Baker/Tisei and the Public-Private Chasm

"Remember Charlie, Remember Baker." -- Billy Joel, Goodnight Saigon

Along with a half-dozen or so fellow Sam Meas supporters/staffers, I just attended the Baker/Tisei "kick-off" event at the VFW here in Lowell.

Both came off as polished speakers who had good things to say about fixing the mess on Beacon Hill. Two big feathers in Mr. Baker's cap are his track record with turnarounds -- first as Bill Weld's whiz kid back in the 1990s, and then again with Harvard Pilgrim.

One of the things he said that certainly struck a chord inside this author's rib cage related to comparisons between the public and private sector -- in tough economic times, the private sector workforce can take a tough thumping while the public sector chugs along or even grows. Specifically, Baker referenced Gov. Patrick recently filling 1300 vacancies in the State Government.

As someone in the hunt for a full-time job right now (thanks to some anticipated training courses being filled to quota and a mobilization getting 'bumped to the right') things look really good on the public side of the house and not so good on the private side.

If I had an MBA, or a JD, or a technical background (i.e. a specific skill like Accounting or Computer Science) things might be very different. In fact, the private sector might be offering double whatever I could command as a GS-11 or a GS-12.

However, I don't, and it doesn't.

So the private sector offers me entry-level type stuff that would MAYBE allow me to meet all my bills each month. But that's without even factoring in the "what-ifs" of car repair, new clothes, birthday presents to shop for, or pesky things that I always leave out of budgets like haircuts and car washes.

Meanwhile, in public sector country, it seems that my qualifications command about $30k more, which, when you divide by 12, sure makes the math work a lot better, with plenty of rainy-day contingency spoken for, not to mention those nice things people like to do, such as Roth IRA contributions or other long-term investments.

Here's why that ought to give the taxpayer cause for concern: The old tradeoff between public and private was this: If you work in the public sector, you're trading in your lower salary for the job security and benefits being offered by Uncle Sam. In other words, you were making a compromise.

Maybe this is just unique to the bad economy, to someone without an applicable advanced degree, or to a veteran who can get an automatic foot in the door on the govvie side, but at least through the eyes of this job seeker, there isn't that compromise. If you're going to offer me 40-hour weeks, great benefits, and robust pay, I'm not seeing the catch.

Things just seem a lot better in the public sector.

In the short-term, that's great for me, but can that really be sustainable in the long-term for the country?

I offer no numbers to back this up, but my hunch is to say 'no way.' The 'something' that's going to have to give is either going to be the availability, pay, pension, or benefits of public sector work.

Texting While Driving -- What I Still Don't Get

This entry is going to be sort of a rehash of comments I've already made on Choosing a Soundtrack and richardhowe.com. I rehash them, however, because the big question I have about TWD remains unanswered: How is this going to work legally?

I heard all the chatter on the radio this morning about the great triumph of common sense in Massachusetts because our legislature got together and passed some tough laws regarding Texting While Driving. There are graduated fines for repeated offenses, there's some new verbiage about minors and cell phones (they can't use 'em while driving, period), and there are even provisions about "receiving a text."

I don't disagree at all. Just like everyone else and their mother, I have long been opposed to Texting While Driving from a safety point of view. And as I've written many times here before (and will again), I am VERY opposed to the idea that a cell phone is a leash. I know the cell is relatively new technology, so I'm still hoping we can return to the days where it was okay not to answer your phone and you didn't have to apologize for it.

I also think those two things are intertwined -- people would be less likely to TWD or Jawjack While Driving if their boss/friend/spouse/partner, etc. were more understanding of the fact that it's we who own our cell phones, and not vice versa.

But off that little soapbox for a second -- What I still don't get is how you can enforce an anti-TWD measure.

Here's why: People use their cell phones, Blackberries, iPhones, iPads, or you name it for myriad reasons. Unless we make ALL of that stuff illegal while driving -- checking the weather, sports scores, news headlines, etc. it seems that anyone pulled over for sending or receiving a text could plausibly say "No, Mr. Officer, I was just sending a fax via my toaster," or whatever other neat thing their iGadget can do. See my point?

This isn't a rhetorical question.

If anyone out there knows this, or knows if it's just an issue of a police officer's discretion, or if the law is really just intended to scare people into not doing it, or for individual State Reps or Senators to say "Look! I did something to promote safety" then let me know.

Natty Guard Propaganda

A quick confession -- whenever procrastination is getting the best of me, I sometimes fall into "YouTube cycles," which involve finding something interesting, watching, and then seeing whatever else pops up afterwards -- rinse, lather, repeat.

I did a double take on this one when I saw the guy at 2:22 -- not only does he look like a son I could have in the future, but he'd be wearing the right nametapes, too..

Quick Thoughts for the Morning

I'm just getting back from a qualification course down in Bourne, but here are four quick thoughts before I head out this fine winter morning:

** State of the Union. As I've written here before, I believe our policy towards gays in the military should be "Don't Ask, Don't Care." It's none of your business whether I prefer the company of a lovely 4'11" Khmer woman, so it ought to be none of my business whose company you prefer, provided you can adhere to the standard UCMJ rules for any sexual activity, which means keeping it out of the workplace, not harassing others, not taking advantage of subordinates, etc.

** Tim Tebow, life, and choice. I heard a woman on TV the other day complaining about how the Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad is an attempt to take away the right of an American woman to have reproductive freedom. Huh? I'll admit that I haven't seen the ad, but let's re-examine terms like 'life' and 'choice' for a moment -- if I understand it right, he's saying that his mother's doctor(s) advised her to terminate the pregnancy, but she listened to her heart and had Tim, who is now a 22 year-old Heisman Trophy winner and NCAA champion. In other words, she chose to have him. It's probably worth keeping in mind that if you say you're pro-choice, that choice should include the freedom to go in either direction with it. Someone reminding you how great that choice can be shouldn't be seen as an attempt to take your rights away.

** YMCAs in Mass. and RI. In Wareham on Monday, I learned about a new YMCA policy -- any member of any YMCA in Massachusetts or Rhode Island can go to any other YMCA for free. The policy is just a couple months old, and it's great for anyone who travels throughout the state for work, or even just might want to work out in both a hometown and an office town.

** On the Turning Away....from mortgages. I caught a news segment on Tuesday about people strategically walking away from their mortgages. For a second, let's put aside all the moral and ethical considerations. Besides the gem of a quote from the guy featured: "An investment is supposed be something that goes up, not down," I'm not sure his logic even made sense. The young husband featured was saying how he could walk away from his underwater house and just rent a similar one for a lower cost, and then save the money back up again to buy a little while down the road. I'll readily confess to not being a home-financing expert, but he might want to reconsider that -- he may feel let down by the real estate market, but renting during that interim period will have a cost that won't come back to help him on tax day or in terms of equity. Plus, if home values go back up, he'll be disappointed all over again, b/c he might be frozen out of the very market he wanted to get into in the first place. And that's all without even considering the seven-year whack his credit score will take if he walks away.

On Not Being 'Mikey'

Seven summers ago, I co-taught a summer school History class at Rindge with a guy named Larry Aaronson.

I haven't kept up with him since and I have no idea if he's even still teaching. (I did, however, use his real name in the hopes that he might Google himself one day and see that someone remembered this lesson for his teacher trainees). One of the many lessons of his that I still remember is about the value of not being a "Mikey."

He was describing his role in the school, but he could've been talking about what happens to any enthusiastic go-getter within an organization who is identified as such: People see someone who appears (or is) willing or even eager to take on new 'collateral duties' and then people start to see that person as a dumping ground for said duties.

"Be willing to take new things on, young padawans, but be careful to avoid the 'Mikey' problem," he warned us.

I had no idea what he was talking about.

"You know, remember that kid Mikey from Life Cereal...his brothers didn't want to try it themselves, so they just push it on him because they know he'll do it."

The lesson was learned and I haven't forgotten it since. Whatever the organization you belong to, or work for, regardless of the size, there is a Mikey somewhere. There may be several. It may be you.

If that's the case, the burden falls squarely on you to push back a bit, because whoever is tasking you may just think you're looking for more to put on your plate, or just thinks you need the work. If you think you're a Mikey, or that you're becoming one, you've got to find your way out of it before you find yourself juggling more balls than you can possibly manage.

That, and don't ever mix pop rocks and soda.

We're Number 335!

Follow this link to see a ranking of Massachusetts' 351 towns and cities ranked by real estate value per capita.

No shocker to see the vacation spots with fancy real estate and small populations out in front, nor to see a couple handfuls' worth of former mill cities bringing up the rear. Still, a very interesting chart.

Employers, Deployers, and Ethics

WARNING: I'm about to ask a question out loud, and then answer it myself.

Is it unethical for a Guardsman or Reservist to take a civilian employment position but not mention during interviews the possibility of an upcoming deployment?

In a word, and emphatically -- NO.

Obviously, there's reason to consider it. It's expensive to recruit new people, to hire them, and to train them. From a firm's point of view, it's probably only *worth it* if they can expect some standard of continuity.

So on the one hand, it seems like being out loud and up front about the way you might see the next few calendar turns unfolding is the right way to go.

However, it's not, and for this very simple reason -- You're never really sure yourself.

You might *think* something's coming. You might plan for it. You might train for it. Shoot, you might even be foolhardy enough to make a calculated bet by *investing time in yourself* while doing some rosy scenario accounting that would make even Jeffrey Skilling or Andrew Fastow blush.

But things can change, and they can change suddenly. It might be best not to count on a C-17 going "wheels up" until the people and vehicles on the tarmac start looking really small.

See my point? If the individual Guardsman or Reservist can't even be sure where they're headed, and when, there's no reasonable expectation that every employer or prospective employer thereof should be privy to every rumor about what might happen.

Besides, you never know if an earthquake might hit in the Caribbean, a tsunami might wash over in the Pacific, or a butterfly might flap its wings in Tokyo. Or when tanks might roll over aspirant NATO members in the Russian "near abroad."

That said, speaking is best done in the conditional future, as opposed to the future perfect.