In the book of Matthew (the American Standard Version), chapter 25, verses 41-45, Jesus says the following:
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 for I was hungry, and ye did not give me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink;
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not unto me.
We live in an era where correcting social and economic problems is an imperative. Going all the way back to my childhood, when segregation was an evil that had to be cured, we have relied on to government programs to effect social change. Hunger, homelessness, unequal education, unequal access to employment, and now medical care all are now or have been on the government's agenda for resolution in one way or another. Whether the individual has abdicated his or her personal responsibilty as prescribed by Jesus above, or an action agenda has been usurped by politicians seeking a permanent majority is arguable. Whatever the case, the result in today's political process is a loud call for a solution from the government outward to "recipients" in specific problem situations.
In the parable of the prodigal son, who was it that took the prodigal in after he came home? The prodigal's father. One man, head of one family. Fathers take care of your babies. Mothers support the fathers. Children pitch in to help your family members. Brothers, sisters, circle the wagons and incomes to lift up a family member. Not communes but community within the family. Not one giant national family but neighbor to neighbor. If the above statement cited above from the book of Matthew was followed today by the nation's citizen's in large numbers, as indivuals, in our daily lives, how many homeless would there be? Would we need food stamps?
Take the same admonition and hand it to our lawmakers. What are their options? Speak out about the problem in public. Use their individual bully pulpits to raise awareness. That's called campaigning or lip service. Then proceed to legislation which in the past has created departments of people managing the act of government giving according to prescribed rules. All of which is supported by tax dollars. In an era of increasing deficits, this is the ultimate conflict. How can you cut these government distrbutions that are so well intended?
"One of these least" (ASV) or "one of the least of these" (NIV) refers to individual needs. Over a period of years we have gotten out of the sense of community that had us caring for the poor or afflicted person to person. Which is more efficient, a large population and their resources pitching in to help the less fortunate or a government program manged by narrowly focused hard fast rules and a human bureaucracy?
As time goes on, we get used to government taking care of "the least of these". There is a government program to address the problem so we can put it out of our mind. Citizenship and charity on the part of the individual are diminished, government is bigger and more expensive. As voters, or non voters, the citizens are responsible for oversite of the elected officials. It is the voters and eligable non voters that have relinquished authority to care for "the least of these". The voters because they have elected majorities over the years that have engaged in the spending on well intentioned but poorly concieved and managed programs. The eligable non voters because they didn't show up at the polls. In the above Bible passage, we are all admonished to help the less fortunate than us. Is it better to be a society of 350 million helpers or a nation of regulations that try to drive the society?
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
Getting Blistered on a Job Search
In the old days, looking for a job used to be referred to as pounding the pavement. You actually called people, announced yourself, made appointments for specific jobs, went to businesses, talked to humans and differentiated yourself face to face. Today, you log on, point and click, post resumes, and wait and wait. Or you meet people at random, let them know you want to move, hand them a business card, and hope and pray they remember you when they hear about a position or have them open themselves. Today you get a lot less exercise, a lot less wear and tear on the feet and a lot more uncertainty.
Max Lucado published a small booklet in 2009 called "Fear Less - Trust More". On page three he writes "Can the safety lover do anything great? Can the risk averse accomplish noble deeds?" The unemployed are pursuing a "noble deed". Not just to get a job, but to maintain their self determination, to support themselves. Too often the average person does not see nobility in what they do day to day. So when they lose that particular job, not by their own decision and planning, it becomes an emotional drain. Since it has negative consequences, loss of income, there must be fault. Since "I am the one who lost the job, it must be my fault. Since its my fault, I must be deficient. There is no nobility in me."
Many jobs are risk avoidance. Its a paycheck for sure, and its reliable. It pays the bills so we take that as security. When we lose the job, we lost security and that has to be bad. Two negatives we pile on ourselves. And here comes the risk, the stress, and the misplaced blame. We have had an increase in risk heaped on us without our consent, which is an opportunity to accomplish a noble deed, employment, not a black hole in securing the next job. The time we find a new job is uncertain. But the nobility is in the constant pursuit, not just the actual accomplishment. We are not diminished with each day that goes by without an offer.
Lucado's statement does not lead us to award championship trophies for just showing up. It tells us that every hour or day spent in the pursuit of work is noble. The pursuit is what we should take pride in, not drudge through as punishment. Looked at in this perspective, we are fully employed (as the saying goes) in the job hunt. That employment is worthwhile and honorable. Even if it requires less shoe leather than it used to, and more waiting and surfing than we like.
Max Lucado published a small booklet in 2009 called "Fear Less - Trust More". On page three he writes "Can the safety lover do anything great? Can the risk averse accomplish noble deeds?" The unemployed are pursuing a "noble deed". Not just to get a job, but to maintain their self determination, to support themselves. Too often the average person does not see nobility in what they do day to day. So when they lose that particular job, not by their own decision and planning, it becomes an emotional drain. Since it has negative consequences, loss of income, there must be fault. Since "I am the one who lost the job, it must be my fault. Since its my fault, I must be deficient. There is no nobility in me."
Many jobs are risk avoidance. Its a paycheck for sure, and its reliable. It pays the bills so we take that as security. When we lose the job, we lost security and that has to be bad. Two negatives we pile on ourselves. And here comes the risk, the stress, and the misplaced blame. We have had an increase in risk heaped on us without our consent, which is an opportunity to accomplish a noble deed, employment, not a black hole in securing the next job. The time we find a new job is uncertain. But the nobility is in the constant pursuit, not just the actual accomplishment. We are not diminished with each day that goes by without an offer.
Lucado's statement does not lead us to award championship trophies for just showing up. It tells us that every hour or day spent in the pursuit of work is noble. The pursuit is what we should take pride in, not drudge through as punishment. Looked at in this perspective, we are fully employed (as the saying goes) in the job hunt. That employment is worthwhile and honorable. Even if it requires less shoe leather than it used to, and more waiting and surfing than we like.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Science versus Scripture - A Proposal
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Genesis 1:1-2.
I saw a program on PBS the other night about the origin and development of telescopes, then on to a discourse about the the origin of the universe and its possible dimensions. It ocurred to me that this scientific analysis of the "universe" compared favorable with the above scripture citation.
"...God created the heavens and the earth." Science and scripture aagree on the order. In the PBS show, a scientist offered the opinion that the universe had a definite beginning, the Bible says the same. He further postulated that if the universe had a definite beginning, it must be headed to a definite end. Sounds like the apocolypse in the Revelation. Once the heavens were created, God proceeded to earth. The scientific explanation is that over time, the earth coalesced from gases, dust and other particles until it was solid (an over simplification but close). Seems to fit the Genesis account.
We argue between the Biblical account and scientific fact as uncovered by years and years of discovery. The more technologically advanced we become, the more the Biblical account seems plausible (although more general than observations by the Hubble telescope etc.). Is it possible that documents written thousands and thousands of years ago could be gradually proving to have truth in them? Could it be that science and faith accounts tend to converge?
If God created the heavens and the earth, in other words the universe, then does it not follow that he created the laws of physics and nature? If that's the case, does that include the concept of time? If God created time, should he not be able to see all the way to the end of time?
I think this is the pentrating part of the blog.
I saw a program on PBS the other night about the origin and development of telescopes, then on to a discourse about the the origin of the universe and its possible dimensions. It ocurred to me that this scientific analysis of the "universe" compared favorable with the above scripture citation.
"...God created the heavens and the earth." Science and scripture aagree on the order. In the PBS show, a scientist offered the opinion that the universe had a definite beginning, the Bible says the same. He further postulated that if the universe had a definite beginning, it must be headed to a definite end. Sounds like the apocolypse in the Revelation. Once the heavens were created, God proceeded to earth. The scientific explanation is that over time, the earth coalesced from gases, dust and other particles until it was solid (an over simplification but close). Seems to fit the Genesis account.
We argue between the Biblical account and scientific fact as uncovered by years and years of discovery. The more technologically advanced we become, the more the Biblical account seems plausible (although more general than observations by the Hubble telescope etc.). Is it possible that documents written thousands and thousands of years ago could be gradually proving to have truth in them? Could it be that science and faith accounts tend to converge?
If God created the heavens and the earth, in other words the universe, then does it not follow that he created the laws of physics and nature? If that's the case, does that include the concept of time? If God created time, should he not be able to see all the way to the end of time?
I think this is the pentrating part of the blog.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Between a Rock and a Time Piece
IF you're lucky like I was, your former employer will give you an advisor as part of the severance package. This person will be a practical professional who will guide you through the process of a job search. This can be a fleeting association or long relationship depending on the length of your severance package. It can also be a life line if you have not made any connections in the job market for a long time.
There are two general philosophies of job hunting in today's marketplace. One says networking is the primary focus. The other suggests an ever expanding contact process on the Internet hiring sites and specific company websites. Get on the merry go round and ride it until an employer picks you off. The first focuses on human contacts at the highest levels possible, the second focuses on volume contacts in venues many employers go to hire. They both take time, in this economy lots of time.
Either way you go, you need to know yourself first. Job loss is new territory psychologically. First, its a no fault situation. Whether you could have prevented it or not, performed better or not, been more valuable or not, its all in the past. Focus on finding a past time you enjoy. You now have enough spare time to take an emotional rest every day. Second, find an activity to get you out of the house each day. A volunteer effort, a service organization of some kind. Regular activity and the regular requirement of keeping an appointment sharpen or maintain the discipline required on the job.
In terms of time that leaves the job search itself. Whatever path you pursue, make regular appointments with people. Whether its headhunters, networking contacts, job fairs, keep getting connecting with people. Practice speaking to others. These efforts are similar to an interview. You stay in a comfort zone with people so the interview will not be a shock when it comes.
Searching for a job is as much about inside your head as whats on your resume. Getting in to the interview is a step, getting through it and out of it with a job envolves skills you have always had. Keeping them sharp for when you need them is a lot like keeping a fine time piece working, constant care and attention.
There are two general philosophies of job hunting in today's marketplace. One says networking is the primary focus. The other suggests an ever expanding contact process on the Internet hiring sites and specific company websites. Get on the merry go round and ride it until an employer picks you off. The first focuses on human contacts at the highest levels possible, the second focuses on volume contacts in venues many employers go to hire. They both take time, in this economy lots of time.
Either way you go, you need to know yourself first. Job loss is new territory psychologically. First, its a no fault situation. Whether you could have prevented it or not, performed better or not, been more valuable or not, its all in the past. Focus on finding a past time you enjoy. You now have enough spare time to take an emotional rest every day. Second, find an activity to get you out of the house each day. A volunteer effort, a service organization of some kind. Regular activity and the regular requirement of keeping an appointment sharpen or maintain the discipline required on the job.
In terms of time that leaves the job search itself. Whatever path you pursue, make regular appointments with people. Whether its headhunters, networking contacts, job fairs, keep getting connecting with people. Practice speaking to others. These efforts are similar to an interview. You stay in a comfort zone with people so the interview will not be a shock when it comes.
Searching for a job is as much about inside your head as whats on your resume. Getting in to the interview is a step, getting through it and out of it with a job envolves skills you have always had. Keeping them sharp for when you need them is a lot like keeping a fine time piece working, constant care and attention.
Arizona's Idea
The House of Representatives of Arizona has a novel idea. Let's copy the U.S. constitution. Let's not waste our time drafting, debating, editing, debating again, adjourning for a holiday, recessing, campaigning, then going home to hodl town hall meetings to here why the voters elected him or her, then reconvening and voting, ad nauseum. Let's just take one simple idea written in the 18th century and put it ours. What's the idea? In order to serve as President you must be an American citizen.
What does the United States Constitution say? Article 2, section 1 states, "No person except a natural born citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States." In order to serve as President, you must be an American citizen. The Constitution does not prescribe how to prove such citizenship, nor who must judge such proof to be adequate.
The Arizona House has proposed the obvious solution. Require anyone entering the state's Presidential primary to show up with a valid birth certificate. Only with that proof can the Presidential hopeful be certified as a candidate. If not, under the state law propossed, he or she would be allowed on the ballot and also would be deprived of Arizona's delegates to any party convention. Presumably this would apply to any electoral votes the state has in the national election.
Why is this important at this stage of the O'bama presidency? Do we really want to go through the "after birther mess"? O'Bama's situation has shone a light on an omission. Up to this point, no official process to prove citizenship for Presidential candidates has been established. That has always been assumed. Since the consitution is silent on the process, it must fall to the states to fill the gap.
Arizona's solution is really the only practical way to go about plugging this hole. You simply can't run without proof. It should provide for consequences if citizenship documents are found to be fraudulent. Withholding electoral votes earned in the national election or delegate votes from primaries earned in should be part of that.
What does the United States Constitution say? Article 2, section 1 states, "No person except a natural born citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States." In order to serve as President, you must be an American citizen. The Constitution does not prescribe how to prove such citizenship, nor who must judge such proof to be adequate.
The Arizona House has proposed the obvious solution. Require anyone entering the state's Presidential primary to show up with a valid birth certificate. Only with that proof can the Presidential hopeful be certified as a candidate. If not, under the state law propossed, he or she would be allowed on the ballot and also would be deprived of Arizona's delegates to any party convention. Presumably this would apply to any electoral votes the state has in the national election.
Why is this important at this stage of the O'bama presidency? Do we really want to go through the "after birther mess"? O'Bama's situation has shone a light on an omission. Up to this point, no official process to prove citizenship for Presidential candidates has been established. That has always been assumed. Since the consitution is silent on the process, it must fall to the states to fill the gap.
Arizona's solution is really the only practical way to go about plugging this hole. You simply can't run without proof. It should provide for consequences if citizenship documents are found to be fraudulent. Withholding electoral votes earned in the national election or delegate votes from primaries earned in should be part of that.
Monday, February 22, 2010
The art of governance - Is there a price?
In Tom Brokaw's book "The Greatest Generation", he chronicles the the life of Dr. Charles Van Gorder. The good doctor participated in the D-Day Normandy invasion armed with a tent, medical supplies and a knowledge of surgery. His theatre of practice was the field of combat. Van Gorder had enlisted in the Army, served in North Africa as a combat surgeon, then was sent to the greater ferocity of combat on Normandy beach. The Germans, attempting to expand a fledgling empire, had a far different intensity in North Africa than when they made a last ditch to save their homeland and a dream of dominance in 1944. Van Gorder's efforts were in the embryonic field hospital later to be named field hospital/MASH unit. He was literally under fire while operating.
After the war Van Gorder returned to the U.S. to practice medicine in the small town of Andrews, North Carolina. He and a colleague, who fought the D-Day invasion in the same battlefield hospital as Van Gorder, opened the only medical practice in the town and also founded the first and only hospital there. After his retirement Van Gorder told Brokaw,refering to his life. " If I had my life to do all over again, I'd do it the same way. Go somewhere people have a need, contribute something to people who need it;help people."
Dr. Van Gorder and thousands more like him carried on and refined the "house call" in the medical profession. Those self same "thousands" built many rural hospitals and treated many rural families over their careers. These were the Lion's Club officers, the Rotarians, the Sunday School teachers of the generation of parents that gave birth to the baby boomers. They fought on D-Day and elsewhere on the planet, then came home to live and serve.
How will that ethic be affected if each step of the treatment process becomes a matter of regulation and not instinct? How will the medical profession attract people like Dr. Van Gorder if service involves sticking with a script? Work ethic is internal to the individual. Dedication flows from the individual through the sense of ownership of the outcome, availability of self determination. The first doctor that visited a patient at home did so in the name of taking the initiative to treat the patient. It was his decision to treat the patient that way. In today's world, the housecall is a dinosaur without a fossil record.
As we sail headlong in to some version of government controlled healthcare, costing some version of dozens of cost estimates let's take a moment to wonder aloud. How will this affect the character and structure of the profession that attracted Dr. Van Gorder and his contemporaries? Governing implies control, the authority to make decisions. Government is the sum total of enabling rules and those people designated to carry out the rules. Somewhere in all this governing is always one fallible human who has to make one of many final decisions that affect the citizens.
Is it better to have health care, the service provided and its resulting cost, governed by the fallible human being(s) who is/are "hired" or appointed, or the market place where all citizens vote with their pocket book and feet? Will the future Van Gorders be enthusiastic serving in a government system or a marketplace? Will those same Van Gorders be dedicated to the "system" and its rules for as long as they would be dedicated to the self determined treatment of the patient have the option of sitting with, talking to, and getting to know as a patient?
After the war Van Gorder returned to the U.S. to practice medicine in the small town of Andrews, North Carolina. He and a colleague, who fought the D-Day invasion in the same battlefield hospital as Van Gorder, opened the only medical practice in the town and also founded the first and only hospital there. After his retirement Van Gorder told Brokaw,refering to his life. " If I had my life to do all over again, I'd do it the same way. Go somewhere people have a need, contribute something to people who need it;help people."
Dr. Van Gorder and thousands more like him carried on and refined the "house call" in the medical profession. Those self same "thousands" built many rural hospitals and treated many rural families over their careers. These were the Lion's Club officers, the Rotarians, the Sunday School teachers of the generation of parents that gave birth to the baby boomers. They fought on D-Day and elsewhere on the planet, then came home to live and serve.
How will that ethic be affected if each step of the treatment process becomes a matter of regulation and not instinct? How will the medical profession attract people like Dr. Van Gorder if service involves sticking with a script? Work ethic is internal to the individual. Dedication flows from the individual through the sense of ownership of the outcome, availability of self determination. The first doctor that visited a patient at home did so in the name of taking the initiative to treat the patient. It was his decision to treat the patient that way. In today's world, the housecall is a dinosaur without a fossil record.
As we sail headlong in to some version of government controlled healthcare, costing some version of dozens of cost estimates let's take a moment to wonder aloud. How will this affect the character and structure of the profession that attracted Dr. Van Gorder and his contemporaries? Governing implies control, the authority to make decisions. Government is the sum total of enabling rules and those people designated to carry out the rules. Somewhere in all this governing is always one fallible human who has to make one of many final decisions that affect the citizens.
Is it better to have health care, the service provided and its resulting cost, governed by the fallible human being(s) who is/are "hired" or appointed, or the market place where all citizens vote with their pocket book and feet? Will the future Van Gorders be enthusiastic serving in a government system or a marketplace? Will those same Van Gorders be dedicated to the "system" and its rules for as long as they would be dedicated to the self determined treatment of the patient have the option of sitting with, talking to, and getting to know as a patient?
Sunday, February 14, 2010
The Idea of Unions
Labor unions and their forefathers, the guilds, have been part of the fabric of America throughout its history. Their roots go back as far as the craft guilds of the eastern America's seabord in the 1700's. These were organized along the lines of labor skills, there being guilds for cabinet makers, cordwainers, cobblers, and others. The Continental Congress did its historic work in the Carpenter's Hall (a guild meeting place). The Declaration of Independence was signed in this building.
As the nation evolved in the remainder of the 18th and throughout the 19th century as the fledgling national economy spread across the continent, all manner of businesses enterprises were founded. Ownership had a free hand to establish work rules and pay scales for their employees. No greater or deeper decision process existed than the employer looking at what needed to be done, offered the tasks to a willing labor force, and hired those accepting the offer (or challenge) in as few numbers as the employer could afford, the free market was at work.
The next generation of labor organization evolved in the second half of the 19th century. Terrance Powdery led the Knights of Labor, formed in 1869. Membership was open to all, skilled and unskilled, black and white, all who wanted to join. After reaching a peak membership estimated at 750,000 in the mid 1880's. Membership waned following the Haymarket Square riot and the Kinghts eventually ceased to exist. It was replaced by the American Federation of Labor, founded in 1880 by Samuel Gompers. Gompers' union was an umbrella for indivdual specific unions, defined by industries or trades.
January of 1890 gave birth to the UMW, formed with this statement as the preamble to their founding declaration "We have founded the United Mine Workers of America for the purpose of...educating all mine workers in America to realize the necessity of unity of action and purpose, in demanding and securing by lawful means the just fruits of our toil." Although the initial focus of this new group was safety in the mines, the phrase "just fruits" imnplied wages as a demand more clearly in to focus.
From here forward union demands often were in response to severe and dangerous working conditions and were often coupled with violent response. The Pullman strike of 1894 was over a relatively benign issue with management but brought a response from management that included 3,400 "special deputies". Later, President Grover Cleveland moved in federal troops to break the strike. The Triangle Shirtwaist fire in 1911 killed 150 young women. This tragedy brought what was a criminal safety situation to light relating to the confinement of employees during their workday to a specific area secured by locked doors. Eventually much needed work rule changes were mandated by the Federal government, although it took until 1934 to get the laws enacted. The wheel of union, management and government cooperation was now grinding but slowly. Also imbedded in this time period was the Davis Bacon Act in which the Federal government mandated the wage rate on Federal projects. This bill was introduced and managed by two Repbulicans (Senator James J. Davis of Pennsylvania and Representative Robert L. Bacon of New York) and signed in 1931 by a Republican President (Herbert Hoover).
All this to lay some perspective groundwork. Unions in America today are a different breed than their trade related origins. They first evolved in to a supplement to market place competition with wages, benefits, and work rules mandated by multiyear contracts and renewal negotiations. Instead of a labor market made up of millions of individual units, those units combine in much smaller numbers of groups called unions, and that group of units (unions) negotiate for the masses. Sounds a lot like the represetative form of government our founders handed to to us. More on unions in the next installment.
As the nation evolved in the remainder of the 18th and throughout the 19th century as the fledgling national economy spread across the continent, all manner of businesses enterprises were founded. Ownership had a free hand to establish work rules and pay scales for their employees. No greater or deeper decision process existed than the employer looking at what needed to be done, offered the tasks to a willing labor force, and hired those accepting the offer (or challenge) in as few numbers as the employer could afford, the free market was at work.
The next generation of labor organization evolved in the second half of the 19th century. Terrance Powdery led the Knights of Labor, formed in 1869. Membership was open to all, skilled and unskilled, black and white, all who wanted to join. After reaching a peak membership estimated at 750,000 in the mid 1880's. Membership waned following the Haymarket Square riot and the Kinghts eventually ceased to exist. It was replaced by the American Federation of Labor, founded in 1880 by Samuel Gompers. Gompers' union was an umbrella for indivdual specific unions, defined by industries or trades.
January of 1890 gave birth to the UMW, formed with this statement as the preamble to their founding declaration "We have founded the United Mine Workers of America for the purpose of...educating all mine workers in America to realize the necessity of unity of action and purpose, in demanding and securing by lawful means the just fruits of our toil." Although the initial focus of this new group was safety in the mines, the phrase "just fruits" imnplied wages as a demand more clearly in to focus.
From here forward union demands often were in response to severe and dangerous working conditions and were often coupled with violent response. The Pullman strike of 1894 was over a relatively benign issue with management but brought a response from management that included 3,400 "special deputies". Later, President Grover Cleveland moved in federal troops to break the strike. The Triangle Shirtwaist fire in 1911 killed 150 young women. This tragedy brought what was a criminal safety situation to light relating to the confinement of employees during their workday to a specific area secured by locked doors. Eventually much needed work rule changes were mandated by the Federal government, although it took until 1934 to get the laws enacted. The wheel of union, management and government cooperation was now grinding but slowly. Also imbedded in this time period was the Davis Bacon Act in which the Federal government mandated the wage rate on Federal projects. This bill was introduced and managed by two Repbulicans (Senator James J. Davis of Pennsylvania and Representative Robert L. Bacon of New York) and signed in 1931 by a Republican President (Herbert Hoover).
All this to lay some perspective groundwork. Unions in America today are a different breed than their trade related origins. They first evolved in to a supplement to market place competition with wages, benefits, and work rules mandated by multiyear contracts and renewal negotiations. Instead of a labor market made up of millions of individual units, those units combine in much smaller numbers of groups called unions, and that group of units (unions) negotiate for the masses. Sounds a lot like the represetative form of government our founders handed to to us. More on unions in the next installment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)