It's not so much that hard work will eventually equal wealth, but that workers are resigned to accepting crumbs from the master's table. The American worker used to be proud. He/she fought for safety and wages and the dignity of all work. Morse is right. The American worker is cowering, running for cover, trying to rationalize his/her predicament by acquiescing to a false notion of luck, instead of his/her own worth.

Part of this fear-based new stance is he result of having competition with workers who are nameless and faceless to the American worker. These workers aren't your neighbor or someone in the next town, but someone in a distant country, a place where working for $17 a day is the norm, and being awaked in the night in your work dormitory is also a common practice.

American workers, all of us, need to overcome our fears, join unions, and fight for the repeal of NAFTA, and the placing of tariffs on outsourced good. If not, too soon, there won't be enough luck in the world to hide behind.

Sorry, second paragraph, fourth line, is supposed to be awakened, not awaked.

Posted by Snow "American workers, all of us, need to overcome our fears, join unions, and fight for the repeal of NAFTA, and the placing of tariffs on outsourced good."

No, No, No what we have to do is become competitive in our products. Look at Hyundai, BMW, Toyota, etc all successfully manufacturing in the USA. Our effective labor rates are lower that many parts of Japan and Europe. Todays early news was about manufacturers returing from China and Mexico, there is no "infrastructure" to support them there.

I admit I don't see the strategic value of NAFTA. I think it was a political experiment to try to incorporate Mexico's cheap labor into our economy. Doesn't seem to have worked. Or, maybe it has, and we don't like the result.

Back to the subject of this article, luck and hard work. There is much belief in the idea of "being in the right place at the right time". It seems seldom remembered that often it took a lot of hard work to get in the "right place".

"American workers, all of us, need to overcome our fears, join unions"

Absolutely not. That's the opposite of the correct solution. The very reason that the jobs have been outsourced is because it costs too much to produce things in this country. That's what Steve Jobs told Obama when Obama asked if the manufacturing jobs would come back. Unions do not make things more competitive, they only make more money for the employees in many cases. That money doesn't grow on trees, it comes out of the employers' pocket.

Snow, I bet that if you saw one gas station selling gas for $3 a gallon and there was another gas station right next to it selling gas for $4 a gallon, and you knew it was the exact same gas, you'd go to the $3 a gallon station, right? That's exactly what businesses are doing. They see that China, India, Madagascar, all these other countries can offer the product for not $3 but for something closer to 25 cents, yet the unionized American workers claim they'll do the same thing for the hypothetical $4. So if you're a business owner, which model would you choose? It's easy.

How do you suppose that if all American workers unionized, that would do anything to change the production of iPhones in China? Or cars in Japan? Or clothing in India? All it does is makes the US less competitive on a world market and accelerates the downward spiral.

"Be on time, be prepared, learn everything possible about whatever it is you do; be a great cook, clean as well as you can, write well, teach well, drive well, and be well. Some people are actually fortunate to love what they do. Most of us are not. That is no reason to fail to excel at work, and no reason to go through your days content to just get by, put in your time, cash your check on Friday and tell yourself you are lucky to have a job."

That's a great message but when was the last time your union promoted that message. I'm mean really promoted it. My experience with public and private sector unions over the years is that they breed mediocrity. There are always exceptions in the organization and usually they're criticized and cajoled by the slackers. They also get no backing from their mediocre 'go along to get along' colleagues. So I find the message a little disingenuous. It will be a cold day in hell when the union pulls aside a slacker and tells them to get their sh#t together just to become an average performer.

The only kind thing that can be said about this piece is that it was probably not intended to be as offensive as it sounds.

My original comment to Morse on his blog was to the effect that his individual experience - regularly earning $80-100k/year as a city firefighter with good benefits, pension, and ironclad job security - is not universal and he takes this for granted. He has no real clue where the sentiment he mocks is coming from. If he had any real interaction with the currently graduating generation, he would understand that we aren't "brainwashed' but are in vastly different circumstances from his own, and he would understand why we feel lucky when we are able to find work to pay the bills and our average 30-100k in debt. The simple fact is that there are not enough jobs to go around right now, so jobs themselves have become very valuable, even though I can see why he would not realize this, having worked as a firefighter for 20 years with high school credentials and zero risk of every being fired. Employers can't afford to hire more workers and certainly can't afford to pay everyone union wages. Most of them are keeping on too many workers for their own good as it is. If Morse feels like his job is so lucky to have him, then logically he should leave and find a better one and let one of the 60,000 unemployed people waiting in line who *would* feel lucky to have his job have the same opportunities that he has had.

Snow - The temptation to the economically illiterate is always to enact new forms of protectionism against foreign competition. Tariffs and the like have rightfully been swept to the dustbin of economic quakery over the past 80 years as not just failed policies, but failures with disastrous consequences (Smoot-Hawley, for example, reduced American exports and imports by half and contributed to the Great Depression). There are no shortcuts in economics - our country simply has to find new things to be good at, and this could be manufacturing goods or providing services. Unions make competition more difficult for our domestic companies, not less, and they will only drive more jobs overseas by your own logic.

It seems to me that "I need a union to secure my job" is not far from "I'm lucky to have a job."

Dan,

I don't know. Michael is clearly talking about the attitude that one brings to one's work, which is more universally applicable and not offensive. "My job is lucky to have me" naturally implies "because," and "because" naturally suggests a list of activities or qualities and encourages one to expand and improve the list.

Justin - I get it, but he sacrificed those positive aspects of his message in order to grab the reader's attention by slamming those who feel lucky to have a job (I am one of them), calling them "mediocre" and "brainwashed." This is not the case. We simply realize the circumstances we are in and appreciate what we have. Morse is in different circumstances and always has been, so of course he doesn't understand and takes his position for granted. His message would be a very strange source of inspiration, because when you think about it, "they are lucky to have me" implies that you could do a bit less, whereas "I am lucky to have this opportunity" implies that you should do the most you can to keep and make the most of it, which has been a very positive and inspirational message for me. I can assure anyone that the "I am lucky to have a job" new hires at my workplace add FAR more value than the old-time union slobs who feel like they are doing the place a favor by showing up at 10am.

My take based on his writing is that Michael is one of those exceptions in his field and position within the PFD. That being said, I think he is missing or chooses to ignore what is going on around him just like others in the brotherhood. I remember my friends from PPD saying, "We got the best and the worst but we get the job done." They just accept their failing brothers for what they are as is typical elsewhere.

Max,

Isn't it the case that every organization is a mixed bag of talents and attitudes? I remember hearing the noted philosopher Fred Smerlas once discuss how in any organization, you've got one group of folks who's going to do the right thing no matter what, and another group that's got some talent for what they're doing but is always going to have to be pushed to get something out of it. Then there's a group in the middle. If the self-directed group is setting the tone in an organization, the group in the middle will move towards becoming self-directed themselves. If the slackers set the tone, they'll become slackers. What a good manager/leader does is make sure that the first group has the most influence over everyone else.

The trouble with unions can be that, if they encourage an environment of do the minimum and no more, they will pull against all of the best efforts of the folks pushing to be the best.

Also, I wouldn't say that I agree with Michael about job creators being near-mythical. However, I would say that over the course of my lifetime, I've encountered plenty of people who would count themselves as members of job-creating class who aren't and who, in reality, mostly get in the way of anything getting done.

Andrew,

You're right and that's why I find the message disingenuous. What makes public safety traditionally worse is the inclusion of lower, middle, and in some cases upper management in the union.

The "near mythical job creators" line was just confusing to me, so I didn't address it. I honestly don't understand the point there. Obviously if you hang out with all public safety employees you aren't going to know many job creators, but that doesn't mean they are "mythical" or "near mythical." Perhaps the term is a bit loaded, but I don't see how you can argue that businesses create jobs for those they employ. Anyone who employs others is a "job creator" in that way. I know many such people.

This wasn't a pro-union thing, or anti "job creator." I was just tired of hearing people saying, with their heads bowed, that they are lucky to have a job-any job.

Max, in my union mediocrity brings really bad things.

Thanks for the post, Justin, I've got more but have to go.

Michael,

I picked up on the near-mythical phrase because, in many typical working environments these days, the actual "job-creators" (timely reference on the subject here: bit.ly/yjTLGl) are not always or even often the people likely to be sending a message (implicitly or otherwise) of you're lucky to have a job -- and I think you've got the right idea about dealing with folks who think they're more important than they are to the economic functioning of anything.

I'm sorry that we "tire" you, Michael. But our heads aren't bowed because we're meek, beaten down, and "brainwashed" by the "job creators," unlike the Nietzschean ubermenschen who make up your firefighters union. We are reflecting upon our friends and family who are not so lucky and what could easily have been in an alternate history of our own circumstances. It's humility and perspective, both good things, and we don't need to be "corrected" by you. I would strongly advise against preaching your "inspirational message" to any recent graduates, although you may find some support in the boomer generation, which knows essentially nothing of what the millenials are facing in such a severe recession. After you watch some grown men break down and cry because they ditched a steady job in 2006, took out 50-100k in loans for grad school or law school hoping for something better, and have now received 200/200 rejection letters back in the mail, maybe you'll start feeling a bit luckier about where you are in life. I shouldn't have to tell you where a high school diploma would have landed you if you had only been born a decade later - nothing elitist about that, facts are facts.

Just to be clear, the images that were floating around my head when I wrote this were primarily my own experiences with jobs. When I was a dishwasher one of the guys in the kitchen, a line cook, was absolutely content. We talked at great length about meditation, prosperity, karma and the important things in life. He was a great cook. Great cooks make little more than dishwashers, but somehow, he was happy. He did his job so well that he could have worked anywhere, or done anything and excelled, but the restaurant owners recognized his value and did what they could to keep him. Other cooks complained all day, and came and went.

On construction sites there are two camps, the complainers and the doers. I spent a lot of time framing, roofing, siding, finish work, and whatever else it took, and always stuck with the doers. It didn't make me the most popular guy on some sites, but at the end of the day, I was content. The complainers were miserable, and tended to finish the day with a twelve pack and whatever else came their way.

For years I was a janitor. Sure, I owned my own cleaning company and made more money that I do as a Rescue Lieutenant, but make no mistake, I was a janitor. However, I was proud to do what I was doing, and worked alongside office workers in their nice clothes and big salaries but never once felt embarrassed by my work. It was necessary, and I did it, and did it well, and the jobs rolled in so fast I turned most of them down, just didn't have time.

People who call 911 for toothaches tend to be the ones who tell me I'm lucky to have a job when I refuse to transport them to the ER. I don't see it that way, and never did, probably never will.

I do appreciate people reading my article, and responding to Justin's post. When I started writing eight years ago I learned that the only way to do it was to be fearless, and believe in what you are writing, knowing that there will always be people who misunderstand the message. People will complain, and ridicule, and contradict, and at one time that bothered me, but when I put the pen down, I know that what I've written is something of value, and people can do with it what they wish, I am content.

And the mythical job creators thing was a bit much, I do get carried away. To be more precise, people who create jobs do so because they want to make money, not because they want to create jobs. Calling them "Job Creators," as I've heard the term more often is a bit over the top, in my opinion.

Michael - You keep claiming that I'm misinterpreting you or that my "reading comprehension skills are lacking" (according to your earlier reply), but I think what you wrote is quite clear:

"People who say they are lucky to have a job have either been brainwashed and beaten down by the present state of the economy, [or] manipulated by the near mythical "job creators" into actually believing that their job, their means of survival, their contribution to society and the very essence of self-worth, is a product of luck."

According to you, those "people" (largely my generation) are either "brainwashed and beaten down" or being "manipulated." This statement is hyperbolic, false, and offensive. Your thoughts are not insightful or valuable in this case - they are simply confused and inaccurate.

Here's some reciprocal advice for you: stick to writing what you know, like EMS. Your op-eds on "the state of the economy" are consistently ill-informed and cringe-worthy.

I don't think the sentiments are mutually exclusive. I feel incredibly lucky to be unionized firefighter. I also feel the residents I serve and protect are lucky to have the talents and passion I bring to work every day.
My union (big bad term which essentially means my co-workers) has never encouraged mediocrity and it's a true unfounded assumption that it would. In fact, firefighters can be down right brutal in demanding at the very least competency as our safety can depend on it. Avoiding work, incompetency or slacking will get you severely ridiculed. It is by and large inherent in our nature to want to be the best and the bravest firefighter on the job.

I think Mikes article is a call to have pride in your work and then back it up. As for Dan, you would be offended if Mike bought you a cake and sang you happy birthday so it doesn't surprise me at all that you would spin it so negatively. You always seem argumentative just to be argumentative, never finding common ground or ceding a point.

A common argument you make which is also perhaps your most ignorant is to suggest that firefighters don't deserve what they earn because some lack a college degree. The job warrants a good salary for the intangibles that can't be taught in a classroom.

I have two kids in your generation, Dan, and if either expressed the poor me sentiments and lack of appreciation to the "baby boomer and Greatest Generation" that you do I'd have to give them a spanking. You and your contemporaries don't have it any better or any worse than any generation did before you. Different challenges perhaps, but no better or worse.

I'll be waiting to see what you come up with for an OP/ED... never mind, I suppose that that process isn't fair either, and only lucky people get in the paper.

Michael - Show me where I said anything along the lines of "poor me." You can't - in fact, my entire point is how lucky I think I am to be in a stable job. Feeling lucky compared to my unemployed classmates makes me "brainwashed" according to your own words.

I call BS on your totally baseless assertion that ALL generations have equal job opportunities. The unemployment rate for recent law and college grads is at unheard-of levels right now. It's obvious that the millenial generation has more competition and gets fewer benefits than yours had growing up. How are the new firefighters at your department doing compared to previous generations? They'll be lucky if they get half because the 40-something "old timers" in the 90's took the toilet paper and light bulbs on their way out the door with all the early retirement disability fraud and 5-6% COLA, so now the pension fund is dry and the city is bankrupt. Would you like a chart showing how much the "Greatest Generation" paid into Social Security versus how much they got out of it? It's a Ponzi Scheme and they made out like bandits. How much was the average college debt for your generation? It's 30k for mine. No self-pity here - facts are facts and I make the most of it. I go into work every day and think about how much worse off I could be and feel thankful to have the opportunities I do. Just another mediocre-thinking loser according to you.

Rich - You are so full of it. I never said firefighters don't deserve their compensation simply because they don't have a college degree. My point was that compensation should be set by barriers to entry and the competitiveness of the job applicant pool, of which educational requirements are one factor of many. Would only that your union was so "demanding" when it came to getting fraudsters off disability pensions for "bad backs" and "falling down the stairs." Michael had the balls to tell me that an 80% disability rate for firefighters is reasonable - are you willing to destroy your own credibility by doubling down on his absurd claim?

Dan, every one of your comments reeks with self-pity. Re-read your contributions with some objectivity. A healthy person would not waste so much time commenting on other peoples words. If things were so important to you, you would make your own.

"I call BS on your totally baseless assertion that ALL generations have equal job opportunities"

Call it BS all you want, I never mentioned job opportunities. Life and survival isn't always about jobs.

"The unemployment rate for recent law and college grads is at unheard-of levels right now."

Maybe college ain't all it's cracked up to be. Maybe the four year party is being exposed for what it really is, a continuation of adolesence and a delay into adulthood.

"It's obvious that the millenial generation has more competition and gets fewer benefits than yours had growing up. How are the new firefighters at your department doing compared to previous generations?"

Previous generations of firefighters were so poorly compensated that they had to offer incentives to get people to sign up. Retirees lived on 100.00 a week or less up until 1990, when the 5-6% colas were approved. It was difficult for the polititians then to see the living conditions of the city's retired police and firefighters and not be swayed to make poor descisions. Today's firefighters, myself included owe a great deal to the generations that preceded us. Thanks doesn't cut it. Cash does.

Your comments, never much more than fodder are becoming increasingly baseless.

"Dan, every one of your comments reeks with self-pity."

Not true, and I'll take that as an implicit admission that you couldn't produce any "poor me" quotes. What I said was that *I* feel lucky to have a job because so many *others* are unemployed and hurting. There is no "self" pity about it - you have it backwards - I pity my classmates who have been out of work for two years and are drowning in debt.

"Life and survival isn't always about jobs."

Yeah, you're right, we don't need jobs. We can always become a dependent of the state or live off the fat of the land in 2012. Do you even listen to yourself?

"Maybe college ain't all it's cracked up to be. Maybe the four year party is being exposed for what it really is, a continuation of adolesence and a delay into adulthood."

Except that recent high school grads are even worse off. My point was that the only ones doing okay are your generation or the few from mine who find employment out of school. Those few rightfully consider themselves "lucky."

"Except that recent high school grads are even worse off. My point was that the only ones doing okay are your generation or the few from mine who find employment out of school. Those few rightfully consider themselves "lucky.""

Gee, that's odd, people just out of school are not doing as well as folks in their forties and fifties. Oh wait a minute, there's a few who got lucky.

Game set and match. Goodnight Dan.

Don't be a jerk, Michael. The unemployment rates are much worse for grads now compared to when you were that age and you know it. "Underemployment" is a very real problem for recent grads as well, as my law friends making a third of your compensation could tell you. You dance and dance around these issues rather than just admitting you're wrong and moving on - all you had to do in this case was admit that my generation has it worse because of the recession, but you can't concede even the smallest point because your pride gets in the way and it leads to you make the most ridiculous statements like "survival isn't all about jobs." Always the smart remark. I remember when you denied your compensation, which is public record, and forced me to dig out a Providence payroll just to prove my point - I think you still argued with the numbers for some reason.

Dan,

Whether you realize it or not, you are arguing for economic determinism in this thread, where finding your place as a cog in the economic order is most important, and everything else follows from that. Michael's op-ed points out that there's a flow in the other direction that is at least as important (and that conservatives have no problems saying is more important), i.e. that economic outcomes of every scale are determined by a whole bunch of personal characteristics and, when people get together, cultural characteristics.

The central idea of Michael's op-ed, that an employee is responsible for understanding his full value, is ultimately more libertarian -- it is an absolutely necessary ingredient, if an individual is to be able to negotiate his way to a better position -- than is the idea that an employee should accept the value assigned to him by an existing authority structure.

Andrew - I'm really not making that point, and Michael is not making the point that you claim he is, otherwise I would be in agreement with him. My actual point is a very basic one that I think most people appreciate, which is that the relationship is two-way and symbiotic - employers should appreciate and feel fortunate for good employees, and employees should appreciate and feel fortunate for the job opportunities they have when they are cognizant of similarly qualified people in much worse positions. Michael stated in his "essay" that employees who feel lucky to have their jobs are "brainwashed," "beaten down," "manipulated," and "mediocre." This is an untrue and hateful sentiment born out of his own individual circumstances in government job security. Especially in a deep recession, it is only healthy for workers to appreciate what they do have and keep everything in perspective while making the most of their opportunities. I am in no way advocating for employees to be wage slaves or accept anything as their fate. In fact, I'm a big proponent of always exploring new opportunities even if you have gotten comfortable in a job. I believe that the employment relationship should be fundamentally dynamic, negotiable, and mutually beneficial. It's wonderful when these arrangements work out well for everybody, and I don't think there's anything wrong with expressing that sentiment publicly, i.e., "I am lucky to have my job."

"Previous generations of firefighters were so poorly compensated that they had to offer incentives to get people to sign up. Retirees lived on 100.00 a week or less up until 1990, when the 5-6% colas were approved. It was difficult for the polititians then to see the living conditions of the city's retired police and firefighters and not be swayed to make poor descisions."

How did I miss this gem? So "the politicians," who were in no way backed, funded, or supported by the unions, just decided one day to push 5-6% COLA on their own, huh? Your union, Local 799 had no role in advocating for 5-6% COLA based on ridiculous cost estimates that were 3% of what the city's actuarial estimates were?

"The two sides put forward very different cost estimates for the new COLAs: Providence’s actuary, Buck Consultants, put the annual price tag at $22 million, while the unions pegged it at $750,000. Local 799′s Costa argued the city pension fund was “one of the wealthiest in the country” and could afford to pay them, according to The Journal."

blogs.wpri.com/2011/11/30/sen-ruggerio-tried-to-award-6-pension-colas-in-providence/

Distort it anyway you want, Michael. Your union, Local 799, was at the forefront of getting all this nonsense passed back in the 90's (while you were an active member) for their own short-term personal benefit, and now there is no money left for anyone else. And before you trot out your union propaganda that it's all the city's fault for not making contributions, see the mathematical data I posted in the Cicillini thread. There is no possible way the city could sustain $500,000 and $1 million compounding pensions even if it quadrupled its current contributions to the system. You aren't really arguing with me on these issues - you're arguing with math.

Math, formerly known as Dan

Instead of trying to outlast everyone who you are arguing with (and there are so many) and getting the last word, now it seems that you hit on a novel approach of taking a non human form to win these arguments.

"You aren't really arguing with me on these issues - you're arguing with math."

Good luck with this and are we to see other guises from you?

Phil - Say what you want about me, but I argue numbers and substance. You, Michael, and the other group-think unionists argue fluff, insults, and emotions - nothing more. You may not like "how" I saying things, but you have never once been able to contest "what" I am saying.

"The contrasting sentiment that I've heard Michael express in the past is that it is also a myth to believe that hard work and ingenuity can help one fulfill the American Dream of relative wealth."

Not quite sure what you mean here, Justin, unless I've been writing comments without thinking. (Haha)I've always believed and stated that you get what you put in, and wealth is not necessarily monetary.

Thanks Andrew, you managed to get right to the heart of what it took me 800 words to say. Mark Twain (I think) once wrote something like, "sorry for the seventeen page letter, I didn't have time to write a one pager," or something like that.

Dan, I have received a lot of feedback from this OP/ED-Blog Post, from people all over the political and philosophical spectrum, and you are the only one that missed the point. I'm not saying the piece was 100 % accurate, and leaves a lot unsaid, but back to the original idea, it was a simple thing about people regaining some much needed confidence. I think you are arguing with the messenger without understanding the message.

"People who say they are lucky to have a job have either been brainwashed and beaten down by the present state of the economy, [or] manipulated by the near mythical "job creators" into actually believing that their job, their means of survival, their contribution to society and the very essence of self-worth, is a product of luck."

Michael - You wrote this. It could be a case of lack of clarity, or use of rhetoric, or hyperbole, or any number of other things on your part, but the fact is that you wrote it and I am not "misunderstanding" anything. I can assure you, there is no problem with my reading comprehension. You wrote it, and it's a stupid, untrue, and offensive thing to say. If you no longer agree with the sentiment, or if you wish that you had stated your message in a more positive way that doesn't trash people you look down upon, then just say that.

Michael,

Writing the summary is the easy part, when you have good material to work from.