Public Debate on Labor and other issues.

Sun, 13 Sep 1998 08:14:08 -0700 (MST)
PAT.LAUDERDALE@asu.edu

In light of recent postings on our list, I thought some of you might be
interested in a little public service by one of the doctoral students here
in Arizona.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 21:36:15 -0700
From: "David C. Larkin" <dcl@primenet.com>
To: PAT.LAUDERDALE@asu.edu
Subject: Public Debate on Labor and other issues.

Plus, global competition has made strikes dangerous for workers. The
success of the UPS and CWA strike must have had something to do with the
difficulty of replacing so many workers in a tight labor market.

Here are a few of my recent letters to the Republic. The "Greedwater
Institute", Kolbe IOLTA, Kidscare, and J.D. Hayworth letters were published.

-----------------------------------------------
To the editor:

How sad to read Brian M. Etheridge's uniformed letter (Sept. 1) claiming
that unions are an unnecessary evil in the U.S. Unfortunately, the events
he cites are signs of a weakened labor movement where mostly rich workers,
pilots and athletes, have the power to strike. Mr. Etheridge's opinion
reflects ignorance of the history of labor and working conditions in America.

In the nineteenth century, factory owners put signs on factory gates like,
"If you don't come to work on Sunday, don't bother coming to work on
Monday." The forty hour week, the "weekend" that most of us enjoy and take
for granted, appeared in the 1930's, after the labor leaders began pushing
for it around 1925. Mr. Etheridge is unaware of the current pressure on
workers to give up their family life for work, or face replacement.
Perhaps one of these days he will be forced to choose between working 70
hours a week or quit his job and face the uncertainty and exposure to
poverty as some employees I know have been.

If owners of capital can join together by contract to form collective
organizations to produce, it is unjust to deny that right to owners of
labor, which includes the majority of Americans, on whom owners of capital
depend to produce their profits. After all, labor preceded capital, which
owes its existence to the efforts of working people, including American
slaves, who worked for little or nothing in order to provide the profits
that were necessary to accumulate the capital that gives us our high
standard of living today.

It is right that workers be able to bargain for a fair share and decent
working conditions. Unions give workers the power to improve or at least
hold steady, their quality of life and work, power that unorganized workers
do not have. The downsizing, reorganizing and intensification of the U.S.
workplace has awakened many workers, especially middle-managers and older
workers, who find themselves surprised to be on the short end of the stick
with little or no legal recourse for perceived unjust and disrespectful
action by their employers.

David C. Larkin
Tempe, Arizona

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

To the Editor:

What a shame that this economy allocates money to pay Jeffrey Flake and the
"Greedwater" Institute to produce drivel like his childish analysis of the
Children' Rights Council" statistics that ranked Arizona at the bottom in
child welfare (49 out of 51). It is simply amazing that he is published so
prominently in the Republic (Aug. 5).

He did not say one word about any of the individual statistics that he
claims were "cobbled together." He implies that these well-meaning
persons who compile these statistics have some agenda besides helping
children. He callously whines that Arizona should just ignore the
statistics and the rankings because they could lead to government spending
on child welfare. Nowhere does he give any inkling of a concern for children.

Maybe legislatures should not just throw money at problems. Fine. Let's
be fiscally conservative if that's what a majority determines through the
political process. However, Flake recommends that everyone simply ignore
school dropout rates, teenage pregnancy rates, child poverty rates and the
other figures composing the statistics that he belittles simply because of
his paranoid fear that the "guvmint" might ask you to chip in to help
children.

This is beyond irresponsibility. We should take a hard look at the
statistics and determine what makes Arizona rank so low and try to do
something about it. We can argue about the money later.

I hope that the real "conservatives" in Arizona, if there are any, will
someday wrest control of the venerable conservative label that Flake and
the other paranoid selfish greedy cranks have highjacked so successfully.

Consider the increase in the welfare of Arizona children if Jeffrey Flake's
salary, now allocated to unproductive activities, was instead used to feed
poor children nutritious meals so that they can grow up be productive
Arizonans.

David C. Larkin
Tempe, Arizona

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

To the Editor:

I see where the "Arizona Works" welfare experiment is preparing to choose a
private contractor to administer part of Arizona's public welfare program
(Jul. 29). Controversial incentives are to be offered to private
enterprises to encourage cost-cutting. Promoters of the program, including
chief sponsor Sen. Tom Patterson, believe that savings induced by such
incentives will exceed the profit subsidy that must be paid with taxpayer
money to private profit-making corporate "administrators" like
Lockheed-Martin or EDS who are expected to make proposals.

According to Patterson, these contractors are expected to hire some of the
300 state workers who now handle welfare administration. In other words,
the state is "outsourcing" welfare administration by paying private
contractors to manage our state workers more efficiently.

Why are we using taxpayer money to pay subsidies in the form of profit and
incentives to private parties and nameless shareholders of public
companies? Why not cut costs in government by copying private enterprise?

The legislature should authorize the Department of Economic Security to pay
competive salaries in order to compete with private contractors for
talented high-paid managers who actually do the cost-cutting. Moreover,
the legislature could provide notoriously lowpaid Arizona state government
managers and employees with a generous incentive bonus plan like private
enterprise does.

We could then save taxpayers the cost of the "profit" that must be built
into the "Arizona Works" program to entice private enterprise to enter the
welfare business. We should not be paying profit subsidies to private
enterprise to administer public programs if we could pay incentives to
government workers to accomplish the same goals in the name of "public
service" rather than "private profit." We could still hire private
contractors to manage the "Arizona Works" T-Shirt concession, an arena
customarily reserved for private enterprise.

David C. Larkin
Tempe, Arizona

----------------------------------
To the Editor

John Kolbe's celebration of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision ruling that
interest in lawyer's IOLTA trust funds belongs to the client is not
surprising. Any public effort to help the poor raises his ire.

I have never had a client even ask about interest on trust account funds in
nearly two decades of law practice. Hopefully, IOLTA will continue as a
matter of contractual consent between lawyer and client.

However, if IOLTA trust accounts disappear, I wonder who is going to
benefit. I suspect that it will either be banks who will profit from the
fees on the myriad of additional separate trust accounts that may be needed
to safely account for the accruing "property" of the client. More likely,
the lawyers will profit by obtaining the agreement of the client that
interest earned on trust fund money becomes an additional fee for
administrating the client's trust funds or some other nonrefundable
retainer-type contracted fee.

Of course, for Kolbe, profit to banks and lawyers is far better than legal
services for the poor, which was an admirable intent of the IOLTA movement.

David C. Larkin
Tempe, Arizona

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

To the Editor:

Republican critics of Governor Hull's KidsCare bill (Apr. 21) who have
stalled this bill for ideological or partisan political reasons will be
personally accountable in the future for the suffering and deaths of
innocent children if this bill is not passed.

It is unconscionable for so-called conservatives to be willing to sacrifice
to their myopic and self-centered ideologies, the 60,000 to 70,000 poor
children who would benefit from the KidsCare health insurance program The
"free" market has failed to provide health care for the poor. They cannot
afford it. That is a fact. A Republican dominated federal Senate and
House have made available $113 million dollars annually for this Arizona
health insurance program.

Apparently secession-minded cranks in the Arizona legislature have
forgotten that the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution states that it was
created, "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, . . .
promote the general Welfare, and to secure the Blessing of Liberty for
ourselves and our Posterity." According to the dictionary, "Welfare" means
"health, happiness and good-fortune." "Posterity" means "future
generations." Thus, the American federal government was formed to promote
health for all Americans, and for our children, and our children's children.

The real issue is whether all Arizonans (and Americans) ought to have
access to decent health care. These 60,000-plus Arizona children cannot be
blamed for their predicament. The answer to Rep. Sue Gerard's (R-North
Phoenix) mystification at the stone-walling conduct of conservative
Republican legislators is simple. Although these obstinate Arizona
Republicans fashion themselves "conservatives", we should not overlook
their hearts and judge them "selfish", "greedy" or even "evil" as we would
any person who would intentionally cause the suffering or death of a little
child.

This sort of legislative behavior is what causes voters to begin to plan
time and make effort to unseat legislators like these "conservatives" who
would purposely disregard the innocent for misguided ideological purposes.
The society they promote is uncivil, self-centered and fractious. How can
their judgment be trusted in any matters when they exhibit such disregard
for the needy and the powerless?

David C. Larkin
Tempe, Arizona

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

To the editor:

J.D. Hayworth said in his guest column in the Republic (Dec. 7) that the
proposed national sales tax he is promoting would be "progressive" because
"people who buy yachts would pay more taxes than people who don't." What a
shocking twist of the meaning of progressive taxes! Progressive taxes have
always meant that the higher your income, the higher effective tax rate you
pay. Clearly, the idea behind progressive taxes is that people with higher
incomes pay a higher effective tax rate because they derive greater benefit
from the system, and have greater means to support it.

In 1964, my high school history teacher in conservative Nebraska taught me
that sales taxes were regressive taxes, not progressive taxes, because the
lower your income, the greater percentage of your income you spend. Thus,
more of your income is taxed by a sales tax resulting in a higher effective
tax rate than those with greater incomes.

I have never seen a sales tax referred to as progressive until J.D.
Hayworth said it in his guest column. No wonder he is able to attract
campaign donations from the wealthy. Such hucksterism is shameful, yet he
is embraced by those who benefit from his ignorance, and apparently many
who do not, but are willing to believe anything that a former sportscaster
says about complex economic matters.

David C. Larkin