Sunday, February 27, 2011

Did Christopher Thomas Die In Vain?

Owen Robinson, in his usual foaming-at-the-mouth union-bashing mode, went after the Shorewood School District because they would rather act like adults as opposed to our emotionally stunted, temper tantrum throwing excuse for a governor.

In the comment thread of said union-bashing post, Robinson wrote this:
If it sucks so bad, quit. If we can’t replace you with comparable talent, compensation will have to rise. That’s how it works. If you don’t quit, then I have to assume that your compensation is adequate for the services you provide.
This caused something to click in my mind.  It exemplified what was wrong with Walker's Budget Disrepair Bill, why the right cannot understand why it is wrong, and the full impact this bill could have on our lives.

You see, I've seen this happen before.  And it's not pretty.

In the early and mid 1990s, Governor Tommy Thompson had a bad habit of regularly underfunding different mandated services and programs, especially those in Milwaukee County.  Thus, the county operated child welfare system (read foster care) was underfunded and children's civil rights were being denied. Three different independent audits came up with the result that all of the foster care system was grossly underfunded.

Thompson and the Republicans disagreed and said it was mismanagement by county officials.They said that they could do it better.

As a result, in 1996, Alberta Darling was again spearheading some real bad legislation.

As part of that year's budget, she introduced a small clause that caused big problems.  That clause was that the State of Wisconsin would take over the child welfare system of any county with a population of over 500,000 people.

Because of this clause, the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare was created.

In 1998, they took over.  However, when they took over, they only kept one part, dividing the rest amongst the county and three different private agencies.  That meant there were now five different agencies doing the work that one used to do, and the price tag to the tax payer went up by almost half again of what it was.

Even though showing the best records in performance, the state had pushed Milwaukee County out of the way and privatized the whole system, with the small part they controlled as the only exception.  It should be noted that the only agency that was still one of the originals was La Causa.

During the next decade, there were problems galore.  One of the biggest issues was the staff turnover amongst the front line case workers.  Even as recently as two years ago, turnover rates among workers were at unacceptably high numbers:
According to the report, the bureau started 2008 with 179 ongoing case managers. By December, 105 had left. That would seem to mean the turnover was 59%.
The reason for this turnover was that instead of investing the money into workers or services, the private agencies were more concerned with their profit margin and paying extravagant salaries to their executives. With low pay, high case loads and no support, workers were quick to look for and find other lines of work.

The only thing that slowed this down was by increasing the money paid to the workers.  But in order for this to happen, instead of demanding that the executives lower their pay or that they stop buying $9,000 conference tables, the state, led again by Darling's efforts, just threw more tax money at them.  Even with the increase in pay, turnovers are still at a high rate.

As a result of these turnovers, the foster children were the ones paying a price greater than the tax payers. They would have a new worker even as often as every month.  This new workers, unfamiliar with the system, the laws around foster care, or even the scope of their job, were often overwhelmed and things kept falling apart.

Eventually, as anyone who was watching this debacle unfold could've told you would happen, the system finally had one tragedy too many occur.  Because of the way the system was set up, Christopher Thomas died due to severe injuries suffered at the hands of his abusive aunt.

The lesson that the Republicans failed to learn from Christopher's death, as well as the deaths of the other children that the system failed, is that government simply cannot be operated like a business.

Businesses provide a service or produce a product with one goal: to make a profit.  A government exist simply to provide a public service for the common good, whether it is law enforcement, fighting fires, taking care of the ill, the elderly, the disables or abused children.

When you try to combine those two mentalities, profit margins take precedence and people...real people...suffer for it.  And that is not acceptable.

Yes, it is important to keep costs down as much as possible.  Workers need to understand they have to take that into consideration when negotiating their contracts.  But if you take away that right (and yes, Owen, it is a right), then you set yourself up to have a system that is guaranteed to fail, and fail at a cost far, far greater than any money you might have saved in your stinginess.

If you don't like the contract that the government agreed to on your behalf, the answer is simple. Don't elect that person again.

Of course, then again, if you aren't happy with the cost of the government employees' benefits, that too can be fixed.  Reinstate regulations on the health care industry and you will control the out of control escalation of the health care costs.  Likewise, don't elect people that cause Great Recessions, like George Bush, and the pension funding would not be an issue either.

There are solutions to the problems we are facing as a state, but taking away people's rights, not to mention the other atrocities that are in the disrepair bill, is not only not a solution, but will actually make the problems worse.

3 comments:

  1. "If you don't like the contract that the government agreed to on your behalf, the answer is simple. Don't elect that person again."

    Isn't this an example of how public sector unions have an advantage over their private sector counterparts? The ability to choose their negotiating partners at the ballot box.

    A reasonable person might conclude that there is some conflict of interest in such a system. Especially when labor overwhelmingly supports just one party.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Two points:

    One, I thought the powers of the union were diminished due to their dwindling numbers. Now they control elections? Can't ave it both ways, you know.

    Two, I can safely say the unions didn't endorse the ruling party.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Three: Mr. Shown obviously takes his talking points from Jonah Goldberg, who gets his from (fill in the blank).

    Even so, perhaps there is a reason labor overwhelmingly supports one party. The other has no use for them.

    ReplyDelete