Should PEF be involved in issues not directly related to work?

Our members are critically effected by what happens in our country, not just in Albany. We need to protect our members and make things better.

My state job, for instance, is 100 percent federally funded through the Social Security Administration.

When the Bush administration sets fiscal priorities, it shortchanges funding for my job. We don't have the necessary staff to do the job, yet they imposed a hiring freeze so each analyst at the state Office of Temporary Disability Assistance (OTDA) must do more.

When the Bush administration writes a blank check for the Iraq war, and then says it doesn’t have the money to fund domestic programs, it hurts me and my fellow PEF members at OTDA.

Working conditions at my office are shameful. The air is either too hot, too dry, or too cold. Staff members complain of visual problems using their computer screens.

If federal standards and regulations were stronger, we could demand correction of these problems and have the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration to back us up.

Instead, the Bush administration has dismantled the regulations that protect us on the job. It has even questioned the science of ergonomics.

These are just two examples of why we need to stay involved in our nation’s political arena.

Everything that happens in Washington ultimately has an effect on our working conditions, job security and benefits.

Should PEF be involved in issues not directly related to its members’ working conditions, job security or benefits? No.

PEF represents a diverse group of individuals, with interests that run the gamut from the far left to the far right.

Unfortunately, it is primarily those on the moderate to the left side of the political spectrum who become PEF activists. When these folks get together, they find they share an interest in causes unrelated to employment and it’s convenient to leverage their PEF activism and camaraderie into support for those causes.

They forget that they are elected to represent the desires of the membership, that 40 percent of all labor households vote Republican, and that getting PEF to support their personal causes automatically alienates members who do not share their world view. This results in “Balkanizing” of the PEF membership, and in keeping many members from getting active.

For PEF to be able to fully mobilize its membership, it needs to take positions which all PEF members can support — ones that advance terms and conditions of employment.

To do otherwise is to demoralize a significant portion of our membership for the sake of certain activists’ personal or political gains. That is an unconscionable tradeoff, but one that some are willing to make.

Leadership requires PEF’s elected officials to “walk the walk” of representing all members, rather than submitting to any one constituency.

What do you think?

Should the state bring the Promotion Test Battery back, or sideline it for good?

Tell The Communicator (in 250 words or less) what you think about this issue. We will publish two submissions — one on each side of the issue —
in our next Point-Counterpoint feature. Send your submission to thecommunicator@pef.org,
or mail it to The Communicator, PO Box 12414, Albany, NY 12212-2414.