I don't even deal with Reagan's policy here. At the time of writing, I didn't even think much about Reagan, aside the fact that it made a good opening, as I was reading this New York Times article as a source of the discussion on Reagan and the Union -- a LIBERAL, OBAMAPHILE NEWSPAPER, before I wrote the article.
Essentially, I used "Reagan" as an example how the union's overreach could backfire, triggering public backlash that would in the end ruin the union.
Well, I was caught off guard. Apparently for them there's no option for intelligent discussion concerning Ronald Reagan, that his name should be banished forever from any form of writings. Apparently, by saying his name, I was invoking the power of Hitler and all the evil things in the world.
He is the one "whose name shall not be spoken."
I even got some "fans" whose job was solely to heckle me in other articles/comments.
That, I think, is an indicative of the sad state of intellectual discussion on internet. It is all peanuts gallery.
It will later trigger a laughable "letter to editor" that I trashed rather quickly. I will elaborate on this in my later update.
#lrn2read
---
Yohanes Sulaiman: Indonesia Can Learn From Reagan About Taming Labor Unions
February 03, 2012
 |
| It is time for the Indonesian government to start channeling the spirit of Reagan and act decisively without being influenced by electoral politics. At the same time, the recent labor unrest shows that it is high time for the judicial system to be reformed. If not, threats to social stability will continue to grow |
In August 1981, facing a crippling strike by a union of air traffic controllers that halted all US air traffic, President Ronald Reagan decided to mobilize the military to replace the striking workers. He also fired approximately 90 percent of the air traffic controllers in the United States and banned them from federal service for life.
Many would later blame Reagan for destroying the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (Patco) and undermining workers’ rights.
Georgetown University historian Joseph McCartin, however, says that Patco had made a closed-door deal with Reagan’s advisers before strike, leading to its endorsement of Reagan in the 1980 election. In fact, Reagan had offered major concessions to the union a month before he called in the military. But his overtures were rejected by the union, which had become more radicalized and demanded even more concessions.
Patco’s decision to shut down air traffic was a major miscalculation. It did not have a great deal of public support (in part because its members’ earnings were already well above the national average). Patco was also violating a law prohibiting government unions from striking. Reagan saw the strike as illegal and a threat to national safety, which he used to justify his drastic response.
Reagan’s forcefulness was popular because the strike had alienated the union from the general public. His actions, taken without considering electoral politics, also made an impression on the Soviet Union and helped Reagan in his later negotiations with them.
Here in Indonesia, there are some valuable lessons to be learned from this.
First, Indonesian unions should understand that causing massive public discomfort is not a good way to get public support on their side. While their tactic of blockading major transportation arteries — which happened last week in Bekasi — might be effective in the short term, in a long run, this kind of strategy will tend to backfire.
As seen in the Patco case, people might sympathize with workers’ demands for higher wages, but not if those demands hurt them. Strikes in general work when public support for strikers is high. When people get tired of the disruptions, their attitude toward the strikers turns sour.
Such attitudes were skillfully manipulated during the New Order era to cripple labor unions. Using the specter of communist-backed labor unrest of the kind that plagued Indonesia during the short-lived liberal democracy of the 1950s, President Suharto made his case to the public that only his government could rein in the excesses of labor unions.
While the government’s heavy-handedness played a major role in curbing labor unions, it was only able to do so with the support of people unwilling to risk another period of chaos.
This leads to the second lesson, which is that the Indonesian government should learn to act with determination vis-a-vis workers. While the demands of unions may have their merits, the government must make a clear delineation between a lawful strike and an unlawful one that causes major social and economic disruptions.
This is simply not the time to count votes. While the support and votes of union members might be useful when it comes to winning elections, such a weak attitude will only alienate the rest of the voters, the people inconvenienced by strikes and who probably blame both the government and the unions for creating the mess.
More troubling, the government’s failure to prevent strikers last week from occupying the toll road between Jakarta and Bandung will only embolden future strikers to cause more economic disruption. Already a union in Tangerang has threatened to cut off the Jakarta-Tangerang toll road.
This is not a precedent that the government should allow as it would sour the business climate that attracts investors. Potential investors might think twice about investing in the area, and already some factory owners have contemplated moving to other, more business-friendly areas of the country or even abroad, which would result in job losses for the workers.
With the worsening global economic climate, Indonesia simply cannot afford to have investors fleeing abroad.
Third, the recent union action is indicative of the lack of trust in the judiciary. After the Bandung court handed the Indonesian Employers Association (Apindo) a victory in its lawsuit against the monthly minimum wage approved by the West Java governor, workers cried foul and immediately launched a work stoppage.
Rieke Diah Pitaloka, a member of the House of Representatives from the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), also criticized the court, claiming that Apindo had improperly influenced its decision.
In contrast, were this to happen in the United States, all sides would have submitted to the court, regardless of whether they agreed with the decision. If not, then the dissatisfied party would have submitted an appeal, but in the meantime, no drastic action would have been taken. People might have criticized the court’s decision, but none of them would have questioned its legitimacy.
In Indonesia, trust in the judiciary is steadily declining. When there is a lack of trust in the law enforcement system to deliver justice, people will enforce their will through mob action, with no due respect for the judicial process.
For example, after last week’s drug-driving tragedy that claimed the lives of nine people in Central Jakarta, the family of one of the victims threatened mob action if the suspect was let off with a slap on the wrist.
Such contempt for the courts, while understandable in such an emotional situation, would be unthinkable in countries with a strong judiciary. In Indonesia, however, such threats are seen as normal thanks to groan-inducing cases such as the juvenile sandal thief who ended up in the dock, the very light sentences imposed on corruptors and other examples of judicial misconduct.
In the United States, Reagan managed to restore order and break the union because he realized the strikers were damaging the economy and the wider national interest. He also realized that people in general disapproved of the strike, that he had the law on his side and that he had to act forcefully.
All of that had to take precedence over how his actions might cost him support from the important labor unions in the next presidential election.
It is time for the Indonesian government to start channeling the spirit of Reagan and act decisively without being influenced by electoral politics. At the same time, the recent labor unrest shows that it is high time for the judicial system to be reformed. If not, threats to social stability will continue to grow.
-----
nonredneck
5:31pm Feb 3,
2012
SirAnthonyKnown-Bender
2:11am Feb 4,
2012
I find this piece to be utterly in a thrall to the Reagan cult, a posthumous invention of the media propaganda program, as he was not a popular president during his time in office. He has one of the worst records in history vis-a-vis organised labour. Reagan fired more than
eleven thousand air traffic controllers,
jailed strike leaders and ultimately
abolished the union, paving the way for a crackdown on organized labor. Underlying Mr. Sulaiman's piece though is the implicit assumption, formulated quite consciously in the US by people such as Edward Bernays earlier in the twentieth century as a propaganda effort to control the public mind, that people organizing and standing up to the tyrannical exploitation of corporations in a bid to improve their lives spent in penury are a "threat" to social "harmony".
Hardly a surprise to see an Indonesian journalist siding with a doctrine that stretches from James Madison's formulation that the role of modern democracy is to protect, "the minority of the opulent from the majority" all the way to the frankly contemptible intellectual dishonesty of Thomas Friedman et al. Sad.
DrDez
8:16am Feb 4,
2012
Yohanes
I would welcome a firm stance but adopting Reagan or Thatcherite policies requires a free market approach & we are heading in the opposite direction & it is damaging
Three things (my view) are required urgently.
1. A wage growth structure (min wage) set out for the next 5 years. This should be based on several KPI's and be flexible in the sense of responding to inflation etc but should have a maximum ceiling (say 12%)it should be enforced and be inclusive
2. Phase out of fuel subsidies, Rp1000 increase every 6 months resulting in a fixed price of Rp10500 which is then linked to oil price (escalator) ie it can go down too
3. Revision of labour laws to provide equal rights for both individuals and companies
It is not an easy sell but would fill the void we have. The biggest thing is however administration consistency. Now we consistently cave in to the mob & sooner or later it will mean big issues
I see labour issues being used as a political tool which is bad news
Elvis-isintheroom
12:01pm Feb 4,
2012
Yohanes
Are you talking about the same Regan that precipitated the huge economic crisis of 2008? The same Regan that supported dictators everywhere? The same Regan that in the end was unfit to serve due to alzheimers disease? The same Regan that confused movies with reality? Have you ever thought WHY unions exist? Why they are created in the first place? "The government must make a clear delineation between a lawful strike and an unlawful one that causes major social and economic disruptions." What other leverage have unions got beside withdrawing labour? Do you think union members and their families don't suffer during a strike?
Your thoughts are beyond the pale.
marko1
12:58pm Feb 4,
2012
Everyone slagging off on reagan what gives, he was one of the best presidents i have witnessed. True he got sick and those days could be discounted.
When he died his funeral lasted 3 days the entire world watched ( nothing has come close). The era was awesome, reagan,thatcher,Brian mulruney sp, mikail gorb, great times in the day. He preceeded carter who was a bad president but has done some much for the world afterwards.
Comello
2:05pm Feb 4,
2012
Well marko1,
If we judge a person's worth by the (media) hoopla their funeral generates, I guess Diana must have been the greatest person to have lived in our lifetime.
I became of voting age in the 80s, and I can't remember anyone who was pro-Reagan. On the contrary, he was a figure of ridicule, just like Bush the Lesser was. Anyone remember Spitting Image?
What shouldn't we forget:
- illegal Contra funding;
- Iran arms sales;
- utopian SDI programme;
- 'say no to drugs' infantilism;
- start of Wall Street deregulation;
- glorifying 'vulture capitalism';
- 'trickle down' voodoonomics;
- widening income gap;
- letting religious nutjobs into centres of power;
- 'Government is the Problem' meme;
People just forget too quickly, and the life and times of the 'Teflon President' are no exception.
'Facts are stupid things...'
marko1
3:05pm Feb 4,
2012
Elvis-isintheroom
9:07pm Feb 4,
2012
Regans Reich: Oliver North and the imperialist brothers (Rumsfeld and Cheney) would still be in the private sector instead of making public policy if not for Regan. Who trained and armed the Taliban? Who armed Suddam Hussein to fight Iran?
Only George W Bush rivaled him in ignorance. Most americans were as embarrased by him when he left office as they were about George W. To really appreciate the stuff ups of the Bush Administration, one would need to start with the Regan years. And oh I forgot about Regan giving huge tax breaks to the mega rich which caused a spiraling recession. One needs only to look back as far as 2008 to see "Regans legacy" as he instigated the de-regulated of the banks that has caused the suffering of so many everyday americans and others.
Yohanes-Sulaiman
10:57pm Feb 4,
2012
@SirAnthonyKnown-Bender: I think I try to be even-handed in this piece. As noted, even Reagan tried to appease the union -- which is completely different from the today's Reagan "myth." Keep in mind that the Union also did break the law and overreached -- and only when the union blundered and squandered the public opinion then Reagan could break the back of the union.
In essence, the Union simply handed Reagan his victory on a silver platter.
There are cases when the public completely supported the union during strike, notably the infamous Homestead Strike, that only "ended" when anarchists tried to assasinate Frick, the factory manager, which destroyed public support.
I admit that I may be biased, but to simply take the union's line uncritically, without discussing their missteps is another fallacy in my humble opinion.
Yohanes-Sulaiman
11:06pm Feb 4,
2012
@Elvis: Reagan was dead by 2008. It is like fully blaming Sukarno for today's Indonesia's messes. Reagan did play a factor, but to completely blame Reagan is simply wrong.
On labor: Read again what I wrote, and I put that bluntly that I oppose anarchic actions, such as CLOSING DOWN MAJOR TRANSPORTATION ARTERY -- not to mention, forcing the non-involved workers to get involved under the threat of bodily harms.
Anarchism has no place in Indonesia, thank you very much.
Yohanes-Sulaiman
11:09pm Feb 4,
2012
In fact, show me ANY perfect president, and I can needle him/her mistakes so much that by the end of the day, nobody could recognize the person anymore -- and that including the current Messiah of the United States.
marko1
6:59am Feb 5,
2012
But Yohane is correct they all do bad.
Valkyrie
11:39am Feb 5,
2012
Elvis-isintheroom
12:09pm Feb 5,
2012
So you take advice from former TNI commanders??!!! Maybe you can vote for Tommy in two years...What a shame Prabowo is not running again; in the mean-time just keep writing drivel like this and I, like others will keep trying to educating you.
nonredneck
2:59pm Feb 5,
2012
Yohanes-Sulaiman
3:58pm Feb 5,
2012
Oh, should you think that a good analyst/researcher should not talk with TNI commanders, then you can also get rid most of your books on Indonesia because many reputable scholars get their data by interviewing TNI people, including heavy-weight such as Herb Feith, Bill Liddle, and even Ben Anderson.
Oh, feel free to send something to the Jakarta Globe's editors. Like nonredneck said, I would be happy to read it, should the JG's editors find it publishable.
An insider tip to my readers: a lot of people are actually speculating on Prabowo going to run again in 2014 and many non-military experts that I talked to believed that he would be able to garner many votes from people missing the benevolent authoritarianism of Suharto.
tempodulu
4:32pm Feb 5,
2012
Yohanes-Sulaiman
5:04pm Feb 5,
2012
Not that I support his authoritarianism, mind you. But for many people, regardless of his iron fists, many do miss the "good old times." Of course the grass is greener next door....
DrDez
6:36pm Feb 5,
2012
I am no supporter of the Surharto era but Yohanes is correct when he suggests a growing nostalgia and in fact a growing belief (sic) that it was better then.
The comments I often hear are along these lines. At least you knew who and how much to bribe and when you paid it was done. He kept a lid on radicals and terrorists /extremists. If the Police/TNI overstepped the mark then it was dealt with. and so on... some true some urban myth I feel. However the nostalgia is a result not of the great times then but of the incredible weakness and lack of decisive leadership shown since. SBY had a mandate that was absolute. He could have taken us anywhere and he has taken us where?
I have heard it said that we (the nation) are not ready for a democracy. I have always thought this was incorrect, but now like many others I am wishing for a firmer hand from the govt and that sadly is a step backwards. i dear for us this year i really do
Elvis-isintheroom
7:34pm Feb 5,
2012
To think that getting your opinion published in the JG or anywhere equates to some sort of journalistic integrity is beyond me. Yes everybody is entitled to their opinion and this is what you have clearly expressed. Maybe you could quote some more balanced sources besides "a retired TNI commander" regarding the authenticity of unionism and its members in Indonesia. Ronald Regan was a nut job and I hate to say it but I honestly think Indonesia is screwed.
Elvis-isintheroom
7:43pm Feb 5,
2012
In effect you are stating a case for martial law against people that chose to defend their human rights.
Elvis-isintheroom
7:45pm Feb 5,
2012
"If the Police/TNI overstepped the mark then it was dealt with." Oh really? how so?
Yohanes-Sulaiman
8:22pm Feb 5,
2012
This will be my last post to you. I will still reply to my other readers.
P.S. If you want to talk about integrity, try using your real name. Thank you.
DrDez
8:33pm Feb 5,
2012
If you re read you will see I was quoting the kind of things I am hearing, and pretty regularly too from all manner of Indonesians in many situations - people are fed up with the current ineffective bunch of self serving twerps and they hark back to a perceived 'golden era'
It is not actually my view - again as I stated before I am 100% against a return of Surharto style regime in any shape or form - but that does not mean others are not wanting those days back and some are pretty powerful people indeed.
Specifically however I do not recall too many banana or sandal thieves making court and I don't recall any collusion with militant groups etc
I will 100% agree with your last line. We here are screwed - both from within and without
Elvis-isintheroom
10:54am Feb 6,
2012
padt
12:12pm Feb 6,
2012
You will leave yourself open to attack. For instance - YOUR opinions are published here in JG just as Yohanes Suliaman's are. Presumably you submit them because you 'equate them to some sort of journalistic integrity', otherwise you would be displaying a lack of confidence and integrity in your own opinions. Yet when Yohanes Suliaman does the same you sneer at and denigrate him and them, accusing him of the opposite.
If that is the case, as it appears to be - after all - you do publish your opinions here - one could logically accuse you of the same base motives.
But being a gentleman, I wouldn't.
Elvis-isintheroom
4:56pm Feb 6,
2012
Dear padt-I have merely commented on Yohanes opinion. To somehow infer that the publication of his opinion by the JG equates to him writing a journalistically sound piece is rubbish.
padt
7:59pm Feb 6,
2012
In the famous libel case of Evelyn Waugh Vs Nancy Spain and the Daily Express,(1955) Waugh came out of it very handsomely indeed, having sued Miss Spain for slighting his writing abilities in print. The judge and jury took a very dim view of it and awarded Waugh ten thousand pounds. Waugh ordered a very nice hand woven carpet according to a Victorian pattern with the proceeds.
I trust Mr Suliaman has no plans to cover up his bare boards at home, if such they be. He may look about for funds to do so. I do hope he will continue to charm us with his articles.
CannockID
10:17am Feb 12,
2012
To compare industrial action by the Bekasi strikers with that of well paid, highly skilled workers members of the US air traffic control service is ludicrous. This article also does nothing to take into account the mechanisms by which public opinion towards strikers is formed. Consistent negative portrayal by self serving media groups have often made strikers appear more violent, more disruptive and more economically damaging than they really are,(see biased reporting of the UK 1984-85 miners strike).
Yohanes-Sulaiman
6:14pm Feb 12,
2012
CannockID
7:26pm Feb 12,
2012
Yohanes-Sulaiman
9:02pm Feb 12,
2012
The main argument of this article is that workers have to understand that it is not a good idea to antagonize the public, whose support and goodwill they need. The government should also act seriously to prevent things from going out of control (thus causing more damage) and to ensure that justice system is working.
This article does not talk/discuss the problems of inequality -- which, don't get me wrong, is important, but beyond the scope of this article (1000words limits).
On Reagan: we have to agree to disagree. I think his role in causing inequality in the US is much overblown. Like it or not, even without Reagan, the world has moved more into inequality due to various factors, and not all of them can or should be blamed on Reagan. To solely blame him is just intellectually (sorry to say) lazy.
No comments:
Post a Comment