Private companies generally have to provide some sort of service in
exchange for the cash they earn. Muni doesn't, really. UPS exists to
make a profit for its owners, sure, but they do need to provide service
in exchange for the money they make, don't they? So, to that end, they
provide a fairly reliable system for moving packages from one place to
another. Not because of their pride in doing so, but because doing so
attracts customers who have choices. Exactly what about that is
"hysterical hyperbole"?
Muni employees have no competition and get paid whether or not service
happens.
> _Somebody_ negotiated those rules: the problem is political, and the
> fix must be political. The negotiators just got away with as much as
> they could -- "enlightened self-interest" and all that Adam Smith
> malarkey. Many of Muni's work rules are ridiculous,
> counter-productive and debilitating; but holding all bus drivers
> solely to blame for a top-to-bottom dysfunctional organization where
> such rules have been allowed to take root -- with the active collusion
> of the highest elected office in the city -- is not only unreasonable
> but politically inept.
Right, someone did. Emilio Cruz did, and doesn't shoulder a proper
share of the blame for doing so. He did so because city employee unions
were major supporters of the Brown campaign and provided considerable
resources to same.
> Remarkably, the left in San Francisco vociferously opposes any real
> change to Muni's labor environment. The idea of people making
> $20,000/year being unable to get to their work on time, getting written
> up and maybe fired because the bus was late, is less troublesome to them
> than the idea that a $70,000/year Muni driver might actually be held
> accountable for the quality and level of service s/he provides. I
> suppose that's one way to redistribute wealth.
>
> This sort of untrue and hysterical hyperbole is exactly the best way
> to ensure that your ideas are ignored.
Oh, cut the crap about "hysterical hyperbole." That statement is quite
accurate.
> PS I Was A Teen-Aged Libertarian growing up in unionized Australia;
> moving to this country showed me there are worse ways of doing things.
Personally, I'm far from being a libertarian. It is because I really do
believe that government should provide certain services that I want to
see them delivered well and efficiently. If government doesn't deliver
services well and efficiently, eventually the people who don't want the
government to do anything at all except maintain a large enough army to
secure fossil fuels from foreign lands will prevail. Badly-run
government services enhance cynicism about government generally and add
strength to real libertarians who would be just as happy to see
government reduced to almost nothing.
One reason a national guarantee of basic health care (which I support)
didn't pass in 1993 and provoked a dramatic backlash in the 1994
elections is because the majority, who have health insurance and don't
think they ever have to worry about being without it, got very nervous
about the prospect of having the same people who can't run buses on time
deciding whether or not they need surgery. As awful as many parts of
our private health care system are, they feared government even more.
Why? Because the opponents knew they were cynical about government and
pushed the right buttons.
Those who want more government would do more for their cause by getting
government to do its existing task set well than by arguing that private
industry is horrible and tyrannical, too.
-- Daniel