Greed In A Time of Sacrifice

James Bailey Brislin
The Carpet City Chronicle

The Enfield Press, April 16, 2009

“For greed, all nature is too little.“
—Seneca

“A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.“
—George Bernard Shaw

Our country faces an economic crisis unseen in decades. The “affluent society” is no more. Unemployment has reached a generational high. Household indebtedness is at unprecedented levels. Many families are on the edge of default, foreclosure, and bankruptcy.

In the face of economic challenge, many Americans are making unprecedented sacrifices. Many are sacrificing vacations, raises, and furlough days to save the jobs of colleagues. Some have even agreed to accept a pay reduction. Small business owners are taking little or no pay to keep their businesses afloat.

It is clear that this is an age of sacrifice. Gone from the public discourse and media is the greedy, self-indulgent attitude so prominent a few years ago. This crisis contains many important lessons for the members of my generation. It is a wake-up call to see how tough things are in the real world. It will be a long time before we ever experience the kind of prosperity experienced by my parents’ generation. We will likely experience hardships similar to those borne by the Greatest Generation.

At long last, the crisis and its effects have come home to roost at Town Hall. Tax collections are down for the year and are projected to decrease further, next year. These anticipated revenue declines of $4 million and contractual increases of $6 million have left the town facing a $10 million deficit.

As a consequence, painful budget cuts are on the table, including dozens of teacher layoffs and the possible closure of an elementary school. Town Council and Board of Education officials have approached employee unions for concessions. The paraprofessional union and the school nurses union have agreed to a wage freeze. However, the Enfield Teachers’ Association has obstinately refused to negotiate concessions.

The Carpet City Chronicle recently obtained an email sent by Enfield Teachers’ Association President Mary Lombardo to Board of Education Chairman Andre Greco. The e-mail, sent at 1:07 PM on Monday, March 30 states:

Dear Andre,

I did not return your phone call from Friday because I assumed you want to discuss concessions to our new contract. The Executive Board has already given you the answer that there will be no concessions and we will continue to work under the conditions outlined in our current contract.

We do not plan to make any public statement. Past practice has proved that to be a mistake. Rather, the members of the Executive Board and all of Enfield’s teachers will continue to concentrate on providing an excellent education for the students of Enfield and to serve all of our members with vigor and enthusiasm. As teachers, we are always mindful that the children come first. As a union, supporting our contract is our primary concern.

Thank you,
Mary Lombardo

Could the contrast be any more clear? At a time when many Enfield residents face layoffs and pay-cuts, the Teachers’ Association will not sacrifice raises (wage and step increases). Mary Lombardo and her fellow union bosses could care less about the difficulties faced by the Enfield residents who employ them. All they care about is collecting their raises, even if the cost is larger class sizes, a closed elementary school, and fewer programs at the high schools. They are so obstinate in the pursuit of this objective that they refuse to engage in sensible negotiation.

This email should make clear to parent advocates that the ETA’s primary interest is negotiating and upholding contracts, not educating Enfield’s children. For the union, education is simply a pretext used to manipulate and co-opt concerned parents into lobbying for their objectives. But when push comes to shove, the educational veneer tarnishes to reveal the union’s real motive: contractual greed.

However, greed is not what motivates the vast majority of Enfield teachers. Many of them would gladly make the sacrifices necessary to save jobs and reduce the number of layoffs, but have been stopped from doing so by the obstinacy of union bosses. The teachers on the list of 103 should ask themselves why they have been paying union dues. What does union brotherhood mean when union bosses like Mary Lombardo willingly throw 103 teachers to the wolves? It would appear to be nothing more than a false shibboleth, invented to get rank-and-file teachers to buy into the union’s protection racket.

The obstinacy of Lombardo and the other ETA bosses exemplifies the failure of leadership that is now evident in Big Labor, Big Business, and Big Government. At a time of crisis, many major organizations find themselves governed not by leaders, but instead by figurehead managers incapable of leading men and women. Frequently, these “leaders” are more interested in finding others to blame for their problems than they are in contributing to constructive solutions.

Unfortunately, the reality is that the budget deficit must be closed through either concessions or layoffs. In an organization where 85% of the budget funds salaries, it is impossible to cut costs without touching labor. A sensible employee will say to himself, “I am better off sacrificing raises, vacation, and even some pay so that my coworkers can hold onto their jobs.” However, the Connecticut Educational Association and the Enfield Teachers’ Association have used their monopoly powers to stop teachers from making this rational choice. It illustrates the extent to which these unions have compromised their mission for the sake of money, power, and greed.

It should be known that Enfield’s teachers are fairly compensated for the work they perform. For a new teacher with a bachelor’s degree, starting pay is north of $42,000 a year and includes health and retirement benefits. Moreover, that salary ramps up significantly over a twelve-year period. A teacher who has graduate studies and a bevy of experience under their belt can earn a salary in the 70’s or 80’s. It should be apparent that the town is not asking Enfield’s teachers to shoulder an undue burden.

Last, it should be abundantly clear that the town cannot increase property taxes. Even a Keynesian will recognize the contractionary effects of tax increases. This situation is further complicated by the relationship that housing and foreclosures have to the economic crisis. Already, many homeowners are on the verge of foreclosure. An increase in property tax would simply increase their already sky-high mortgage payments and thus increase the foreclosure rate, here in town.

Moreover, the general public is in near-unanimous agreement that spending cuts, not tax increases are the answer. A recent Quinnipiac poll shows that 67% of Connecticut residents would like to see the state budget balanced through spending cuts, not tax increases.

The time has come for elected officials to pull together and put the interest of the general public ahead of special interests. We cannot allow the unchecked expansion of the educational budget to increase taxes or crowd out other vital services, like public safety and law enforcement. Enfield cannot tax its way out of this crisis- we must grow our way out of it. Now is the time for us to get it right- to recognize that public services and schools do not drive real estate and business development. Rather, it is the growth of commerce and enterprise that makes possible the population and grand list growth that are the hallmark of a healthy community.