Why unions have so much trouble getting members

    The BBC recently carried an interview with a union leader from England.  The message was right-on, but there's a fundamental problem that the unions haven't addressed in soliciting new members.

     Corporate management has greatly benefitted from the scientific study of worker needs, as conducted in the field of psychology.  Note that nearly every university has a psychology department, and corporations give money for (psychological) research.  Ever since Maslow's study of needs, psychology has been investigating the motivations and needs of workers on-the-job.  The research over the years has clearly shown that money, i.e., earnings and monetary compensation, is not the tantamount need in the hierarchy of worker needs!  They want good working conditions, co-workers they like to socialize with, etc.; and these other needs are far more important and motivating to achieve worker satisfaction.

     But the quest for more money is what need unions can satisfy--it's been demonstrated time and time again.  Indeed, that's the primary reason a worker joins a union--to increase his pay check.

      To bargain for a company's bowling league probably is not something a union would go on strike for, anyway!

       And in general, what these psychological studies declare is the worker does not have his own best interests in mind when he deals with management.  Simply, the worker is irrational, when it comes to knowing what's good for him!  Unions need to come up with a plan to get the worker on-the-job to better prioritize what's in his best interest.  And good luck!

       A step further.  There's a department in the company virtually working to keep the employee happy and content with the benefits package he negotiated himself with management.  That department is usually called "Human Services" or "Human Resources."  It's in the company's administrative domain; and it sends out emissaries to circulate among the manifold of employees every working day.  The message heralded boils down to "Isn't it just grand for you to be working here!" 

       Where's the union steward?  Working in some department on the floor?  Does he even exist?     

FBI's "Fast and Furious" A Successful Approach

     Because I am told that the FBI no longer uses "Fast and Furious" strategy in its conduct against the drug trade, I simply am talking about that approach.  I take it the method is to well equipment one cartel to enable it to become king of many others in the same underground business.

     The idea of working through one bad apple to control a major illicit activity to bring about a greater good for society is what I take to be the essence behind "Fast and Furious."  (After all, I don't believe society will ever be rid of drug-trafficking.)  It is to be contrasted and compared with the policy of decrying the evil guy and playing only with the good guys.  For example, Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel won't negotiate with Hamas, one of the Palestinian groups in power currently, because he says it's wrong to deal with a group that overtly urges the destruction of Israel! 

     But I think there are many times throughout history that some wise leaders have entered into negotiations with detestable and heinous leaders, each of whom might be considered the incarnate of the Devil himself!  And I believe that at least in some instances control of groups engaged in nefarious activities has been achieved so as to bring about a greater net good in society.  That's what is my overall impression after these many years of my adult life.

     In the case of the Palestinian Hamas, I have held that Israel should actively engage in working with Hamas--to train them to act responsibly and to exhibit better moral conduct on the international stage.   It is clear that the territory Hamas controls must be rebuilt.  No better opportunity for training its leaders than to work together in this project.

     Much same argument could be made in the US' negotiations with Iran over the latter's nuclear armaments.  That is to say, aim at disarming the Devil of his pitchfork!      

Iraq crumbling toward resolution!

     I can't but piece together the news coming from Iraq that spells a permanent rift of the country into 3 parts along cultural and religious differences: Shia, Sunni, and Kurd. 

     It's plain that the Shia military units are reluctant to defend protect Sunni lands.  And it seems, while not welcoming the ISIS terrorists, Sunnis are aligning themselves with them.  The Kurds are already a distinct nation within the Iraqi borders.  Finally, with Iran openly helping the Shia faction, virtually for the past 8 years, there's no point to regarding Iraq as a unified country. 

    The Islamic State that is emerging, despite its current use of hysterical violence and bloodshed to claim rightful existence on the Near-East stage, could indeed play a role in resolving the Syrian chaotic political situation with Bashar Aassad and become a recognized caliphate under al-Baghadi from northern Syria to the city-limits of Baghdad.  Its presence, I am led to believe, could have fruitful results, if its aims were tamed, i.e., were to become realistic.  Indeed, it could be that the Iraqi Sunnis might influence ISIS in re-directing its Islamic fervor.

BBC reports: English cities near Scotland want in!

     The Scots supporting the independent movement in their country were unable to pull off a miracle by becoming independent on the first try.  They were not far off, however.


      Last night, the BBC reported that English cities and towns near the Scottish border want to join Scotland and leave England.  That's a step toward helping Scotland in the long run.  I hope that Scotland will encourage these cities to take what steps are required to pull it off.  Be it that they would still have the ties that the former Empire had established for the Commonwealth.


      Scotland pave your own destiny by reaching out to those who want to embrace that destiny for themselves, too.

Congrads, German unions win big transit strike

    The BBC last night carried the news:  The German Unions won!  And, the trains are running throughout Germany today.


     You know, I was asked to form an opinion on the Mexican unions as part of the inauguration of NAFTA in the early 1990s.  I went down there and thought there was much that had to be done, but I never dreamed that being union members, they would exert so little power and display so little guts!


      Well, I'm hoping that the union movement in the US will once again become a powerful institution to have input in the run of things in this country.  Please, learn from the German union leaders and their membership!

Democracy under Technocracy

     On the Jim Bohanon Show the other night (on radio Westwood-1), Fred Siegel of the Manhattan Institute discussed his new book on the "now" Democrats.  Apparently, he argues that the Dems are more interested in promoting the green cause of preserving the planet than in advocating a higher standard of living for the middle class, which was the primary interest of the "old" Democrats.
 
      In the course of the presentation, he alluded to how democracy, as a process of the voting of the citizenry, would be re-conceived, if the "now" democrats were to have their way..  It seems as if the opinions of the people are not as highly valued by "now" Democrats, I take it he would aver.  I think in this he partially is correct, if my interpretation of his observation is correct.

      The problem I think  the "now" democrats are attempting to handle is the role of people's voting in a technocracy, realizing that the technocratic era of government is upon us.  A technocracy is the run of government by an educated elite, trained to make policy decisions that then they administer. No longer are the populace sought for their opinions and input on matters of policy at the stage of implementation.  By way of contrast, under the "old" democratic system, leaders in power would seek to cajole the voting public to adopt and advocate position they would want them to vote for via the ballot box or through the social media.  Thus, it is said, Dick Chaney as Vice President influenced the CIA to promulgate the administration's viewpoint to take over Iraq and end the Dictator's Saddam Hussein rule to the general public.  Indeed, Chaney is thought to have convinced Congress and the voting public that Hussein was developing nuclear capabilities and he was thereby able to gain their support in thinking that the regime had to be taken out immediately through US military action.  At the time, the people voiced overwhelmingly the point of view of the administration and war ensued.  Similarly, it is said that F. D. Roosevelt got us into WWII through his own tactical machinations, so that the people stood totally behind him..

      In any event, the idea under the "old" conception of democracy, that not only Democrats but Republicans operated under, was those in power should garner the support of the voters and the citizens before initiating the particular course of action they favored.  The "now" Democrats, many of whom are familiar with, if not advocating the "new" idea of democracy in a technocratic government, permits administrative agencies to dictate and enforce the policies enunciated by technocrats, which, be it noted, are backed up by scientific and generally accepted business reasons.  That is to say, in a technocracy, policy edicts and rules are the product of scientific and logical examination--even as the cadre of technocrats have so undertaken.  Democracy under technocracy becomes appropriate not at the juncture of decision-making but during the evaluation phase of those policies already in effect.  It becomes part of the process that brings to bear a critical analysis of how well these policies have worked.  In such a structure, citizens' collective experience of living under the rules and regulations of government (administered by technocrats) become an invaluable means in assaying the worthiness of  governmental actions to promote the common good.      

Unions: The answer to the Middle Class Losses

     Here in Sacramento, I have become aware once again of the value of the union movement in the US--indeed, in the world.  It is the major thrust of unions to stand for a healthy and prosperous middle class.  I'm not the only person who has argued this, but it needs a strong emphasis in an era when unions are languishing in this country.


     I think what really convinced me that union membership is a necessary ingredient to promote the values of the middle class nationally is how effective unions are in Germany, clearly a country dominated in affecting governmental policy not only of a healthy financial upper class but a united working middle class. 


     Merely, weak unions struggling to retain an ineffectual political power base just doesn't cut it.  As things stand now, wages are stagnant and united action by members of the working class is virtually non-existent.  Workers of the US unite!  Through your organizations, the middle class concept will be revived.  


     And above all, don't be penny-wise and pound-foolish!