More thoughts on the city’s union woes.

The city has a big PR struggle on its hands to convince folks that allowing non-uniformed workers to unionize would be bad for the city.

So far, the city managers and commissioners seem to be losing that battle because they haven’t articulated a clear reason to oppose unionization.

About the closest anti-union folks have come is the argument that a union will be a third party in city of Enid decisions.

This is a very real concern, but it’s one that’s hard to articulate. However, it is worth talking about.

The AFSCME union is here in Enid, actively working to get a union established in the city. These folks are not from Enid -- they are from elsewhere, yet they are here.

Some of these non-local union officials are the ones who brought pretty signs to the Aug. 13 meeting for city workers to hold. They have paid for the signs you’ve been around town about Another Neighbor for a City Worker. The union has pumped at least $20,000 into Enid, beginning with the last city commission meeting.

These same officials were helping organize the rally at City Hall Aug. 13 and basically egging city workers on, saying “this isn’t over until you say it’s over.”

Now, most folks want to see city workers get a fair shake, but it makes me nervous that Enid seems to be on tap as a proving ground for union power.

I’d much prefer a system be worked out locally, between administrators and city employees, where they negotiate -- perhaps with an arbitrator -- to work out a grievance arrangement so workers don’t feel they have little or no recourse from retribution actions of managers.

This seems to be the sticking point -- the workers want to know they can’t just be fired at the whim of a manager.

Yes, employment is “at will,” but for public employees, there needs to be a reasonable Reduction in Force plan in place should the city need to cut jobs due to economics.

The previous handling of city employees was reprehensible, and that’s the main driver behind a union movement.


You know, some things just don’t need to be said.

Like religious broadcaster Pat Robertson’s claim that the United States should exercise an assassination doctrine on Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Some folks may agree with Robertson’s assessment. However, that kind of thinking pretty much goes against all the values we as Americans say we hold dear. Not to mention values that Christians espouse, such as every life is precious.

No doubt, American and Christian values are being challenged by the relentless hate doctrine of extreme Islamism. Is it going to come down to a cultural decision, eventually, of kill or be killed?

Who knows, but at this point, it seems risky for a religious broadcaster to be openly talking about such things.


React to this story:


Trending Video

Recommended for you