Thursday, October 05, 2006
Will Pittsburgh Taxpayers Ever Be Disgusted By Union Behavior?
If there was any doubt remaining as to the powerful control public sector unions have over the governance of the City of Pittsburgh, one need look no further than the case of the public works foreman and head of the “Redd Up” force who has been able to keep his job despite numerous run-ins with the law. And if there was any doubt left that the arbitration process is hopelessly slanted in favor of the unions, it should be gone now.
A quick history: according to newspaper reports, the employee in question was hired in 1990; in 1991 he pleaded guilty to criminal charges and received probation; in 1993 he pleaded guilty to another criminal charge and was given another term of probation; he was fired in 2000 but reinstated by an arbitrator a year later. Now he is charged with a drug-related charge that occurred when he was off-duty. He is still on the job.
What more has to happen in order for this employee to be seen as unfit for government employment? If he loses his job this time, we won’t be at all surprised if the union will try to get him reinstated. Now we can see clearly why there is such vociferous opposition to privatization and competitive bidding by union employees and why there was a desperate attempt to stop the adoption of Act 47 distressed status. The unions are doing whatever they can to maintain their power and protect their friends. What an outrageous example this recent episode represents. Trying to dismiss an employee who makes the City look bad is hard when the arbitration process rewards criminal behavior.
What a position for the union to be in! Powerful enough to determine the rules mechanisms of City employment, yet too weak to do the right thing when one of their ranks makes them look foolish. Maybe if the person in question was a Republican he might get fired and stay fired.
The bigger question for Pittsburgh residents: where is your outrage at this perfidy and why are there no citizens groups demanding change? Unless or until that happens, Pittsburgh’s well-deserved reputation as a union owned and union controlled town will continue with the full and knowing compliance of its residents.
The City can forget meaningful progress in solving its deep-seated problems as long as the culture of public union supremacy reigns.
A quick history: according to newspaper reports, the employee in question was hired in 1990; in 1991 he pleaded guilty to criminal charges and received probation; in 1993 he pleaded guilty to another criminal charge and was given another term of probation; he was fired in 2000 but reinstated by an arbitrator a year later. Now he is charged with a drug-related charge that occurred when he was off-duty. He is still on the job.
What more has to happen in order for this employee to be seen as unfit for government employment? If he loses his job this time, we won’t be at all surprised if the union will try to get him reinstated. Now we can see clearly why there is such vociferous opposition to privatization and competitive bidding by union employees and why there was a desperate attempt to stop the adoption of Act 47 distressed status. The unions are doing whatever they can to maintain their power and protect their friends. What an outrageous example this recent episode represents. Trying to dismiss an employee who makes the City look bad is hard when the arbitration process rewards criminal behavior.
What a position for the union to be in! Powerful enough to determine the rules mechanisms of City employment, yet too weak to do the right thing when one of their ranks makes them look foolish. Maybe if the person in question was a Republican he might get fired and stay fired.
The bigger question for Pittsburgh residents: where is your outrage at this perfidy and why are there no citizens groups demanding change? Unless or until that happens, Pittsburgh’s well-deserved reputation as a union owned and union controlled town will continue with the full and knowing compliance of its residents.
The City can forget meaningful progress in solving its deep-seated problems as long as the culture of public union supremacy reigns.
Comments:
<< Home
Short answer: Taxpayers may become disgusted with union behavors. However, those that are elected by the unions won't be digusted.
Taxpayer outrage and elected official outrage are not the same, in the slightest.
And, the blame goes where? I find it hard to blame the unions. They have a purpose. They have pockets of power. They buy loyalty from certain officials when they can.
Same too for corporate give-a-way types. Millcraft, for example.
Post a Comment
Taxpayer outrage and elected official outrage are not the same, in the slightest.
And, the blame goes where? I find it hard to blame the unions. They have a purpose. They have pockets of power. They buy loyalty from certain officials when they can.
Same too for corporate give-a-way types. Millcraft, for example.
<< Home
