"I’d say today’s retirement plan for young workers is: ‘I’m going to work until I die.’ "
"We can’t be the only country on earth that asks our employers to put the price of health care on its products when a lot of our competitors don’t," he said.
He told me, "I’d like to say to the Democrats that we are as far today from the New Deal as the New Deal was from the Civil War."
"I think you’re already seeing the beginnings of odd formations of people who appreciate, issue by issue, that we have to do something different here," he said.
Four sentences taken from an op ed entitled Anxious About Tomorrow. While the op ed was written by Bob Herbert, the words being quoted are those of Andy Stern.
Those familiar with Andy Stern know him as the visionary leader of The SEIU, Service Employees International Union, the nation's fasting growing, with over 1.9 million members. He is willing to approach labor - and other - issues in a different fashion than many more traditional union leaders. Attendees at Yearlykos in Chicago got some experience of this when he was a keynoter at one lunch.
I'd like to think that his association with this community through Yearlykos represents a two-way communication. And while perhaps I am overly optimistic in thinking so, when I read the Herbert op ed I saw things that might indicate my optimism is not entirely misplaced. If you reread the final quote above the fold and see the reference to issue by issue, you might be reminded of the issue-focused work - on energy, health care, education, and food - that has gone on in this community, and of which I am proud to have played whatever small role I have. Thus when after reading of Stern's concern about how the jobs of this new century will be created and maintained, I read the following;
And what about schools, energy, global warming, the environment?
Mr. Stern tends to see the nation as a team and wants the team to pull together to develop a creative vision of what the U.S. should be about in the 21st century. A cornerstone of that vision, he said, should be adherence to the "primary value" of rewarding work.
I cannot help but be reminded of the efforts of so many here to make a difference beyond merely winning elections, however important that task may be if we are to have any hope of reforming our economy, our polity and our society for the benefit not only of a few super wealthy investors but for all of our people willing to engage in the challenges that confront us.
The Herbert piece is well worth reading, even if still behind the subscription wall at the Times. For me it served as a reminder of what we have already done and as the initial point for a deeper reflection. What remains in this diary are thoughts of teacherken, influenced not only by Herbert, but from the experience of looking back at 61+ years on this earth.
Change of any kind requires some element of risk, yet people also need some modicum of security. Our understanding of security must change because of the changing world in which we find ourselves. This is NOT a reference to 9/11!!! Elements of globalization are irreversible - thus Stern's recognition that employer-based health care is obsolete. Also obsolete is the notion that if we have a sufficiently large and powerful military we can impose our will anyplace our leadership chooses. We will find that our technological advantages can be overcome by lower-technology approaches. Given our history we should not be surprised that tactics of an "inferior" force can often outweigh military superiority. Too often we misread history and ignore that fact, demonstrated in the American Revolution, in many of the successes of the Native Americans, and in far too many military conflicts where we have been engaged overseas.
Security in the future will come from the ability to be flexible, to modify and make adaptations. We cannot attempt to be King Canute, attempting by our command to prevent the ocean from rising at our feet: it will work no better for us than it did for him.
We must be willing to expand our vision to consider new possibilities, new ways of thinking, equally new ways of organizing our thoughts and our actions.
Top-down organizations can be very destructive if those in positions of authority use that authority to resist the necessary changes. Even if those leaders are visionary, they will find that the justifiable fears of those they seek to command will undercut any chance of success, unless those "commanded" have some sense of security for themselves and their families, that they will not be left behind, that people are accepting the challenges in fashion in which both risks and successes will be shared.
Few of our institutions have recognized the need to restructure themselves to address these issues. As a teacher I see increasing movement towards a top-down command structure than disempowers those who most need the flexibility to respond to the challenges at the levels at which they operate. I look at models of business organization that are totally contrary to the needs of the workers whose commitment is necessary if that business is to survive. I see in every human endeavor thinking that is far too narrow, that while it may offer some level of narrow security in the short-term undercuts the kinds of change necessary for longer-term security and success.
People will respond to visionary leadership which challenges them - we have in times of crisis in the past seen the truth of that assertion. But we are also in a new time, where the leadership cannot simply be imposed from above, but if it is to succeed must represent a cooperative effort between leaders and followers, at times with the role definitions lacking rigid boundaries.
We have in this community seen a different model - that good ideas can come from the roots, that leaders can arise by merit, by demonstrating clear insight and an ability to invite and inspire others to work towards a different vision. We have been able to see how we can start down a path without knowing all the steps or even the directions we will travel, but with an understanding that if we do not move we will surely die.
I claim no great insight of my own. I will assert that being willing to reflect on the details of my own life and of the time in which I live has given me some base upon which I can offer suggestions, however ill-formed they may be.
We can talk about health care. We must talk about energy and environment. I will talk about education, others about food, still others about hope, and retirement, and employment. Inevitably we will find areas of interconnection, and begin to realize that we cannot fix things in isolation, but we also cannot wait until some Einstein can work out a grand unified field theory. We must explore change, knowing that we risk making mistakes. We must be simultaneously arrogant enough to believe we can figure it out while humble enough to accept that we will make mistakes. We will be able to embark on such a risky path only if we believe that collectively we will cast aside no one as a result of the mistakes we make, that we will share the costs of the risk as well as the benefits gained.
Andy Stern is something of a visionary. We all should aspire to our own broader sense of vision. None of us will have perfect foresight, and even collectively we will maintain blindspots. But together perhaps, just perhaps, we can prevent the destruction of the environment, the poisoning of human relations into further hatred and killing. Perhaps, just perhaps, we can provide hope to as many as are willing to look for something different, and recognize that pulling into a shell - of nationality, religion, race, or gender roles - will not prevent our destruction nor preserve a future for our offspring.
We know that what we have now is insufficient. We must believe in the possibility of a positive future.
Robert Kennedy was fond of a quote from George Bernard Shaw. I think it is perhaps an appropriate expression with which to end this diary:
Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.
Peace.