This blog is targeted to the following persons:
Drivers of oversized pick-up trucks (which generally are in pristine condition and extremely expensive). This is an odd contradiction since the traditional American pick-up truck is a battered workhorse and todays showhorse pick-up trucks are driven by folks who complain about high prices.
Drivers of contractor vans rushing to and from jobs complaining that they can not find skilled, hard working employees.
Small business owners who complain about government regulations, red tape, taxation and government overreach in general (but frequently do not offer specific examples).
All of the above-described persons to one degree or another complain that they cannot afford to offer employees benefits, particularly health insurance benefits. Most of them complain that they could expand and prosper if government got out of the way of their business and got out of their personal lives.
All of the aforementioned persons complain that the high cost of housing limits the pool of workers in their area and forces them to commute long distances to jobs.
All of the aforementioned persons express valid concerns on case-by-case situations. I understand their sense of angst, anger, and frustration.
To all of the aforementioned persons and anybody conversing with them, I offer the following solutions in the form of conversational interactions that might move beyond the usual polarizing stalemates.
Situation/Complaint:
Can’t get good help. Can’t find skilled workers. Can’t get dependable, hardworking workers. Don’t have time and money to recruit and train the workers that I need.
Response/Solution:
Consider partnerships/internships/mentorships which would be government funded at no cost to you. I know you’re not a big fan of government, but consider a turnkey operation whereby you commit to hire the person that the government delivers to match your employment specifications. It the person is not a good fit, you’re not obligated to keep them on staff. Win-Win-Win (you-the employee-the government)
Situation/Complaint
Can’t provide employment benefits, specifically health insurance. This further limits the pool of job candidates. Both the employers and the workers can’t afford the private health insurance plans. Uninsured workers who get sick don’t show up for work. Both employer and employee loose money. Worse yet, the sick workers show up because they can’t afford to stay home. They are unproductive, make mistakes and worst-case scenario they infect the healthy workers.
Response/Solution
If there was universal health care insurance and if having health insurance was not connected to employment status, this would remove the burden of providing health insurance as part of hiring incentives designed to recruit qualified workers. The result would be more money in employers pockets since there would be no need to provide employees with health insurance. A further advantage would be increased morale and loyalty among employees who will not be constantly worried about health insurance. Employees and potential employees will not have to pick and choose among employers concerning employer benefits packages. They wouldn’t have to worry about fluctuating rates or whether benefits will be discontinued. Both employer and employee can focus on the work rather than the benefits package. Without worrying about offering health insurance, employers can concentrate on offering financial incentives to productive workers. Isn’t that the optimum business relationship? Win-Win for employer/employee.
Situation/Complaint
Too much regulation, red tape, bureaucracy, government oversight and overreach.
Response/Solution
What if the role of government and regulators was limited to matters concerning health, safety, criminal/civil violations and fraud? Focus on specific and blatant violations and situations rather than nusiance and frivolous matters. What if you could demonstrate that a rule, regulation, policy stretched beyond the afore mentioned circumstances? What if it could be quickly determined that a rule, regulation or policy was truly an unnecessary deterrence to your business? Win-Win since basic protections for workers/customers are maintained but onerous requirements on the business owner are removed. This will require that employers be specific about the regulation and how it is unnecessary and harmful rather than making a blanket statement that regulation is “bad”.
Situation/Complaint
Housing costs are so high that it limits the pool of qualified workers. Those that commute to work are so exhausted by the commute that they are less productive.
Response/Solution
Support creative alternative affordable housing solutions. This could include zoning that allows ADU’s (auxiliary dwelling units), higher density housing, land trusts that keep the land underneath the housing from becoming speculative, high-cost housing. Support limited equity affordable cooperative housing where working class workers own a share in the housing without being priced out by skyrocketing rental costs and skyrocketing home ownership costs.
Contractors, small business owners and folks who oppose big-government, and consider government as over-reaching would usually be opposed to the aforementioned affordable housing alternatives. However, if employers realize that when the housing market loosens up, so does the labor market. Employers might be amenable to proposals for cooperative housing since the ownership-share characteristics jives with the philosophy of having “skin-in-the game” and not becoming a “government give away”. Contractors, small businesses and opponents of big government are not being asked to fund these affordable, creative, ownership-oriented housing solutions. Instead they are being asked to not oppose them and ideally step up to support them for the good of society in general and for their own self-interest.
Situation/Complaint
These folks generally complain about government intrusion in their lives and overreach in society and culture. This is often the mantra of independent voters and libertarians. I’m not saying there is anything wrong with this perspective and it’s their prerogative to feel that way.
Response/Solution
My response is YES….because I don’t want the government (aka big brother) poking into….
My medicine cabinet
My library
My wallet
My bedroom
My personal values and beliefs
My sense is that this heartfelt response will get others on the same page with the understanding that government needs to butt out of my business as long as I’m not engaging in criminal activity or civil rights violations.
However….
There will always be persons who are hell bent on opposing innovation, change, and fail to visualize big picture outside-the-box solutions. I present this blog as a means of starting with listening to their concerns and moving toward alternatives and scenarios that are palatable to them with an end goal of win-win situations.
Now….
Isn’t that better than engaging in dialogue where we toss labels at each other a sample of which include: liberal, conservative, socialist, Marxist, communist, redneck, spender, elitist, etc. ?
One last thought and word of caution:
I endorse this “active listening” technique of conversational engagement whereby I determine what “irks” someone and I craft a conversation aimed at addressing their legitimate need in a constructive fashion. Frankly, I have not engaged in such conversations but I have not given up the notion that someone could be brought around to a win-win solution that averts the usual name calling and assigning of labels.
That said, I will break off conversation when confronted with the following sample of attitudes and beliefs:
Persons who (for example):
Refuse to hire black persons, gay persons or whatever other category of person that happens to be their target of scorn.
Refuse to pay taxes and pay their fair share toward the good of the greater society.
Refuse to acknowledge the importance of providing any sort of health insurance whether that be public or private. These are persons obsessed with the “survival of the fittest’ mentality and “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” mentality. These are persons for whom it becomes apparent that they would be ok for others to freeze or starve because they live in an “every man/woman for themselves mentality”.
Refuse to accept the importance of regulations that are required for minimum levels of health, safety and protection from criminal abuse.
If you seek constructive, thoughtful, win-win, solutions-based policies, I would be delighted to engage in further conversations. If you are hell bent on limiting your thoughts and comments to rants, doomsday scrolling and gas lighting jargon, stay out of my lane since life is too short to fritter it away. As always, more of my blogs can to found on www.dunnwriteswell.com and my novel Mall Child includes some of this unconventional thinking about society and lifestyle.
Dunn Writes Well 