Solidarity Forever (for Some)

Today is the last day for many student assistants and retired annuitants working for the State of California. Under a furlough deal the Service Employees International Union Local 1000 made in June with Gov. Jerry Brown, all non-mission-critical student assistant and retired annuitant positions were to be eliminated August 31. According to The Sacramento Bee, the state won’t hire either during the 12-month furlough period that started July 1 for SEIU Local 1000 state employees. SEIU Local 1000 represents about 93,000 California state government employees.

I voted against the deal when it was put before the union membership in late June. I didn’t oppose being furloughed one day a month through June 2013. I vehemently opposed what I call throwing student assistants and retired annuitants under the bus.

I work for an agency office in which student assistants are invaluable, from answering phones and putting together news clips packages to designing brochures and editing promotional videos. I don’t know how SEIU Local 1000 expects our agency to hire young people with these talents as seasonal clerks or office assistants. There are perhaps a handful of graphics designer positions throughout state government. Moreover, college students sharpening their skills as scientists and engineers will find it difficult to get their foot in the door of state agencies.

As for retired annuitants, government retirees who return to state service with limited hours each year, they are a wealth of institutional knowledge. They are not taking away jobs from union members.

I think this move by SEIU Local 1000 is a way to generate more union dues by having students reapply under union-covered positions. Even if students hired for these positions don’t join the union, they would have to pay fair-share fees.

I find this whole situation ironic, considering the approach of Labor Day. SEIU Local 1000 has been mute on the issue since the vote. I believe this move to eliminate student assistants and retired annuitants will backfire on them when voters go to the polls in November to decide on California Proposition 32.

Writing Diva

Leave No Pet Behind

Regular readers of this blog know that I love animals. Two cats run the house on which I pay the mortgage. One of my best friends growing up was the family Doberman pinscher, Olga.

When I would read newspaper accounts of foreclosed families leaving their pets behind, I would regard these former homeowners with disdain. “How could they leave their furry friends behind?” I thought.

Upon learning a few days ago that family members left their 7-month-old pit pull puppy behind, I was angry. The puppy, an American bulldog named Nora, was left overnight in the backyard of their rental home, owned by my older brother H2. She appeared hungry and anxious. Upon seeing the stranded puppy, my otherwise mellow sibling became enraged.

“You don’t do that to a dog,” he told my younger sister T2.

No, pet owners shouldn’t leave their animals behind. I understand that many apartment complexes and rental homes don’t take pets because of the mess and noise associated with them. However, there are pet-friendly properties, even some landlords who accept pit bull terriers. But pet owners have to do extensive research to find such properties.

What angers me about the situation involving my family is that the family members renting my brother’s house knew they had only one year to find a new home before my brother gave up the property to the bank. H2, who will retire from his job after working 40 years with the same agency, faces living on a smaller, fixed income and can no longer afford to pay for his relatives to live in the home, which has been in our family since 1971. H2 bought the house from my older sister T1, who had purchased it from our parents. You don’t bring a dog into such a temporary situation.

When I learned that my relatives adopted Nora, I thought this would not end well for the dog. When I learned via an e-mail from T2 that Nora was left behind, I was tempted to adopt her. But reason prevailed: She would grow up and perhaps attack and kill my cats. Luckily, my other sister D intervened and talked to our family members. Friends of the former pet owners have taken in Nora and given her a forever home.

So, to my family members (and anyone with a pet): A pet is a responsibility for the animal’s lifetime. Do not adopt an animal unless you can give it a proper home, care, and love. Pets are not disposable. I realize that financial and housing circumstances can change quickly. In that case, find a new forever home for your pet. But in your case, you knew that your housing situation was temporary and should not have adopted an animal until you had a permanent place, preferable one that you own.

Leave no pet behind.

Writing Diva