Your Humble Blogger happened to read an actual paper today. One of the things I really like about that experience is that I read a good deal more of the paper than I otherwise would. One of the things I really dislike about that experience is how cranky I get when I read more of the paper than I otherwise would.
In particular, Jeffrey H. Birnbaum had a column on the front of the business section under the header For Labor Unions, Social Security Is A Matter of Clout. In it, he examines Labor’s opposition to Our Only President’s “plan” to shift Social Security savings from Treasury Bonds to speculative stocks. He points out something that I hadn’t thought of, which is that Labor, which has been using pension-fund proxies to engage management at the stockholder level, stands to see its proxies diluted by a flood of new, government-directed, speculation. Corporationdom (or whatever one calls the thing that isn’t Management but Ownership, if you know what I mean) clearly stands to benefit from this flood of new institutional investment, as it is unlikely to come with any new or increased responsibilities. In fact, it wouldn’t shock me to see legislation introduced as part of the package that would expressly prevent the new money from interfering with corporate governance, thus turning it into a lot of lovely votes for the status quo (and against investigating any allegations of wrongdoing on the part of boards or executives). It’s an interesting point, and as I say, one that I hadn’t thought of, and it’s worth pointing it out. So what made me so cranky?
Well, there’s a subtext to the article that offends me deeply. It’s sufficiently sub the text that Mr. Birnbaum could probably deny it, which just makes me crankier. It’s a wink and a handshake between the author and those readers who share a certain worldview, and I don’t share it. And I get all cranky.
In the lead, Mr. Birnbaum notes that Labor’s position. Then he opens the second paragraph by saying “The question is, why? Labor leaders say the president's recommendation endangers the retirement of millions of Americans and that they oppose it for the good of all workers. But there's a lot more to their position than that.” What he’s saying is that the new angle he’s going to report on is in addition to the good-of-all-workers business, but what he’s implying is that the good-of-all-workers business is just horseshit, and that Labor leaders don’t believe that, or care about it. The next paragraph begins “Whatever its merits...” Mr. Birnbaum implies, it seems to me, that Labor would oppose such a policy whatever its merits, and thus its opposition should be, essentially, viewed as being irrelevant to the merits of the policy.
A little later on, he says “First, it would speed the demise of the unions' preferred type of pension—the kind that gives unions the most clout in the corporate world—called defined-benefit funds. They are for the most part controlled by unions and provide set benefits to their retirees.” Again, none of this is false; unions do prefer defined-benefit pensions, such pensions are often controlled by unions (thank goodness), and that control over pensions does give unions some clout in the corporate world. The implication, though, is that Labor prefers defined-benefit plans because of the clout given by that control, when in fact defined-benefit plans are simply better for their members, in cash terms. Further, union control over the pensions is a response to management shenanigans with pensions (and, yes, there is now a rich history of union shenanigans with pensions as well, funny what money can do, innit?), rather than a deliberate strategy to gain clout. Having headed down that path, the unions naturally took advantage of the clout that lies down it, and they would be loathe to lose that, as, of course, such clout translates to benefits for its members. Mr. Birnbaum presents it as clout-seeking, rather than clout-exploiting; he doesn’t seem to give much credence to the idea that unions work for the benefit of their members.
He then quotes the president of the Business Roundtable, who represents the union model as being obsolete, and labor leaders knowing it. Mr. Birnbaum does note that the Business Roundtable and its sponsors would love for labor to lose what clout is has. Why quote from its president, then, particularly a transparently phony analysis of what labor leaders think? The only answer, as far as I can tell, is to further frame this issue as a fight for clout between two adversaries who have interest only in this fight. It’s Labor v. Management, and the actual policy is irrelevant.
Only it is relevant. It matters what happens with people’s money. It matters whether we retain social insurance. It matters whether Labor represents the interests of its members, or only the interests of its leaders. The merits of the policy matter.
What gets me cranky is this notion that to really understand what’s going on, you need to ignore what people actually say, and the ways their policy programs line up (or don’t) with their declared goals and priorities, and only look at the game in terms of clout and power. Yes, clout matters, and it would be silly to ignore that aspect entirely. But in the end, most politicians, most lobbyists, and most voters support policies that they think are right. On the merits. And the more we can talk about the merits, the more we can expect people to make decisions on the merits, the more we can make it clear that the best way to make decisions is on the merits, the more we can expose it when people do make entirely self-serving decisions.
chazak, chazak, v’nitchazek,
-Vardibidian.