The contradictions in the public-employee union arguments are many.

We need the unions so we have good pay and benefits, but…

We don’t really have good pay and benefits.

We don’t really have good pay and benefits, but…

It’s time to tax the rich to pay for the budgets that pay for our pay and benefits.

We have to have public-employee unions and collective bargaining because it’s the only way we’ll improve our lot in life, but…

Union membership in the private sector continues to decline – don’t they need unions to improve their lot in life?

If you stop collective bargaining in the public sector you’ll eliminate the middles class, but…

Most people don’t work for the government and most people are in the middle class.

We need unions and collective bargaining in the public sector to protect us from the government “man,” but…

Aren’t the people who work in government good, unlike businessmen? Whom do you need protection from? The voters? The citizens?

They just want to end collective bargaining and public-employee unions to intentionally destroy the middle class, but…

Really, seriously, why?

The private sector has unions and collective bargaining and so should the public sector, but…

Private-sector unions have to deal with a free market, company profit and loss; public-sector unions are funded through mandatory taxes and the customers – citizens – are locked into the state monopoly.

People should be allowed to assemble as they see fit, but…

A right-to-work state that doesn’t require the payment of union dues to work is wrong?

Public employees deserve good or great pay because they do good and great jobs, but…

Requiring pay based on merit is an attack on public employees?

If collective bargaining is ended and unions weakened, all public employees will quit, but…

Well, probably not.

Ohio’s SB5, changing collective-bargaining for public employees, is difficult, no doubt about it. While I have only been the member of a union for a few months in my years of working, it’s understandable why people unionize.

Let’s be honest. While all employees are not saints, neither is all management. Just as unions have at times gone too far in their demands, management has done the same.

Still, it’s hard to believe that without substantial change, whether of collective bargaining, government programs, or outright elimination of some duties that government has undertaken over the years, we will not get our fiscal house in order.

While there seems to be some doubt whether government employees are at or above their private-sector counterparts in pay, there seems to be little confusion in the area of benefits – both how much is to be received and the percentage of contributions. Government employees look to have better benefits even as they contribute less toward those benefits.

And job security is generally greater. They accepted somewhat lower pay, at least in earlier days, in exchange for that security, we’ve been told.

Now, there have been many illustrations of unions agreeing to wage/benefit cuts/freezes in order to help difficult budget situations. They should be commended for doing so. However, that this is seen as such a great contribution underscores their impact on public budgets.

Civil service laws are ignored, too, when unions make their case that only they protect their members. Besides, should SB5 pass, any efforts by administrators that are seen as making life more dangerous or onerous for public employees will be front-page news. While enough voters might give SB5 the benefit of the doubt, they will surely recoil if it is used punitively.

But, ultimately, it seems SB5 is about who is in charge. Is it the elected officials and administrators, who are to be agents of the “owners” of the government, the citizens and taxpayers? Or is it the public employees — more specifically in this case, the public-employee unions?

While all of “Stretching the School Dollar” is a fascinating read, the following is especially germane:

“The influence of teachers and teacher unions in local school politics has important consequences for educational productivity and for efforts to improve it in response to fiscal pressures. In the majority of school districts nationwide which engage in formal contract negotiations with unionized employees, the collective bargaining process provides teachers unions with a unique venue through which to shape district policy.

“Topics typically covered in teacher collective bargaining agreements range from the bread-and-butter issues of salaries and benefits to procedures for teacher evaluation, allowances for preparation time, limitations on student contact time and class size, and a host of other work rules that structure everyday practices in the district’s schools.

“Indeed, the 199 contracts on file at the Bureau of Labor Statistics in January 2005 spanned, on average, 105 pages. Their sheer scope ensures that virtually any attempt to change an established policy or practice will conflict with the contract in some way and therefore require union approval. Accordingly, even researchers who downplay the role of teacher unions as a proactive force shaping district policy generally acknowledge that they have the ability to veto major policy changes.”

And this comes after a section explaining the political power that teachers and unions have in elections. Following it is a section that describes what happened in New York City when coffers were flush. The then-chancellor negotiated, over several years, contract changes that included “shorter summers, a six-period work day, streamlined grievance procedures, and a reinstatement of a policy under which teachers patrolled school lunchrooms.”

See, collective bargaining works. (Though one wonders how teachers ever got out of patrolling lunchrooms.) Or does it?

“Yet he was only able to convince United Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten to go along with these changes by agreeing to increase teacher salaries by more than 40 percent….

“In a subsequent negotiation, [the superintendent] won union approval for a modest merit pay program for schools serving low-income students only by agreeing to modify pension policies such that a twenty-five-year veteran could retire at age fifty-five, rather than sixty-two, with 50 percent of her salary guaranteed for life.”

SB5 might not be the best approach. But unless changes are quite substantial, we will continue down the path of ever increasing, i.e. unsustainable, costs. At some point, that path will end. As many see it today, it already has.

I have to admit the last few weeks have been a bit tough. Some job opportunities seemed to have closed as fast as they opened. I won’t belabor it; I’ve talked about my job-search journey a few times here.

But today offered quite a nice surprise. When I went to get the mail, a package was waiting at my door. I didn’t think it was for me since I hadn’t ordered anything. The envelope was partially open and I could see it was a book. Now, I order books but was sure I hadn’t done so this time.

But there was my name on the label.

Upon opening it, I broke into smiles. It was a copy of Known and Unknown, A Memoir, by Donald Rumsfeld.

Just over a year ago, after I read who would publish the former Defense secretary’s upcoming book, I contacted the publisher. I humbly requested a copy prior to publication for review on this blog (which I began after I was laid off from my journalism job, see above).

My initial contact was met positively, but I was asked to get in touch with the publisher again when it was closer to the expected release date. When I did so, it sounded less promising. I was told there would not be any pre-publication copies given to the press.

But they still sent me a copy to arrive on publication day! A big Thank You to those at Sentinel/Penguin Group who still kept me in mind.

I have a lot of admiration for Donald Rumsfeld. He certainly became a lightning rod as Defense secretary. But I always saw him as a dedicated patriot who made the best interests of his country top priority.

Heck, I was even quoting him from time to time in some editorials I wrote in my previous job. The quotes were from some of the speeches he gave on the anniversary of 9/11. Whatever your feelings about Rumsfeld, you cannot help but be moved when he talks about the sacrifices our men and women in uniform, and their families, have made, and continue to make, for America.

Now, I’ve got some reading to do! This is a big book.

The response to Governor-elect Kasich’s decision on passenger rail in Ohio has been instructive. It’s an excellent example of the divide between liberals and conservatives, between expansive government and limited government.

At stake, from the left’s perspective, is $400 million “given” to Ohio by the feds. It’s to be used for high-speed rail connecting Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland, as part of a wider fed plan to bring rail to the masses nationwide.

Kasich, seeing yet another big-government project that has a high probability of not fulfilling its many promises, wants to either use the money for something else (maybe roads and bridges) or have it stay in Washington to be applied to the federal deficit.

Liberals are apoplectic. “Give up” $400 million? Stop high speed rail and, by definition, doom Ohio to (continue) to use cars? And what about all those jobs that will be created? Give it back? Is Kasich crazy?

This is like watching the gubernatorial debates between Ted Strickland and Kasich. There was the sense that from Strickland’s point of view, government was the great purveyor of jobs. For Kasich, it was clear that he saw private enterprise, particularly small businesses, as the real engine of job growth.

Government-built rail highlights this difference again.

As the critics lash out at Kasich for his position, they brush aside many questions. How speedy is this train likely to be? Is there any pressing need for daily commutes by a substantial number of people between these cities? What will the ultimate cost be? Will it need to be subsidized for – like – ever? Will it be built in the time-frame estimated?

But the widest chasm is created when the charge of jobs lost is thrown. If it’s just about jobs, why rail? Why not, say, hospitals. Plenty of construction jobs, followed by medical jobs, all to help sick people.

Why not bike trails? We could put a lot of people to work doing that. But what about the weather? Well, let’s make them covered bike trails, that would mean even more jobs. Then we could build special bicycles for these trails that would make it easier for anybody to ride them. This, in turn, will lead to a healthier population as it gets the exercise it needs. Thus we would attain the Holy Grail — lower health care costs. It’s a win-win-win-win….

Or maybe we could build more coal-fired electricity generation plants. We could install the latest in  environmental protection, even sequestering carbon dioxide underground. All of this would create jobs, jobs, jobs.

Silly? Why? It would create jobs.

And where does it end? Why should it end, if all one sees is the government “creating” jobs?

And other than Kasich, nobody seems to acknowledge that this money is not simply “found” money the Treasury came by unawares. These are tax dollars taken from citizens, or borrowed against younger citizens and their children to be.

At a time of record deficits and national debt, maybe, just maybe, we shouldn’t go through with this project that has future boondoggle written all over it. Can anybody say Amtrak?

So, AT&T says the iPhone contract ends July 22. Our financial situation meant we had to consolidate phone plans. Besides, we were sick of paying extra just for having an iPhone.

To be safe, to ensure that we were not penalized for ending the two-year contract early, we switched the phone number to a new carrier on July 23.

Then came the next AT&T bill. It said we owed $59.99 (just for phone service, no data plan as had been charged the previous two years) for the time period of 7/23-8/22. I figured “the computer” sent out the bill before it realized we had ended our account. But we thought we’d stop by the local AT&T store to clarify. That’s when the fun began.

At the store, the helpful agent could not tell us anything because the account was closed. However, he called AT&T customer service – no special number, he had to wait on hold like anyone else – for us. But we had to do the talking.

I was given no additional information other than I had to pay the bill and hope it would all work out in the final bill.

The final bill had an additional charge of $1.07, for text messages (another reason we were canceling the account).

A call to AT&T customer service got me this information: “AT&T bills ahead.” I agreed, since the bill was for service 7/23-8/22. But I said, we did not use the phone after 7/22. “But that is AT&T policy.”

Let me get this straight. AT&T is charging for a month of phone use even though I did not use my phone, in the sense that it was canceled, and that’s its policy? “Yes.”

Now, this sounded as crazy to the customer service agent as it did to me. And she did try to credit my account but said she was unable to do so. Is there anyone else I could contact? “You could send an e-mail.”

Going to AT&T’s Web site, I searched for a way to e-mail the company. All I could find was an e-mail accessible after you log-in to your account. Attempting to log-in I received the message that my account had been canceled and that I should call.

Call again I did. I got a different person who seemed to also be confused that, since I canceled on 7/23 I was charged for 7/23-8/22. “Let me find out if you were billed ahead or in arrears.”

After a few moments, she confirmed that I was billed in advance. However, “when you signed your contract,” you agreed to pay for a month of service if you even used 1 day of that service.

I love it when they remind you that this is what it said in the 5,000 page contract that you signed – as if you could get the phone if you didn’t sign the contract – two years ago. I agreed that I signed the contract but I was still flabbergasted that AT&T would charge for a full month, after I had met all obligations of the two-year contract, for one day’s use. In fact, it wasn’t even a full day’s use.

Moreover, I told her, after learning this, I wouldn’t be surprised that if I had canceled my account on 7/22, AT&T would have claimed I did not complete my two-year contract and charged me a penalty.

I have to say that the two women who helped me on the phone were courteous and understood my dilemma. I even got the $1.07 credited. Big … you know the rest.

But as I tweeted the day this happened, I wouldn’t care if AT&T was the exclusive provider of iPhone 16, I will never be an AT&T customer again.

How does a company justify losing a customer for life for $59.99?

I try to keep a good frame of mind when it comes to government.

Is it too big? Yes. Is it wasteful? Yes. But even though it would be easy to jump on the anti-government bandwagon, it wouldn’t be very helpful. I recognize the necessity of government and the many good things it accomplishes, not the least of which we were again reminded of this Memorial Day and every day we safely live our lives.

But when you see things like these it just makes you cringe. Worse, they are right here in my home state of Ohio. I understand why and how but I don’t, you know what I mean?

1. Ohio Governor’s Mansion Sting operation. No, it’s not about getting Ted Strickland taking bag money from the mob. It was to catch inmates working at the mansion smuggling contraband – smokes – back to their prison home. Not exactly much of a crime to most but illegal nonetheless.

But that’s not the big deal. At issue is who canceled the sting and why. And why was a non-official warned about the sting? Was there also an idea proffered by someone in this cast of state characters that would have set the stage to get another state official into trouble?

The state now has its third public safety director in nine months and a bill to eliminate the inmate-work program at the governor’s house is being considered. The bill started out with simply stricter restrictions. But then the governor suspended the program when an inmate working there was found with a blood-alcohol level more than three times at which someone is considered to be drunk.

Why, yes, the Keystone Cops do come to mind.

2. Then there is the state’s child-obesity bill. This is about something that’s important – maintaining a good body weight. The bill would require 30 minutes of exercise daily in addition to recess, among other provisions.

Good ideas but, frankly, is this not something that could be handled at home? And whether food provided at school is healthful could certainly be decided by the local school board, school cooks and parents.

But it doesn’t end there. According to a Dispatch article Sunday, school groups and teachers’ unions oppose the exercise requirement, blaming costs and time. There are only 24 hours a day so the time concern sounds legitimate. A mandatory exercise time means something else cannot be accomplished. But how much can it cost to let kids run around for a half-hour?

The response by one of the co-sponsors of the bill to the objections didn’t help. According to the Dispatch, he replied:

“I don’t understand why the teachers unions think it’s advantageous to have our kids fat and lazy.”

My guess is, despite their objections to the bill, they don’t, really.

3. The Columbus Public School District wants to eliminate most of its bus routes to save money.

You guessed it. That’s not the most intriguing part of the story, all the other issues, such as safety, convenience, notwithstanding. You see, the low bidder on the proposal — the one that would save the district the most money — picked by the district’s superintendent, didn’t sit well with the school board majority.

Apparently the problem is that the bidder is not designated a “Local and Economically Disadvantaged Enterprise.” And since the chosen bid was so good, the superintendent went with a single company instead of splitting the contract, as has been done in the past. Thus, there isn’t also an LEDE alongside the non-LEDE.

As one LEDE owner said to the board:

“I’m saying how is it that we are able to bid solely on the basis of price?” Richard Crockett, Capital’s owner, asked the board.

Leaving aside for the moment the advantages of helping small businesses and that price isn’t necessarily the only factor in choosing a bid, that’s quite a statement considering the reason the school district is making this change in bus routes: to save money.

And why was the LEDE program created?

“The LEDE program was born of an effort to appease minority contractors who threatened to oppose the 2002 bond levy. The initial program provided ways for contractors to prove they were disadvantaged, but minorities and women were automatically considered disadvantaged as long as their net worth was less than $750,000.

“The board altered the program in 2004 to eliminate any goals based on race or gender after a contractor trade group threatened to sue, citing federal case law that racial set-aside programs are unconstitutional.”

4. Ohio takes another shot at the Race To The Top, one of the federal government’s latest efforts to bolster education. The program is in its infancy but both sides of the political philosophical spectrum have had positive things to say about the proposal. One aspect of it that has garnered support is its rigorous application process, and that’s where we run into problems.

Only two states received funds in the first round. One reason why they got money and the 38 other states, including Ohio, didn’t is that they got 100 percent buy-in from all the schools in their states. That is, the superintendents, school boards and teachers’ unions all signed agreements to participate.

Think about that for a moment. What is the one refrain we always hear about education? “We need more money.” Let’s assume that’s true. Why, then, turn down the chance to get more money? Often it’s the unions who do not agree to the idea of tying together teacher performance and student progress. While there are problems with this, it’s not completely unreasonable.

The first time around, Ohio could only muster 51 percent buy-in. But, “following heavy lobbying by Gov. Ted Strickland and state educators to get more schools involved,” that number … soared to … 57 percent. Let’s face it. That’s pretty sad.

Oh, Ohio’s chances are better this time if only because fewer states will be competing. And, Ohio’s application ballooned to 378 pages, 116 pages more than last time. That must be good, right? But as Frederick Hess noted regarding the first round of applications:

The Department of Education asked states to document everything in their proposals and issued guidelines that applications should  total no more than 350 pages. The result? Every state exceeded the guidelines, with no consequences. States padded their applications with hundreds of pages of letters of support, research papers, jargon-laden memos, and curricula. New York, for instance, included 156 pages of letters of support. It’s not clear whether states whose consultants produced less voluminous applications were penalized for their failure.

Not sure what’s worse. That every state acted like an obnoxious overachiever who hands in a report that far exceeds the maximum length. Or that the federal government didn’t reject the proposals because they exceeded the guidelines.

Oh well. Maybe this time it will work out for Ohio.

It wasn’t good news: yet another business closing. This time it was in Port Clinton, an area hit even harder than the rest of our struggling state.

Silgan Plastics announced earlier this month that it would be shuttering one of its two area facilities located within two hours of each other. Jobs lost: 150.

As Ohio continues to lag behind most other states, the question always arises upon hearing the news of layoffs — what to do?

A story in the Sandusky Register said the state Department of Development was sending a rapid response team, whatever that means. And the county commissioners and Rep. Marcy Kaptur were scrambling to try to save the jobs.

Perhaps the jobs can be saved but it’s very unlikely. Besides, the best time to do something is before these announcements are made. And, as effective as they can be, this case highlights the challenges and limitations of tax cuts as a way to attract/retain business.

Despite its record earnings in 2009, Silgan is a company of many parts. And its plastic containers portion, a part of which is the Ohio facility that is set to close, did not have a good year in ’09. For the year, sales were down $110 million to $541 million compared to a year earlier.

Now, the company’s tax rate did change in the fourth quarter y-o-y from 28 percent in 2008 to 35.6 in 2009. This was due to the company’s change from Last In, First Out accounting to First In, First Out for the plastic container business, as well as “certain state tax credits and the impact of the full year benefit from research and development credits approved in the fourth quarter of 2008,” according to a company press release.

However, how much the change in taxes was due to tax credits or switching to FIFO, which could lead to higher income and thus higher taxes, is unclear.

But 2008 also was a year of closings for Silgan. It closed a plant in Alabama, idling 35 employees; in Richmond, Virginia it closed a facility and 15 employees were laid off; a facility closure and other consolidations in Turkey led to 150 people losing their jobs, according to its 2008 annual report.

In the report, Silgan also noted that, in 2006, it closed three other facilities in Minnesota and California, with 260 employees let go.

There are at least a few ways to view these actions. Silgan could simply be responding to the economy. Maybe it struggles with planning and buys or starts businesses only to find it overestimated its needs, forcing it to reduce capacity. Silgan may also be looking to increase shareholder returns. Or it could be a combination of all of these factors, and others.

We should still strive to get tax policy right and, more often than not, that means lowering tax rates for individuals and companies.

However, we cannot assume, nor argue, that lowering tax rates will cure all ills. Voters will find this incomplete, just as they will reject the idea that taxes must always go up to make the world a better place.

I’m sure the new iPad will be loved and wanted by all. Well, except me.

I used to be a big Apple fan but that has waned since I had to return to Windows.

And especially since the adventure of getting iTunes music from one computer to another, from Mac to Windows, and a child’s library shared on one computer to the child’s new computer, my thoughts on Apple and Macs are not pleasant.

So, with the introduction of the iPad, it seems appropriate to have a little fun with the product name and the companion products that might be spun off of Apple’s new tablet. (How the name got through the stages of approval at Apple is a mystery.)

I tweeted some of these last night and I have a few more today:

• iPaddle – a mobile tablet just for boaters
• iPaddington Bear – the tablet for toddlers
• iPadituptohere – for those tablet users who are frustrated with life, computers, what have you
• iPad is your Pad – the tablet specially designed for sharing
• iPad iSaw iConquered – for tablet users with delusions of grandeur
• iPaddy – the tablet for St. Patrick’s Day
• And since the iPad is kind of like a big iPod – introducing the bIpod for, well, bIpeds

Any names to add?

Is anybody in it for the right reasons?

In Ohio, the FOP has come out in a strong way for the expansion of gambling in Ohio. Its ads have been especially bold because of the emphasis they have placed on “telling the truth” for the gambling interests. (Remember when gambling was a crime.)

Could it be the FOP’s support has something to do with 2 percent of the annual tax revenues from this gambling proposal being slated for law enforcement training?

Unions and, in some cases, businesses, are big backers of the kind of health care reform being pushed by Democrats in Washington. Is it to help their members’ (or employees’) health care, or for another reason?

Investor’s Business Daily reported last month:

Unions argue a medical overhaul will let them take health care benefits off the table during contract negotiations, freeing them to push for higher wages.

The House version of the bill also includes $10 billion in relief for troubled pension funds. While not specifically earmarked for unions, as written the relief would be available to most union-run pensions.

And, of course, businesses can see the government takeover of health care as a way to free them from the cost of handling it for their employees.

(Not that this is necessarily bad. Indeed, one reform that is worthwhile is breaking the lock of health care insurance with employment so that losing or changing jobs does not take away one’s insurance. But that’s not why many businesses want out of health care.)

Then there’s this, which is as funny as it is disappointing. Tom Suddes wrote in his column Sunday about how First Energy was going to give some ratepayers 2 CFL bulbs for “free” to, you know, save energy (just don’t break one).

However, these free bulbs, worth about $7, would actually cost customers more than $21 through a three-year monthly charge to, you know, compensate First Energy for possibly selling less power due to the use of the CFLs.

This came with a government imprimatur but the ensuing controversy has left the plan in limbo.

What’s next? A fuel-efficiency surcharge on cars that get more than, say, 30 mpg to, you know, compensate oil companies for the fewer barrels of oil they’ll sell?

(Note to potential employers: If I was in your communications department and presented with the CFL deal, I would have told you it wasn’t such a bright idea.)

Finally, though the list is probably unending, we have another example of the ostensibly strange bedfellows climate change/green initiatives create. Jonathan Riskind talked about how Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown is a key player in the cap and trade bill, though Riskind kept calling it a climate-change bill.

(My apologies if he was referring to some other legislation. Whatever it is, Riskind explained that “Brown’s short-term challenge is trying to keep a climate-change bill from harming Ohio. “Harm” being a point many supporters of such bills fail to mention.)

But for today’s discussion, Riskind noted that:

Brown has worked to placate not just the unions but the normally GOP-friendly manufacturers, as well. The National Association of Manufacturers has endorsed Brown’s proposal for a $30 billion manufacturing revolving-loan fund.

One could say this is the way it’s always been; “let’s make a deal.”

That’s not good enough. And wrong.

Do you  remember Alistair Cooke’s “America”? If memory serves, in one episode he said that one thing our leaders were able to do to move this country from concept to existence was “compromise, compromise, compromise.”

Now, this can be a pejorative but Cooke meant it as a compliment. Sadly, the examples listed above do not rise to such grand founding-of-America aspiration. They simply seem to descend to petty what’s-in-it-for-me compensation.