Hard Bargaining

As this is written, Madison, Wisconsin, is convulsed in the biggest  protests since the Dow riots of September,  1967. (1)  The issue is Governor Scott Walker's  proposal that  public employee unions  (except for police and firefighters) be denied the right to bargain over anything but wages.  Although Walker has linked the issue to his demand that state workers pay more for their retirement and health  insurance, it is the bargaining question that has brought angry mobs to the Capitol, including a minority who support the Governor.  But is he right?

Wisconsin law permits collective bargaining by employees of state and local governments, and requires  binding arbitration  in cases of  deadlock.  In today's economy,  public sector unions are the only ones that are still growing;   the percentage of unionized  business employees  peaked in 1956,   and has been declining ever since.  Some argue that public officials who won their offices with labor support face a conflict-of-interest  in bargaining with the unions that helped elect them.

  There can be no doubt that unionization of public employees has led to higher labor costs for state and local governments.  But if you accept the right of workers  to organize and bargain collectively  (which  has been enshrined in federal labor law since  the 1930's), it is hard to justify excluding government employees.   Walker's  plan, which would  allow  unlimited  bargaining  by  police and firefighters  (the two unions in Milwaukee that endorsed him, coincidentally)  is especially unfair  to other groups of  public employees, such as teachers, librarians, lawyers and so on. 

Even if  public employees have better pay, benefits and job security than similar workers in  the private sector,  the arbitration rule  (which settles disputes in accordance with prevailing wages)  prevents drastic disparities.
Also, in those fields where governments and private entities compete for the best employees  (such as doctors, nurses,  accountants and such)  the advantages of public employment will attract the most capable applicants to public service jobs, so market forces serve the public interest.

Labor support is a significant factor  in many elections, including the one I am in right now.  Public employee unions, like  the Realtors,  florists, bankers,  undertakers, and military contractors  are self-interest groups, all of whom seek  favorable  actions by government officials.   Right-wing critics  single out the unions, but  all these groups make campaign contributions to  candidates (usually incumbents) who  are sympathetic to their causes.   Conscientious public officials should  not  favor groups that have helped them get elected, but as long as contributions are properly reported and spent  only for  political  purposes,  there is no  practical  way to prevent them from affecting the judgment of elected officials.  (2)  Voters who don't like unions are free to vote against politicians who have accepted their support.

The political atmosphere inside the Capitol is just as ugly as that  in the streets.   Democratic state senators are holed-up in Illinois to prevent a vote on Walker's bill, in a state version of  the filibuster.  There is talk of  recalling senators for their stands on this issue.  If we ever needed cooler heads to prevail,  we need them now.
---------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The issue then was recruiting on the UW campus by  Dow Chemical Co., which made the napalm used in the Vietnam War.

(2) It is illegal, however, for  an official to promise to vote or take any other  action in exchange for a contribution, which is known as "quid pro quo", Latin for  "this for that."  It is a hard claim to prove, and very few politicians are ever prosecuted for it.

Executive Action

"Vemen tzu nemen, un nisht farshemen?"
(Whom to take, and not be ashamed?)
Balalaika, Yiddish folk song

Of course these lyrics refer to Milwaukee County voters who must select  the next County Executive from five candidates  ( Chris Abele, Lee Holloway, Jim Sullivan, Jeff Stone and  Ieshuh Griffin)  on this Tuesday, February 15. The top two candidates from this primary will run-off  on April 5.

Sunday morning, February 13,  the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel  endorsed Abele for the job.   The editorial noted that "he has the real world experience of running a business"  and that "Abele hasn't paid state income taxes." (1)   But if his business ventures were successful, would he not have  a state income tax liability?  And if they lost money, is that a good sign for how he would manage the County?   If all the residents of Wisconsin, of whom the vast majority have far less than Abele  (a multi-millionaire), could arrange their financial affairs so as to legally avoid  paying the state income tax, the receipts from that tax would be zero.

 Ironically, the same issue of the paper noted on page 2A, in the Rulings Roundup of the Politifact column,  that   Abele's  claim that  "Property tax exemptions can be granted to small businesses that move into Wisconsin" was "False,"  because the state constitution requires uniform  taxation of real estate.   Politifact  has previously determined  that Abele's  claim that he saved the County $200 million  was also  "False."   It is indeed amazing that the Journal Sentinel would endorse someone whom the paper itself had found  to  have made two major  false claims during a short campaign.

 But Abele is clearly the choice of the City's  downtown Establishment  (Bud Selig, Sheldon Lubar, etc.); he always got invited to the right cocktail parties, joined the right charity boards,  hob-nobbed with the right people and served on the Greater Milwaukee  Committee.   The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, a longtime pillar of  that Establishment, could not be expected to reject one of their own just because he paid no tax and lied   twice to win the election.

Chris Abele has spent about $800,000  on the primary, mostly  his own money (that he never had to earn), so he will probably finish first on Tuesday.   Of the remaining candidates,  Stone is the darling of the Republicans, Sullivan of the Democrats,  Griffin of the angry black females  and Holloway of the slumlords.  Stone and Sullivan have both served honorably in the Wisconsin legislature, and Sullivan has also served  in the military.  Both are capable and have good records.    Holloway is the most experienced of all the contenders in County affairs, but  has proved himself a terrible manager.  If  he cannot manage 15 properties without incurring  200 charges of building code violations, I would not trust him with the  $1.5 billion budget of Milwaukee County. 

Since Miss Griffin has neither political experience nor  wealth,  she cannot win.  But her race has not been in vain:  in her next campaign she can run as "NOT the County Executive."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Feb. 13, 2011, page 3J.

Divide Milwaukee Public Schools?

"WEAC's third  proposed reform involves breaking up the Milwaukee Public Schools  (MPS) district into smaller, more manageable components."
Wisconsin Education Association Council website, posted Feb. 9, 2011

WEAC, the state's major  teachers' union,  claims that  "This bold action is designed to drive greater accountability....make the system easier to manage, give students more opportunities and choices....deepen the engagement of parents,....since it will be easier for them to navigate through a smaller district."   Although some of these points are certainly valid  (a smaller entity is easier to manage than a larger one, and  parents would have more input  in a small district),   I  conclude that the  drawbacks of  dividing up MPS  far outweigh these advantages.   Here is why:

Cost:  The WEAC  position paper does not  specify a number of  new districts, but  let us analyse  the plan on the basis of  four districts.   Each would need a superintendent, and of course  every superintendent needs a secretary, maybe  even one or more assistants or deputy superintendents.  Various  educational specialists would be needed, as well as elected school directors.   All of these people must be paid, and   decent office space  would be needed for them.  Even if not one more teacher is hired,  the cost of  running four districts would be  larger than running one, which now costs  $1.3 billion per year. 

Transfers:  Milwaukee families move around a lot within the city, and their children usually change schools when they move.  Even within the current single  MPS  system,  changing schools means adjusting to new teachers.  But  if  a pupil's  move means changing districts,  these adjustments will be more difficult, as each  district may vary in   curriculum, textbooks ,  and rules.

Teachers:  New York City experimented with a similar plan  by establishing three  decentralized  districts in early 1968, each with a local board empowered to hire and  remove  (1) teachers and  principals.  The  mostly-black  board in the Ocean Hill-Brownsville  district of Brooklyn promptly  removed 13 teachers and six administrators, all white, mostly Jewish,  in May of that year.   The dismissed teachers appealed to the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), which  struck  NY public schools for a total of  36 days in the Fall of  1968, after which the aggrieved teachers were reinstated.   The entire city became embroiled in  a  bitter racial and religious feud,  which persisted for years.(2)

Although I favor experimenting with new ideas in education,  I also contend that we can learn from the bitter experience of  New York City, and not  repeated a failed experiment here.   The Milwaukee Teachers Education Association, an affiliate of  WEAC,  is also against  this proposal. 

On this question, I say  MTEA is right, and  WEAC is wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)  Teachers  "removed" from  a district school by the local board  were not fired,  but  were told to report to  NYC  Board of Education headquarters in Manhattan for re-assignment.   Even though they were paid while awaiting re-assignment,  the  forced  removal still violated the UFT contract.

(2) Wikipedia.

Taking Carter to Court

A class action suit on behalf of  buyers of  former President Jimmy Carter's  book  Palestine:Peace, Not Apartheid   (hereinafter "The Book")  claims that Carter and his publisher, Simon and Schuster,  deliberately  defrauded the buyers by  including numerous false statements in the book. (1)  The plaintiffs, who  seek  both compensatory and punitive damages,  are represented by the Israel Law Center of Tel Aviv and  Atty.  David Schoen of Montgomery, Alabama.

Since I read The Book at the Chicago Public Library, and would not have paid a nickel for it, I am not eligible to  join the class of  cheated buyers.   I have not been able to get  list of  alleged lies in the book, but  there may be plenty.  Most of the controversial statements in the Book are opinions and conclusions by the author, who contends that Israel wants to "colonize" the West Bank and has not been negotiating in good faith.  However, there may also be provable  false claims  in The Book  as well.   But even so, can the plaintiffs  win this case?  Should they?

First.  does the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees "freedom of the press"  preclude this type of suit?   The publisher has the unquestioned right to print anything  the firm sees fit to publish, and  this suit does not infringe on that right.  If  The Book were given away free, as  propaganda pamphlets often are,  there would be no basis for the suit at all.  But when a book is offered for sale,  it becomes a  product, like a TV or  box of cereal, and is subject  to consumer protection laws, such as  New York General Business Law 349,  which prohibits deceptive  acts in marketing products. This may be the first time such a law has been invoked against a book or any other form of expression.

For example,  when the publisher of a book about Howard Hughes by Clifford Irving learned that the book falsely claimed to be based on personal  interviews with the subject,  the book was withdrawn and all printed copies were trashed.   Had that book been sold, the publisher could have been sued for false advertising and forced to refund all proceeds of sale received.  (Even in this outrageous case of false advertising, I doubt that punitive damages were warranted, let alone in the Carter case.)

But is Carter's book in the same category?  Unless the plaintiffs' attorneys can convince a jury that Carter and the publisher set out to deceive the buyers, a very steep hill to climb, I  do not believe that  any damages will  be awarded.   First,  the buyers could have easily learned that Jimmy Carter was not an objective scholar on Middle East matters, but an advocate of the Palestinian cause for decades.  Any book by him on this question  would likely be  strongly biased in favor of the Arab side.  Moreover, the   incendiary   word "apartheid" in  the title, which recalls the  "Zionism is Racism" UN resolution of  1975, was a clear signal that the book  would castigate Israel.   I say that the buyers were not cheated;  they got exactly what they paid for.

A verdict in favor of the plaintiffs would have a  "chilling effect"  on the  freedom of the press in this country.   Major corporate publishers would  hesitate to publish any controversial  non-fiction for fear of a lawsuit.   Courts would be placed in the untenable position of determining the truth of   controversial claims about all kinds of  issues such as evolution,  global warming, abortion and so on.   Accordingly, I  contend that even if  the plaintiffs win  in the US District Court,  the verdict will be overturned on appeal.

I was in the position of the plaintiffs myself recently, but reacted differently.  I paid $ .25  for a copy of Betrayal by Robert Morrow at the Menomonee Falls Library used book sale last year.  The cover claimed the book  presented new facts about the JFK  assassination, but when I read it, I  concluded  the book was mainly fiction.  So did I return Betrayal to  the Falls Library and demand my quarter back,  or threaten to sue for  fraud?  No way!  I brought the book to the January 31 book swap at Marquette University and  eschanged it  for a collection  of  old columns by Chicago journalist Mike Royko.   "Let freedom reign!"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Unterberg et al vs Jimmy Carter et al., (11 ev  0720), filed in the Southern District of New York.

Democracy for Muslims?

Just  a year and a half ago  mobs were raging through Tehran demanding  the ouster of  President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had  claimed re-election  after a dubious vote-count.  Today  mobs are fighting in Cairo  over whether  President Hosni Mubarak should resign.  Mobs in Tunisia  have already ousted  the dictator there, and  unrest threatens  other Arab countries.

The American response to all these upheavals has been consistent:  allow peaceful demonstrations,  avoid violence, exercise restraint and  move toward real democracy.   Until  President George W Bush started urging democracy on Arab  countries, the American  policy was simply to deal with whoever held power and not meddle in internal affairs.

But  we face  a clash between American interests and American values.  Except for Iran,  the regimes threatened by the massive protests have been friendly to the United States.   Egypt, which had been aligned with the Soviet Union from about  1955 through 1973,  switched to the American side after US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger brokered a separation of forces deal with Israel after the Yom Kippur War that saved an Egyptian army division.  As the first Arab state to sign a peace treaty with Israel,  Egypt has been a valuable ally in keeping  the Middle East  from exploding for nearly forty years.

But Egypt was never a democracy.  The Free Officers Association, which overthrew King Farouk, established military rule, first under Gamal Abdel Nasser, then under Anwar Sadat and now under Hosni Mubarak.   Nasser suppressed the Muslim Brotherhood and executed its founder, but the group survives to this day and has inspired Hamas and Al Qaida.   Polls  and results of legislative elections  indicate that  radical Islam has mass support in Egypt, and if the military would surrender power,  the Muslim Brotherhood and perhaps other Islamist forces would be major players in national politics.  This could mean the end of the peace treaty with Israel, more arms for Hamas, perhaps even  war.

So we Americans are on the horns of a cruel dilemma:  our values  favor democracy for Egypt and all other countries, but  our interests favor  backing the authoritarian regimes friendly to us  and not too hostile to Israel.   The Shah of Iran  said  that under similar circumstances  "The Americans threw me out like a dead mouse."  (1)

We  Americans must first recognize that  we  cannot impose a government  on  any country against the will of its people.  Under President Bush we  were able to depose Sadam Hussein and conduct elections, but  the winners were not the Iraqis that the Bush Administration had supported.  Similarly, we  deposed  the Taliban in Afghanistan, but are still fighting them today, almost   ten years later.   We can provide arms  and military intelligence  to friendly governments, but   the Islamic Revolution in Iran showed that  these may not be enough to  keep power.

But we are also not obligated to throw  Mubarak (or anyone else)  out  "like a dead mouse."   If that is how we treat our friends, we will not have many friends, nor will we deserve many.  The US did not  "lose"  China, Cuba or Iran and we are not responsible for  "losing Egypt" now;  these countries never were ours to lose.  The more we try to influence events, the more we are blamed for how things turn out----which is often badly.  Just look at  Gaza,  where American-inspired fair elections resulted in a Hamas victory, later implemented by force.

So we must  tread a fine line between advocating human rights for all and unwelcome meddling.   Stability that rests on  raw power is inherently unstable, while stability that rests on democracy  (such as in Israel, Europe and most of Latin America) is  durable.  Of course  we should  advocate democracy, but recognize that  it must arise from the will of the people, and  their  will is often very different from our own.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)   My Turn to Speak by Abol Hassan  Bani-Sadr, MacMillan, 1991.

Identity Crisis

Republican legislators are  poised to pass a bill that would require all Wisconsin  voters to display a photo-identification card every  time they vote.   The original bill specified that only a  valid driver's license, state ID  or military ID would suffice, but proposed amendments would add student ID's and passports.   Free state ID cards would be provided to anyone who needed one to vote.

The ostensible purpose of the law is to prevent  people from voting under a phony name.  But  is this going on now?

Suppose that someone  I will call Harvey Schmidt wanted  to vote  as me  in the November, 2010,  election, when no ID was required.  He could  have simply gone  to the Sherman School polling place and  identified  himself as Gerald S Glazer of  2944 North 50th Street. 

 But what if the real Gerald Glazer had already voted?  (I usually vote around  8 AM)  The ruse would be exposed,  and Schmidt would have been arrested.   But what if he came so early  in the day  (say, at  7:30 AM)  that the real Gerald Glazer had not yet voted?    All he would have to do was to convince Chief Election Inspector Cissy Glazer  that he was her real husband.

Of course most voters are not married to or otherwise related to a  poll-worker,  but there  is still a good chance that someone at the polling place  would know  the voter whose name the impostor was using.   So the risk of arrest  is  substantial, especially in  a small town  where everyone knows everyone else.  Someone might even recognize the impostor!

On the other hand, the benefit to the faker is not very great.  While a crook might garner thousands of dollars by cashing a stolen check,  and a terrorist  may believe he will earn  70 virgins in Paradise by  destroying a plane full of infidels,  the most Harvey Schmidt could  take by posing as  someone else at the polls is  one  vote for some candidate for elective office.  Big deal!   Would you risk a felony conviction record and maybe a year in prison just to  cast one illegitimate vote?  Would your favorite politician risk jail for you?  Why would anyone  try to vote with a fake name, when most people don't  even bother to vote at all?

Although identity theft is a major problem in our society,  I do not believe it is a significant factor in vote fraud.   The use of absentee ballots, which can be  sold or used in  the presence of  someone offering a bribe, is a much bigger threat to the honesty of elections, but no one seems to worry about  that.

The truth is that even if state ID's are free,  many voters who lack  a driver's  license   will not bother to  go to  the Courthouse to get one. Poor  people are less likely to have a driver's license, although some do drive anyway.   Even now,  poor people vote at a lower rate than middle-class  people, and  the photo ID  requirement will  reduce their participation even more.   And that is the real reason that Republicans are keen on  requiring a photo ID.

Holloway Channels Pratt

In some respects, the race for Milwaukee County Executive seems like a replay of another election.  Mayor John Norquist resigned in January, 2004, and was succeeded  (on an interim basis) by the black leader of the Common Council, Marvin Pratt, who then sought the office in the  spring  election.

County Executive Scott Walker resigned in January of this year, and was succeeded  (on an interim basis) by Lee Holloway, the black leader of the County Board, who is now seeking the office in a special election.

But there is a twist: under state law, the Chairman of the County Board  appoints  a new Executive to serve until the election.  He can appoint himself; but if he does, he must relinquish his seat on the County Board.  Holloway, in  a master political move, has  appointed  former Acting Mayor Marvin Pratt to  this position.   This choice  should virtually guarantee that Holloway will  be a finalist for the job on April 5.   Let's look at a little history:

As alderman, Marvin Pratt was never a racially polarizing figure, like  his colleague   Ald.  Michael McGee  (senior or junior, take your pick.)  He was known as a conciliator, which is how he became  President of the Common Council.  But  as a candidate for Mayor, he used the ambiguous slogan  "It's Time" ,  which presumably meant  "It's time that Milwaukee had a black mayor."   With massive black support, Pratt finished first in the  10-person primary, with 38%  percent of the vote.  Former US  Rep. Tom Barrett came in second, with 32.6%. (1)

Although neither candidate "played the race card" in the  hotly-contested  general election campaign,  a  geographical analysis of the  vote  shows that the contest was highly polarized along racial lines.  For example,  in the  overwhelmingly black Sixth District, Pratt garnered  89% of the vote, while in the  white  Eleventh  District, Barrett took nearly 88.5%.   Barrett won that contest with  86,493 votes (53.5%)  over Pratt, who  received  74,361 votes (46%).  (The other 0.5% of the vote went to write-ins.)

By appointing Pratt  as interim Executive,  Holloway is  capitalizing on Pratt's  popularity with the  African-American population of the City, no doubt expecting that it will rub off on  him in the crucial February 15th primary.  Although there is another black on the ballot in that election by the name of  Ieusha  Griffin (2),  the Pratt connection should be enough to solidify the black vote behind him. 

About 60% of the population of Milwaukee County  lives in the City of Milwaukee, and about  40% of City residents are black, so  African-Americans constitute nearly 25% of the population of Milwaukee County.   If they turn-out on Feb. 15 in the same proportion as whites  (about  35% in my estimation),  and they are solid for Holloway,  he could sail through the    5-candidate primary on  the strength of their support.  My guess is that  Chris Abele will take  the other spot on the general election ballot  with humongous spending on TV ads, which no one else can afford to match.

But unless Holloway can generate  major support from  the County's   Caucasian  voters, he will face a very difficult uphill battle  on April 5.   And for that,  his alignment with Marvin Pratt will not help.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)  Milwaukee Election Commission  Report:  2004-2005.

(2)  After losing her court battle to be identified on the  ballot for State Representative as "Not the White Man's Bitch", she   received only  7% of the vote in November, 2010.