Shak­man pro­tects bad work­ers

LET­TERS TO THE ED­I­TOR

Chicago Sun-Times - - You Think Commentary -

The Shak­man de­cree cer­tainly cor­rected one in­jus­tice — pa­tron­age hir­ing — but re­placed it with an­other in­jus­tice that may be even worse. It is called feath­erbed­ding, and it might lit­er­ally be cost­ing tax­pay­ers tens, if not hun­dreds, of mil­lions of dol­lars each year in waste and in­ef­fi­ciency.

Just as ten­ure pro­tects good and bad teach­ers, the Shak­man de­cree pro­tects both good and bad gov­ern­ment em­ploy­ees.

Ask any knowl­edge­able gov­ern­ment of­fi­cial how hard it is to ter­mi­nate non­pro­duc­tive em­ploy­ees, and they’ll tell you it is dif­fi­cult if not im­pos­si­ble.

Un­less Shak­man-cov­ered em­ploy­ees leave their gov­ern­ment po­si­tions vol­un­tar­ily, most, if not all, ter­mi­nated em­ploy­ees claim their fir­ing was po­lit­i­cally mo­ti­vated. As a re­sult, over the last three decades, city and county gov­ern­ments have ac­cu­mu­lated a cadre of em­ploy­ees who keep their jobs only be­cause they are cov­ered by Shak­man.

This may be great for dead­beat gov­ern­ment work­ers but it is not good for tax­pay­ers.

Phil Adams, Lin­colnshire

Court rul­ing long in mak­ing

The U.S. Supreme Court rul­ing un­leash­ing the flow of cor­po­rate cam­paign funds to po­lit­i­cal cam­paigns was the re­sult of years of plan­ning by bedrock con­ser­va­tives who do not be­lieve that ev­ery Amer­i­can, rich or poor, should be able to run for of­fice. They also do not be­lieve that ev­ery Amer­i­can, rich or poor, should be equally rep­re­sented in our gov­ern­ment. Karen Wagner, Rolling Mead­ows

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.