B4
OPINION
Mountain Views-News Saturday, August 2, 2014
Mountain
Views
News
PUBLISHER/ EDITOR
Susan Henderson
CITY EDITOR
Dean Lee
EAST VALLEY EDITOR
Joan Schmidt
BUSINESS EDITOR
LaQuetta Shamblee
SENIOR COMMUNITY
EDITOR
Pat Birdsall
SALES
Patricia Colonello
626-355-2737
626-818-2698
WEBMASTER
John Aveny
CONTRIBUTORS
Chris Leclerc
Bob Eklund
Howard Hays
Paul Carpenter
Kim Clymer-Kelley
Christopher Nyerges
Peter Dills
Hail Hamilton
Rich Johnson
Merri Jill Finstrom
Lori Koop
Rev. James Snyder
Tina Paul
Mary Carney
Katie Hopkins
Deanne Davis
Despina Arouzman
Greg Welborn
Renee Quenell
Ben Show
Sean Kayden
Marc Garlett
LEFT TURN/RIGHT TURN
GREG Welborn
UNION BADLANDS
HOWARD Hays As I See It
Originally printed in August,
2009. Has anything changed
your way of financial thinking
since then?
With the economic downturn
and the last national election
only just in are rear view
mirrors, there’s still a lot being
written about the sins of Wall Street and
corporate fat cats who have purportedly
abused their customers and their employees.
Interestingly the abuses of union fat cats
directed against the rank and file have
received nary a peep from the national press.
It’s time we focus a little light on these dark
corners of arrogance, abuse and corruption.
Most people don’t understand the
dynamics at work in the ubiquitous pension
plan, but it’s a necessary requirement to
truly comprehend how union leaders have
exceeded in many instances the worst sins
ever imagined from corporate chieftains.
Let’s start with a little pension economics
101. Unlike a 401(k), a pension plan is
not a retirement plan governed by the
contribution that’s made. In a 401(k),
workers contribute what they want –
sometimes matched, sometime not, by a
corporate contribution. The employees
get to direct the investment choices in the
plan, and at the end of their employment,
whatever their 401(k) has grown to is the
amount they get for their retirement.
In a pension plan, on the other hand, the
contribution is not the defining element.
Rather, the plan sponsor – usually the
employer – defines a benefit they agree they
will pay to every worker who participates
upon that worker’s retirement. For example,
an employer might say that they are willing
to pay 80% of the employee’s last year’s
salary as a lifetime benefit. The employee
counts on the fact that when he retires, there
will be enough assets in the pension plan
to generate sufficient income to make the
promised payments for the rest of his or her
life. It’s a pretty simple concept.
To make it work, the plan sponsor must
make enough contributions each year to
insure that there will be enough assets to
make the promised benefit payments. The
federal government regulates these plans
through the Pension Benefit Guarantee
Corporation (PBGC) so that there will in
fact be enough assets in the plan. From
year to year, the PBGC calculates how much
should be in each plan and then determines
whether the assets in the plan actually equal
100% of this necessary amount or 90%, or
80%, etc.
There is some latitude extended so that
sponsors can manage their cashflow.
Generally speaking the PBGC allows pension
plans to be funded to the 80% level before it
considers the plan to be “endangered”, and at
65% it’s considered “critical”. So there’s the
background against which I want to review
how corporate America has performed vs.
union America. You see, employers aren’t
the only ones who can sponsor a pension
plan. Most unions sponsor a pension plan
for the workers they represent. As such,
union management serves in the same role
relative to their pension plans as corporate
management does relative to their pension
plans. So who’s doing a better job?
As we review the most recent government
data regarding pension plans and their
funding levels, it’s with some degree of
irony that we find that corporate sponsored
pension plans are on average well above the
80% level. It is the union sponsored and
controlled plans that we find significant
levels of under funding. The country’s
largest union, the SEIU reported that their
pension plan was at 74% of its fully funded
level. Thirteen of the largest Teamsters’
plan clocked in collectively at 59%. Twenty
six of the United Food Workers Union were
at 58%. These are just a few examples of a
trend which permeates the union pension
plan world.
Sadly, this isn’t the only place where
arrogance and ill treatment at the hands of
union leaders can be found. In many of these
union organizations – taking the SEIU as
an example, the benefits accorded the union
officials are substantially better than those
negotiated for the actual union members.
In the SEIU, union officers get a 3% cost of
living increase, the members get none. The
officers qualify for an early pension at 50,
but members can’t retire
early with a pension.
As a conservative, I don’t
easily relegate people into
prejudiced categories
like “management”
(good) and “labor”
(bad). I believe that
power corrupts and that
absolute power corrupts
absolutely. Accordingly, I am as suspicious
of the fat cat corporate manager as I am of
the labor union fat cat. Unless there are
some checks and balances in the system,
people with power will tend to abuse those
below them without power. Our free market
system is the best system designed to build
in those checks and balances. In a free
market, if management of any organization
abuses its workers or customers, then
those workers or customers will gradually
– or quickly – migrate elsewhere, and the
offending organization will fail or be forced
to take corrective action. All this works
beautifully within a system of maximum
personal freedom.
Unfortunately, when the government
interferes and restricts the movement
of workers or customers, or prevents
competition from punishing offending
organizations, you find that more people
suffer at the hands of incompetence and/
or corruption. The reason that more
labor union pension plans are severely
underfunded than corporate pension plans
is because the government has in one way or
another restricted worker’s freedom to join
or not join a union.
In those instances where getting a job
means you have to join the union, it’s not
surprising to find that union management
doesn’t treat its own rank and file very
well. It’s only human nature. If a union
boss doesn’t have to pay attention to his
members’ concerns or doesn’t have to fight
for their membership because it’s mandated
by law, the union boss tends to take members
for granted. Why would we be surprised
to learn that those same union bosses
have allowed the pension plans to become
severely under-funded? What recourse do
the members actually have?
In a corporate pension plan, employees
aren’t forced to work for that company and
aren’t forced to stay in the plan. They aren’t
forced to make contributions they would
rather not make as they are in unions. As
we consider whether to change our laws so
as to shift the balance of power away from
corporate “management” toward union
“labor”, we might consider that government
actions forcing anyone to work for anyone is
a sure fire recipe for disaster.
As a conservative, I’m all for a level playing
field, and I’m absolutely ambivalent toward
unions and union membership. If workers
want to form or join a union, that’s O.K. by
me. If workers want to quit a union and
work without representation because they
trust their bosses, that’s O.K. with me. If
workers don’t want to make contributions
to a union’s political action committee,
that’s O.K. with me. And if workers want
to cast their vote for or against the union in
private using a secret ballot system, that’s
exactly what they should be allowed to do.
Conservatives don’t see the world through
the prejudiced lens of management vs.
labor. We don’t attribute virtue to one
side at the expense of attributing ill intent
to the other. We are objective in our
assessments of right vs. wrong and steadfast
in support of maintaining a level playing
field for everyone without government favor
showered upon one party at the expense of
another. In the weeks, months and years to
come, there will be plenty of opportunities
for these principles to be implemented and
defended, ironically enough in steadfast
opposition to the counter productive
policies of the Obama administration which
came to power promising support for the
common man.
Gregory J. Welborn is an independent
opinion columnist. He writes and speaks
frequently on political, economic and social
issues. His columns have appeared in
publications such as The Los Angeles Daily
News, The Orange County Register, The Wall
Street Journal and USA Today. He can be
reached at g.welborn@mtnviewsnews.com.
The more things
change the
more they stay the
same. Read Howard
and Greg’s 2009
article and see if you
agree!
This was printed in
August 2009 with
but today are not
the same issues with
us in other parts of
the world?
In 1992 I walked
my precinct for
presidential candidate Bill Clinton
and U.S. Senate candidate Dianne
Feinstein. My neighborhood
was largely Hispanic, and in one
household I was invited in to discuss
the contests. I was asked what I knew
of Feinstein’s opponent. Tailoring my
remarks to the audience, I explained
that the Republican in the race was
one of those who blamed most
everything - crime, the economy,
unemployment, failing schools -
on Mexican immigrants. My host
nodded in recognition, saying that
as one whose family had roots in
Mexico he found such scapegoating
to be divisive and unacceptable.
“Besides”, he added, “it’s those damn
Salvadorans who’re causing all the
problems”.
I’m a bit defensive on that subject;
a favorite family member is the
beautiful bride a cousin brought
back from El Salvador following
a stint in the Peace Corps. Since
moving to Southern California, I’ve
developed an appreciation for the
contributions the Salvadorans, Costa
Ricans, Nicaraguans, Guatemalans,
Panamanians and Hondurans
(almost forgot Belizeans) have
made to the fabric of our region -
almost 400,000 with roots in Central
America residing in L.A. County. In
a nation of immigrants where we all
have stories to tell, I’ve wondered
about the stories of those from that
handful of countries which, for
most of the last century, comprised
the most troubled region in our
hemisphere. I wonder how they
feel about a chain of trendy clothing
stores being named “Banana
Republic”.
The term “banana republic”
originated in a short story by O.
Henry, used to describe a fictional
country inspired by a trip he’d taken
to Honduras in the late 1890’s.
Prior to that, the main allure of
Honduras to outsiders was its silver,
which drew Spanish conquistadors
centuries before. After the turn of
the last century, it was bananas - and
the Cuyamel Fruit Co., later merging
with United Fruit Co., and Standard
Fruit Co. (now known as Dole
Foods) basically controlling the land,
the wealth, the economies and the
governments of Honduras and its
Central American neighbors for the
next fifty years. Major urban areas
became virtual “company towns”.
Companies used the leaders and
militaries of host countries to crush
populist opposition movements,
and to stage cross-border incursions
against neighboring governments
threatening to exercise more
domestic control over their affairs.
In this they often had the support of
the U.S. military - seeking to protect
not only the companies’ interests, but
also our own interest in the Panama
Canal Zone.
In the second half of the century,
armed intervention continued not
so much on behalf of the banana
barons but rather as proxy battles
in the Cold War. Democratically
elected leaders, such as those in
Guatemala who said they drew
inspiration from FDR’s New Deal,
were overthrown in CIA-backed
coups. Wealthy oligarchies and
corrupt dictatorships that protected
U.S. corporate interests also served as
a bulwark against left-leaning reform
movements. Instability in Honduras
peaked in the 1980’s when,
after the Sandinistas took
power in Nicaragua in 1979
and won a popular election
in 1983, the U.S.-backed
Contras, funded by arms
sales to Iran and drug sales
through Panama, used Honduras as
a staging area for its attacks on the
Nicaraguan government. In return
for U.S. aid, Honduran officials
acquiesced as its military joined in
the notorious Battalion 316, whose
members were taught the techniques
of abduction, suppression, torture
and the “disappearing” of civilians
by Pinochet’s henchmen from
Argentina and the CIA. All this
history, though, is so-last-century;
Central America is now a region
of stable democracies and peaceful
transitions of power - that is until
last month.
On June 28, Honduran President
Manuel Zelaya was abducted by
the military and flown into exile -
forbidden to re-enter the country.
No doubt actions he’d already taken
were perceived as threatening to
the ruling elite, such as raising the
minimum wage by 60%, increasing
teachers’ salaries and improving
access to education. The justification
offered, that Zelaya was attempting
an illegal revision of the Constitution
in order to run for re-election,
didn’t make sense. The measure he
proposed was a non-binding opinion
poll to gauge public sentiment on
whether to have a referendum on
reforming the Constitution. The
referendum would appear on the
same November ballot where voters
would choose Zelaya’s successor,
who’d take office in January.
Ironically, Honduran Congressman
Roberto Micheletti, installed by the
military to replace Zelaya, in 1985
was involved in an unsuccessful
effort to revise the Constitution in
order to - you guessed it - allow the
then-president to run for re-election.
A distressingly familiar litany of
events followed; journalists and
opposition figures detained, a
media blackout, military and police
firing at peaceful protesters (tens
of thousands in a country of 7.5
million, with at least two killed). The
Organization of American States and
the U.N. General Assembly promptly
called for the “immediate and
unconditional return” of President
Zelaya. Our own government
seemed to kind of hope that maybe
things would sort of work themselves
out.
It might be our history; many still
in Washington remain nostalgic
for the days when the legitimacy
of a government was assessed
not by its popular support but by
the extent it allowed human and
natural resources to be exploited by
our corporate interests. There are
personal connections; Honduran
coup leader Gen. Romeo Vasquez
is a product of our own School of
the Americas, joining an alumni
comprised of leaders of military
coups and right-wing death squads.
Campaign advisors for Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton in last year’s
presidential campaign are now
lobbying on behalf of the “new”
Honduran government.
It’s comforting to cling to the past,
but now in the 21st century it’s
time to be able to state clearly and
unequivocally that the overthrow
of any democratically elected
government by a military coup
is unacceptable. It’s time to stop
regarding any nation, especially
those in Central America, as a
“banana republic”.
Mountain Views News
has been adjudicated as
a newspaper of General
Circulation for the County
of Los Angeles in Court
Case number GS004724:
for the City of Sierra
Madre; in Court Case
GS005940 and for the
City of Monrovia in Court
Case No. GS006989 and
is published every Saturday
at 80 W. Sierra Madre
Blvd., No. 327, Sierra
Madre, California, 91024.
All contents are copyrighted
and may not be
reproduced without the
express written consent of
the publisher. All rights
reserved. All submissions
to this newspaper become
the property of the Mountain
Views News and may
be published in part or
whole.
Opinions and views
expressed by the writers
printed in this paper do
not necessarily express
the views and opinions
of the publisher or staff
of the Mountain Views
News.
Mountain Views News is
wholly owned by Grace
Lorraine Publications,
Inc. and reserves the right
to refuse publication of
advertisements and other
materials submitted for
publication.
Letters to the editor and
correspondence should
be sent to:
Mountain Views News
80 W. Sierra Madre Bl.
#327
Sierra Madre, Ca.
91024
Phone: 626-355-2737
Fax: 626-609-3285
email:
mtnviewsnews@aol.com
OUT TO PASTOR A Weekly Religion Column by Rev. James Snyder
Things I have learned in my lifetime
In celebrating my recent birthday, I
found myself caught up in a case of
nostalgia. I never imagined I would
really get this old. Not that I am old,
mind you, but I have reached the
point in life I never thought I would when I was younger.
Had I known I would get this old, I would have saved some
of the energy I wasted during my teenage years.
How was I to know that as you got older your supply of
energy began diminishing?
When I was younger, I could not sit still for long and no
matter where I went, I ran. It was impossible for me just to
walk. Often my mother chided me by saying, “Slow down,
young man.” But I never could. I have finally come to the
point where I am in harmony with my mother’s desire. The
only problem is, I am not a young man anymore.
Today, I can sit in my easy chair for hours and not even
move. I keep a little mirror on the stand next to my chair so
my wife can periodically check to see if I am still breathing.
Often, the only indication of life is the occasional snoring.
One thing I have learned in growing older is that my eyes
are not quite what they used to be. For example, the mailbox
used to be rather close to the front door of our house. Now, I
can barely see it from the front door and it takes over an hour
to reach it by walking. To be truthful, halfway to the mailbox
I have to pause and catch my breath.
And, when I look at my checkbook, I can barely see to
the end of the month. When I was young, I used to hear the
saying, “A penny saved is a penny earned.” Now, my eyes are
so bad, I cannot see anything to buy for a penny.
Not only are my eyes going, but my hearing is not quite
what it used to be when I was young. It is not as bad as it
might seem. There is a good side to diminished hearing.
When I am in a crowd with people talking, I can sit back,
smile, nod my head occasionally and not have to be bored
with what everybody is saying.
Experience has taught me that people are not really
interested in hearing what I have to say. Rather, they want
me listening to what they have to say. Usually, people have a
lot to say and all they require are two ears. It does not have to
be ears that hear, just ears that appear.
Most things heard in such circumstances are not worth
hearing. Perhaps that is the genius of our ears. In aging,
they develop a little bit of wisdom and after a while, they
just give up, not hearing anything really worth hearing. I
cannot remember the last time I heard something under
such circumstances worth hearing the first time, let alone
remembering.
This brings me to my memory. The best thing about
memory is, you can remember things the way you want to
remember them. After all, it is your memory and it should
be up to you to remember what you want. My memory has a
way of bringing out the positive to the absolute exclusion of
the negative. And who wants to dwell on the negative?
Whoever said you cannot live in the past is probably not
old enough to have any past worth remembering. And the
marvelous thing about remembering things in the past is
that you can remember them as you like. It is your version
of the past. Some people write journals, I like to trust my
memory.
As my memory has aged, it has become better, just like
a fine wine. In fact, my memory is so good I can distinctly
remember things that never happened. And the details
I remember are simply astounding. Each time I recount a
memory I remember new details.
The Gracious Mistress of the Parsonage has quite a
different take on all of this. She remembers everything
that actually happened. She has a photographic memory,
whereas I have, according to her, a problematic memory. At
her discretion, she can marshal all of the facts of the incident
in the order in which it happened. Usually her memory
throws my memory in a different light.
No matter how I recount my memory, she always has
some correction to it. More than once, she has claimed I
stretched the truth. But I believe, if the truth cannot handle
some stretching what good is it in the first place? If it is so
fragile and cannot handle a little bit of stretching, I am not
sure it is worth remembering.
As my body gets weaker, my memory gets stronger.
In the Old Testament, David spoke often of the importance
of memory. “I remember the days of old; I meditate on all thy
works; I muse on the work of thy hands” (Psalms 143:5 KJV).
For David, in his old age his memory brought him a great
deal of comfort. “I have been young, and now am old; yet
have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging
bread” (Psalms 37:25 KJV).
My goal is to live each day in such a way that years down
the road I will have a good memory.
Rev. James L. Snyder is pastor of the Family of God
Fellowship, PO Box 831313, Ocala, FL 34483. He lives with
his wife, Martha, in Silver Springs Shores. Call him at 1-866-
552-2543 or e-mail jamessnyder2@att.net or website www.
jamessnyderministries.com.
Mountain Views News
Mission Statement
The traditions of
community news-
papers and the
concerns of our readers
are this newspaper’s
top priorities. We
support a prosperous
community of well-
informed citizens.
We hold in high
regard the values
of the exceptional
quality of life in our
community, including
the magnificence of
our natural resources.
Integrity will be our
guide.
Mountain Views News 80 W Sierra Madre Blvd. No. 327 Sierra Madre, Ca. 91024 Office: 626.355.2737 Fax: 626.609.3285 Email: editor@mtnviewsnews.com Website: www.mtnviewsnews.com
|