Unions in league with D’s
With the school budget vote taking place in our community within days, I am compelled to make my thoughts known. To begin, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, state and local government salaries are 34 percent higher than private sector jobs. This is partly due to the fact that they tend to be "white collar jobs" for the most part. The real problem, that goes largely unnoticed, is that the benefits for these jobs are 70 percent higher for these workers. When lifetime pensions and benefits are added together, this wretched excess at the expense of taxpayers causes it to become clear that a fiscal nightmare is the result. I believe it to be clearly understood by most taxpayers that the wretched excess is understood to be the result of the greed and corrupting influence of union efforts. If there is any question as to why the unions are able to control such a broad spectrum of our industry and education nationwide, the answer lies in the fact that they are working partners of the Democratic Party, and are in fact the lifeblood of that party: Vast union wealth, with commensurate contributions to the party, and a large number of paid union political agents who work tirelessly to help to achieve Democratic goals make them indispensable partners. As a result, this partnership has helped school unions to have gained complete control of public education, and who in their own self-interest have caused school costs to rise to unsustainable levels. There is much more to this story than time and space will allow, but I would be remiss not to mention that based on a worldwide performance level, public education ranks very low and is inferior to many nations of the world who spend a mere fraction of the cost per student that is routine here in the U.S. Admittedly, some public schools are better than others, and while our own schools here in the Three Village district compare favorably with other public schools, it must be noted that most parochial and private schools outrank us at performance levels, at less than half the cost per pupil. If you are wondering how I will vote in the school budget vote, let me answer this way. Although there were some minor gestures made to control the budget, the union has failed to take any significant action. I will respond in the strongest way possible with my vote to send a message to them: NO!Paul Groben
Stony Brook
May 12, 2010
Democracy and unions
I was surprised by a letter last week ("Unions in league with D's," May 13), not because it advocates a "No" vote on the school budget (about which reasonable people can disagree), but because he appears to be questioning the very legitimacy of teachers' union support for the Democratic Party. To me, unions' backing of the Democrats sounds like American democracy in action. People, individually and collectively, contributing to, volunteering for, and yes, attempting to influence the platform of a political party, is exactly how democracy is supposed to work. Of course party politics are messy, crass, money-driven and prone to uneven representation (which is why George Washington wanted to outlaw political parties). But that is the system we've got, and the solution to our problems is greater involvement, not less.And I don't hear the writer complaining about the donated money, influence and nearly "complete control" of the Republican Party by people whose interests lie with owners and management. The recent financial crisis, fatal mine accident and Gulf oil disaster are all symptomatic of the greed and "corrupting influence" of this part of the Republican base (and in the case of the latter two, evidence that some unions could use more influence, not less).
But I would never suggest that the influence of business and industry on the GOP is illegitimate. Affluent executives deserve their representation in our democracy as well. The problem arises when the money of the few allows their input to overwhelm the input and interests of far larger numbers of citizens.
Reform of school employment on Long Island is probably in order (in particular, the elimination of seniority-based compensation and automatic lifetime tenure). But a consolidation of Long Island's 130-odd school districts and the consequent elimination of redundant administrative layers would do far more to reduce taxes than cutting classroom teacher benefits and trying to paint unions' involvement in politics as inappropriate.
John Hover
East Setauket
May 26, 2010
Union nonsense
In response to the letter "Democracy and unions" (May 27), I strongly disagree with the author. The question of whether or not the well known collusion between the Democratic Party and unions is a legal arrangement is a question for lawyers who are experts in campaign finance law, not the general populace. The popular conception of the question is much more simple and honest. The author also states that collusion between a political party and unions is the way democracy is supposed to work, a far-fetched concept, and sounds very much like the talking point of a union agent. This relationship has allowed unions to gain complete control of public education and in the process raise the salaries and benefits of unionized public sector employees far above those of private employees. The facts are undeniable: Union employee salaries are 35 percent higher, and benefits and pensions are a stunning 70 percent higher, than average private salaries. Unfortunately for the taxpayer, the union control of public education does not end there. It actually extends to the state bureaucrats who fashion laws that favor unions, making it virtually impossible to reform unionized public education in any meaningful way. You may say that union members in the public sector are taxpayers too. In a sense they are, but the more accurate concept is that they are "tax users" or "tax recyclers" as it is a fact that governments do NOT generate tax funds. Private industry does, and they are taxpayers, as opposed to "tax users." As we struggle through a recession in NYS, and the loss of private industry to provide jobs for workers, it becomes obvious that school unions will not budge to give back some of their excessive increases, but will fight to preserve the status quo. The author continues on a different path, intended to tar Republicans as responsible for among other things the recent financial crisis, the fatal mine accident, the Gulf oil disaster, etc, all pure nonsense at best, but a clear indication of the mind-set of the author. Although reading the letter was a struggle, I am hopeful that readers of the Times have recognized it for the nonsense that it is.Paul Groben
Stony Brook
June 09, 2010
Each side deserves blame
It is odd that the letter writer ("Union nonsense," June 10) objects to my laying partial blame for the financial crisis, the recent mining accident, and the Gulf oil spill at the feet of Republicans, since my reasoning exactly mirrors his own ("Unions in league with D's," May 13). If undue union influence on the Democratic Party has resulted in excessive teacher compensation, it is even more clear financial, oil, and mining industry influence on the Republican party has resulted in the lax regulation that led to these catastrophes. Of course AIG, Lehman Bros., Massey Mining and BP all share responsibility for their respective disasters. But they were just players in a game whose rules are written by legislators and (supposed to be) enforced by regulatory agencies. It wasn't the players, but the game itself that allowed these disasters to happen. In each case, there is ample evidence of chronic rule violations, inadequate legislation, lax inspection and oversight, and risky short-term profit-driven decisions. So the ultimate blame for these disasters lies with everyone who has argued that for-profit industries are competent to regulate themselves and that markets always reach the "right" answer — both quintessentially Republican sentiments. For the record, I'm not associated with any union and am not a "union agent." In fact, what little interaction I've had with unions hasn't been all that positive. But I recognize, from reading history and paying attention, that strong, politically active unions are a vital counterweight to the extreme wealth and political influence of corporate industry in our political system. To be clear, I believe competitive markets are great, and are critical to productive economies. And I agree that unions (along with corporations, churches and media figures) can become too powerful, to the detriment of the country. But to focus so vehemently on one instance of political influence, while remaining blind to glaring examples of the same problem on the other side of the political spectrum, makes it seem as if the writer doesn't care if miners and roughnecks die, the Gulf fills with oil, and the financial system collapses, just as long as his property tax rates are cut by 5 percent.John Hover
East Setauket
June 23, 2010
