Huvitavaid artikleid: ametiühingud, võim, silmakirjalikus ja pealiskaudsus

Some Organizers Protest Their Union’s Tactics – New York Times’is ilmus hiljuti artikkel, kust selgub, et vaatamata soovile ametiühinguid eelkõige esile tõsta kui töötajate inimväärikuste eest seisjaid, siis nii nagu pole täiuslikud inimesed pole ka täiuslikud nende poolt loodud organisatsioonid:

Ms. Rivera and other current and former Unite Here organizers are speaking out against what they say is a longstanding practice in which Unite Here officials pressured subordinates to disclose sensitive personal information — for example, that their mother was an alcoholic or that they were fighting with their spouse.

More than a dozen organizers said in interviews that they had often been pressured to detail such personal anguish — sometimes under the threat of dismissal from their union positions — and that their supervisors later used the information to press them to comply with their orders.

*   *   *

Does Corporate Money Lead to Political Corruption? – hiljutise USA ülemkohtu otsuses varjus on taas hulgaliselt arvamusi, kuid mida ütlevad uuringud, võrdlused ja valdkonnaga pidevalt tegelevad inimesed. New York Times vahendab:

And what about the corporations that contributed so much of that money? A review of the biggest corporate donors found that their stock prices were unaffected after they stopped giving to the parties. The results suggest that those companies did not lose their influence and may have been giving “because they were shaken down by politicians,” said Nathaniel Persily, a professor at Columbia Law School who has studied the law’s impact.

“There is no evidence that stricter campaign finance rules reduce corruption or raise positive assessments of government,” said Kenneth Mayer, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “It seems like such an obvious relationship but it has proven impossible to prove.”

*   *   *

How public servants became our masters – hiljuti Reason’is ilmunud pikem lugu sellest, millist mõju avaldavad avaliku sektori ametiühingud ja rahvaesindajad California eelarvele ja kuidas see mõjutab osariigi eelarvet ning avalike teenuseid:

Bigger government means more government employees. Those employees then become a permanent lobby for continual government growth. The nation may have reached critical mass; the number of government employees at every level may have gotten so high that it is politically impossible to roll back the bureaucracy, rein in the costs, and restore lost freedoms.

People who are supposed to serve the public have become a privileged elite that exploits political power for financial gain and special perks. Because of its political power, this interest group has rigged the game so there are few meaningful checks on its demands. Government employees now receive far higher pay, benefits, and pensions than the vast majority of Americans working in the private sector. Even when they are incompetent or abusive, they can be fired only after a long process and only for the most grievous offenses.

It’s a two-tier system in which the rulers are making steady gains at the expense of the ruled. The predictable results: Higher taxes, eroded public services, unsustainable levels of debt, and massive roadblocks to reforming even the poorest performing agencies and school systems. If this system is left to grow unchecked, we will end up with a pale imitation of the free society envisioned by the Founders.

*   *   *

The Psychology of Power: Absolutely – Economist’is ilmus hiljuti artikkel, mis kajastas kolme uuemat uuringut võimu korruptiivsest mõjust inimestele, mis ei ole küll enda metodoloogialt täiuslikud, kuid annavad üpris selge ettekujutuse tendentsidest, mis on heaks põhjuseks võimu teiste üle vältida ja haakub päris hästi eelnevalt viidatud Reason’i artikliga:

These results, then, suggest that the powerful do indeed behave hypocritically, condemning the transgressions of others more than they condemn their own. Which comes as no great surprise, although it is always nice to have everyday observation confirmed by systematic analysis. But another everyday observation is that powerful people who have been caught out often show little sign of contrition. It is not just that they abuse the system; they also seem to feel entitled to abuse it.

*   *   *

Malcolm Gladwell’s business blindspot – hiljuti ilmus New Yorkeris Malcolm Gladwell’i lugu ettevõtjatest (ei ole kahjuks tasuta saadaval), mis on hulgaliselt kriitikat saanud. Pärast artikli lugemist tundus Luke Johnsoni Financial Times’is ilmunud lühike, kuid kriitiline sõnavõtt igati õigustatud:

A recent issue of The New Yorker magazine includes an essay entitled “The sure thing: How entrepreneurs really succeed”. This is a classic Mr Gladwell piece, suggesting that our preconception of business legends as risk-takers is wrong. He asserts that “successful entrepreneurs are seen as bold gamblers; in reality they’re highly risk-averse”. His speciality is a counter-intuitive revelation about human behaviour that demonstrates that our preconceived ideas are wrong. If this article is anything to go by, I think his journalism is shoddy.

Kusjuures see oli kõige mahedam osa kriitikast.

Categorised as: ...

Lisa kommentaar

Sinu e-postiaadressi ei avaldata. Nõutavad väljad on tähistatud *-ga