Many are looking forward with great anticipation to the baseball playoff season (though with the Cubs at 29-1/2 out of their division lead, me ... not so much). Others look forward to the beginning of college football rivalries, with the season opener for the Fight Irish of Notre Dame occurring in Ireland against Navy. Others still watch pre-season NFL football, and hold out hope for a better season than last (and that the real refs will get back to work soon).
Many however, anticipate the climax of the Republican convention or the beginning of the Democratic one, when candidates will ramp up the rhetoric to a fever pitch in the hope of their team winning the big one in November.
In Toledo however, sports and politics have combined into an event unique to the Glass City. While the initial rounds (and maybe the game itself) may be over, it's worth a little time to review some play-by-play (though without the Sportscenter video) as City Councilman Steve Steel participated in a little "Contribution Hold-'em" at One Government Center. Call it what sport you will (I certainly threw every one I could think of at it), there's no denying that the one-on-one match up outlined in "Sporting Toledo" was a unique one.
What's not unique however, is that you will only find the kind of hard hitting coverage you yearn for in the website of Toledo's largest Sunday circulation and Ohio's Best Weekly Newspaper (now for the fourth year in a row), the Toledo Free Press.
We are often told that the problem with government is the level of political discourse between the left and the right. We are similarly told that if only conservatives would compromise with liberals (or vice versa), the nation's problems could be solved.
It seems however, that the problem with the debate is that it's not so much between the left and right as it is between the Democrats and Republicans. Even as politicians attempt to define themselves by issues in order to appeal to certain parts of the political base, what they're doing in actuality is establishing their credentials as members of their political parties.
Politicians have in fact become little more than players on political 'teams', competing on a national electoral playing field.
My friend Roland Hansen has written about the fact that Independent politicians are a joke that can achieve little if anything once elected, due to a lack of party affiliation. While I agree with him about what can be accomplished, but my anger is not directed at these potentially viable candidates, but at the rules of the game that have put them on a dead branch of political evolution.
It's not that Independent Candidates could not be good elected officials, do not come up with good ideas, or that their thinking is incorrect; instead it's that since they do not wear the uniform of either team, their efforts are doomed; since there's little hope that they will be allowed to score.
As use of the sports analogy points to, keeping score is in fact what politics has become all about. Neither of the major teams plays for the benefit of the fans or the good of the game any longer (if they ever did). Instead their efforts are expended on behalf of their team owners, investors, and fellow players; often at the expense of the rules of the game and the expectation of the fans. Good legislation will go down to defeat and bad legislation will be passed all so one team or another can put another win on the scoreboard. When those in the stands cry 'foul', they are told by contestants and analysts that they simply don't understand the situation (or more accurately, the rules of the game).
Few view the success of elections in terms of ideology any longer (which quite often is much the same in these parties), as much as they do in terms of the number of players they can put on the field. Few politicians will even attempt to reach an accord on a legitimate issue that needs to be a addressed, or reach across 'party lines' for support when there's a chance to use the issue in the next election cycle. Cowardly competitors from both sides refuse to stand alone for fear of angering the team that they play on or losing their team's support to keep a job that their timid actions show them not to be doing.
Instead, we are treated to elected officials carefully polling the fan base and season ticket holders (special interest groups) to determine how to increase the sound of the cheering for their side while actually doing nothing. Even if they disagree with their team management over which plays should be called, they swallow any remnants of independent thought to maintain loyalty to 'the franchise' rather than those who sent them to Washington in the first place.
We can in fact blame this madness on our Founding Fathers.
It was begun by Alexander Hamilton's creation of the Federalist Party in the late 1700's to support his desire for a stronger central government than many saw in the Constitution, and a fiscal policy which included a powerful national bank. James Madison, and later Thomas Jefferson, responded to this move with the formation of the Democratic-Republican Party (a name which has nothing to do with either of its namesakes); and the game was on. Oh, there have been name changes over the years, as the effects of Political Plate Tectonics continue both the erosion of ideology and the formation of new teams who would like to play in the big leagues; but for the most part in the history of this nation, we have seen only two players.
Lately however, these two gladiatorial squads seem intent on making this a 'Thunderdome' event, where two enter and only one leaves.
The pronouncements about the 'will of the people', 'the good of the nation', and 'serving the electorate' ring especially hollow among the cheers of 'we are the champions', 'go team go', and 'take no prisoners'.
What's even worse is that through tradition, we've now institutionalized the entire hierarchy of the contest. This team concept has become such an ingrained part of the political culture that we think nothing of paying for their internal candidate selection processes (primaries); as if there is some intrinsic value in paying public dollars so that these private clubs can pick their representatives. And should some libertarian, independent, or other '3rd party' candidate attempt to enter the ring of this exclusive contest; they will quickly find themselves without access the trough of taxpayer funding granted by tainted tradition to the elephant and the jackass.
I'm afraid however, that they've lost at least one fan. I can find nothing of value in what has become a savage and pointless game where no matter what the score is, the ultimate loser is the voters.
The NFL season may apparently not be the only one in jeopardy. With the National Football League Player's Association having de-certified itself in order to take its negotiations with team owners to court, the prospect of a 2011 football season grows ever dimmer.
Adding insult to injury however, are stories that continue to emerge about the National Basketball Player's Association being in a similar situation. College prospects in the midst of the NCAA tournament are also considering staying in school rather than taking a chance of a basketball lockout next season. According to a story in the Kansas City Star, the NBPA issued a handbook to its members earlier this month entitled "Hope for the best, Prepare for the worst". It seems as though the collective bargaining agreement for this professional sport is set to expire on June 30th, and the potential for a labor action puts its season in serious jeopardy for next year as well.
Now I'm not a big professional sports fan, though I do like watching a sporting event or two in person and on television. The reason that this topic intrigues me however is because of the recent discussion of unions in this country, and the apparently unique nature of professional sport unions.
In no other type of negotiations between labor and management that I am aware of do a group of employees negotiate some part of their compensation as a group, but their salaries as individuals. Players in each sport in fact negotiate signing bonuses, length of contract, salary, and performance bonuses on an individual basis (often of course, with the help of an agent). While there may be league limits in some cases, the game of compensation is played one-on-one. Personally, I would like to understand the mentality of this type of bargaining, when the only collective to be seen is the team of people used to negotiate the package for the athlete (and take their 15%).
Imagine if you will, if Teamsters working on their next contract with UPS or FedEx were to have the union negotiate health benefits and retirement packages as a group, but leave the issue of individual salaries up to the members. I'm not sure that you can, for indeed the concept of employees being paid on such a basis (a system perhaps based on merit rather than seniority) is an anathema to the rest of the unionized world. Strikes in other industries are quite often based on a standard of pay, regardless of merit, for each individual worker.
In light of the furor over changes in Wisconsin law over the concept that government workers might be compensated based on merit rather than simple union membership or seniority, I began to wonder what all of the fuss was about. The state of Wisconsin is simply seeking to reward its workers in the same way as team owners do these professional athletes. Of course these workers will gain no privileges of 'franchise status' or 'free agency', but they might be able to earn signing or performance bonus for a job well done. Who could possibly be against rewards to those best serving the public interest?
Another question relating to professional athletes occurred to me, in that these pros are apparently required to join the union in order to work at their chosen profession even if they work in "right to work states". I know that the team owners are provided some legal protection from federal anti-trust laws through long-standing (and probably questionable) legislative fiat, but I was not aware that the player's unions in sports were likewise granted protection from state labor laws.
I believe in the historic principle of collective bargaining, though not as a universal concept.
I believe that were it not for unions mines would probably still be unsafe, work hours in factories would probably be too long, and employee compensation would probably be too little. I likewise believe that like the days of the blacksmith, such days are probably more a part of our past than our future. I further believe that forced enrollment in a union in order to work at a chosen profession is an infringement of personal freedom and not a right. Every state should be a "right to work state", and employees should be free to choose whether joining such a organization is in their own best interest.
The concept of government unions is even more complex, since the normal balance of cost and profit cannot hold sway, and because the government almost always holds a monopoly on the services that it provides. As such, the concept of collective bargaining rights for this type of employee is perhaps long overdue for a careful re-examination.
The world is a much smaller place than it once was, and employers can easily relocate facilities to friendlier labor oases anywhere in the world if they choose to. The potential for connecting products and services from such hospitable environments to the markets that require them has never been greater. Discovering how to balance the fair compensation of employees that produce things, at a price that the greatest number can afford, may prove to be the most difficult negotiation of all in the days ahead. Rather than chain ourselves to ideas of the past, we need to remain open to alternatives for the future.
As for professional athletes, they appear to have the best of all possible worlds ... at least for now. Generous group benefit packages that are guaranteed, and individual salaries that are the envy of most of the rest of us make even their potentially short careers lucrative indeed.
One can argue that they are receiving too little, just the right amount, or far too much for the work that they do. Almost no one however, will argue that with the way they get to negotiate their compensation, they are players indeed!
