Paterson not nuts

Gov. Paterson today waded into World War II history, saying CSEA President Danny Donohue should not be appropriating the one-word response of Gen. Anthony McAuliffe, in command of the 101st Airborne Division at Bastogne in 1944, to a German surrender demand. "Nuts" is what McAuliffe said, and Paterson doesn't think Donohue should be using that term in the current labor dispute. (In Stephen Ambrose's book "Band of Brothers," an anonymous lower-ranking soldier in the same division had another memorable response to the German advance in the Ardennes: "They've got us surrounded, the poor bastards.")

As someone with two close relatives in the 101st who will soon be deploying to Kandahar, Afghanistan, I think the governor has a point.

Comments

[Brian]

I'd love to know how the tough-talking Republican big shots (Paladino, Levy) would deal with the public sector unions differently than Paterson. Talk is easy. The real world of governance is different.

[Johannah]

That's hilarious inasmuch as it implies that CSEA has the upper hand in the labor dispute and it reveals that the Governor believes he is owed some kind of deference by organized labor. I'm with Danny Donohue. Nuts to Paterson. From another standpoint, the admonishment to shut up is outrageous coming as it does from one holding government office to one of the free people's chosen leaders. Paterson's suggestion is right up there with the Survivors' attempt to forbid henceforth the use of the expression "Let's roll" and the Cuban Revolutionaries' ban on beards. He should be made to understand that no one holds a copyright on the general's words, legendary or otherwise. Next he'll threatening to saw someone's head off for the crime of setting McAuliffe's famous retort in type. Dance the Talibanic Rag, it's all the rage in America right now. We'd have a pretty impoverished culture if we couldn't reference and reincorporate our history freely and creatively. To invoke McAuliffe is after all to pay homage. I pray for the safety of your relatives as they defend our liberties, one of which is freedom of speech.

[Brian]

Johannah, when even left-wing, normally pro-union types like myself are getting annoyed, the public sector unions have a bit of a problem on their hands. They want to remain divorced from the reality that we're in a fiscal crisis. Like every other entity, they claim to "understand" the state's bad situation but want the sacrifice to come from everyone else. I have no patience for this.

You lecture the governor on his outrageousness. But remember one other thing: public sector workers work for the PUBLIC; bashing the governor may make them feel better but that's missing the point. The public is suffering and the public wants them to share in the sacrifice. I dare say public sector workers owe a little deferrence to their employers: the citizens of NYS.

[Johannah]

Yeah, okay, maybe--though I must say that in my experience whenever a union gets a little too "understanding" about a fiscal crisis, the next thing that happens is that they get royally screwed. Remember when the teachers' union used its own pension fund to bail out New York City in the fiscal crisis of the mid-1970s? There was a deal in place. When it came time to start repaying the union, the city took the cavalier attitude that they couldn't afford to repay the union because they'd rather spend the money on other things instead, thank you. At that point I (a mere typist at the Research Foundation) wrote a letter to Roger Starr of the New York Times who was covering the story, and he wrote me a decent one back. Which flabbergasted the central office of the CUNY faculty union because Starr wouldn't give their terminal degreeships the time of day. Heh. Anyway, the public sector unions may be selfish (who else isn't?) but they're not stupid about "sharing the sacrifice." In today's climate they're being asked to give up affordable healthcare, retirement benefits, etc., while witnessing the spectacle of AIG getting a bailout (also from the people's/ taxpayers'/ citizens' money) and then throwing a party and giving its executives bonuses in the millions. Privately employed citizens should get off their butts and organize meaningfully to get their own fair share instead of indulging in the pathetic fantasy that they have public "servants" who should remember their place. But this wasn't my point at all in the original comment. I showed my bias but I wasn't arguing "Labor" per se.

I was reacting to two things. One, the governor's imperious suggestion about what union negotiators should say or not say in the course of exchanges that usually involve grandstanding in public (and abusiveness in private) on both sides. And two, the idea that the famous retort ("Nuts" to the adversary's demand for surrender) should not be "appropriated" for use in the (what, lower? dirtier? lower and dirtier than war?) context of labor relations. I think the application was apt, not sacrilegious, and no big deal. Americans don't have much use for sacred cows, queens, governors, presidents or generals.

[Bob Conner]

Hi Johannah: Coupla responses to your good comments. Free speech cuts all ways, and it's not "Talibanic" for Paterson to exercise his by criticizing someone's press release. It's not as if a lame-duck, basement-polling governor is more powerful than a New York union boss. I too am generally pro-union, recognizing that without one you're liable to be screwed, but life's a pendulum and NYS taxpayers have been getting screwed by said unions, and the prospects of most of them in the private sector being able to get into effective unions themselves are more of a "fantasy" than what you cite. As for Donohue's comment, I'm not blowing a gasket about it. I'm uncomfortable with your "lower and dirtier" line, not because I want to glorify war but because it appears to be an inescapable part of reality, and I wouldn't want to associate that language with those who have the courage to fight on my behalf.

[Bob Conner]

Regarding your comment on prior post (linked to in this one) about how I can't compare the Civil War and Reconstruction South to Afghanistan: The April 26 New Yorker has an article by Nicholas Lemann referencing a book by Mark Moyar, who holds the (somebody) chair of insurgency and terrorism at the Marine Corps University, titled "A Question of Command: Counterinsurgency from the Civil War to Iraq." That book, according to the article, discusses "the uncontrollably violent American South during Reconstruction -- a subject that a number of authors have turned to during the war on terror."

[Brian]

Johannah, maybe public sector unions are bearing a "disproportionate" amount of the sacrifice because a "disproportionate" amount of public money is being used to pay their salaries. They benefited from taxpayer largesse during the good times...

And many New Yorkers, even left-wing ones like myself, view public sector unions as the state's only sacred cow.

[Johannah]

There's nothing wrong with criticizing the other guy's press release. Paterson has every right to complain about the union rejecting the state's latest offer and even the tone of the rejection. He can call the rejection irresponsible or obstructive or whatever he deems or pretends to deem it. But Talibanic is the only word to describe this new trend in the USA of admonishing others not to utter certain words on the grounds that the critic holds these words to be holy. Paterson does not have any right to object to the union using that colorful historic retort on the grounds that WWII is sacrosanct and that even the trivia associated with that war are not to be invoked outside of worship services.

[Brian]

J, fair enough. Danny Donohue is nuts.

[Bob Conner]

Cutting off his nuts would have been Talibanic.

[Johannah]

About Donohue, I couldn't say. I don't know him at all. Maybe he is nuts. And sure, cutting off his nuts would be even more Talibanic than telling him to shut up.

[Johannah]

But I'm not finished. I hope you don't mind, Bob.

I can't agree that the citizens of New York State have been screwed by the public sector unions. Citizens of all 50 states have been screwed by an unholy collusion of private finance and the federal government that has wrecked the economy. The problem of private sector workers is not so much that they're not getting paid enough is that they're losing their jobs (but then again, so are public sector employees).

Private sector workers can't get into effective unions (by merely signing a card and a dues check-off authorization) because there are none such. There are none such for reasons not all having to do with the suicidal trajectory of the labor movement. Office workers traditionally see themselves as "going to business" (as distinct from laboring in a factory, dontcha know) and being "in management" (meaning that they type, file and fetch coffee for someone in white collar management). They live for the smile and approval of their boss. It takes them years to realize that "human resources" means "consumable supplies" not as worthy of maintenance (rest and repair) as the copy machine. Office workers rarely accept the responsibility, risks and effort inherent in organizing and bargaining collectively for some fair share of the fruits of their labor.

Rather than jealously attacking their fellow workers who have managed to hold the line for themselves, private sector workers should do the following:

They should talk to their own employers (and their employers' investors and customers) about "sharing the sacrifice."

They should organize their own unions because the only way they're going to win a proportionally fair share of the pie is by bargaining--and campaigning--for it collectively.

[Johannah]

Brian: How can you style yourself lefty and labor-friendly and use a word like "largesse"? The dictionary definition of "largesse" is "liberal giving (as of money) to or as if to an inferior." The money was not given to public employees, it was paid in return for services rendered, and the consideration was lawfully bargained for in advance of the performance of a contract entered into between equal parties.

Public sector unions are not sacred cows. They don't get anything due to some perceived mystical aura around them. They fight--legally, through the system, using prescribed processes--for every inch of ground they gain.

I'll never forget Governor Cuomo (Mario, not Andrew) addressing a bunch of people who were rallied around some issue that had to do with the allocation of state Education funds. I forget the details of the controversy, but here's the point. Cuomo exhorted the crowd in no uncertain terms to apply the necessary pressure in Albany. He recounted the things the members of the teachers' union did to get their education agenda heard and enacted into law. He described how they sat in each other's homes on weekends compiling address lists, printing labels, getting the propaganda out, going from door to door, chartering buses to go to Albany and sometimes even Washington D.C., employing full-time lobbyists at the state Legislature. He told the crowd they would have to do likewise if they wanted their own needs and desires to be met. "Do what the teachers do," he counseled. "Make me do your will!" he pleaded.

Back then, the teachers were the bad guys. The teachers, when they were organizing, complained about what the garbage collectors were paid.

[Johannah]

Bob, how is the struggle for life support (a fair share of a working economy) any less an inescapable part of reality than war?

As you know, I regard the war in the Middle East as pretextual, imperialistic, and uncommonly dirty. But that's a criticism of prevailing political philosophy and foreign policy, not a condemnation of servicemen and women.

Please be assured that I absolutely do *not* impugn or disrespect the motives, the courage, and the terrible sacrifices of those who are sent to fight in a war that I happen not to approve. You mentioned the American Civil War. I'd have been on the side of the Union and I'm glad it won the war. At the same time I recognize that Confederate soldiers were remarkably, undeniably brave--and that their defeat was total and terrible.

[Bob Conner]

Confederates were indeed brave and in some ways admirable. However, their defeat was a great deal less than total, thanks to the guerrilla/terrorist war waged by the Ku Klux Klan and allied forces during Reconstruction. The Klan was founded under a former Confederate general and slave trader (Nathan Bedford Forrest), and over the course of a decade or so managed to overturn many of the political gains made by the freed slaves. There were black senators and congressmen elected from the South in the decade after the war, and then none for the next 80 or 90 years. The U.S. Army fought against the Klan and protected black rights for a while, but eventually war weariness, politics and "Lost Cause" mythology kicked in, the Army was withdrawn following the 1876 election, and Jim Crow ruled the South until the second half of the 20th century -- when soldiers were again deployed to protect the civil rights movement.

[Johannah]

Bob: Military academics study the wars of the past and you cite a case where they compare the uncontrollable violence of Reconstruction with conditions in Afghanistan. I assume they're trying to figure out how best to get the violence under control and move on to peaceful coexistence, at least, if not a sense of unity in the foreseeable future.

I think they're on the wrong track, except possibly in the very narrowest sense, because while conditions of chaos and violence may be similar, the underlying dynamic is radically different and will control in any future resolution.

Back to the dictionary, which defines "insurgent" as:

1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party.

In the American South, the confederate states attempted to secede from the Union. They were, technically, insurgent.

In Afghanistan, however, the USA is not "civil authority" nor is it "established government" nor is it a political party. In Afghanistan, as in Iraq, whatever other considerations and justifications you may want to offer in support of the war, the incontrovertible fact is that the USA is a foreign invader, which in the process of invasion inflicted bombs and bullets and fire on the people of those countries, suffering that will not end anytime soon, and that it has the hubris to define Iraqi & Afghan resistance and defense against American aggression as "insurgency" and the insurgents as "enemy combatants."

In Iraq we invaded the country, kidnapped and imprisoned the head of state, set up a puppet government, and then handed the head of state over to the puppets--at the trap door of the gallows, literally--for execution. History will not regard Hussein as an "insurgent" against the legitimate governance of the USA.

I don't know what we're going to do in Iraq and Afghanistan, having bombed them all to hell, beyond half-assed attempts at pacification and reconstruction. A lot will depend on whether or not we can identify those who actually perpetrated "9/11" (I still think they rest comfortably in Saudi Arabia) and whether or not we can cause the Taliban movement to fade out of its own accord. Either way, I don't think the Marine "university" department of "insurgency and terrorism" (tell me how those two phenomena are necessarily linked) gets it -- but then, it's not their business to analyze anything beyond how to prevail in battle and secure the perimeter. Haven't we had quite enough of using "Rapid Dominance: Shock and Awe" as a chapbook for the conduct of foreign policy?

[All this because Donohue had the nerve to say "Nuts" to Paterson.]

[Brian]

Johannah, I may be pro-union (I believe all of my immediate family members have been in NYSUT at some point), but I'm also a citizen and a taxpayer. I'm also someone with a math degree. Health care and education constitute the majority of New York state's expenditures. So it's simple math that you can't cut the deficit while leaving those areas exempt.

I'm not prepared to agree with Bob that public sector workers have been screwing the taxpayers. However, unions have succeeded when in places where they have done a good job in making their members' struggles seem like the struggle of all working men and women. They succeed when they act like they're a part of society, not apart from it. They can't expect to maintain public sympathy if they continue to try to demand they be insulated from the tough times their neighbors (and employers) are facing. The problem is EVERY group is saying "We understand the state's facing a fiscal crisis but we think our speciallyfantasticallyawesomelyunique program should be singularly exempt." It doesn't fly.

We only need to look at places like Greece or California to see where NYS will be headed if we don't address the fiscal crisis. Union inflexibility will inevitably lead to a crash far worse than a week's furlough for a portion of their members. The question is, will unions participate in help managing the downturn and keep a certain degree of control or will they be inflexible and lose influence and credibility when things crash hard?

Why can't the unions make an offer something along the lines of "We'll freeze raises next fiscal year in exchange for extending the contract a year and pushing back the raises a year?" or something like that. It'd be a great PR move, show their sensitivity to their fellow workers-employers, give something but get something in return, while not being a catastrophe for members in a year of virtually zero inflation.

The problem, as I see it, is not how state workers are compensated but their number. The governor wants to furlough 100,000 "non-essential" state workers. Why do we have 100,000 workers that are deemed "non-essential"? Public sector workers represent a higher percentage of NYS' employment than all but five other states (and four of those five are rural states, which skews the numbers). Public safety workers in NYS represent a higher percentage of employment than in all the other 50 states. If we're going to build up a large state workforce in good times, guess whose going to have to be targeted during bad times?

If public sector unions are too inflexible, the public risks concluding that they don't want so many public sector workers. It doesn't mean you don't protect your interests. It just means you take the long view and be smart in how you do it. It means you have to recognize when to throw vinegar and when you have to catch the flies with honey (to mix metaphors). And that requires a more savvy reading of PUBLIC opinion than the big PUBLIC sector unions in NYS seem to be showing right now.

[Brian]

Though I don't buy Paterson's and Bob's contention that "nuts" is somehow sacreligious or profrane. "Nuts" is commonly used as a synonym for crazy or ludicrous. I had no idea of the WWII reference until it was mentioned in a news' report. Describing it as anything other than an ordinary criticism of the governor's proposal is a real stretch.

[Bob Conner]

I'm thinking more of things like work rules, pension and disability benefits, which have led to widespread abuse -- eg on the Long Island Rail Road, where many obviously phony disability pensions were granted. And even where there is not abuse, the overgenerous benefits lead to the kind of dilemma that confronted many NYC firefighters after 9/11, when they had worked lot of legitimate overtime, and those with 20 years in were more or less forced into retirement because it made no financial sense to keep working. (The problem, from the taxpayers' perspective, was that pension payments were not based on base salaries but on salaries including overtime.) I lack the wosdom of Solomon, and don't know how you devise a system that protects public employees from arbitrary, politically motivated decisions -- and such protection is absolutely needed -- but does not make it impossible to fire them absent a felony conviction, which is the way things often seem to work now in NYS.

[Bob Conner]

Hey Brian, I don't think there's any question Donohue was referencing/imitating McAuliffe, and while I think it was in questionable taste, I partly accept Johannah's points on this, and don't think (and never said) that it was a grave offense. I basically agree with you about the unions, and the weaseling around that most people, including politicians and self-styled fiscal conservatives, go through when asked to say how they would balance the budget.