Teddy Kennedy's Ugly Legacy

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 7:19 am

Stuff happens when you dare to speak badly of either Saint Teddy or The Chosen One.

A shot was fired back at a comment I made. Sorry... this opening was too sweet not to take.

Warning - POLITICS!!! Go hide the kids.

- Bill

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 7:19 am

Gene DeMambro wrote:
Bill Glasheen wrote:
As I recall, Teddy Kennedy preferred leaving the medical Mecca and social Eden of Boston to be treated down there to extend his life. Go figure... (The irony of that is rich, but a non sequitur.)
Why does this always come up, and why must I always have to set Bill straight on this? Sigh

Ted went to Duke to have his surgery because there is ONE surgeon in the entire country who performs this particular procedure. And that surgeon just happens to practice at Duke University. Bill, with his vast expanse of knowledge in medicine, can probably come up with more than one or two earth shattering medical advances that my forebearers here in the medical Mecca that even the good folks in the Cavalier and Tar Heel States also enjoy, including a most recent Nobel Prize. But then again, when Ted Jr. had cancer and needed treatment after his leg was amputated, he went to Children's Hospital in Boston. When Ted's daughter had lung cancer, they were able to find ONE surgeon with the expertise to perform the surgery. Where, exactly, was this surgeron located, you may ask? Right here in the medical Mecca that is Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, as it turns out.

Not to be outdone the medicos, the social Edenists (is that even a word?) can proudly lay claim to the Massachusetts Health Care Reform law. Enacted by a Democratic state legislature and signed in to law by a Republican Governer Mitt Romney, it now serves as the foundation and the progenitor of the recently passed federal health care reform bill. This, once again, further cements Boston's status as the Hub of the Universe.

Maybe a non sequitor, Bill, but you brought it up.

Enjoying the holiday weekend,
Gene

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 7:23 am

Gene DeMambro wrote:
Why does this always come up, and why must I always have to set Bill straight on this?

Maybe you should ask yourself why you "always" fail to make a point.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 7:31 am

Gene DeMambro wrote:
Not to be outdone the medicos, the social Edenists (is that even a word?) can proudly lay claim to the Massachusetts Health Care Reform law. Enacted by a Democratic state legislature and signed in to law by a Republican Governer Mitt Romney, it now serves as the foundation and the progenitor of the recently passed federal health care reform bill. This, once again, further cements Boston's status as the Hub of the Universe.

You stuck yourself way out on that limb, Gene.

First... I work for a Boston-based company that is now a Waltham-based company after a merger. So I know a little something about the Massachusetts universal health care experiment. Let me tell you how it works, Gene, since they USED to provide insurance as a benefit.

There's a very easy way to get around this stupid legislation, and my company did it to me. Don't want to have to pay either the health insurance or the fines? Then change the status of as many workers as you can from employee to subcontractor. Now they don't have to worry about my health insurance premiums, and I have to pay for health insurance out of my pocket from AFTER TAX dollars.

Oh and virtually all of IT got exported overseas to Nepal. Health care isn't considered a right over there.

Don't even go there on the cost. I have the data; I know how bad the trends suk.

Your Massachusettes health insurance experiment suks, Gene, and I am the poster child casualty.

So what's that you were saying? Be careful what you write back. After being screwed by your wonderful socialist hero, I am not in the mood to be charitable.

- Bill

Gene DeMambro · Post by **Gene DeMambro** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:02 pm

Get screwed by capitalists, but blame the socialists. Riight

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:49 pm

Bill Glasheen wrote: First... I work for a Boston-based company that is now a Waltham-based company after a merger. So I know a little something about the Massachusetts universal health care experiment. Let me tell you how it works, Gene, since they USED to provide insurance as a benefit.

There's a very easy way to get around this stupid legislation, and my company did it to me. Don't want to have to pay either the health insurance or the fines? Then change the status of as many workers as you can from employee to subcontractor. Now they don't have to worry about my health insurance premiums, and I have to pay for health insurance out of my pocket from AFTER TAX dollars

You are of course assuming that they were not already planning such a move, or that they were not just acting on an opportunity. Companies converting employees to contractor status (a form of outsourcing) has been occurring for decades and is a major cost-cutting strategy regardless of any Massachusetts insurance legislation. An equally valid assumption is that your company timed the change to divert the blame to the legislation.

Such diversion strategies are definitely occurring right now. My company was undergoing a review in preparation for a major offshoring restructuring to begin in 2010. This was a planned cost-cutting move years in the making. By all accounts we also were riding out the financial crisis that started last year pretty well. However the cover provided by the crisis was too good to pass up, and the company moved up its timetable to begin early this year, and have been transferring 30% of its positions (around 1000 out of 3400) to Ireland (IT support), India (programming), and the Philippines (customer service and other call-center positions) throughout the year. The strategy worked too; offshoring almost 1/3 of their positions during a normal year would have been a news-maker, particularly in the headquarters city (Chicago), but by doing it during a year of massive layoffs and every company ramping up their offshoring it barely made a blip on anyone's radar.

My job was one of the ones transferred, it got to go to Ireland in April without me. It went to an Irish contractor making half what I did. Now the company does not have to worry about any of my benefits and made a considerable saving on my salary. Had nothing to do with any Mass. insurance legislation.

Oh and virtually all of IT got exported overseas to Nepal. Health care isn't considered a right over there.

Correct, just as high wages and other benefits also do not apply in Nepal. Likely this move had nothing to do with Mass. insurance legislation, if that is all there was to it then by your own argument the company could have made them contractors like they did you, rather than offshoring to Nepal. No, this was just part of the process ongoing for the past decade of companies offshoring IT to any country that can do it cheaper.

What is a safe bet is that conservative business leaders will blame all their decisions on liberal-led legislation. That's what worries me most about the U.S. finally joining all the other developed nations of the world in providing universal health care to its people; the conservatives will make every effort they can to tie to it every negative thing that they do. And unfortunately they have the corporate power to make sure some bad economic things happen. Look at the dire predictions the conservatives have been inundating us with in media ads against the health care bill (job loses, fewer benefits, higher prices, etc), all stuff they can make happen, since they are already making all these happen. And unfortunately the public is likely to buy into the distraction of the big bad health-care wolf being the cause.

Your Massachusettes health insurance experiment suks, Gene, and I am the poster child casualty.

The current version of conservative capitalist free market suks too, Bill, and I am the poster child casualty. And really it sounds like you have been as well, with your previous layoffs and your current insurance issue.

After being screwed by your wonderful socialist hero

Who screwed you?

Bill Glasheen wrote: my company did it to me

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:19 am

Glenn

You're assuming way too much. I know what happened because I work at the company. This isn't a very big division of the parent company, but it's in a highly competitive market. It's small enough that everyone knows what's going on. My world is so small that I have worked for 3 different companies since 1992 and run into the same folks year after year. There are only a handful of people (internationally) who do what I do, and I am followed by a legion of programmers who turn it into product.

The action happened shortly after the passage of the Massachusetts legislation. Unlike most hapless employers, part of what I do for a living is build models that predict the future cost of healthcare. We knew what was coming down the road. Some of us predicted the outcome. I've predicted all 3 of my job changes well before they happened. But considering I build predictive models for a living...

Some economists predicted this very thing would happen - the conversion of employees to subcontractors and the outsourcing of IT to India. They were right on everything but the India part; the winning country was Nepal. And given that this company builds software engines (sold for six figures per year), sending the programming jobs overseas is not a small part of the operation.

The bottom line is that countries which guarantee benefits for all workers find it hard to compete in a global economy. But it isn't just the benefits per se; it's the mandates that are making these benefits even more expensive. Right now, health-care is 17% of GDP. Once Obamacare kicks in, expect that to jump up to between 20% to 23% very quickly. More and more, we aren't building anything here any more because it can be done so much cheaper elsewhere where social mandates aren't so prevalent. If that keeps up, the service industries will disappear as well.

What happened to my company is indeed happening elsewhere (like locally at Capital One), but not with the timing and extent that it happened with this Massachusetts company. This ultimately translates to fewer pre-tax benefits for the workers, and fewer (US) jobs in general per company. It isn't just health insurance when they dump employees like that. It's no more 401K, no more pre-tax money set aside for daycare or medical care, no more life insurance as a pre-tax benefit, no workman's comp, etc., etc.

Right now it's an employer's market, and companies can (and will) get away with this. Given the jobless recovery, expect this to be happening a lot for quite a long time. Throw in a trillion dollar (plus) NATIONAL experiment like Massachusetts and you're putting gasoline on a forest fire. Even the uber-liberal economists like Krugman are saying all bets are off once stimulus money ends (around 3Q 2010). It doesn't bode well for the party in power. Already Virginia and New Jersey changed parties in the governor's mansion just last month. Expect more of the same a year from now, 3 years from now, etc.

Slick Willie got it right. "It's the economy, stupid!"

- Bill

Gene DeMambro · Post by **Gene DeMambro** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:03 am

Bill,

Outsourcing manufacturing has been going on for decades. Have you read Ted Kennedy's memoir, True Compass? In it he talks of meetings with then President Reagan about what the gov't could do to help the shoe industry, which was closing plants and making shoes overseas. In those two meetings, all Pres. Reagan wanted to do was talk about how to fit and break in shoes and his favorite brand. You see, his father owned a shoe store and he knew all about shoes. But he didn't give a damn about the shoe industry at all. Free markets, you know.

Companies have been reclassifying workers as general contractors for years also, Bill. This is nothing new, and isn't anything indiginous to Massachusetts since our health care reform. Unfortunately, it happened to you. But other people on this forum have been laid off previously, very few of them in Massachusetts. Why are you still fighting The Civil War, Bill?

Employers have always called the shots, Bill, on who they hire and who they fire. Always have and always will. Not quite sure why or if you ever thought differently. There will always be some classes of employees whose skills and education make then more desirable than others. But employment is generally at the pleasure of the employer. Anyone who approaches it any differently is taking an awfully big chance.

Sure, labor costs are lower in those nations (or even states) with lower cost of living, lower living standards and no affordable healthcare for the working class. But there is also limited educational opportunities for the children of the poor or working class, no occupational health protections for worker safety and minimal to no environmental control laws, if they are enforced at all. Been to China recently? When a coal mine collapses in the US, a handful of workers may tragically die. The same accident in China will kill scores and scores of men. And the same type of accident will occur with much greater frequency than here. Ever wonder about that? Ever wonder why Darren Yee mentions that in China the waterways are so polluted that the more valuable property to live and work on is located away for waterways and shorelines? Sooner or later, these things are going to eventually hurt business, and hurt the governments that enable them. Maybe capitalism (for which I am all for - I've made a lot of money over the years) needs to start paying its own way a little more.

And before you invoke Ted Kennedy's name in vain again about how "ugly" his legacy left us, read his book (give me your address and I'll send you a copy for the holidays - on me). In it he details precisely his efforts over the decades for workplace protections, help for hurting industries to help them compete, his fight for affordable healthcare for all and he and his brothers' lifelong fight for equal rights for all. Find any of his contemporaries of any other party who can claim similar credentials and accomplishments. I dare you.

Gene

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 3:12 pm

Not assuming anything beyond the assumptions I stated Bill. The rest is based on my decade+ experience in the corporate world. These trends we are discussing have been going on a long time, including when the economy has been good. Good economy or bad economy, it does not matter to the corporations, their only interest is in an overall reduction in their on-shore employee base, sometimes through outsourcing to contractors but primarily through getting cheaper labor overseas. The Bush administration was favorable to corporations and it was then that they started the rapid offshoring of such industries as IT. Governmental policies wax and wane and end up having little overall effect on these trends, they are part of a corporate-run locomotive building momemtum under its own steam, and running over everyone in its path.

Being in IT at the time, my co-workers and I obviously followed what was occurring in the industry with interest. We knew five years ago that the writing was on the wall and our days were numbered. No predictive modelling was required, all the signs were there for those who paid attentention. That's why I applied to go back to graduate school part time a full year before I was laid off, and well before the current economic crisis hit. I knew time was running out, as more and more of the work was being sent to Ireland and India and fewer jobs were being listed for IT in the U.S. That ended up being a fortuitous move on my part, because it made the transition to full-time graduate student and getting an assistantship easier after I was laid off.

Valkenar · Post by **Valkenar** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 3:41 pm

If you want to look at it negatively, you could argue that the health care legislation in MA gives companies a PR excuse to convert employees to subcontractors. While "we just don't want to pay American wages" won't go over too well, there are people who will swallow "it's just these darn gubmint fees." From that perspective, it is possible to blame local government policies for allowing those companies to do the inconsiderate things they want to do anyway.

Re: Ted Kennedy's personal medical care... Bill, your argument basically seems to be that massachusetts politicians should be ashamed that Boston doesn't have a monopoly on ALL the elite specialist doctors in the country. And if they get sick they shouldn't seek treatment if it requires the services of someone who lives in another state. Are you maybe just a little bitter that we have such a great (but not the only!) medical community?

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 4:46 pm

Valkenar wrote: If you want to look at it negatively, you could argue that the health care legislation in MA gives companies a PR excuse to convert employees to subcontractors. While "we just don't want to pay American wages" won't go over too well, there are people who will swallow "it's just these darn gubmint fees." From that perspective, it is possible to blame local government policies for allowing those companies to do the inconsiderate things they want to do anyway.

Very true, but that is like blaming gun deaths on the availability of guns and not on the people pulling the triggers. Responsibility for offshoring is squarely on the corporate leaders who make those decisions.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:30 pm

Glenn wrote:
Valkenar wrote:
If you want to look at it negatively, you could argue that the health care legislation in MA gives companies a PR excuse to convert employees to subcontractors. While "we just don't want to pay American wages" won't go over too well, there are people who will swallow "it's just these darn gubmint fees." From that perspective, it is possible to blame local government policies for allowing those companies to do the inconsiderate things they want to do anyway.
Very true, but that is like blaming gun deaths on the availability of guns and not on the people pulling the triggers. Responsibility for offshoring is squarely on the corporate leaders who make those decisions.

Oh reeeaaalllyyy????

So government mandates make it unprofitable to employ Americans to compete in a global economy to do certain things, and then we're going to blame it on big, bad corporate America for engaging in a logical response, right?

I could call it the law of unintended consequences. But that's being way too kind.

I could call it a reason to put severe limits on the reach of government in our lives. But then I'm waxing partisan.

- Bill

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:32 pm

Valkenar wrote:
Are you maybe just a little bitter that we have such a great (but not the only!) medical community?

Absolutely. It is a reason why I have professional colleagues in the Boston academic scene. It's a reason why my best friend did medical school up there. And I am soooo ashamed that my student and friend Ian did his internship up there. That traitor!!!!!

FWIW, we have Blue Devils (medicine) in our Uechi family as well.

- Bill

Valkenar · Post by **Valkenar** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:27 pm

Bill Glasheen wrote: So government mandates make it unprofitable to employ Americans to compete in a global economy to do certain things, and then we're going to blame it on big, bad corporate America for engaging in a logical response, right?

Whoah there. Government mandates aren't even mostly the reason it's profitable to offshore jobs. Offshoring is profitable because America has a higher standard, and cost, of living. No matter how you slice it, paying chinese sweatshop children six cents an hour is going to beat paying Americans a wage they can live on. In other cases, with technology, it's just a matter of standards. In America, a person who can program and cares about money won't bother programming for $30,000/year. Because in America that is not what a highly-skilled laborer makes.

Certainly, government mandates might make it more profitable to offshore jobs. There's no question about that, but I think it's disingenuous of you to imply that it's the government that creates a situation that wouldn't otherwise exist.

Re: Bitterness. You can be bitter and still interact with people in Boston's medical community.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:49 pm

Valkenar wrote:

think it's disingenuous of you to imply that it's the government that creates a situation that wouldn't otherwise exist.

Not MY specific situation. That is very real.

Valkenar wrote:

Certainly, government mandates might make it more profitable to offshore jobs.

In this we agree.

Valkenar wrote:

Re: Bitterness. You can be bitter and still interact with people in Boston's medical community.

Are you a bitter person, Justin?

Personally I classify myself as bittersweet, bordering on something like semisweet chocolate.

- Bill