City Journal Autumn 2014

Current Issue:

Autumn 2014
Table of Contents
Subscribe
Tablet Editions
Click to visit City Journal California

Readers’ Comments

Pete Peterson and Kevin Klowden
Democrats v. Unions? « Back to Story

View Comments (5)

Add New Comment:

To send your message, please enter the words you see in the distorted image below, in order and separated by a space, and click "Submit." If you cannot read the words below, please click here to receive a new challenge.

Comments will appear online. Please do not submit comments containing advertising or obscene language. Comments containing certain content, such as URLs, may not appear online until they have been reviewed by a moderator.


 
Showing 5 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
Public Sector Unions are a CANCER inflicted upon society.
Why is it, in times of huge bureaucracy costs--both for government and unions--that the unions still have their dues collected for them by the government employer?

Abolition of the garnishee arrangement would certainly put unions on a true "third party" status and more importantly, sever the payroll-to-political contribution lifeline that no one can any longer afford.
I come from the private world. Now working in the public area, I have observed that the unions are sometimes managed (not lead) by territorial humans. If the leader of a Union is chosen the leader has to be examined as OPEN INTERNATIONAL MIND, not territorial. Why? because members of the unions are diverse and international, sometimes very exposed to a whole world, meanwhile the leader is limited of background knowledge, he/she limits the members of the union options and choices. Why I say this? Example: If a choice of hotel is chosen by the leader, and the leader hasn't travel, the choice of hotel will be chosen perhaps by A SCARCITY MIND that will just consider the money/price variable inside a one chosen option. In this case, the leader is not given a freedom of choice, but a limit to choose. People like CHOICES. I LOVE CHOICES BECAUSE I LIVE IN AMERICA (a country that models FREEdom supposedly? or is a fact?)
The background of a leader has to be diverse, knowledgeable of international or at least national differentiation, and has to have being EXPOSED TO DIVERSE ENVIRONMENTS, TO BE ABLE TO SERVE THE TOTAL GROUP OF MEMBERS, IN A UNIQUE AN SPECIAL MANNER. Not one size fits ALL. This is my humble input.
(I have being a public server for 15 years and let me tell you that when I am given a reward I expect the choice to use it or not, expanding the zone area because I live out of my working zone. Just an example of INDIVIDUAL EXPANDED CHOICES). Ask the leaders have you travel at least to the other side of your native city, or neighborhood? Or the leader doesn't have any idea there are museums, theaters, cinemas, restaurants, hotels, supermarkets, .....different from just the neighborhood area....perhaps because she/he doesn't drive more far away than 5 or perhaps 10 miles away of their own living area. Easy assessment to choose the drivers of a lot of lives, opening Life Paths,....or just limiting them.....remember we are ACCOUNTABLE, AND WE WILL BE ASKED IF WE WERE ABLE TO GIVE CHOICES TO THE PERSONS WE SERVE AS PUBLIC SERVERS, instilling fear (to new en devours) or confidence to explore and discover. A humble comment based in personal observations!!!!
Brazil had this problem in the 90s. It was estimated that over 70% of all tax dollars were paying the wages and benefits of public sector employees.
You have a factual error above: "In 2009, after the city had failed to secure sufficient federal stimulus money to pay for school improvements, 75 percent of voters approved a school-construction bond."

In 2009, Culver City passed Measure EE, a parcel tax which partially went towards preserving teaching and library positions in the district. None of this money was spent on facilities.