Note: tried to post this last night but the site was down......again.....so the subject matter has drifted along some, but what the hey.....

Good intentions Roger, good intentions.................hope it works as planned.

Okay, so I'll throw a suggestion log(s) on the campfire.

In the discussions about Wisconsin a few months ago some very revealing info came sneaking out. I say sneaking because it was in the flow of conversation and not a headline, nor even a major point of discussion. One of those things that if your attention lapsed for a second or two you'd completely miss. Any here who are or have been employers responsible for payroll will know this, folks on a payroll likely won't. There's a distinct difference between what an employee’s wage/salary is, i.e. what they claim they are paid, and what they actually cost the employer. In Wisc. it was about teacher pay. The average teacher salary was about $62k per year.......but......the same average teacher COST the school district about $102k per year. The difference is the employer share of SSI and Medicare, unemployment insurance, retirement fund, medical insurance, and on and on depending on the state, contract terms, and a variety of other variable "benefits". Not included in that average $102k was the cost of facilities or supplies to support that job position. Now, that average employee isn't lying when they claim their salary is $62k, that's just the agreed amount that's at the front of their mind, it's the amount they see on their W2 for example. This is not unique to teachers in Wisc. it applies to most employees across the country, union or not. Since they don't see the cost of the accrued benefits that represent the additional approx. $40k per year, they don't recognize that they are getting that additional value/pay each year.

So, here's my proposal to get people squared away on reality. No, I don't think it will work for everyone, some folks will just develop a new form of ignoring reality, but to use the school teacher example again, local tax payers may have a different perspective if they readily understood what a teacher actually cost rather than just the lower number that represents the salary portion. Call it Truth in Costs. On payday, in addition to the salary payment, each employee gets a separate notice, piece of paper, whatever, showing the money going to them, or more likely in todays world a direct deposit account, and then each outgoing payment on a separate notice. Week in, week out, month in, month out. On their W2 it would also be reflected, with additional deduction boxes showing total for the year going out to each receiver: unemployment division, disability insurance division, retirement account, dues, and on and on. Won't work on everyone, and will create more posting work for employers who have manual systems, but in the long run it will benefit all as the employee has a potentially greater appreciation for how much they really cost, and how many holes are in the bucket of paying for their job. It wouldn’t stop political demagoguery, but it would make some of the lies that politicians tell today less effective for a greater number of people.

As for the unions, if they would focus on contributing added value to the employment equation, they'd make themselves valuable again. For example, if they ran valid apprentice programs with honest skill grading (seniority/tenure is bunk.....performance/skill is value) where they could supply a reliable technician with some guarantee of performance, knowledge, skill to a potential employer. Imagine for instance if you as a home repair consumer needed a good plumber. As it is today, you hope to find one, perhaps through a referral or previous experience, but in reality it's a crap shoot. But say that ABC Plumbing guaranteed you a certified plumbing technician, grade A (maybe B or C for less challenging jobs). The company would feel better about offering guarantee of performance, the homeowner would feel better about the comparative high cost, especially for a service they rarely (hopefully) need. There are many more examples we could come up with along those lines, but those of you that think get the point. The way it is now with seniority (time on the calendar) you don't know if you're getting someone with accumulated experience of 20 years, or one year’s experience that he's repeated 20 times. Big difference between the two. Unions COULD earn a premium, IF they contributed a premium.

The Keystone hold up should be easily seen for what it is; pure political opportunism. The Pres. needs money for his reelection campaign and there are two traditional interest groups involved in this. The unions that would benefit from having the work to perform, and the enviro nut groups. The union one is easier to manage in that the Pres doesn't have to deal with the membership (actual workers), he only has to make a deal with the union bosses, so the fix is in with them to take one for the team (they believe temporarily, we'll see). The enviros on the other hand are more dispersed, their contributions will be trickling in, if pandered to, over the next 9 months or so.......gotta keep them on the hook till they've coughed up. Besides, what's to worry, an Illinois congress woman yesterday said in a radio interview "What's 20k jobs? There's much more employment opportunity in green energy!"..................sure, like Solyndra.