Audio Tidbits

A few years ago, I was sitting at the negotiation table with the staff negotiator for the UAW who was representing most of the staff of the human services agency I directed. We both knew where the final agreement would settle within a fairly narrow range, so the negotiation was somewhere between proforma at one end and details that didn’t matter all that much one way or another at the other end. As expected, the union made some proposals that we both knew weren’t going to be accepted and a few that were both reasonable and acceptable. The negotiation was to sort out those details and issues. We both knew that labor and management can have big issues at times but also knew that this was not one of those times; or so I thought.

In this round of negotiations, the agency would have been fine continuing the current contract but was quite willing to sweeten the deal some. Here is the problem. The UAW negotiator made the first offer from the union that he knew, and I knew would not be accepted. The agency then made its first counter offer that I knew, and he knew would not be accepted. We were setting the outside limits within which the negotiation was expected to focus.

To my surprise, the UAW negotiator immediately brought out his only real weapon. Instead of making a modified offer, he said that they would take an immediate strike vote if their first offer wasn’t accepted in full. What do you think my response should have been?

I admit that the temptation to play his version of hard ball was nearly overwhelming. Although I was far from speechless, the range of possible responses was flowing past so rapidly that I was temporarily dumbfounded. I finally said, “I doubt if that would be a very good outcome for either of us.”

His response was even more surprising than his starting the negotiation by refusing to negotiate. They would not negotiate. Either they got everything they wanted, or they would strike. To my suggestion that striking would not be a good outcome for either of us, he said, “I don’t care. I just don’t care what you think about the outcome.”

A few years ago, I was sitting at the negotiation table with the staff negotiator for the UAW who was representing most of the staff of the human services agency I directed. We both knew where the final agreement would settle within a fairly narrow range, so the negotiation was somewhere between proforma at one end and details that didn't matter all that much one way or another at the other end. As expected, the union made some proposals that we both knew weren't going to be accepted and a few that were both reasonable and acceptable. The negotiation was to sort out those details and issues. We both knew that labor and management can have big issues at times but also knew that this was not one of those times; or so I thought.

In this round of negotiations, the agency would have been fine continuing the current contract but was quite willing to sweeten the deal some. Here is the problem. The UAW negotiator made the first offer from the union that he knew, and I knew would not be accepted. The agency then made its first counter offer that I knew, and he knew would not be accepted. We were setting the outside limits within which the negotiation was expected to focus.

To my surprise, the UAW negotiator immediately brought out his only real weapon. Instead of making a modified offer, he said that they would take an immediate strike vote if their first offer wasn't accepted in full. What do you think my response should have been?

I admit that the temptation to play his version of hard ball was nearly overwhelming. Although I was far from speechless, the range of possible responses was flowing past so rapidly that I was temporarily dumbfounded. I finally said, "I doubt if that would be a very good outcome for either of us."

His response was even more surprising than his starting the negotiation by refusing to negotiate. They would not negotiate. Either they got everything they wanted, or they would strike. To my suggestion that striking would not be a good outcome for either of us, he said, "I don't care. I just don't care what you think about the outcome."

It may not be obvious that this junction was in reality a serious test of the value of good manners, but it most assuredly was. Let's pursue what may at first seem to be an irrelevant tangent. I will come back on point a little later.

P J O'Rourke thought, "Good manners can replace morals. It may be years before anyone knows if what you are doing is right. But if what you are doing is nice, it will be immediately evident."

The idea seems to be that good manners can and often do cover up the proverbial multitude of sins. As Arthur Schopenhauer put it, "Politeness is to human nature what warmth is to wax." It may quickly distort or otherwise transform reality. What seems sincere may merely be the latest example of Abel Stevens' observation, "Politeness is the art of choosing among one's real thoughts." The point is that in an effort to "be nice," candor can easily take a backseat to what Emily Post described as "a sensitive awareness of the feelings of others." The desire not to upset or offend takes priority over the responsibility to be honest and straightforward.

Of course, W Somerset Maugham did say, "I don't think you want too much sincerity in society. It would be like an iron girder in a house of cards." And Lord Halifax said, "A man that should call everything by its right name would hardly pass the streets without being knocked down as a common enemy." The conclusion follows that there is an appropriate, middle ground between total honesty and bad manners. One should find that balance between excessive rudeness and being unnecessarily impolite on the one hand and knavery or excessive dishonesty on the other.

Are you tempted to agree with this argument? If so, you are probably aligning with the polite majority of people who behave as if the choice is between candor and insensitive rudeness. When it comes time to choose,

A few years ago, I was sitting at the negotiation table with the staff negotiator for the UAW who was representing most of the staff of the human services agency I directed. We both knew where the final agreement would settle within a fairly narrow range, so the negotiation was somewhere between proforma at one end and details that didn't matter all that much one way or another at the other end. As expected, the union made some proposals that we both knew weren't going to be accepted and a few that were both reasonable and acceptable. The negotiation was to sort out those details and issues. We both knew that labor and management can have big issues at times but also knew that this was not one of those times; or so I thought.

In this round of negotiations, the agency would have been fine continuing the current contract but was quite willing to sweeten the deal some. Here is the problem. The UAW negotiator made the first offer from the union that he knew, and I knew would not be accepted. The agency then made its first counter offer that I knew, and he knew would not be accepted. We were setting the outside limits within which the negotiation was expected to focus.

To my surprise, the UAW negotiator immediately brought out his only real weapon. Instead of making a modified offer, he said that they would take an immediate strike vote if their first offer wasn't accepted in full. What do you think my response should have been?

I admit that the temptation to play his version of hard ball was nearly overwhelming. Although I was far from speechless, the range of possible responses was flowing past so rapidly that I was temporarily dumbfounded. I finally said, "I doubt if that would be a very good outcome for either of us."

His response was even more surprising than his starting the negotiation by refusing to negotiate. They would not negotiate. Either they got everything they wanted, or they would strike. To my suggestion that striking would not be a good outcome for either of us, he said, "I don't care. I just don't care what you think about the outcome."

It may not be obvious that this junction was in reality a serious test of the value of good manners, but it most assuredly was. Let's pursue what may at first seem to be an irrelevant tangent. I will come back on point a little later.

P J O'Rourke thought, "Good manners can replace morals. It may be years before anyone knows if what you are doing is right. But if what you are doing is nice, it will be immediately evident."

The idea seems to be that good manners can and often do cover up the proverbial multitude of sins. As Arthur Schopenhauer put it, "Politeness is to human nature what warmth is to wax." It may quickly distort or otherwise transform reality. What seems sincere may merely be the latest example of Abel Stevens' observation, "Politeness is the art of choosing among one's real thoughts." The point is that in an effort to "be nice," candor can easily take a backseat to what Emily Post described as "a sensitive awareness of the feelings of others." The desire not to upset or offend takes priority over the responsibility to be honest and straightforward.

Of course, W Somerset Maugham did say, "I don't think you want too much sincerity in society. It would be like an iron girder in a house of cards." And Lord Halifax said, "A man that should call everything by its right name would hardly pass the streets without being knocked down as a common enemy." The conclusion follows that there is an appropriate, middle ground between total honesty and bad manners. One should find that balance between excessive rudeness and being unnecessarily impolite on the one hand and knavery or excessive dishonesty on the other.

Are you tempted to agree with this argument? If so, you are probably aligning with the polite majority of people who behave as if the choice is between candor and insensitive rudeness. When it comes time to choose,

For the past few posts, our focus has been on the southern border with Mexico. You may think that the kerfuffle is all about border security, but that interpretation doesn’t hold up very well. Both President Trump and the opposition publicly agree that enhanced border security is important and would be a worthy outcome. So, what is the issue?

Is it the cost? Probably not. Both sides agree that appropriating funds for enhanced border security is necessary. Yes, they are apart on how much funding, but the difference is only thirty seconds or so of the total cost of operating the Federal government. That doesn’t seem like enough difference to justify major disruption in the lives of nearly a million Federal workers and related non-government employment, along with the disruption in government services and responsibilities. The negative effect of the stalemate is just too far out of proportion to the funding gap.

In months past, President Trump proclaimed that the cost was neither an issue nor going to be an issue. Mexico would be paying for the needed enhanced security. Now, that pipedream has faded, and both sides agree that it will be paid for by our Federal government. Even so, the cost is not the cause of the kerfuffle.

Both sides appear to be digging in over a wall versus no wall. It also seems unlikely that this is at the heart of the impasse. The two-thousand-mile border, (the distance from Chicago to Los Angeles,) likely needs a wall or at least a better fence along some stretches but building a wall that stretches uninterrupted from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico is likely not even possible. At least part of it would need to be secured with electronic detection and drones. Even were it possible, building the wall would probably take many years. It would not enhance security much for quite some time.

For the past few posts, our focus has been on the southern border with Mexico. You may think that the kerfuffle is all about border security, but that interpretation doesn't hold up very well. Both President Trump and the opposition publicly agree that enhanced border security is important and would be a worthy outcome. So, what is the issue?

Is it the cost? Probably not. Both sides agree that appropriating funds for enhanced border security is necessary. Yes, they are apart on how much funding, but the difference is only thirty seconds or so of the total cost of operating the Federal government. That doesn't seem like enough difference to justify major disruption in the lives of nearly a million Federal workers and related non-government employment, along with the disruption in government services and responsibilities. The negative effect of the stalemate is just too far out of proportion to the funding gap.

In months past, President Trump proclaimed that the cost was neither an issue nor going to be an issue. Mexico would be paying for the needed enhanced security. Now, that pipedream has faded, and both sides agree that it will be paid for by our Federal government. Even so, the cost is not the cause of the kerfuffle.

Both sides appear to be digging in over a wall versus no wall. It also seems unlikely that this is at the heart of the impasse. The two-thousand-mile border, (the distance from Chicago to Los Angeles,) likely needs a wall or at least a better fence along some stretches but building a wall that stretches uninterrupted from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico is likely not even possible. At least part of it would need to be secured with electronic detection and drones. Even were it possible, building the wall would probably take many years. It would not enhance security much for quite some time.

President Trump is saying that he will close the border with Mexico if he doesn't get funding for his wall. It's not at all clear what that would accomplish. It would prevent legal entry across that border but wouldn't do much to stop illegal entry. Whatever the current security risk is that requires enhanced security would not be appreciably reduced by closing the border. It would definitely harm the law-abiding adults and children who hope to enter the United States but would do little to stop the illegal influx of criminals and hooligans.

Perhaps most people think the politicians should sit down together and work out a deal. There is probably a reasonable compromise in there somewhere between all wall and no wall. There is likely a solution that is both practical and possible. The political bridge burning is a serious escalation of the King-of-the-Hill game the politicians are playing with the lives and futures of far too many innocent people on both sides of the border.

There is some advice about bridge burning that both President Trump and the opposition would do well to seriously take to heart.

Jonathan Kozol advised, "Pick battles big enough to matter, small enough to win."

In the realm of life's little lessons, this seems axiomatic. The problem is that many of the battles that are big enough to matter aren't small enough to win; and those that are small enough to win tend not to matter. The challenge is in knowing when to fight and when to walk away. Kozol's advice is to fight if the outcome matters and you can win, otherwise walk away. Although this is certainly a practical approach to self-preservation, it's also a clear cop out. There are battles that matter way too much to avoid, even though winning is far from certain.

The more important lesson may be in David Russell's observation, "The hardest thing to learn in life is which bridge to cross and which to burn." Life is full of conflicts and tensions, battles large and small, bridges to cross and bridges to burn. Life is a journey; and usually, when it isn't working out, you can change direction, back up and start again,

For the past few posts, our focus has been on the southern border with Mexico. You may think that the kerfuffle is all about border security, but that interpretation doesn't hold up very well. Both President Trump and the opposition publicly agree that enhanced border security is important and would be a worthy outcome. So, what is the issue?

Is it the cost? Probably not. Both sides agree that appropriating funds for enhanced border security is necessary. Yes, they are apart on how much funding, but the difference is only thirty seconds or so of the total cost of operating the Federal government. That doesn't seem like enough difference to justify major disruption in the lives of nearly a million Federal workers and related non-government employment, along with the disruption in government services and responsibilities. The negative effect of the stalemate is just too far out of proportion to the funding gap.

In months past, President Trump proclaimed that the cost was neither an issue nor going to be an issue. Mexico would be paying for the needed enhanced security. Now, that pipedream has faded, and both sides agree that it will be paid for by our Federal government. Even so, the cost is not the cause of the kerfuffle.

Both sides appear to be digging in over a wall versus no wall. It also seems unlikely that this is at the heart of the impasse. The two-thousand-mile border, (the distance from Chicago to Los Angeles,) likely needs a wall or at least a better fence along some stretches but building a wall that stretches uninterrupted from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico is likely not even possible. At least part of it would need to be secured with electronic detection and drones. Even were it possible, building the wall would probably take many years. It would not enhance security much for quite some time.

President Trump is saying that he will close the border with Mexico if he doesn't get funding for his wall. It's not at all clear what that would accomplish. It would prevent legal entry across that border but wouldn't do much to stop illegal entry. Whatever the current security risk is that requires enhanced security would not be appreciably reduced by closing the border. It would definitely harm the law-abiding adults and children who hope to enter the United States but would do little to stop the illegal influx of criminals and hooligans.

Perhaps most people think the politicians should sit down together and work out a deal. There is probably a reasonable compromise in there somewhere between all wall and no wall. There is likely a solution that is both practical and possible. The political bridge burning is a serious escalation of the King-of-the-Hill game the politicians are playing with the lives and futures of far too many innocent people on both sides of the border.

There is some advice about bridge burning that both President Trump and the opposition would do well to seriously take to heart.

Jonathan Kozol advised, "Pick battles big enough to matter, small enough to win."

In the realm of life's little lessons, this seems axiomatic. The problem is that many of the battles that are big enough to matter aren't small enough to win; and those that are small enough to win tend not to matter. The challenge is in knowing when to fight and when to walk away. Kozol's advice is to fight if the outcome matters and you can win, otherwise walk away. Although this is certainly a practical approach to self-preservation, it's also a clear cop out. There are battles that matter way too much to avoid, even though winning is far from certain.

The more important lesson may be in David Russell's observation, "The hardest thing to learn in life is which bridge to cross and which to burn." Life is full of conflicts and tensions, battles large and small, bridges to cross and bridges to burn. Life is a journey; and usually, when it isn't working out, you can change direction, back up and start again,

It seems as if there was once a time when the right and good, the moral and just were guiding principles for the United States. It may be that it was never as true as it appeared, but at least it seemed as if it were truer than not. That may be little more than wishful nostalgia, more fantasy than reality. Even so, it’s easy to consider the daily news and conclude that morality and ethics have nothing to do with how decisions are made, how resources are distributed, how the public’s business is conducted.

Let’s play a little mind game. It’s sort of like playing musical chairs. The population of all of Central America is only slightly more than the population of California: about forty million. Let’s suppose that people concluded that California is no longer a fit place to stay and raise a family. Staying is just not possible. Let’s further assume that the only reasonable decision is to close California. The migration into the rest of the United States would be extremely disruptive for a while; but if we look ahead five years, the population of California would be absorbed, and life would go on.

Okay, closing all of California may be a bit excessive. Let’s suppose that It’s only necessary to close Berkeley. Now we only need to assimilate about one hundred and twenty thousand people. That sounds a lot more manageable. It may be that none of them has to actually leave California.

Sure, we’re back to discussing the border with Mexico. That’s the border that is about the same distance as it is from Chicago to Los Angeles. President Trump is threatening to close the border, letting no one into the United States by way of that border. His only announced goal that I have heard is to prevent an influx of criminals and hooligans. But here is the problem with that. The current border policy is probably reducing but not eliminating the influx of criminals and hooligans. That would be a good thing were it not for the reality that it is also preventing thousands of law-abiding adults and children from peacefully entering the United States.

It seems as if there was once a time when the right and good, the moral and just were guiding principles for the United States. It may be that it was never as true as it appeared, but at least it seemed as if it were truer than not. That may be little more than wishful nostalgia, more fantasy than reality. Even so, it's easy to consider the daily news and conclude that morality and ethics have nothing to do with how decisions are made, how resources are distributed, how the public's business is conducted.

Let's play a little mind game. It's sort of like playing musical chairs. The population of all of Central America is only slightly more than the population of California: about forty million. Let's suppose that people concluded that California is no longer a fit place to stay and raise a family. Staying is just not possible. Let's further assume that the only reasonable decision is to close California. The migration into the rest of the United States would be extremely disruptive for a while; but if we look ahead five years, the population of California would be absorbed, and life would go on.

Okay, closing all of California may be a bit excessive. Let's suppose that It's only necessary to close Berkeley. Now we only need to assimilate about one hundred and twenty thousand people. That sounds a lot more manageable. It may be that none of them has to actually leave California.

Sure, we're back to discussing the border with Mexico. That's the border that is about the same distance as it is from Chicago to Los Angeles. President Trump is threatening to close the border, letting no one into the United States by way of that border. His only announced goal that I have heard is to prevent an influx of criminals and hooligans. But here is the problem with that. The current border policy is probably reducing but not eliminating the influx of criminals and hooligans. That would be a good thing were it not for the reality that it is also preventing thousands of law-abiding adults and children from peacefully entering the United States.

Just as the rest of California does not want Berkeley's criminals and hooligans, we don't want those from Central America. But just as accommodation would be made for Berkeley's law-abiding adults and children when Berkeley is closed, most of the people fleeing from Central America could be accommodated with the aid of appropriate Federal policy and assistance. It may actually be less costly and certainly would be more humane to help them than it is to keep them out.

That brings us back to right and wrong, just and unjust, moral and immoral. What should our Federal government be doing about the hope of thousands of people from Central America to leave their homes and come to the United States? It is certainly a security question. It is certainly an economic question. Let's hope that our government understands that it is also a moral question, a question of our collective ethics.

What does your conscience tell you about what our collective position should be? What is the right thing to do?

Elvis Presley had a thought to focus us. "When your intelligence don't tell you something ain't right, your conscience gives you a tap on the shoulder and says ‘Hold on.' If it don't, you're a snake."

As one might expect, Carl Jung expressed Presley's folk wisdom in somewhat more formal language; but the idea is the same, "Through pride we are ever deceiving ourselves. But deep down below the surface of the average conscience a still, small voice says to us, 'Something is out of tune.'" Christopher Reeve also heard that inner voice, "I think we all have a little voice inside us that will guide us. It may be God, I don't know. But I think that if we shut out all the noise and clutter from our lives and listen to that voice, it will tell us the right thing to do."

The recurring belief is that the voice of conscience is ever-present and far less fallible than the voice of reason. For example,

It seems as if there was once a time when the right and good, the moral and just were guiding principles for the United States. It may be that it was never as true as it appeared, but at least it seemed as if it were truer than not. That may be little more than wishful nostalgia, more fantasy than reality. Even so, it's easy to consider the daily news and conclude that morality and ethics have nothing to do with how decisions are made, how resources are distributed, how the public's business is conducted.

Let's play a little mind game. It's sort of like playing musical chairs. The population of all of Central America is only slightly more than the population of California: about forty million. Let's suppose that people concluded that California is no longer a fit place to stay and raise a family. Staying is just not possible. Let's further assume that the only reasonable decision is to close California. The migration into the rest of the United States would be extremely disruptive for a while; but if we look ahead five years, the population of California would be absorbed, and life would go on.

Okay, closing all of California may be a bit excessive. Let's suppose that It's only necessary to close Berkeley. Now we only need to assimilate about one hundred and twenty thousand people. That sounds a lot more manageable. It may be that none of them has to actually leave California.

Sure, we're back to discussing the border with Mexico. That's the border that is about the same distance as it is from Chicago to Los Angeles. President Trump is threatening to close the border, letting no one into the United States by way of that border. His only announced goal that I have heard is to prevent an influx of criminals and hooligans. But here is the problem with that. The current border policy is probably reducing but not eliminating the influx of criminals and hooligans. That would be a good thing were it not for the reality that it is also preventing thousands of law-abiding adults and children from peacefully entering the United States.

Just as the rest of California does not want Berkeley's criminals and hooligans, we don't want those from Central America. But just as accommodation would be made for Berkeley's law-abiding adults and children when Berkeley is closed, most of the people fleeing from Central America could be accommodated with the aid of appropriate Federal policy and assistance. It may actually be less costly and certainly would be more humane to help them than it is to keep them out.

That brings us back to right and wrong, just and unjust, moral and immoral. What should our Federal government be doing about the hope of thousands of people from Central America to leave their homes and come to the United States? It is certainly a security question. It is certainly an economic question. Let's hope that our government understands that it is also a moral question, a question of our collective ethics.

What does your conscience tell you about what our collective position should be? What is the right thing to do?

Elvis Presley had a thought to focus us. "When your intelligence don't tell you something ain't right, your conscience gives you a tap on the shoulder and says ‘Hold on.' If it don't, you're a snake."

As one might expect, Carl Jung expressed Presley's folk wisdom in somewhat more formal language; but the idea is the same, "Through pride we are ever deceiving ourselves. But deep down below the surface of the average conscience a still, small voice says to us, 'Something is out of tune.'" Christopher Reeve also heard that inner voice, "I think we all have a little voice inside us that will guide us. It may be God, I don't know. But I think that if we shut out all the noise and clutter from our lives and listen to that voice, it will tell us the right thing to do."

The recurring belief is that the voice of conscience is ever-present and far less fallible than the voice of reason. For example,

You likely heard that the Federal government is partially shut-down. It’s not like a private company shutting down part of its operation and laying off some of its employees. For those employees, it’s no job, no pay. For the Federal employees who are off work for now, it’s no job but you most likely get paid later.

It’s not so harm-free for private contractors and all of the businesses who depend on the thousands of Federal employees to shop and buy. The point is that the partial government shut-down is causing real problems for thousands of real people.

All of those Federal employees who are off work had real jobs and provided real services that many people, businesses and organizations depend on to function. The result of the partial government shut-down is that there is major disruption that is seriously interfering with the economic and transactional life of the country. And the longer the partial shut-down continues, the more harmful the disruption.

Why is the Federal government partially shut-down? That’s an easy question to answer. It’s a tried-and-true negotiating strategy. President Trump wants to build a wall long enough to run from Chicago to Los Angeles but built along the border with Mexico. The final cost of his wall would likely be ten million dollars a mile, but a less expensive wall might be acceptable. Maybe two and a half million dollars a mile would work for him. We can call that solution 1.

The opposition will not agree to the wall but may be fine with a technological barrier that is yet to be clearly explained. We don’t know how much that type of barrier would cost but it would presumably be less than two and a half million dollars a mile. We can call that solution 2.

As we see, both sides agree that some type of enhanced barrier should be put in place. The Federal government is shut down because the two sides can’t agree about the type of barrier and how much it should cost. There is no disagreement about the need for an enhanced barrier nor that it will be expensive. How expensive? It will cost about as much as it costs to fund the Federal government for thirty seconds. President Trump wants about forty-five seconds and the opposition is offering only fifteen. The Federal government is partially shut-down over about thirty seconds of disputed funding.