Lobster Or 'Porcupine?' Malloy In Hot Water In Maine

My latest column for CTNewsJunkie.com:

Should we be surprised that former Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy is alienating the good people of Maine with his arrogance and sharp elbows? In his post-gubernatorial gig as chancellor of the University of Maine system, Malloy began to make enemies right out of the starting blocks.

To wit:

Faculty at two of the system’s universities have passed resolutions of no-confidence in Malloy, while students at a third staged a 24-hour sit-in. These actions, which amount to a tsunami of bad news for Malloy, all happened within the span of three days this month but have been brewing almost from the start of Malloy’s tenure. The reasons for his troubles might seem rather simple but, as with all things Malloy, the reality is complicated.

Read more ...

Good read, Terry. I was unaware of Malloy’s current travails in Maine, so thanks. You remind me of a few things I wrote about our former governor:https://t.co/vuVYp5fxtt

— Barth Keck (@keckb33) May 23, 2022

Unemployment Benefits For Striking Workers? No, It’s Not The Onion

My latest column for CTNewsJunkie.com:

Sometimes life imitates art or, in this case, it imitates some imaginary parody. To wit, the knuckle-headed idea of progressives in the state Senate to make striking workers eligible for unemployment benefits:

Is it possible to pull a muscle from shaking your head in disbelief? I’m about to find out because the state Senate has pulled a move that defies gravity, logic, and all good common sense ...

You could probably count on one hand the number of issues on which I agree with right-wing Republican Rep. Eric Berthel, but he correctly pointed out the cognitive dissonance of the bill’s misguided supporters.

"That is one of the tenets of being able to collect unemployment – you have to be ready to go back to work and they’re not because they’re on strike," Berthel told CTNewsJunkie's Hugh McQuaid.

Read more ...

"The bottom line is the bill sends a dreadful message to companies that are considering relocating or starting up here," @terrycowgill writes. "The burdens will fall on the little people of the state’s struggling private sector. Sweet." #smallbiz #emplaw https://t.co/F9TpBZALIP

— CBIA (@CBIANews) April 25, 2022

Hospital Wars Intensify As Yale New Haven Plans To Buy Three More Facilities

My latest column for CTNewsJunkie.com:

There's been a lot of activity in Connecticut's healthcare industry lately. The mergers, acquisitions and lawsuits are enough to make your head spin. 

The latest move -- Yale New Haven's proposed acquisition of three community hospitals and their related operations currently owned by Prospect Medical Holdings -- raises questions.

To wit:

The three facilities, Rockville General Hospital, Manchester Memorial Hospital, and Waterbury Hospital, will revert to nonprofit status if the deal is approved by the state Office of Health Care Access ...

On its face, this looks like a promising development. As the Courant has pointed out, a ProPublica investigation from 2020 found the Prospect system, which includes some 17 hospitals and more than 165 clinics and outpatient centers, “was riddled with poor and unsanitary conditions in its hospitals and lawsuits against [its] hospitals for fraudulent Medicare and Medicaid claims.” Not surprisingly, a private equity group, Leonard Green & Partners, owns a majority stake in Prospect.

Read more ...

Terry Cowgill looks at the pros and cons of the latest three-facility skirmish in the state's health system wars. #opinion https://t.co/rvFTN8i6Qg

— ctnewsjunkie (@ctnewsjunkie) February 14, 2022

Whither Labor?

Click here for my latest for CTNewsJunkie.com: "Whither Labor? Withering on the Vine?"

What kind of future does organized labor have in this country and in Connecticut specifically? I don't think it's particularly bright and the unions themselves are partly to blame.

Too often there is a failure on the part of public sector workers to understand that the resources to fund the government come from the private sector. And when total compensation packages in government outstrip those in the non-government sector, then the system becomes unsustainable.

I'm getting hammered in the comment thread by union trolls. No surprise there. :-)

Jobs, Jobs, But Only If They're Union

Great column today in the NYT by Joe Nocera. I sometimes disagree with Nocera, as when he famously called Tea Partiers who objected to raising the debt ceiling "terrorists" (yet later apologized for it). But I loved his piece two years ago on the utter absurdity that is the U.S. Postal Service.

Now he has drawn more attention to an absolute outrage -- the chicanery emanating from the National Labor Relations Board in the matter of Boeing. If you want a refresher on my views, see a post I did in June.

Essentially, Nocera makes the indisputable point that the Obama administration is standing in the way of job creation in South Carolina in order to appease organized labor back in the state of Washington. Could someone explain how this is helpful to the economy?

I know. Both political parties accuse the other of lacking ideas in the area of job creation, because -- frankly -- no one really seems to know what to do to get this economy moving again. Contrary to Republican dogma, Obama can counter the claim that tax increases kill jobs. After all, look to other vibrant economic eras that saw robust growth in spite of significant tax increases.

But here is an example of an American corporation that wants to invest billions of dollars in this country's manufacturing sector. And there is simply no way to get around the fact that the actions of the NLRB are designed to punish a right-to-work state and reward big labor in another state. And the cost? Thousands of jobs, Mr. President! Don't you get it? Or don't you care?

The headline on Nocera's column linked on RCP says it all: "The Boeing Case Should Embarrass Democrats."

Politicians and Their Bedmates

Click here for my latest at CTNewsJunkie.com.

I can't help but be amused at the state of affairs in my state. Ex-governor and convicted felon John Rowland, a Republican, has called current Democratic Gov. Dan Malloy a "pathological liar."

Meanwhile, Malloy is laying off thousands of workers, which torks off labor unions and lefties everywhere:

I’d say if you’re a new Connecticut governor and you succeed in pissing off Rowland, the libertarian Yankee Institute, SEBAC and strong progressives like [Jonathan] Pelto, then you must be doing something right — buyer’s remorse or not.

Laboring To Defend The Indefensible

In my days a commentator, I've written a lot about overreaching government. But right now I'm hard pressed to think of any recent example of government tyranny that exceeds what the National Labor Relations Board is doing to Boeing.

The NLRB has filed a complaint against Boeing alleging the company has engaged in illegal retaliation against its labor unions in the state of Washington by electing to locate a new non-union plant in South Carolina. Now, one would think that illegal retaliation would have to take the form of punishing union workers already on the payroll or closing an existing plant, firing its workers and relocating it out of reach of the unions (federal law rightly prohibits management from punishing workers for striking).

The plants in Washington have been plagued by strikes, so in needing to build a new fleet of 787 Dreamliners, Boeing elected to locate a second Dreamliner plant in a right-to-work state where the risk of labor disruptions is minimal. In its public statements, the company was quite candid about its motives.

In taking this action, Boeing did not cut one job from its unionized work force in Washington. Instead, thousands of additional jobs will come to Charleston. And this constitutes "punishment" against union workers on the West Coast?

Perhaps the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers would prefer that Boeing moved those jobs to Mexico? Truth be told, the union doesn't care where the new plant is located if its workers aren't dues-paying.

And we wonder why so many U.S. corporations are opening plants in China and India. Oh, I forgot. Boeing has already done some of that. Heavy industry is already dying in this country; if the NLRB keeps this up, the final nail will be poised to enter the coffin.

What does President Obama think about all this? He won't say, preferring, his spokesman Jay Carney said, to remain neutral in labor disputes. As Col. Potter would say, "Horse hockey!" Obama had no problem wading into the intense struggle in Wisconsin between public employee labor unions and Gov. Scott Walker.

"This is neither good law nor good business," the Washington Post thundered in an editorial. Amen.

Democrats used to insist, with some justification, that the Bush administration routinely politicized the Justice Department. Now the Obama administration, which sailed into Washington on the support of organized labor, is doing the same thing with the NLRB. Shame on him.

Love's Labour's Lost

"Kill the bill!"

Update: All the Dems in the Wisconsin legislature are hiding out in Rockford, Illinois, to prevent a vote on the legislation. Shades of Texas circa 2003 ...

* * * * *

It's either a great time for taxpayers or a sad day for American labor, depending on your point of view.

Angry public-sector workers are protesting at the capitol in Madison, Wisc., where newly elected Republican Gov. Scott Walker is proposing legislation that would significantly weaken government unions. The Cheesehead protest follows similar outcries over other governors who are also playing tough with the unions. Chris Christie (R-NJ), Andrew Cuomo (D-NY), Jerry Brown (D-CA) and even our own Dan Malloy (D-CT) have also asked for significant concessions.

I'm heartened that even Democratic governors are active in telling the unions that public-sector compensation packages are unsustainable. Let me be clear: I do not think public employees have salaries that are terribly out-of line, adjusted for education levels, with the private sector. The problem lies mostly in the legacy costs of state workers who contribute relatively little to their health insurance and pension funds and, regardless of market conditions, receive guaranteed benefits, allowing them to retire at an age that makes private-sector workers insanely jealous.

Even worse, in Connecticut and New York, retirement benefits are based on the last two years of an employee's gross wages (including overtime). I've spoken with retired state troopers here in Connecticut who tell me they piled on the overtime their last two years on the job (with the encouragement of their supervisors) so that they can retire for life on six-figures or close to it.

And of course, there is the infamous case of the Yonkers cop who, thanks to overtime spiking, retired at 44 on a more than $100,000 annual pension after working only 20 years with a top base salary of $74,000. This has got to stop.

Having said that, I think Wisconsin's Walker is going too far. He wants to strip the public unions of their rights to collectively bargain for all but their wages. And if they wanted a raise greater than the consumer price index, then such an increase would have to be approved by taxpayers at a statewide referendum. Plus, he conveniently exempted two typically Republican constituencies — police and firefighters' unions — from that very requirement. Hmmm ...

But any change in pension benefits will only result in savings many years down the line. Right now, the unions will have to either make significant wage and benefit concessions or face huge lay-offs. Given their track records so far, the union bosses would prefer lay-offs. So be it.

P.S. On the way home from shuttling one of my children, I heard an NPR reporter refer to the proposed Wisconsin legislation as "anti-union." Couldn't it just as plausibly be called "pro-taxpayer?"

An Old Acquaintance Is Vindicated

Greg Carlson
Courtesy of LoHud.com

Anyone out there remember Greg Carlson, the former business manager at the Webutuck School District and a resident of Falls Village for many years?

While I was editor of The Millerton News in 1999, Carlson left Webutuck, landing a plum job as assistant superintendent for finance at the Byram Hills Central School District, where IBM's corporate headquarters are located in Westchester County. With his departure from the tiny and acrimonious Webutuck, Carlson got a huge dose of prestige and a big raise. Seven years later, he found himself suspended (with pay) for a variety of bogus reasons, but I've just learned that he was vindicated in June.

I suppose that — in and of itself — wouldn't be major news. But the Byram Hills school district spent a staggering $1.1 million in an effort to rid itself of Carlson. This includes Carlson's salary while was suspended, the wages of his replacement for four years, plus $160,000 in legal fees. After all that taxpayer money spent in the futile effort to fire Carlson, Byram Hills was forced to offer him his job back and Carlson strolled back into his office six months ago.

I was initially shocked at the charges, which included insubordination, disloyalty and malfeasance. Turns out the first two charges were based on a telephone call Carlson had placed — taped without his knowledge — in which he made a disparaging remark about the superintendent to an on-leave employee whom Carlson thought had been wronged.

As for malfeasance, the Byram Hills Board of Education found a handful of directives — out of hundreds he'd given over the years — that Carlson had failed to perform or follow up on. In a word, school officials wanted to fire Carlson because he had sided privately with a fellow employee whom they had screwed.

I'm sure some of you will argue that Carlson's case illustrates the value of labor unions of the sort that represent school administrators such as Carlson. But my reading of Carlson's case, as presented in The Journal News, is that even without the union he probably would have had a good case for a wrongful termination suit.

The difference is that battling the union — and the protections it provides its members — wound up costing Westchester County taxpayers a lot more than settling a wrongful termination suit for, say, one or two year's salary.

Instead, the Byram Hills school board paid Carlson to do nothing for four years, paid the wages and benefits for his replacement during that time and provided a gravy train for a pricey Westchester law firm. Moreover, since Carlson returned, they have downgraded his job and kept his replacement on the payroll. So unless and until they can come to some accommodation with Carlson, it looks like they will continue to pay two people to do one job.

While in Millerton, I interviewed Carlson several times and found him to be very professional, articulate and knowledgeable about finance. Before moving out of town a few years ago, Carlson chaired the Falls Village Water Commission. He did not respond to a message from me seeking comment about this episode. Under the circumstances, I can't say that I blame him.

A Mob of a Different Color

How bizarre is it when news accounts of rioting in Europe describe the frenzied protesters as an "anti-government mob?" Is that an accurate description? The criminals setting fire to banks and murdering their fellow citizens are public-sector workers. In other words, they're a "government mob" -- plain and simple.

I was reminded of that image when I noticed this morning  that officials in several European nations are bracing for mayhem in anticipation of widespread strikes by public-sector workers. A number of  labor leaders as well as the head of the European Socialists party howled in outrage at the proposed cuts in public-sector spending. And the only solution they seemed to be offering for the crisis was to tax the banks.

That, combined with today's Thomas Friedman column in the NYT, got me to thinking about people who complain loudly about perceived problems but offer no viable solution. Friedman, who usually irritates me to no end, nonetheless did a commendable job of boiling the noisiest and most incoherent faction of the Tea Party down to its essence. He calls them the Tea Kettle Party -- just a bunch of alienated folks loudly blowing off steam to little effect (other than generating lots of cable news coverage!).

I'd say the government mobs in Europe display much of the same tendencies, although to be fair, the Tea Partiers appear to be far less violent. Still, both sides are in high dudgeon but are at a loss to offer any long-term solutions to systemic governmental and economic problems. Actually, I'd say they're in denial.

The Tea Partiers think we can cut taxes yet again, take a meat axe to the federal budget and everything will be fine. The government mobs think Europeans can simply tax and spend their way to prosperity -- the mob's prosperity, I guess.

And then there's would-be U.S. Sen. Dick Blumenthal. He thinks we can sue our way to prosperity, but ah, that's another matter entirely ...

Gender Bender

If the Obama administration wants to lurch to the center in advance of the midterm elections and in preparation for an Obama re-election campaign in 2012, it had better reconsider this harebrained scheme to enforce gender pay equity in the workplace.

Pleasantly named the Paycheck Fairness Act, the bill would require employers to offer equal pay for equal work. Here's how the conservative columnist George Will described it:

It would further enrich a Democratic constituency — trial lawyers — by saying that differences in pay between men and women cannot be based on differences of education, training, and experience unless there is a "business necessity" — an invitation to litigation.

The only public case for the act that I've seen was penned by White House congressional lobbyist Valerie Jarrett in The Washington Post. Essentially, Jarrett insists that it's not fair that women make, on average, 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man.

Nowhere, though, does Jarrett try to look seriously for the causes of this disparity. She simply assumes that the wage difference is a result of gender discrimination.

Over the decades since women entered workforce en masse, there is no denying that discrimination played a role in keeping them down. Heck, just watch an episode of Mad Men or ask someone who was around 50 years ago when women earned 59 cents in relation to men.

But it is equally undeniable that we have made significant progress since that time. And what about the choices women make? If a woman takes five years off to raise her family, should she return making the same amount as a comparable man who has been toiling away at the company all that time? For Jarrett, the answer seems to be yes.

If a man were to take that same time off, then he is the one who should come back making less, but of course, that rarely happens because traditional gender roles mitigate against it.

A Call For Sacrifice — And Not Just From 'The Rich'

On this Labor Day, I feel fortunate to have a good job with decent pay and wonderful people to work with. Of course, not all Americans are so lucky. And now as the federal government and its states grapple with a fiscal crisis that grows uglier by the week, organized labor is being asked to make some sacrifices.

I'm no great fan of Andrew Cuomo, the New York gubernatorial candidate, but he has written a fairly brave piece in the Daily News today about the need for public employees unions to sacrifice for the good of the state.

The op-ed piece is short on specifics but calls for the unions to show the vision and selflessness that they did during the mid-1970s, when NYC almost declared bankruptcy and organized labor rose to the occasion with wage freezes and other concessions.

But those same unions haven't showed such great vision this time around. New York State United Teachers (NYSUT), for example, thinks the solution lies in increasing taxes "on the wealthy," while engaging in business-as-usual for its members' wages and benefits.

What those educators do not realize is that NYS is already extraordinarily dependent on taxes paid by the high-wage earners on Wall Street. The near-collapse of the financial services sector in 2008-09 is one of the main reasons why the state's in such a terrible bind in the first place.

NYSUT's position on eliminating the state's $15 billion deficit seems to be: "We're not giving an inch. Let's raise taxes on everyone who earns more than teachers. Then the state will have plenty of cash." Of course, it's easy to spend other people's money. The only fair and equitable way to get out of this fiscal mess is to require sacrifices from everyone.

Here in Connecticut, where we face a projected deficit of almost $4 billion next year, I am willing to pay increased taxes if that's the only way to climb out of our hole. But in order to have a stake in fiscal responsibility for the foreseeable future, everyone must contribute.

After all, it's very easy to advocate for higher spending if someone else is going to pay for it. Just ask NYSUT. Heck, just ask my kids. They do it every day.