Aug 012011
Is it bad when a cop threatens to beat someone with a flashlight? How about if that someone is not breaking the law? How about if that cop is the head of the local police union, and that “someone” is a legislator pushing to have public union members pay for their own healthcare?
http://www.clickondetroit.com/politics/28687845/detail.html
There’s a reason why we don’t allow soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to form unions. Why do we allow other vital government services to form unions and go on strike… and threaten violence agaisnt the democratic process if they don’t get their way?
7 Responses to “Protect and Serve”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Police can form unions because it’s only fair that Republicans get some union votes.
I am a government worker. I am also a proud union member. Let me explain why.
I’m a graduate student at a state university. I’m not sure if that counts as a “vital service” or not – it’s pretty vital to the university, at any rate. Our median wage is $13,000 per year, significantly less than the state average for grad students. I make a bit more because my department supplements our salaries, but I’m making the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage job. Historically, we accepted this because we also had gold-plated health insurance.
This year, they’re radically cutting our health insurance. They’re adding 15% coinsurance and transferring a bunch of formerly free functions to paid functions, like contraception and obgyn. The new policy would be an acceptable insurance policy IF WE ACTUALLY MADE A DECENT WAGE. I have multiple coworkers who are looking at the equivalent of a $5,000 pay cut because they’re on medications for chronic illnesses that are no longer fully paid for. I have multiple coworkers who are inducing labor early because they can’t afford the hospital fees after the new policy goes into effect.
Now, we appreciate that budgets are tight, everybody’s got to cut back. But, as far as we can tell, they didn’t hold a bidding process for the new insurance. They claim they did, but there’s no public record of it and they’re stonewalling our documents request. And, under the new policy, if you add the contributions of the university and us together, we’re paying way more for health insurance than other universities pay for equivalent policies. We suspect they’re using money budgeted for insurance fees for other expenses. And the person responsible for this change has been “on vacation” all summer, although she’s been sighted around campus a few times.
I’m not asking for a lot. I actually really like my job, and I don’t mind being poor for a few years. I’m not asking for $40,000 a year, $30,000 pensions, and gold-plated health insurance. I’m just asking them to give us health insurance that won’t bankrupt us if we get sick. I’m asking them to actually consult us before they change our insurance, at least talk to us even if we can’t change their minds.
So this, this is why we have a union. Before we had a union, they did the same crap but we didn’t have any way to negotiate, to try to get them to moderate, to point out when they’re ripping us off. The point of a union, in my view, is not to fight the employer. Sometimes you have to do that, but that’s a last ditch effort. The point of a union is to be a voice of the employees.
And if we actually get this change in our insurance reversed, it probably won’t be by going on strike. It’ll be by talking. We have the professors on our side – even in the business department, who previously wanted nothing to do with us. We may even have the administration on our side – this change originated in Health Services, not admin, and reportedly they’re worried about retention and recruitment. They’ve got ambitions to become an elite school, and they were having a hard enough time recruiting grad talent before this. But while they may be sympathetic to us, nothing is going to change unless we stand up and ask for it. And that’s why we have a union.
Let me get this straight: your complaint is that you aren’t getting paid enough to get a college degree???
> I’m just asking them to give us health insurance that won’t bankrupt us if we get sick.
Here’s a thought: how about getting employers *out* of the business of providing your healthcare for you? How about… you put in your hours, they give you a paycheck. That’s it.
And what the *hell* is the deal with this new pervasive meme about sickness leading to bankruptcy? If your business implodes and you don;t have insurance, you stand a good chance of going bankrupt. If you gamble away all your money on the ponies and blackjack, you go bankrupt. This stuff happens. So why should people be exempt from bankruptcy with respect to health issues? Is the *next* meme going to be a complaint about how unfair it is that just because you have poor health, you have a shorter life expectancy?
Here’s one of your problems: the mandating of health insurance has driven healthcare costs through the roof. Those $5000 meds your friends are taking are very likely available for a small fraction of that cost elsewhere in the world. Why do they charge so much here in the US? Because they can. Because health insurance and Mediscam will pay for it whatever it costs.
So…if you have a problem with the high cost of healthcare, don;t fight to force someone else to pay for it for you. Fight to get the government *out* of the business of providing it in the first place. Competition forces prices lower, and competition is artificially perverted when you have a massive bloated government bureaucracy that is perfectly willing to pay whatever price is asked.
Oh, and fight to have the lawyer school at your university shut down. The economy would be vastly improved (and healthcare costs dropped by an order of magnitude) if every tort lawyer production facility in the US was converted into either a beer volcano or a stripper factory.
And as to your first query: if you stay home and do not go to work, and society just doesn’t notice or care… you are not providing a vital government service. And I feel fairly confident in saying that grad students deciding to not go in to work would not rock the foundations of society.
>Let me get this straight: your complaint is that you aren’t getting paid enough to get a
>college degree???
They aren’t paying us to get a college degree. They’re paying us to teach the classes they don’t want to teach. We’re more cost-effective than professors. That’s part of the problem with higher education in America – they’re training far more Ph.D.s in academic fields than there are jobs for those Ph.D.s, because it’s more cost-effective to take on another grad student than it is to hire a professor. (Before you ask, I’m in a useful field, not art history or whatever.)
>Here’s a thought: how about getting employers *out* of the business of providing your
>healthcare for you? How about… you put in your hours, they give you a paycheck. That’s
>it.
Then they’re either going to have to pay us more, or they’re going to have to accept a much lower class of grad student. Because the package they’re offering now is not competitive. As in, good-old free market competition is going to lead to a steady drain of talent from the school.
>Here’s one of your problems: the mandating of health insurance has driven healthcare
>costs through the roof. Those $5000 meds your friends are taking are very likely available
>for a small fraction of that cost elsewhere in the world. Why do they charge so much here
>in the US? Because they can. Because health insurance and Mediscam will pay for it
>whatever it costs.
>
>So…if you have a problem with the high cost of healthcare, don;t fight to force someone
>else to pay for it for you. Fight to get the government *out* of the business of providing it
>in the first place. Competition forces prices lower, and competition is artificially perverted
>when you have a massive bloated government bureaucracy that is perfectly willing to pay
>whatever price is asked.
That may be true, it may not be true, I have no idea. But the bottom line for the average person is, ideology and theory and the overall structure of society is deeply secondary to whether or not they’re going to be able to feed their family. I can’t do anything about the structure of the health industry, and even if I could I don’t know what should be done. I do know that I’m watching my coworkers have deliberately premature babies because they can’t afford not to.
>Oh, and fight to have the lawyer school at your university shut down. The economy would
>be vastly improved (and healthcare costs dropped by an order of magnitude) if every tort
>lawyer production facility in the US was converted into either a beer volcano or a stripper
>factory.
We don’t have a law school, actually. (One of our sibling institutions is trying to get one, which is a deeply idiotic idea for all kinds of reasons, but that’s another story.) The current university administration is focused pretty heavily on science and engineering – we’ve a few “non-practical” sections left over from previous chairmen, but most are being reduced to teaching service courses.
>And as to your first query: if you stay home and do not go to work, and society just
>doesn’t notice or care… you are not providing a vital government service. And I feel fairly
>confident in saying that grad students deciding to not go in to work would not rock the
>foundations of society.
I doubt it will rock the foundations of society, but it’s not supposed to. (Frankly, rocking the foundations of society over a dispute about healthcare seems like a massive overreaction.) It would, however, bring the university to a grinding halt. In my department, half the service courses are taught by grad students, and almost all of the grading that isn’t computerized is done by grad students. But that’s besides the point, because I think we’re either going to win this without striking, or we’re not going to win it even if we do.
What it comes down to is, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect to be able to go to the doctor for routine matters. If the university doesn’t want to pay for that, that’s their decision, but we should have the right to try to convince them it’s a bad idea. And, if worst comes to worst, we should have the right to leave. The only difference the union makes is it let’s us speak as a group instead of as isolated individuals. Nobody’s going to listen to a grad student, but sometimes they’ll listen to the grad students.
I’m not really trying to change your mind – changing people’s minds over the internet is kind of a futile exercise in any event. I’m just hoping to maybe get you to understand why I think what I think. Anyway, have a good day, and thanks for doing what you do – I love your site.
> They aren’t paying us to get a college degree. They’re paying us to teach the classes they don’t want to teach.
If you don’t like the job, then don’t take it.
> Because the package they’re offering now is not competitive.
If you don’t like the job, don’t take it.
> good-old free market competition is going to lead to a steady drain of talent from the school
Then the school learns from its mistakes and adapts, or goes out of business. Either way, it’s for the best.
> (Frankly, rocking the foundations of society over a dispute about healthcare seems like a massive overreaction.
Tell that to the police unions who would be willing to allow criminals to run rampant (by going on strike) or advocate violent criminality themselves (by threatening violence against legislators).
> In my department, half the service courses are taught by grad students, and almost all of the grading that isn’t computerized is done by grad students.
Then it sounds like grad students are currently doing jobs that could be done by computers. I guess it’d be best if the job you currently have and don;t like *goes* *away* entirely. Then you could get a *real* *job* that pays enough for you to afford your own healthcare.
> I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect to be able to go to the doctor for routine matters.
Then why don’t you? If you have a “routine matter,” go to the doctor and write him a check. If that “routine matter” requires a check bigger than you can afford, find another doctor. If *none* of the available doctors are within your price range… question *why* they are so expensive… not “why isn’t someone else paying this for me.”
Consider this: an automobile is a vital possession for many, many people. Can’t get to your job without a car. My first crappy min-wage job at K-Mart was made possible by the availability of a $700 Volvo. Old, beat to hell, not terribly fuel efficient, but it got me there.
Now, imagine that the government saw cars the way it sees healthcare. The government is willing to shell out money to help people afford cars. The “Medicar” program starts off small, paying just a little bit to help people buy cars so that they can get to work and keep the economy afloat. Great idea, right? But over time, the bureaucracy does what it *always* does… bloats and grabs power. it does this by paying a little more, and a little more. At first, it’s just enough to help someone buy a car that just barely does the job. But then the car has to have air conditioning, then radios, GPS, power windows, can’t be more than ten years old, then five, then two, then it has to be “fashionable,” and so on. And while there is private “car buying insurance,” the laws slowly creep in so that employers are now expected to provide it.
Over time, the tiny little program now pays to buy poor people not help on a beater, but the bulk of the cost of a luxury car. How do the automakers respond? Well, if the people are going to demand that the government buy them a bigger and bigger slice of the cost of better and better cars… there’s no incentive *not* to raise the price at a rate faster than inflation. So a few decades into the “Medicar” program, the price of an average car is now measured in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Anybody who does not qualify for Medicar or who cannot afford private car buying insurance now has to worry about bankruptcy if anything goes wrong with the car they have.
Sound familiar?
Now replace “car” with “food” or “housing.” If people expect their healthcare to be provided for, why not their car? Their food? Their housing?
People can afford cars and food precisely because the government does NOT provide it (or mandate it) for them.
> if worst comes to worst, we should have the right to leave.
You *do* have the right to leave, unless you signed some sort of contract that somehow violates your basic civil rights.
> I do know that I’m watching my coworkers have deliberately premature babies because they can’t afford not to.
AHEM! If they can’t afford to have full-term babies… what THE HELL are they doing getting pregnant in the first goddamned place? What the hell happened to “If you can’t feed ’em, don’t breed ’em?”
If you are desperately poor, there are a number of things you simply should not do. Drink booze. Smoke. Gamble. Drugs. Hookers. Party. And… have babies.
“That may be true, it may not be true, I have no idea. But the bottom line for the average person is, ideology and theory and the overall structure of society is deeply secondary to whether or not they’re going to be able to feed their family.”
I disagree. I think ideology has a great deal with whether or not you’re going to be able to feed your family. Ask the Soviets whether or not they think their government’s ideology had much to do with whether or not they were able to feed their families. It may not affect your actions much on a day-to-day level (observe that even the most deeply committed political Leftists are usually eminently practical people in their everyday lives), but ideology is of supreme importance when it comes to shaping the society you live in.
Humpty Dumpty, I think it was, said it best, and to Alice. “The Question is, who is to be Master.”