Tag: Fairness

An Inexcusable Inequity

~ Joe Broadmeadow ~ Leave a comment

Please take a moment to share my work on social media. Agree or disagree, the more who read this the bigger the opportunity to share with others and promote meaningful dialog. It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Now let me preface this by saying I am not proposing any form of socialism as a solution. With all its flaws, the free market/capitalist system is, to paraphrase another comparison, the worst system of economics except for all the rest.

But with that said, here’s a bit of a quandary.

According to OXFAM.org, the 10 wealthiest people in the world, all men, increased their net worth from $700 billion pre-pandemic to $1.5 trillion in 2022.

To put those numbers into a meaningful perspective. If these gentlemen liquidated their assets into cash intending to spend it all, it might look like this. To do this, we must agree this is just a thought experiment and ignore that doing such a thing may not be as easy as it sounds.

Let’s say they decide to spend 100 million dollars per day. Please check my math on this but,

$1,500,000,000,000 divided by $100,000,000 equals 15000 days or 41 years.

Forty-one years at 100 million dollars a day to spend the 1.5 trillion dollars in net worth.

When you consider the number of humans living below the poverty level, or worse, the idea the 10 men control enough money that it would take decades at 100 million dollars a day to spend it all should give you pause.

Think about that next time you hear how the country is in debt. We cannot afford to house the homeless, solve the drug problem, or eliminate any other issues facing us today.

While I don’t think socialism is the answer, there should be some limit to the amount of wealth concentrated in the bank accounts of such few people.

There should be some way to apply a limit to the percentage of wealth concentrated within such a small percentage of the population.

In Newport, Rhode Island, there are testimonies to avarice and greed used to fund monstrous houses. The “Newport Mansions” were built at enormous cost, primarily from the profits from 1890 railroad magnates and other successful businessmen. Businesses that exploited the common laborers that made the businesses possible.

For example, one of these homes cost $12 million to build at the time. This is equal to $300 million in today’s dollars. And these were summer residences, some never used more than a week or two by the families who built them.

While one might argue that the carpenters, masons, electricians, plumbers, cooks, house staff, and caretakers benefitted from the construction, does that justify such an enormous expense that served no other purpose but as a symbol of extraordinary wealth?

Trickle-down economics sound plausible and beneficial, but the reality is entirely different.

Perhaps the structure of the tax laws needs to reflect a shared percentage of one’s wealth. Then everyone would pay the same portion of their earnings and assets. It is fundamentally unfair for someone with significant financial assets to take advantage of tax laws intended to offer incentives to people taking risks and starting businesses and turning them into vehicles to forego paying their fair share.

I don’t have the answer to the issue. But that doesn’t mean it is not appropriate to raise it for discussion. I just can’t help intuitively believing that something is fundamentally unfair in a world where it would take ten men forty-one years to spend all their wealth at one hundred million dollars a day.

We have only ourselves to blame for letting our political system be dominated by those who can afford to run for office or are willing to be paid to do so by those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

And if you believe flawed individuals hold positions of power, that is on you. To quote Mahatma Gandhi,

“If there is an idiot in power, it is because those who elected him are well represented.”

JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services.

Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publishing dreams into a reality. For more information and manuscript submission guidelines contact us at info@jebwizardpublishing.com or 401-533-3988.

All’s Fair in…

~ Joe Broadmeadow ~ 2 Comments

At the risk of stirring up a hornet’s nest of indignation, the recent allegations against New York Governor Cuomo, while troubling in their detail and evident documentation beyond a mere claim, do create an issue of fairness. That many others knew of these various incidents raise the question is one person’s perception of sexual harassment enough to warrant an investigation?

In the details that are available, several women did complain about the governor’s words and actions. Taken in isolation, these are troubling sophomoric behavior from someone who should know better. Taken together, they raise serious concerns. But the majority of these actions and comments took place in the presence of other, senior staff members both male and female.

Did any of them raise an alarm, or seek out the targeted women to see if there was an issue?  Did anyone warn the Governor he may have crossed the line?

It begs the question of when does an incident perceived by one to be harassment and by others as innocent if crude joking deserve to be tried in the press with no formal judicial or investigative substantiation?

We are still a country where the presumption of innocence supersedes even the most scurrilous of charges and we need not forget that.  Absent any corroborating evidence of complicity (such as secret payments from, say, a campaign account handled by a personal attorney) such allegations need be treated accordingly, an allegation not proof.

Sexual harassment is a serious and dangerous element of human interaction. It is difficult to separate the hormones from the humans involved but maturity brings skills to control one’s behavior. One can know where the line falls between humor and boorish behavior and there should be a crystal-clear demarcation to what constitutes harassment.

There also need be an environment where anyone who feels threatened can freely express these concerns without fear. Yet, we also need recognize that delay is detrimental to the veracity or believability. Particularly when dealing with public figures, the variety of avenues to address such concerns first internally and then, if circumstances dictate, publicly are limitless.

With no intent to demean or discount the complaints made, it is a natural concern to take any delay reporting such issues into consideration when evaluating them.  As horrific as some of these incidents are, false allegations for vindictive, political, or personal reasons are equally abhorrent.

Accusations, regardless of the allegation, come with an obligation of truthfulness and legitimate motivation. While all such complaints need be taken seriously, they also need be vetted for veracity.

In the 1990s, there was a hysteria over “repressed” memories wherein many psychologists and psychiatrists legitimized recovered memories as a sound basis for bringing charges of sexual assault. The overwhelming majority of these were based on bad medical science and poor investigations.  The intention was well-meaning, but the result was a travesty of justice.

Bringing these issues to the forefront and opening them for discussion is important. But just as a fearful environment that once trapped sexual harassment victims in a dilemma of whether to speak up, we must be vigilant against overreacting and creating an equally fearful environment of accepting claims without ensuring we safeguard the innocent.   

************************************************************************

JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services.

Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publishing dreams into a reality. For more information and manuscript submission guidelines contact us at info@jebwizardpublishing.com or 401-533-3988.

Signup here for our mailing list for information on all upcoming releases, book signings, and media appearances.

Sacrificial Lambs, The Fix is In, and Random Thoughts on The New American Reality

~ Joe Broadmeadow ~ Leave a comment

Under the Banner Sacrificial Lamb

During the lockdown to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, the definition of “essential” took on a rather broad interpretation. Now I’m not saying I disagree with places like liquor stores, Home Depot, Dunkin’ Donuts, or McDonalds being open. It’s just to define them as “essential” is a stretch. It begs the question, what would happen if they were closed? How many people would die because they couldn’t buy a bag of nails, a case of Bud Light, a Big Mac, or a donut.

Well, a donut maybe.

What is clear is the people forced to work these jobs—often minimum wage workers with few options, no union protection, and likely without robust medical coverage—have borne the brunt of exposure, but that’s about to change.

With the relaxation of restrictions, all those people forced to stay home, wait in lengthy lines at the Starbucks drive up, or hire strangers to do their shopping, once again may venture out. Some, bristling under the restrictions and enamored with this having all been a conspiracy to deny them access to getting their nails done—see conspiracy theories below—will serve a dual purpose.

First, they may bring some life back into the economy, which would be a good thing. And, more important, they will serve as guinea pigs to see if the virus starts another spike. Now we all hope this is not the case, and we can all once again venture out, but the sacrificial lamb does a service to others.

If somebody has to check out before we can get a handle on this thing, so be it. We’ll host a nice memorial someday and maybe declare a holiday next year. National Remember Those Who Ventured Out Early Day.

Let me know how that works out for you.

Under the Banner Conspiracy Cases

While there are many astounding ravings of pure lunacy out there, my favorite claims are that Dr. Fauci and Bill Gates have a “patent” on the coronavirus COVID-19. This is interesting because there are no patents listed for any virus in the US Patent and Trademark Office. Search it yourself, https://www.uspto.gov/.

This makes perfect sense. Why would anyone, if they were so inclined to create a virus that kills people, enter it into a searchable database?

And if it’s the deep state hiding it for them, why would they need a patent?

Another aspect of this is someone intentionally released the virus so Gates, et al., can profit from the vaccine. Something they also have a patent on that is, coincidentally, also missing from the US Patent Office database.

The problem is the virus seems to target the most vulnerable (see Sacrificial Lambs above) who are the very people most likely to support those who see Gates as a political ally. Doesn’t make much sense for the liberal left-wing to back the release of a virus that kills the very people who support them.

I must search the patent office again and see if someone has a patent on a Republican Virus. Perhaps that’s on the horizon.

And now the most troubling.

Under the Banner The Fix is In

The Justice Department, at the direction of Attorney General William Barr, moved to dismiss the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. The Justice Department said they could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Here’s the words right from the motion.

“The Government is not persuaded that the January 24, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn’s statements were material even if untrue. Moreover, we do not believe that the Government can prove either the relevant false statements or their materiality beyond a reasonable doubt.” https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.198.0_4.pdf

The government said it cannot prove a case where the defendant offered a plea of guilty and then cooperated with the Mueller investigation? Then, because of some poorly worded memos and emails made during an investigation—material produced during every investigation and not subject to normal inclusion in the final product — the Justice Department saw a way to let Flynn off the hook.

A rather intriguing example of dialectical ingenuity.

Every investigator, operating under the premise of indications of criminal activity, looks to craft an approach to build a case. That the agents were trying to find a way to get him to lie about his meetings with the Russians was such an approach.

Thwarting it would have been easy. Don’t lie. Flynn chose to lie about it. If it wasn’t criminal, why lie. If you didn’t commit a crime, why plead guilty?

They argued, “The Government is not persuaded that the January 24, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn’s statements were material even if untrue.”

I’ve seen many a case where the fix was in and this has got to be a top ten contender. Materiality apparently is a vague concept within the Barr Justice Department.

The cries of outrage when a smart defense attorney gets a case dismissed on a “technicality”—otherwise known as the law—are long and loud. But here they have fallen silent because the government found the technicality? Such a strange twist.

The burden in on the government to prove a case, and rightfully so. In this matter the government shirked the burden for political reasons. And if the government can refuse to bear the burden when it suits them politically, they can zealously bring it to bear on another case when it suits them.

Remember, Flynn pled guilty twice to these charges and then cooperated with the Mueller investigation. The man was a three-star General and an intelligent, educated man. Why would anyone plead guilty if they did nothing wrong? Why would someone agree to cooperate with the government unless they had information about criminal activity? Why lie to FBI agents about a meeting with the Russians?

Flynn could have made the same arguments at trial, but he wanted a guarantee. A pardon from the President would have been a cleaner way to “fix” the problem, instead they sullied the entire system.

I’ll wait and see if any indictments arise from the Durham review of the FBI investigation. Durham is a man of integrity and I assume if he seeks indictments, they are necessary and justified. If so, the government should prosecute them with vigor.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume some FBI agents are indicted and let’s imagine there is a new administration with a new head of the Justice Department this January. What’s stopping the same politically driven approach to pursuing Justice from finding some weasel-worded way to dismiss those indictments? The problem would persist Ad infinitum.

You can’t “lock her up” without evidence. Nor should you seek to “dismiss with prejudice” a criminal case where there is clear evidence. A guilty plea entered before a Federal Court with the advice of counsel is such evidence. Two separate guilty pleas are a slam dunk.

Under British Law there is a charge for perverting the course of justice. This case begs for such a charge. Unlike most criminal matters, this charge would apply to those now running the Department of Justice.

Don’t believe there is a two-tier system of justice in America? Don’t think politics and personal connections permeate the system? Look no further than this case and the case in Georgia involving the killing of Mr. Arbery.

This is the new America. This is the America of Donald Trump. Where conspiracy theories trump science and rationality, people cannot bear any burden that interrupts them for even the briefest of moments despite the risk they may pose to others, and we apply justice with fluid standards depending on the politics of those in charge.

______________________________________________________________________________

Follow this blog for upcoming information on all new book releases. And please share this with readers everywhere. All comments are welcome. Or if you would like to write a piece to be posted on my blog, please send me a message.

Signup here for my email list for information on all upcoming releases, book signings, and media appearances.

And for all my books to add to your memories of great reads…https://www.amazon.com/Joe-Broadmeadow/e/B00OWPE9GU

Probation is an Opportunity: A Limited One

~ Joe Broadmeadow ~ 1 Comment

A recent article in the Providence Journal by Katie Mulvaney titled, “RI man, never tried in Rape, remains imprisoned for it.” (https://www.providencejournal.com/news/20190503/ri-man-never-tried-in-rape-remains-imprisoned-for-it) is disingenuous.

The inmate, 52-year-old Robert Raso, violated the conditions of his parole and probation based on allegations he committed sexual assault. After prosecutors decided not to go forward with the criminal matter, Raso appealed his violation and return to prison for the balance of his original sentence.

Judge William Carnes upheld the violation and denied his petition for release. The court based the decision on the testimony of the original prosecutor, Assistant Attorney General Daniel Carr Guglielmo. Guglielmo told the court the decision not to prosecute was not because of any doubt in his mind that probable cause existed to continue the case and the victim’s allegations and statements were credible.

Sometimes, even when the police identify a perpetrator and evidence is available, the best course of justice is no trial. Here, the victim suffered twice. Once at the hands of the man who assaulted her and then by family members who chose not to believe her, and tried to force her to recant. She did not, and this is the key aspect.

Roger Williams University Law Professor Andrew Horwitz, said, “the case — and the sentence — is ‘exactly’ what is wrong with the state’s probation system.” Professor Horwitz argued that “very serious allegations were resolved through a probation violation hearing instead of a trial in which the defendant would have enjoyed a full panoply of constitutional protections.”

The title of the piece skews the core element. Mr. Raso “enjoyed” his full constitutional benefit at the violation hearing. He had competent counsel, a neutral court, and the opportunity to question the evidence used to support the violation.

Raso is serving time for violating probation on the original criminal charges he faced, not for an unresolved Rape case.

Also from the article;

“In March 2011, Judge Savage sentenced Raso to serve 25 years for violating the terms of his probation from a slew of offenses committed more than a decade earlier, including kidnapping, attempted murder, armed robberies, and arson. Raso served 12 years for the previous offenses. A 28-year suspended sentence with probation remained hanging over him upon his release.”

To be clear, Raso is serving the balance of his sentence because a court found he violated the conditions of his probation. Despite the lack of a criminal trial in the case triggering the violation, a Judge heard competent and convincing evidence that Mr. Raso violated the conditions of probation. Before he could secure his release, Mr. Raso had to accept and agree to the conditions of probation.

He violated those conditions, and Judge Savage rightfully returned him to prison. If there is anything to question about the Rhode Island Probation system it’s why did a man sentenced to forty years serve barely one-third of his sentence?

The onus fell on Mr. Raso to make sure he avoided even the whisper of violating conditions. Probation is an opportunity, yet a limited one. While I often argue the inequities of prison sentences and see them as a poor solution to the problem of crime, in this matter, it is appropriate.

Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore: Seeking a Return to the Dark Ages

~ Joe Broadmeadow ~ Leave a comment

I wrote this last year about “Judge” Roy ‘get ’em while they’re young” Moore.  If a Supreme Court Justice can’t follow federal law, how can he represent Alabama in the Senate?

This is just one aspect of a troubled, character-flawed, hypocrite. Mix in unlawful sexual proclivities, and it is frightening. Come on, Alabama, this is not the America you are part of.

 

In case you have never heard of Justice Roy Moore, he is the current Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. He’s held the job twice and lost it once.

So far.

In 2003, he was removed from office when he refused to comply with a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument he installed in the rotunda of the court.

So, of course, the progressive segment of Alabama voters re-elected him in 2012.

Now his battle is same-sex marriage. He is suspended from office for sending an administrative order to Alabama probate judges telling them Alabama Law banning Same Sex Marriages was in full force and effect.

He lied. It was not.

In 2015 the US Supreme Court, in Obergefell V. Hodges, legalized gay marriage thus trumping (I love that word) any State prohibitions. Keep in mind, the US Supreme Court still had the full complement of Judges. Scalia, a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage, still sat on the court.

Even he couldn’t persuade the court to uphold the ban; law and rationality prevailed.

Moore sent the letter six months after the Supreme Court decision. He either knew the letter was not based on established law or didn’t care.

But, to Justice Moore, it makes no difference. He has God on his side. Just ask him, he’ll tell you he does. He’ll tell you that his faith is the one true interpretation. The one true path. The basis for the entire government of the United States.

He’ll tell you that the diversity of this country, the willingness to accept people as they are not as we think they should be, will be its demise.

The law be damned.

Justice Moore is the poster child of our sordid and bigoted history. Those in a position of power imposing their faith, their beliefs, their views on those with no power. The fact that someone holding such archaic and prejudicial beliefs can rise to such a position speaks volumes about the lack of progress toward true universal tolerance in this country.

It is because of people like him that we need a strong and intellectually honest judiciary. One that looks at the law and ensures its fair application. One that also abides by their decisions.

There is no better evidence for the gravity of the upcoming Presidential election than someone like Justice Moore.

Bigots embrace this man’s philosophy and seek to impose it on all by seizing power in government.

A true nightmare would be a US Supreme Court comprised of people like Justice Moore. A man who seeks to justify his own ignorance, intolerance, and lack of empathy for his fellow man by cloaking himself in a judicial robe.

I don’t know where Justice Moore went to Law School, but he should seek a refund. To the people who elected him and re-elected him, do the country a favor and skip the election in November.

In All Fairness

~ Joe Broadmeadow ~ 1 Comment

President Trump nominated Judge Neil M. Gorsuch for the Supreme Court. The rancor and rejection by those who oppose Trump now rises to a new level of vitriol. I place myself in the ranks of those who did not vote for Trump. I find his initial actions in office to be counter-productive at best and terrifying at worst. I have great apprehension for the near future of this country.

But, with that said, let us not forget the process of government given to us by the founding fathers. One created to weather such storms.

Let us not forget the constitutional concepts upon which these nominations proceed to Congress. They are to “advise and consent.”

When President Obama (oh where, oh where have you gone?) nominated Judge Merrick Garland, the Republicans acted like fools. Spouting all sorts of nonsense about election year nominations being improper.

No doubt someone will point out that more people voted against Trump than voted for him. They’ll suggest this as a reason he should not nominate anyone.

Nonsense. As much nonsense as blocking election year nominations.

Republicans refused to give Garland a hearing. They subverted the constitution. They knew the hearing to “advise and consent” is not about the nominee’s positions, but about their qualifications. Garland was as qualified as Gorsuch appears to be, philosophical differences aside.

These differences are not a basis to reject a nominee.

We cannot scream about violating the spirit of America with a religious test (couched in fear) that bans immigration based on being a Muslim, then seek to block an otherwise apparently qualified nominee for the court because we disagree with his opinions.

Democrats need not follow the Republican circus act. They can follow the rule of law and Senate decorum.

Quotes are like friends, we pick them because we like them. Facts are like blood relatives, often uncomfortably embarrassing. We can quote all we like by cherry-picking decisions by Gorsuch. The fact remains that on the surface he appears qualified for the position. If a Senate hearing discovers otherwise, so be it.

And that is all the constitution requires.

History is replete with justices who turned out to be much less rigid than expected.

If Justice Gorsuch demonstrates his qualifications for the Supreme Court, the Senate should advise and consent. If we demand the Republicans follow the law, and criticize them when they don’t, we must ourselves take the high road.

To do otherwise is to cast aside 200 plus years of our way of conducting the people’s business. There are those in Congress who do not care, those of us with some rationality left should.

The alternative is inertia in government.

Once Again, it is Obama’s Fault

~ Joe Broadmeadow ~ Leave a comment

 

New Author Photo

The disaster that is the Obama Presidency has struck again. His abject failure to improve on the robust economy handed to him on a silver platter by the Bush administration has caused the loss of more jobs.

Carrier Corporation, a division of United Technologies, is closing its Indiana plant and putting 2100 workers out of a job. The company cites labor costs and their inability to compete with other companies that made similar moves south of the border.

They did not say they would find better, more qualified workers. They did not say it was a shortage of workers. They did not say it was for better business prospects (they fully intend to sell things in the US, just not make them here.)

What they said they would find is cheaper labor. I bet they will.

Of course, this is Obama’s fault. Obama’s economic policies have not improved the economy and have hurt business according to his critics.

Odd, since the numbers do not reflect that. According to Factcheck.org, an independent non-political organization (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/01/obamas-numbers-january-2015-update/) under Obama:

  • 2014 was the best year for employment growth in 15 years (6 million more jobs since Obama came into office in 2009. Under George W. Bush the country suffered a loss of 4.4 million jobs in his last year)
  • Overall inflation under Obama has been moderate, 11.8%
  • Real weekly earnings (adjusted for inflation) has risen 1.7%
  • Corporate Profits have soared under Obama, after-tax profits are running at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $1.9 TRILLION
  • Stock market is up 156% since Obama came into office.

There are some negatives as well. Long-term unemployment (those out of work for more the 27 weeks) is higher than before Obama. The number of families on food stamps is higher as well. Much of this is the hangover from the 2007-2009 recession.

I wonder if these negatives are compounded by business decisions like Carrier Corporation moving to find cheap labor in Mexico.

Now if I understand his critic’s positions, Obama has not done enough to improve the economy. What he has done has not worked and the Affordable Care Act has been a disaster. How can finding a way to provide health care to all Americans be a disaster?

If there are problems within the economy, I think much blame goes to companies that put profits before people. Some would argue that a company has an obligation to stockholders to seek cost reductions and increase profits. At what cost? It would seem at the expense of loyal employees that helped build the company in the first place.

We should not only accept but also applaud their narrow-minded, single purpose pursuit of profits over people. This is what made America great according to some. They would contend that is Capitalism.

Now I am not advocating socialism or any artificial redistribution of wealth. The opportunity to pursue the American dream IS what makes this country great.

What I am advocating is reinvigorating the essence of American capitalism. A capitalism with a heart for those that provide the bulk of the energy for that economic engine.

Funny how the same people that approve companies running to Mexico to avoid paying fair, negotiated union wages and benefits are the same ones with bumper stickers proclaiming Buy American.

I bet many of these same detractors of Obama also trumpet the idea of building a fence to keep the Mexicans from coming to the US.

Take heart, if Americans continue to support companies that flee the US to avoid paying fair wages, it will be Mexico building a fence to keep the unemployed Americans out of their country. Maybe Mexico can hire the unemployed Americans to build the fence as a form of foreign aid.

Somehow, that will be Obama’s fault as well.

Oh, and by the way Mr. President, since you haven’t done anything to help the economy why don’t you take the rest of your term off and NOT nominate anyone to the Supreme Court either. We got this.

 

Where is the Old Southwest Airlines?

~ Joe Broadmeadow ~ Leave a comment

Where has the “old” Southwest gone?

Southwest Airline’s Ramp agents have been without a contract for four years.  I was reminded of this by an image posted on Facebook of a group of rampers (as they are known within the company) proudly boycotting an Employee Appreciation Day in protest over the lack of a contract.

Why should this matter to anyone outside of the company?  Let me explain.

Southwest Airlines became a legendary company through the hard work, dedication, and commitment to excellence of it’s employees.  Everyone from the comedic routines of the flight crew, the care and kindness of the customer service agents and operations agents, to the dedication of mechanics and other support staff all made Southwest successful.

Somewhere along the way, those in management have lost sight of that.

Four years without a contract is criminal.

Herb Kelleher, the legendary founder and original CEO, built the Southwest brand. He was proud of the fact he did it with an organization that was 85% unionized.  Kelleher understood the protections of a union were important to the overall satisfaction of the members.

Kelleher recognized that management changes were inevitable and other CEO’s might take a different approach to employees.  Unions insure fair and equitable treatment for their members.

These unions made the company successful.

I find it interesting that with the decline in union membership nationwide, the disparity between those in the lower economic range and the highest has grown exponentially.

CEOs and upper management salaries far outstrip those of labor, perhaps due in part to this decline of unionized representation.

I do not begrudge Gary Kelly, Southwest’s CEO, his salary.  I just do not understand why he has abandoned the philosophy that made Southwest the success that it is, people.  Take care of your employees and they will take care of your customers.

Do not put profits before people.  Southwest has made record profits.  Invest in those that made you successful.

I am not saying the union is blameless in this.  I worked for Southwest for several years. I know understanding the language of the contract can be frustrating. That is what negotiation is about.  The language was negotiated in, change it through the same process.

I also know some union members spend more time trying to figure out how not to work, or gaming the system, exploiting the contract language, than doing the job.  However, it is a small minority of the workforce.

The process of negotiation has to be fair and open; in this case, the company holds all the cards.  They have taken the approach of waiting the union out, at the expense of the very people that made the company successful.

Here is a little perspective. The next time you fly on Southwest watch the ground crew.

There is more to what they do then load bags.

A ramp agent has to plan the weight distribution and the off-loading order of the bags.  They are not randomly put aboard; there is a method to it.

But here’s the thing to really pay attention to.  Something most people do not know.

Everyone has seen the First Officer (commonly known as the co-pilot) checking the outside of the aircraft.  They do that whenever they begin their day, or change aircraft.

There is one person responsible for inspecting every aircraft just before pushing back from the gate.

A ramp agent.

They are the last set of eyes that checks the outside of the aircraft before pushing off the gate.

Think about that.

The lead agent, the one everyone thinks is just loading bags, is the last set of eyes that checks the outside of that aircraft before every flight.

The lead agent then operates the vehicle that pushes that aircraft worth tens of millions of dollars, holding up to 175 passengers and 6 crewmembers off the gate. I’ve done it, it is no easy task.

Yet Southwest thinks it is okay to leave them without a contract for 4 years.  That says a lot about the value they put on people.

Where did the old Southwest go?