Labor Day Confessions of a "Union Boss"

I’ve previously written about the debt that most Americans, with the possible exception of those few whose families have always enjoyed prosperity, owe to labor unions. The growth of the middle class in the United States clearly parallels the growth of labor unions. The shrinking number of middle class households of the last couple decades follows that same trend of declining union households. While I understand the dangers of equating causation with correlation, I find the trend disturbing. I also find the charges of class warfare disingenuous, at best. I find it ironic that those concerns were nowhere to be found as the middle class shrank and income disparity grew, as unions were assaulted and vilified while CEOs saw their pay and prestige grow explosively.

I think our founding fathers were on the right track when they incorporated a system of checks and balances into our governance, trying to establish a system whereby no one person, group or branch was able to accumulate too much power. I further believe that checks and balances must also apply to our economic system, and that unions are a key check to the unbridled power of corporations (people though they may be). Government also has a role, both as a defender of the checkers (both unions and businesses) and as an enforcer/check itself.

I am clearly a defender of unions, at least conceptually, and in general. I’m proud of the role I played in growing the strength of my own union. However, I must also admit that as unions became bigger and more powerful, they created their own bloated bureaucracies and calcified power structures that often at least appeared more concerned with their own welfare than that of their members. Unions have, at least in theory, built-in checks and balances of their own; unfortunately, however, the rank and file are too often unwilling to take responsibility for their own role, preferring to abdicate their power as long as their leadership keeps “winning.”

I know this from personal experience. I was, in an albeit tiny pond, something of a “union boss,” to the point where the state union president referred to me as “Bob Hancock.” Local president (limited to two consecutive terms), lead negotiator (no limits there), regional chairman, member of the state board of directors, I held all of those positions and others, sometimes simultaneously. I appreciated and respected the trust that accompanied those jobs, but it was too much power for one person.

Fortunately, I’m weird and was something of a true believer: I was never interested in accumulating personal power, but only power for my teachers, collectively. I believe to this day we made the district better for teachers and kids. We were also lucky to eventually hammer out an ongoing relationship with administrators who recognized that we were working for the same goal, if approaching it via different paths. I like to think that compromise was a key component as we grew to respect each other.

Working in a small local (about 100 members) also kept me accountable. There were always members who were willing to raise objections if they thought I was getting too far out ahead of the people I was leading, or if they were uncomfortable with my occasionally acerbic leadership style. Most of them became trusted and respected friends. 

Eventually I ran out of time and energy and passed off actual leadership responsibilities, although I continued as a force behind the scenes. When even my shadow diminished to a faint gray, the power of the organization declined; today it is only a nominal player, to the detriment of employees and kids, IMO. It makes me sad, but the 15-20 years I spent as a power player was as much as I could give. Too many members were willing to pay their dues but too few were willing to get involved. In hindsight I should have tried harder to recruit successors, but my efforts were sporadic and probably half-hearted. It was easier to do it (whatever it was at the time) myself; it was also easier for those who could have followed to just let me.

Obviously, this represents only an isolated example, and one on a very small scale at that. As businesses and corporations grow, their focus inevitably devolves from workers as individuals to faceless resources whose value is only their present productivity. Large unions face the same problem, as their members also devolve from “brothers” or “sisters” to faceless dues-paying minions. In theory, locals are designed to counteract that, but too many of the “brethren” have opted out of the process, saying, in effect, “Here’s your dues, get me more and leave me alone.”

I don’t have answers, only questions (see blog header). I do, however, have concerns as even the concept of unions has become a target of those who somehow have forgotten the lessons of the past, who for some reason want to return to a time when workers were disposable commodities to be used up and then discarded. Unions, at their best, worked to protect workers from that. Who is going to protect workers from those who see nothing beyond today's profit, if not unions? It doesn’t take much or deep analysis to see that going forward, if, in fact, we are to go forward, we still need someone or something to fill that role today. 

Retirement, Note 1

This is certainly not my final word on that subject. I planned to post sooner, but I’ve been too busy….

My softball girls know I retired and one of them innocently asked me, “Coach, what do you do all day?”

Good question. I know what I’m not doing. Instead of going to pre-service meetings, I went to Los Angeles. I don’t worry about how well I’ve prepared a lesson or whether I’ve finished grading a paper. I certainly don’t worry about grading summer assignments (okay, I never worried much about that, so not much change there). I haven’t played any iteration of my favorite computer game (Civilization) since early in August.

I am doing a better job of planning my JV softball practices and not freeloading off the varsity coach. I am contributing at least a little more to the household obligations. I am working out more regularly, but still not as often as I’d like. I am reading the paper most mornings instead of hoping to catch up before bedtime. I am in the middle of at least a couple books. Becca just started school, so up until this past week I’ve spent time with her during the day (such hardship). I have played a round of golf each week, but that has more to do with staying in touch with a friend than actual golf. I’ve probably watched less TV (via DVR) than usual, despite this being baseball season.

It has certainly felt like I’ve been busy; I haven’t been bored, for sure. I have thought, “How did I used to do everything I needed to do last year without collapsing in exhaustion?” The answer might be that I didn’t. Carolyn says I actually didn’t handle things all that well, that I was constantly tired. But I’m tired at the end of the day this year, too. Am I out of energy at day’s end because I’ve expended my limit, or am I out of energy because the demands on me are more limited? Does my energy level limit my activity, or does my limited activity schedule diminish my energy level?

I clearly haven’t written as much lately, although I do have a softball blog going, too. The pace of that blog will pick up when the games start this week, but I did that last year, as well. I probably need to have a schedule, impose some self-discipline, not one of my great strengths. One of my writing heroes, Ray Bradbury, went to his office every day. Steven King (not one of my writing heroes, although I certainly recognize his talent) does something similar. I’m not there, not sure I want to be.

But that begs the question of where do I want to be, a question that remains unanswered. My life has been serendipitous, for sure, but my luck has been grounded in actually taking some kind of initiative or, at least, saying “Yes” to an opportunity that presented itself. Where those future opportunities may come from is certainly unclear for the moment. For now I’m willing to wait and see, experience this more unstructured pace, and appreciate life as it unfolds. 

As School Starts, Some Thoughts on Peer Pressure

As parents send their charges off to school, one of their (many) worries is how much and what kinds of peer pressure their kids will have to resist.

As I’ve told (probably too many of) my students (some of whom had to endure the story multiple times), most peer pressure is internal, not external. I started smoking at 15 not because one of the cool kids offered me a cigarette, but because I thought (hoped) I would fit in better. In fact, my first public cigarette (I decided I needed to practice in private first) probably earned more raised eyebrows and stifled snickers (not the candy bar) than acceptance as one of the gang. Only in retrospect did I realize that nobody cared one way or another whether I smoked or not. Sadly, by that time it had become a habit that took 25 years to break.

Interestingly, however, those same parents who caution their kids about succumbing to the dangers of peer pressure often actually encourage peer pressure when the end result is desirable. How many parents try to encourage a behavior by pointing out a peer who is a positive role model, with the implicit, or even occasionally explicit, “Why can’t you be more like _____________?” I certainly heard it, and while I tried to NOT inflict that message on my daughter (who didn't need it), I am uncertain if I succeeded. 

One thing has been made clear to me in 40+ years of teaching: kids more often learn the lessons they want, not necessarily those we want to teach. They are at least as likely to substitute the name of a peer you’d rather they didn’t emulate as the one you had in mind. All your cautions about peer pressure went right in the opposite direction you intended, because peer pressure isn’t bad in and of itself. It’s only bad when the modeled behavior is objectionable (to you).

I’d suggest a more effective discussion of peer pressure with your child would incorporate recognition of that duality and seeming hypocrisy. In my experience, kids become more receptive to life lessons when you affirm the difficulties and contradictions they face in the decisions that confront them.

Guns & Safety, Part 2

We visited Orlando's Sea World for a day at the tail (not a whale’s tail) end of our vacation. Had I read about the new movie Blackfish in advance of that trip, I wonder if I’d have attended at all. But I digress (already).

That Sea World, located in Stand-Your-Ground Florida not far from Sanford, had virtually no security (or even posted signs that I noticed) to keep concealed weapons out of the park did not make me feel at all secure. To be fair, though, I also didn’t really think about that fact until I saw the canine security team patrolling the audience at the Shamu show. That actually did make me feel slightly more secure until I decided that team probably was aimed more at those who would protest the treatment of the whales than any actual concern for the safety of the audience. 

Someone else’s ability to legally carry a concealed weapon doesn’t make me feel any safer. Before the eye-rollers lose their vision, I’m not trying to undo what is now the law in all 50 states. I am arguing, however, that those of you who want to feel more safe by carrying a loaded lethal weapon actually make me feel less safe. 

Of course, I’m not a criminal and, in theory, am unlikely to do anything that would make a person carrying a concealed weapon draw it on me. However, I have no control over what the person walking or driving next to me might do, and your need to “stand your ground” over some perceived (or even real) threat does nothing to ease MY fears. 

Still, it seems to me that those who would brook neither restriction nor even discussion of what might be reasonable limits (background checks anyone?) on Second Amendment rights fail to recognize the irony that their need to feel safe by carrying a concealed weapon not only makes me feel less safe, but that my feelings don’t count compared to theirs.

    I will concede, however, that the ubiquity of “conceal/carry” laws has done one thing to make society at least a tiny bit more civil, if not necessarily safe. For my small part, I have put my “trigger finger” (no, not the real one that I’ve never used to fire a gun) in a permanent holster as I drive and confine my opinions of other drivers to mostly private mumbling and grumbling. Hey, I never know if the idiot who cut me off or ran the red light is carrying or not and could perhaps feel threatened by such a visible demonstration of my thoughts. 

On Guns & Safety (Part 1)