Providence Journal

Massachusetts Health-Care Model Works Well

Cecille Isidro — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:26:00 -0500

With Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick’s announcement that the Bush administration had agreed to increase and extend its support for Massachusetts’s bold health-care reform initiative, we witnessed the kind of bipartisan leadership that has thus far eluded those trying to stabilize the financial markets.

Stop Imposing 'Captive Speech' on Employees

Cecille Isidro — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:03:00 -0500

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees not only the freedom to speak but also the freedom not to listen. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that "no one has a right to press even good ideas on an unwilling recipient." Nevertheless, American businesses are increasingly violating the First Amendment freedoms of their employees.

Frito-Lay Inc., one of the world's largest producers of snack foods, is also one of America's worst abusers of employees' right not to listen. It routinely not only compels its employees to listen to anti-union diatribes, on company time and property, but also forces its drivers to allow anti-union advocates to accompany them on their routes, requiring the captive drivers to listen to their anti-union speech.

Frito-Lay sugarcoats what it is doing by portraying this as merely "communicating" with its employees, i.e., exercising its own right to free speech. But an Aug. 6, 2007, letter, sent to several hundred Teamster-represented employees in Washington State informing them of Frito-Lay's impending effort to oust the union, had menacing undertones: "We will probably use several methods of communication over the next few weeks, including employee meetings, letters, route rides, and individual discussions." Left unstated, but nonetheless crystal-clear to employees, was that listening to these "communications" would not be voluntary. To the contrary, any refusal by an employee to participate in such communications - wherever, whenever, and for however long the company wished - would be grounds for discharge.

Unfortunately this kind of behavior is not unique to Frito-Lay. Many American companies take advantage of the intrinsic vulnerability of their employees at the workplace. A report for the federal government, based on a study of more than 400 union-representation election campaigns, found that during 92 percent of union-organizing drives employers forced their employees to attend closed door anti-union meetings. In addition, 78 percent of employers directed supervisors to deliver anti-union messages to employees in one-on-one meetings.

Not surprisingly, employers have never seen fit to grant union representatives the same equal right to address employees. And nothing in federal law requires companies to let labor representatives onto the employer's property to speak to workers, even if just to give an alternative view to the employer's anti-union speech.

So in many American work sites today not only are workers' First Amendment freedoms being violated on a regular basis, but there's also no free market of ideas. Instead there exists a communication monopoly where workers are subjected to Soviet-like conditions, indoctrinated into the employer's anti-union credo and relentlessly harassed by their employers.

To counter this, a nationwide campaign has been launched to win basic First Amendment freedoms for workers. A proposed law, entitled the "Worker Freedom Act" (WFA), would make it illegal for an employer to require workers to sit through meetings while the employer lectures on religious or political beliefs, including beliefs about joining a union. This law would not prohibit employers from sharing their opinions with their employees, but it would grant the employees the right to walk away.

The WFA has been introduced into numerous state legislatures and the Michigan, New Hampshire and Oregon houses of representatives all have passed it. It was passed by the Colorado legislature in 2006 before being vetoed by the governor. Clearly, a lot of people agree with the U.S. Supreme Court that there is a compelling need to "protect listeners from unwanted communication." Whether in situations like children in school or passengers on a bus, the court wrote that "the First Amendment permits the government to prohibit offensive speech as intrusive when the 'captive' audience cannot avoid the objectionable speech."

If "captive speech" is not permitted to be imposed on students in school, why should it be imposed on workers at their jobs? Should American workers have to forfeit their First Amendment freedoms whenever they show up to work?

It seems oddly un-American that in the 21st century American workers don't enjoy basic First Amendment freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights over 200 years ago. The current momentum in favor of the Worker Freedom Act suggests that Americans recognize it is simply wrong that working Americans are routinely denied this basic right. It flies in the face of our most sacred traditions. Free speech is as American as apple pie, and it's past time to support legislation that will protect workers' and worker representatives' First Amendment freedoms in the workplace.

Don't Throw Baby Bonds Out With Bath

Cecille Isidro — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 08:54:00 -0400

For better or worse, America has a habit of conducting much of our policymaking through the presidential election process. This can be dangerous when meaningful reform efforts get trumped by volatile politics. Sure, we’d like campaign promises to mean something but it’s counter-productive if we let the consideration of good ideas get easily diverted into the gutter.

A case in point was the recent discussion of Hillary Clinton’s Baby Bond proposal, which was quickly hijacked by partisan politics. That’s a shame because the idea of creating a system of children’s savings accounts has good politics behind it and is potentially popular with voters.

Before Rudy Giuliani resorted to mocking Hillary as part of his campaign and debate performances, she was adding her voice to a number of policymakers and pundits who have expressed support for this idea. She was not poised to roll out any specific campaign proposal but she has in the past called for creating such accounts. In a July 2006 speech to the Democratic Leadership Counsel, she proposed giving every newborn child a $500 endowment, calling them Baby Bonds to distinguish them from other similar proposals already under consideration by Congress.

In recent years this idea has attracted attention across the political spectrum. In fact, before the current presidential campaign took over, it made news in 2004 and 2005 as a place where senators clashing over Social Security could find common ground. A piece of legislation called the ASPIRE Act was co-sponsored by the strange-bedfellow pairing of now-former senators, Jon Corzine (D.-N.J.) and Rick Santorum (R.-Penn.). This proposal would have seeded all newborns with a $500 savings account to get them build a basis for financial education and developing the savings habit.

In the current Congress, proposals and legislative bills to create accounts at birth have supporters among Republicans and Democrats alike. For instance, Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D.-R.I.) has reached across the aisle to work with Republican lawmakers who share his concern about the country’s growing wealth gap, low personal savings rate and poor financial literacy. He is leading a bipartisan coalition that recognizes that we need to find innovative ways to seed more savings and property ownership. These assets can in turn provide an essential element of economic security, letting people adjust to income fluctuations or make productive investments in their future. And there are a number of benefits to starting this savings process at birth. Not only do you get to maximize the advantage of compound interest, but these accounts can become a teaching tool to deliver the fundamentals of financial education — a primary skill for navigating our 21st Century economy.

The concept of children’s savings accounts, like the type proposed in the ASPIRE Act, is being carefully tested and subjected to research. A national demonstration project, called SEED, is being implemented by 12 community organizations across America. The experience is showing that families and youth can and will save if given the opportunity and support to do so.

To date, 1,400 children and youth across the United States and Puerto Rico have accumulated nearly $1.6 million in their accounts in just under three years. On average, each child has $1,332 in an account that is “seeded” as an investment for their future. Moreover, new polling data show that voters, especially parents, strongly support establishing children’s savings accounts for every child.

A national survey recently conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates shows that voters strongly support establishing children’s savings accounts. Sixty-nine percent of voters and 78 percent of parents favor children’s savings accounts upon exposure to the concept, and just 22 percent of voters and 15 percent of parents oppose the idea. This support was robust regardless of party affiliation, political ideology and region. Nearly three-quarters (74 percent) of self-described liberals favor children’s savings accounts, as do 72 percent of moderates and 62 percent of conservatives.

Shouldn’t we be looking for more ideas capable of garnering support from progressives and conservatives alike? The value of this idea is that it has a place in both an ownership agenda promoted by Republicans and one focused on opportunity, espoused by Democrats. Given the ideological diversity of its advocates, it is an idea that deserves a fair hearing, one that should be conducted above the partisan fray.

A version of this article also appeared in the Nov. 9, 2007, Detroit Free Press.

Pluses, Minuses for Providence -- Trying to be Hip Won't Save Cities

Cecille Isidro — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 00:00:00 -0400

A half-century ago, many urbanists, including the late Lewis Mumford, believed that the inexorable shift to the suburbs was transforming cities into discarded parcels of "a disordered and disintegrating urban mass." Yet today, cities seem in many ways not to be disintegrating; rather, they are widely believed to be enjoying a revival of considerable proportions.

Such an assessment may be replacing the excessive pessimism of the 1960s with an overblown optimism. In reality, thoughout the last 40 years the suburbs have gained ground on the urban centers on almost every significant measure, from corporate headquarters to jobs in manufacturing, high technology, and business services.

So what about the ballyhooed urban revival?

What we are seeing is more like a subtle shift in the role of cities: from the commanding centers of global civilization to (at least in the advanced countries) a more peripheral function.

In many ways, this follows the prediction made a century ago by H.G. Wells, who said that cities would evolve from the unquestioned center of economic life into a "bazaar, a great gallery of shops and places of concourse and rendezvous."

Today, such cultural industries are becoming the focus of many urban political and business leaders. Instead of working to retain middle-class families, factory jobs, and economic superiority to the periphery, many cities now stress such ephemeral concepts as fashionability and "hipness" -- trend and style -- as the keys to their survival.

Montreal, for example, once a financial- and business-services center, seems intent on wiping out much of its remaining industrial base -- even its vibrant garment sector -- in favor of marketing the city as "hip and happening."

In many other cities -- including San Francisco, Miami, Boston, and New York -- culture-based tourism has emerged among the largest and most promising industries. And such fast-growing urban areas as Las Vegas and Orlando depend on providing "experiences," complete with eye-catching architecture and round-the-clock entertainment, as their base economy.

It is conceivable that New York, Boston or Chicago could poke along the 21st Century on the strength of their cultural attributes. They will probably never recover their former importance, but the yuppies, the aging affluent, and the temporary 20-somethings may have a good enough time not to notice.

The trend gets absurd, however, when it comes to smaller, less culturally endowed places. Take Detroit, the now desolate auto capital, whose political and business leaders hoped that by making it a "cool city" -- attracting gays, Bohemians, and young "creatives" -- they could find the answer to their profound economic and social problems. Unfortunately, though, many of those most attracted to culture, restaurants, and nose-ring parlors are not going to choose the Motor City over, well, about 50 alternatives.

This applies even to better-off smaller cities, such as Providence. Athough they have nicely restored central districts, attractive to professionals and college students, so do 100 or so other places. Some people might stay a year or two, maybe even a decade, but it's unlikely that culture will keep them after they've spent a weekend in Boston, not to mention New York.

A stratagem based on purported or real cultural attractions also fails to address some disturbing realities. Brookings Institution demographer Bill Frey says that many of the young people who are lured to "cool" urban places leave when they start businesses and families. He adds, "There are simply not enough yuppies to go around" for such cities.

If people stay in Providence, particularly people in their 30s, it is probably not for the art museums and cafes, but, rather, for more such mundane reasons as a low crime rate, affordable housing, family-friendly environments, and, more than anything else, jobs that pay decently.

This is where Providence and its environs can and often do outperform a New York or a Boston. Such advantages to being smaller, particularly when a city is well run, can spark a regional revival. A smaller community can often hone its development efforts, engage its citizens, and solve fundamental problems more easily than a big metropolis.

Yet city officials, planners, arts foundations and developers often don't adopt such an approach, because it can be difficult and expensive. It is much easier and more media-friendly (not to mention immediately profitable for developers and their political patrons) to plan some lovely or kicky project or endow a museum or sports facility with taxpayers' money than it is to nurture small businesses.

Meanwhile, it can be tough to persuade a factory not to move to Mexico or China; to rebuild failing schools; and to improve mass transit. Yet these economic fundamentals should remain the focus of progressive city officials and business and civic leaders.

As long as the leaders indulge their fantasies about being "hip" and neglect a firmer foundation, their cities will become little more than theme parks for the affluent -- and symbols of lost opportunity for everyone else.

Personal Accounts are the only real 'Guarantee'

Cecille Isidro — Fri, 05 Apr 2002 00:00:00 -0500

No sooner has the ineffective and unlamented "lockbox" gone to its grave than the next Social Security gimmick enters the scene.

Congressional Republicans are promoting legislation to issue certificates to each new retiree to "guarantee" their Social Security benefits would never be cut. Designed to make necessary reforms more palatable, these guarantees are little more than a P.R. stunt and, worse, one that is likely to backfire. Even today, as criticism of guarantee legislation mounts, Republican leaders hope to sneak it through as part of the larger budget bill.

Like the lockbox, the guarantees are unenforceable, do nothing to address Social Security's underlying problems and could backfire on efforts for reform based on personal accounts. Congressional Republicans would be better off making their own case for comprehensive reform, for that case is strong.

Theoretically, the guarantee plans offered by several congressmen and senators give retirees "property rights" to their benefits, guaranteeing their monthly benefits, plus annual cost-of-living increases, for life. Guarantees are appealing, the perfect shield for election-minded Republicans against inevitable Democratic charges that Social Security reform will cut benefits to the elderly. What better campaign prop than a mock Social Security guarantee certificate to prove them wrong?

Making guarantee plans doubly attractive is that Social Security today offers no such assurances. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can raise taxes or cut benefits at any time, by any amount, for any reason, and individuals have no legal recourse. Given Social Security's long-term insolvency, it is a mathematical certainty that Congress will eventually avail itself of this right, as it has in the past.

But while it's easy for Congress to pass out certificates with "guarantee" printed on them, retirees should think twice before trying to enforce that promise. As the Congressional Research Service recently pointed out: "One Congress may not bind a future Congress, so that Congress is always free to amend or repeal prior legislation." In other words, these new bills offer the same non-guarantee as the current system, just printed on fancier paper.

Furthermore, Social Security's long-term financing is simply unsustainable, requiring 50 percent higher payroll tax rates if today's younger workers are to receive full retirement benefits. If Congress does honor these "guarantees," are we not -- in the absence of specific reform proposals -- also guaranteeing that future workers will be subject to those higher taxes? Somebody has to pay those guarantees, and younger workers will soon figure out it is them.

Worse still, guarantee bills hurt the very cause its sponsors support. The public accepts that the Social Security status quo cannot continue. To argue that secure benefits come not from meaningful reform but a mere stroke of a pen undermines the case for change, including that for personal accounts. Given that no leading Democrat endorses any comprehensive reform proposals, the proper comparison should be between those who have legitimate plans and those who don't, not between two sides competing to do less while promising more.

Despite the Enron scandal and stock market slumps, two-thirds of Americans still support personal accounts, according to recent Gallup polls. That is because account assets are protected not by a congressional promise but by constitutional rights securing individuals in their property. While personal accounts help address Social Security's financing problems, ownership and control are keys to their public appeal. Guarantee certificates pretend to offer protections that only personal accounts can truly deliver. When it comes to security, the public should accept no substitutes.

Even as utterly cynical politics, guarantees fall short. President Bush's war leadership and economic recovery mean Republican electoral prospects are looking up. If Democrats make Social Security the centerpiece of the election, Republicans -- who will likely retain control of the House regardless -- can claim a "mandate" to finally implement reform. If Republicans hide behind ersatz guarantees, no such mandate can exist. Guarantee bills make perfect sense if a congressman is singularly concerned with his own re-election and singularly unconcerned with reforming the pension plan that millions of Americans depend upon.

The guarantee bills' sponsors are not that cynical, and honestly believe the certificates open seniors' ears to discussion of reform. But as the lockbox proved, most members of Congress are far more interested in dodging discussions of Social Security reform than finding ways to start them. Guarantee bills provide the perfect dodge. But without real reform these guarantees are worse than meaningless.

Perhaps in an election year we can expect little better. But surely the American public, workers and retirees alike, deserve something better. That something is a real debate on how to maintain and strengthen Social Security.