We Shouted; They Listened

When I tell folks I moved to Rochester from Florida, they think I’m nuts.  “This is a great community,” I tell them.  But, they don’t get it.  This week’s interaction with the management of the NYS Canal Corporation validated my theory.  Indeed, we live in a great community. 

In case you haven’t heard, the Canal Corp. has begun a project to clear the earthen embankments of all vegetation along 122 of the canal’s 524 miles. They were so confident they’re doing what’s right, they plunged ahead with no public hearings and barely a heads-up to those affected.

Local politicians have supported the community’s call for officials to address the reasons for the project and its sense of urgency.  So, senior management arrived in our region this week to conduct a series of meetings to convince the community of the wisdom of their plan.

They told the editorial board of the local paper their sense of urgency results from an imminent danger of a breach of the earthen structures that protect adjacent properties.  When asked if there was anything or anyone that would stop or slow their project, they replied that only a “higher power” would do.  I’m not sure if they meant God or the courts.

At their first town hall meeting, they played the “Fear Card”, showing how a breach could affect the Jefferson Avenue School in Perinton.  Yet they haven’t notified anyone in jeopardy of imminent danger.  As for why there has been no breach in the last century, despite the existence of vegetation on the embankments, they have no answer other than to say it could happen at any time.  Where’s Nostradamus when you need him?

A local citizens group led by Fairport’s Elizabeth Agte did some research in anticipation of the meeting.  Their conclusion:  they’ve cherry-picked the science to support their plan, refusing to consider alternative guidance. The owner of a local excavation company told me he faces similar challenges almost daily. Vegetation should be removed if the soil is clay, he asserts.  On the other hand, if the soil is sandy, root systems stabilize embankments.  The approach would vary depending upon not only the type of soil but also the types of trees.  Deep root systems stabilize banks.  Shallow ones do the opposite.  You would have to take soil samples and analyze what types of trees are present before taking action. 

When I asked if soil samples had been taken, we were told us it wasn’t necessary.  Yet, when challenged by a Perinton resident whose 5-acre property is mostly sand, they responded, “we'd need soil samples.”

Faced with a possible lawsuit by three towns, they backed down.  Thursday night, they announced a modified plan – one that takes into consideration possible differences in soil types and vegetation.  We got what we asked for. 

"Yes," I thought. "Rochester is a great community."

It's time for labor unions to change

This post was adapted from an essay in the January 6, 2018 edition of Rochester's Democrat & Chronicle.

In a guest essay in Rochester’s Democrat & Chronicle, local union leader Ove Overmeyer advocated

for strong trade unions to strengthen the negotiating position of today’s workers.  I couldn’t agree more.  With unemployment at an historic low, it’s the perfect time for labor to take advantage of their negotiating power through collective bargaining. 

Absent from this argument is any mention of how labor unions should operate in the 21^st Century, leaving me to speculate that Mr. Overmeyer would continue the approach unions pursued during the last century.  I would like to suggest that the union operating model, which is older than Bernie Sanders, is due for an update. 

The booming economy of the 1950’s created a middle class throughout the Midwest and northeastern US underpinned by union workers.  This was the culmination of a decades long battle where labor and business were adversaries.  Union leaders from Eugene Debs to Harry Bridges were jailed for activities that are legal today.

By the 1970’s, however, the impact of a new, more global economy called for a paradigm shift. Union wages and benefits added costs to the manufacture of finished goods that made US industry uncompetitive on a global scale. And so union membership has declined precipitously. In 1950, 25% of American workers belonged to a union. Today, the percentage is less than half that. And, tellingly the percentage among employees of private companies is 6.4% while over 34.4% of public employees are union members. 

If a business had seen such a precipitously decline in its fortunes, it would have to transform itself or face liquidation.  Instead, unions have resisted change.

I am puzzled. Why would anyone think that the 19th Century model honed to perfection 60 years ago will work now?

Further, Mr. Overmeyer’s call for unions to use their political power to advocate for higher minimum wages. This argument suggests a continuation of the entrenched warfare between management and labor and bypasses an opportunity for both unions and their members.

The greatest challenge businesses face today is lack of qualified workers. Manufacturing has become more high tech, requiring math and science skills. Such jobs are plentiful. Rather than advocate for higher minimum wages, unions should focus on training workers for higher paying jobs.  A well-trained workforce would add economic value, expanding the size of our economy.  Rather than fight for a larger share of a static pie, unions should help make the pie larger. 

Were they to position themselves as a solution by transforming into Centers for Human Capital Development, businesses would view unions as beneficial to their business rather than as an adversary.  If unions offered benefits – healthcare, 401K’s – to their members in addition to training matched to employers’ needs, their value proposition would be more attractive to prospective members. Everyone would be a winner: the employers, the employees and the unions. 

Isn’t it time?

My Self the Elf!

Growing up, my kids referred to me as the Grinch, egged on by my wife of course.  No doubt this arose from my muttering and swearing as I climbed too high, leaned over too far and eventually strung those tiny, white lights over our tree and around our front door.  Making fun of Dad was, and still is, great fun for all of them and I play along pretending to be put upon.  It gets me into the holiday spirit somehow.

In western society, there is a common bond that is best expressed and celebrated this time of year.  Responding to a blog post titled “How Non-Christians Deal with Christmas”, an Indian-American immigrant named Safiq Ali Patel said, “I come from a mixed Muslim, Christian and Jewish family. I celebrate Christmas because I like the theme of love, peace, joy and goodwill to ALL men. God didn't come to earth just for Christians...”

What is it that inspires a Muslim, Christian, Jewish immigrant to embrace the spirit of love, peace, joy and goodwill to ALL men? 

The Christian values of tolerance and love for our fellow man are powerfully attractive to Christians and non-Christians alike.  People of all faiths can embrace the annual celebration of Christmas. People respond to the sense of charity, love and forgiveness espoused by Jesus Christ because those values and the emotion we attach to them are fundamental to us as human beings.  

At this time of year, it is somehow allowable to disregard the boundaries that usually prevent us from the human connection we crave.  We disregard our normal routines.  We bake cookies for our co-workers.  We buy gifts for those we love even when we have no idea what they’d like.  And, we gather with friends and family to eat food not on our usual diet and drink more than we should.  It’s a time when we act on our charitable instincts and become, if only for a few weeks, our better selves.

As for me, the Grinch, I recently took one of those silly Facebook quizzes, “What Christmas movie character are you?”  The answer for me:  Buddy, the Will Ferrell character in the movie “Elf.”

I plan to own it.  The Grinch is dead.  Long live Buddy the Elf!

Not your father's GOP

An abbreviated version of this piece appeared in the December 10, 2017 edition of the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle.

Many Republicans, including this writer, are appalled by the behavior, direction, and seeming incompetence of Donald Trump.  Perhaps you find that surprising.  However, in a world where Democrats are screaming at the top of their lungs, it’s difficult to notice us hanging our heads in… what?  Disillusionment?  Disbelief?

Since WWII, the party in the White House has shifted from one party to the other every 8 years with few exceptions.  So, it seemed logical to expect 2016 to be a Republican year.  But, what we got doesn’t quite seem Republican to me. 

I am old enough to remember when the internal struggles of the party were between followers of Goldwater and Rockefeller.  But, my perspective is much longer range.  About every 50 years, our nation elects a transformative president who follows a failed one.  The last time was the transition from Carter to Reagan.  Before that, it was Hoover to FDR.

The transition to the Reagan presidency was marked by a clearly stated philosophy:  government is the problem, not the solution.  During his term, we saw dramatic changes to the social contract and to how the government allocated capital.  Like any set of principles, this one attracted its own special interests.  And, like any special interests, they became entrenched – reliant on a government scheme that served their purposes.  And, so, lobbyists abound.  If the lobbies get what they want, the people feel they should get what they want too.  Republicans have, thusly, lost track of their stated philosophy.  In practice, they do what they need to do to be reelected. 

This paradigm has yielded multiple attempts to overturn Obamacare by doing exactly what Republicans correctly criticized Democrats for doing 8 years ago: tinkering with a complex system that represents 17% of our economy without a clear understanding of what might result.  Moreover, the tax reform being bandied about in Congress reflects a vague memory of Reagan’s approach without the pragmatism that Reagan exhibited.  In 1980, the country had relatively low debt and much higher taxes.  Today, the opposite is true.  Has it occurred to anyone inside the Beltway bubble that different circumstances might require new solutions?

(Perhaps they should listen to their own congressional delegation.  Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) has introduced the “Tax Code Termination Act” six times in the last 10 years.  It’s four pages long and has fewer words than the new Republican bill has pages.)

Reagan was able to pursue his agenda successfully because he understood that big changes require big majorities.  In practice, that meant he had to persuade a significant number of Democrats (who controlled Congress at the time) to vote for his budget, his tax cuts (and subsequent increases), and his deregulation schemes. 

The current crop of Republicans has forgotten that, as the majority party, they serve all Americans and seem hell bent on undermining the future of their own party.  Doubling down on retrograde ideas on immigration, economics, and social policy coupled with the outrageous behavior of our Republican President has made the party toxic for a generation of young voters.  In turn, they are being driven into the hands of the increasingly liberal Democratic Party.

Given young people’s generally reserved attitudes towards conservatism, radicalism is bound to make the conservative label and ideas of conservatism and classical liberalism toxic for at least a generation. 

The Trump presidency has moved too far down the path of impossible promises.  And so, like all tyrants, the president has begun the process of blaming others for his failings.  That is not the path to success.  It is not the path to restoring the nation’s faith in conservative principles.  And, it will not make America great again.