dating back to the 60's, that states if a retired firefighter serves on city council his pension is suspended for the term of his service.  The argument by Mr Loscombe is that he has a "right" to the pension.  The argument by the city is that, well, there is a law against "double dipping".  As for me, I think there are two central issues:

• Mr Loscombe's claim that his pension is some kind of sacred "right" is silly at best, as there is no "right" to a municipal pension.  Mr Loscombe's pension is a benefit of having served the city, but the "right" is far from absolute, as there are numerous instances where a pension can either be attached (by the IRS or a court) or cancelled all together (in the case of a felony conviction).  
• The city's law against double-dipping seems like a solution in search of a problem.  What's the harm if Mr Loscombe receives his council pay and his firefighter pension?  The pay comes from a different pot of money than the pension payment.

The bigger issue I have with Mr Loscombe is that I view him as having an automatic conflict of interest when dealing with firefighter contract negotiations.  In those situations, who does Mr Loscombe serve?  The taxpayers or the members of the firefighter union?  Typical Scranton.

Supreme Count & "Obamacare"...Just for giggles, you may be interested to know that the very concept of the healthcare mandate came from the Heritage Foundation.  Interesting citation...

"The concept of the individual health insurance mandate is considered to have originated in 1989 at the conservative Heritage Foundation. In 1993, Republicans twice introduced health care bills that contained an individual health insurance mandate. Advocates for those bills included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate including Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO). In 2007, Democrats and Republicans introduced a bi-partisan bill containing the mandate."

Citation here.  If the Supreme Court strikes down "Obamacare" then so be it...but scoring political points on the part of the GOP will not solve the very real problem with endless double-digit healthcare cost increases in  this country.  Oh, and let's shoot down the talking point of "harnessing the power of the free market to solve the nation's healthcare problems"; such a notion is a ridiculous joke...at best.  When was the last time you heard of someone suffering from a heart attack "shopping" for the best price for medical care?  You can't buy a pacemaker on eBay either.  The free market simply doesn't function well when the profit motive conflicts with larger societal needs, which also explains why we don't have a for-profit military, police corporations protecting the population and Haliburton running your local fire department.

Yes, I'm very much open to other solutions to the nation's very real healthcare problems, but those solutions need to be more than just political soundbytes.

Road Apples, #113

Hotel Sterling...If I wasn't completely devoid of motivation I'd make my way down to Wilkes-Boro to take some pictures of the decaying-before-our-very-eyes Hotel Sterling.  There is something incredibly fascinating but yet sad about a grand old building that has fallen down into such disrepair.  Think about it:  a building is a "thing" on one level, but on another it represents so very much on another.  How many loves were found, marriages celebrated, campaigns began, campaigns ended and just lives changed at a place like the Hotel Sterling?  It is something of an old cliche (sorry, I don't have the accent mark), but if only the walls could talk in places such as this.

Holy Family Church...Speaking of places with history, the church where I received most of the Catholic Sacraments is being slowly dismantled.  Andy Palumbo is doing a great service for me (and others I suspect) by taking pictures of this sad event.  When I was a little person receiving first Communion the place looked so very large; now that it is being dismantled it seems to be so very much smaller.

TrashAThon...For a few minutes this afternoon I was alternating between Mod Wives and Jersey Shore as my background TV noise.  The very best that New Jersey/New York has to offer I suppose.  I'd be critical of both shows, but what's the point?  They both apparently do well in the ratings, so someone is making money off it all.  

Rick Perry...There is a story in the National Enquirer that connects Rick Perry in some manner with the KKK.  Now hardcore Republicans will whine that "it's just the National Enquirer", but how many of those folks were reveling when John Edwards was getting skewed in those same pages?  The National Enquirer may publish its share of trash, but they also get it right every once in a while.  Anyway, the story is well beyond the U.S. tabloids, as it has gotten coverage also by the U.K.'s Daily Mail.  You can link to the story HERE.

REM...The band REM recently announced their retirement, and while I will not going to claim that I am the biggest fan of their music, I will note that they have had a hell of a run. Some of my favorite REM songs include The One I Love, Stand, Pop Song 89, Fall On Me, It's The End of the World As We Know It, Losing My Religion and others.  The music was great, but even more impressive was the fact that, in an industry full of assorted wankers, stoners and degenerates, they carried themselves well over the years.  They are also incredibly talented musicians. Here's to Athens greatest contribution to popular music...

You just don't see talent like this in popular music very often these days.

NBA Season...It looks like the battle of "millionaires vs multi-millionaires", also known as the NBA owners vs NBA players union, will result in some kind of season cancellation.  How many people care?  Personally I find the concept of a labor union representing individuals who on average make over $5 million (reference HERE) to be ever so slightly surreal, especially when you consider that most top talent in the league have individual agents representing them as well. The folks entertain others for a living for Pete's sake!  In the "contribution to society" department they may rank slightly above circus clowns.

Don't get me started on the public financing of athletic facilities.

NEPArtisan Post & Comment

Tom Borthwick's most recent posting (THIS POSTING) really got me thinking about just what our governor is up to in Pennsylvania.  While you can read my comment on NEPArtisan, I thought I'd dual post it here as well.

While I strongly disagree with Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s recent actions regarding collective bargaining, I do give him credit for one thing: He’s up front about what he is attacking.

Contrast this to our governor, who is very anti-union (especially unionized teachers) but yet his attack is far more indirect. Basically he is saying “the costs I want to reduce are labor, but I’m too much of a chicken-$hit to do it outright”. What Corbett is doing instead is basically forcing local school districts (of which there are too many in Pennsylvania to begin with) to do his dirty work for him. What’s more, PA’s school districts (Scranton and Old Forge come to mind in particular) tend to be populated by political hacks who often know ZILCH about education, let alone running multi-million dollar organizations.

Now I’m not a big fan of unions, but unlike our governor, I’ll say that to anyone’s face. What’s more, I firmly believe that the best way to deal with unions is for an employer to create conditions whereby employees don’t feel the need for one in the first place. Unions thrive because employers are often greedy and stupid. HOWEVER, if employees choose to unionize, management has an obligation to be respectful and honest in how they deal with them. The side-ways, indirect attack by our governor is neither respectful or honest.

Labor Board: It's official, a cop can arrest someone

According to a ruling by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, Scranton's chief police officer, Dan Duffy, can in fact arrest people.  This is contrary to the wishes of some members of the Fraternal Order of Police, who in fact didn't want this particular police officer to act...well...like a police officer.

Yes, you read that right:  a cop is allowed to arrest someone.  Go figure.

If you can tolerate the subscription notice, an article from the Scranton Times can be found HERE.

Score one for common sense and against union thug tactics.  Oh, and a big ^5 for Scranton's outstanding Chief of Police, Dan Duffy.

Self Inflicted Union Wounds

The Scranton Times reported yesterday that the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP...the union  representing Scranton's police officers) has filed a grievance against the City of Scranton because...get this...the Chief of Police participated in an arrest while off duty.

Yes, the FOP leaders are upset that Chief Dan Duffy is fighting crime.

Here are a few words that came to mind when I read this story yesterday:

Stupid

Asinine

Ridiculous

Selfish

Nonsensical

Short-sighted

and so I could go on.

I want to note that I think Scranton has an excellent police force, and I've never had a bad experience with the public safety professionals that protect the citizens of Scranton.  In fact a number of years ago I was involved with a particularly difficult situation where a member of the Scranton Police Department was nothing short of outstanding in how he handled events.  In short, the officers themselves are true professionals, but what their union leaders are doing in this particular situation makes them look like idiots.  That, folks, is a real crime.

Speaking of real, the real issue here is that the FOP wants to always find new and creative ways to "stick it" to Scranton Mayor Chris Doherty.  Fair enough.  However this is one instance where they have done more harm to themselves than anything else.  What sympathy I had for union workers in general from events in Wisconsin is eroded when nonsense like this comes to light.

I applaud Chief Duffy for more than doing his job.  As for the FOP leadership, well I suggest that they heed the old carpenter's adage when it comes to their public pronouncements:  measure twice, cut once.  Do you REALLY want to argue that Chief Duffy shouldn't be stopping crime?