Why not merge FLW with another base? The entire bs behind the BRAC is negative and hurtful. Try COMBS - Committee Organized to Modernize Base Structure. And make their purpose to leave well enough alone or create joint bases in certain regions. Maybe Fort Leo
. Like it or not, it's a vital part of our current military strategy. Of course same could be said for Minot I suppose. Why just close one when BRAC should instead be the "Committee Organized to Modernize Base Structure." And do just that. The purpose to create joint-bases in the same regions where bases of different branches exist. Obviously some won't be able to have combined operations. A concerted effort by a dedicated group of staff and members of the House and Senate can keep most people employed, although relocation may be necessary - something those in uniform are used to (unfortunately). Civilians would have to learn the same life, for good or bad.
I agree and disagree.
If we want to be what some call a "Right to Work" state, okay. Let employees opt-in or out with written notice and a reasonable time to decide (say, three or six months, less or more if the employees want).
I'm speaking of any labor requiring training. Perhaps construction and other professional work - a few examples include plumbing, pipe-fitting, sheet metal, carpentry, tech-hardware installation, HVAC, cinematography, editing (any art), engineering, medical services, police, fire personnel. I am specifically leaving out organized labor for athletes - a different animal and one I'm happy to talk about in a different post.
Not all are permitted to strike, yet in each of these professional industries as examples and many other industries, there are organized labor organizations (unions) who negotiate from time-to-time for work conditions. Might be safety (obviously different from one profession to another), training, wages, healthcare, family issues, regulation of employee activities outside of the work environment. These unions require dues to be a part of that process. In most states, it is required, not an option.
In "Right to Work" states, employees can choose. Notice is required - much like this legislation. I am a supported of getting notice and saying yes or no.
As long as the same legislation makes it clear that by not joining, with full information and consent, the employee (professional of course), accepts that s/he will not accept any responsibility or consequence for say, a strike. Also, s/he doesn't accept any loses or benefits from the result of collective bargaining by the union. Wages, hours, benefits.
If someone doesn't want to join an organization, of course that is his/her right. But then s/he should not benefit from that organization's efforts to improve, or if that organization fails, the negative consequences of those efforts either. Just like joining AAA, or AARP, or an employer's health, life or disability insurance plan.
I am advocating that different people who do the same job, at the same level of education, training, seniority, status should receive different wages, benefits, discipline, even safety, depending on membership in a union. Pay, get the "club" treatment - in some cases, fewer benefits. Don't - no problem either.
Maybe different groups can negotiate different packages (like competing unions did over a century ago). An "open shop" is open. Doesn't matter the employer or industry. If someone wants no intrusion of a socialistic union, then okay. But then don't accept the drawbacks or benefits of it either. If we want smaller organized labor - then don't accept the fruits of it so the costs of production are smaller. Equals larger profits. For basic labor means cheaper products, like southeast asia. The difference is the person in the other room is doing the same more safely with more benefits.
Now that would truly be "Right to Work."
I believe the new statute only applies to local Chiefs of Police, not the Superintendent of the MSHP. I haven't read every sentence of the legislation, but I don't see anything so far that applies to the MSHP.
Our local fee office is a tax-exempt non-profit. Very busy and successful for decades.
As a tax-exempt non-profit, any profit made (which is allowed and of course the point), goes into services, not as a dividend or bonus to donors, staff, or members of the Board. So perhaps this is a model to follow for some areas?
It's called CORE for those interested - Champions of Rolla Education.
Certainly other communities could create non-profits to compete for a license office. People are employed, and by that effort money is pumped back into the local community.
It should not be shocking, but common, that rural Missouri can sustain 1) local service, 2) local employment and therefore local spending, and 3) provide help for youth in partnership with the DOR/DMV.
FYI, I am not, nor is a member of my family a member of, a donor (other than by the fees paid required to paid), or a recipient of scholarship benefits from CORE. In addition, I am a vocal critic or our local public school board and how it operates. That doesn't keep me from supporting a non-profit that helps youth go to college (like most of us I'm a study in contradictions.
What I advocate at the local, state, and federal level are alternative ways to create and sustain locally-based economic growth. CORE is an example of that - a non-profit creating economic growth in a "for profit" way.
Last login: Thursday, June 27, 2013
© 2013 News Tribune Publishing.