The release of Vice President Al Gore's report on the National Performance Review on reinventing government seems to have received predictable reactions.
I'd like to comment on the reaction from Donald Devine, the former director of the Office of Personnel Management during the Reagan administration.
Mr. Devine was seemingly perplexed by the unions' support of the report even though the report called for the reduction of 25,000 jobs.
You quoted him as saying, "Where is the dog that didn't bark? . . . I said I would cut 100,000, and they [the unions] almost cut my head off," referring to his early days in office.
It appears to me that Mr. Devine suffered from the same thinking that all too many managers in America are afflicted with. That is, they try to do the right thing in the wrong way.
If a manager has a collective bargaining agreement with a union that is the sole representative of the workers, then it is in the best interest of the whole organization to involve the union in the process of change right from the beginning.
To design a change process without the participation of the union is setting yourself up for reaction rather than partnership.
Workers and their representatives know only too well of the inefficiencies and waste of the organizations they work for.
If every worker were asked for three ideas that would help the enterprise become more profitable or efficient, then management would be deluged with potential initiatives they haven't thought about or the systems they have in place would not be able to manage the changes.
The value added by the union is that usually the union professionals have diverse experience in organizational change and employee involvement, and the communication systems, at least in part, are set up to capture the ideas and bring them forward in the proper context.
Independent researchers have consistently found that the most productive workplace is the workplace where the workers are represented by a union for this very reason and others.
The union's interest is served by a profitable enterprise just as much if not more than the shareholders. Union jobs are on the line. Instead of viewing unions as a "barking dog," we should look for the chance to partner with the group that cares the most about the success of the enterprise -- the workers.
The writer is president of the Baltimore Area Labor-Management Center for the High-Performance Workplace.
We recently heard that more than one-half of adult Americans cannot perform simple math computations.
Is the next generation going to be able to compete with the rest of the world? Without the proper tools for learning, today's children are falling behind their parents and the children who are their peers in other developed countries.
Isn't it telling that when I last tried to go to visit the Baltimore County Library in the Greenspring Shopping Center, I found it replaced by a video arcade? Will spending time on pinball and Sega Genesis improve our S.A.T. scores?
Adrienne R. Smith
My candidate for the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize: Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman. He is the only notable leader in 30 years to induce severe abdominal cramps in both Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat.
Out of sheer terror at the prospect of an Egyptian revolution, these two have heeded the wise words of Benjamin Franklin, who at the outbreak of our own revolution said, "We must all hang together, for if we do not, most assuredly, gentlemen, we shall all hang separately."
Many of us loathe and excoriate Sheik Rahman's teachings, but for this one outcome we should all be eternally grateful.
NAFTA Would Infringe Nation's Sovereignty
Never did I think that in defending the constitutional protection of the people by the federal courts of the United States that I would pull down such vitriol on my head (editorial, Sept. 21).
Since the 1991 editorial in your newspaper extolling the virtues of proposed trade treaties that will place the United States under the power of foreign rule-making bodies, I have closely researched the proposed North American Free Trade Agreement and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and am puzzled how this delegation of power can be accomplished without a constitutional amendment.
The Congress, in the enabling legislation for each one of the treaties, has been willing to cede its power over the entire interstate and foreign commerce clause of the Constitution to unelected, international lawyers serving on dispute panels by not allowing for U.S. court review of the panels' decisions. (I voted against this action) . . .
The General Accounting Office (GAO), in its report on NAFTA, volume II, describes the dispute panels in the Canadian Free Trade Agreement as operating "much like the courts which they replace" (italics mine). Since the Canadian Free Trade Agreement is the model for both the NAFTA and GATT, the record of the dispute panels thus far should be instructive as to what we can expect from the NAFTA.
Since 1991, three decisions by the International Trade Commission (ITC), a court of the United States, have been overturned by the CFTA bi-national panel, and two-thirds of all panel decisions have gone against U.S. interests.
If we go into NAFTA, the U.S. will be outnumbered 3 to 2 on any decisions by the Canadian-Mexican representatives on the dispute panels. One must be aware that in any dispute, these panels will have the complete right to legal discovery, including testimony and production of internal company records.
Since U.S. environmental law carries criminal and civil penalties, a record could be built which could be used at a later time in a U.S. court. The cost of defending such actions against evidence gathered during an initial challenge brought by either Canada or Mexico could bankrupt any U.S. company.
Additionally, in the environmental side agreement, Canada retains the right for each of its provinces to decide whether it will sign on. If the accord was such a great deal, why did not Canada bind each of its provinces? And, why did not the U.S. allow each of its states to decide whether the agreement made sense? Do you not think Michigan or Ohio deserve the same rights as Manitoba or Ontario? Why did U.S. negotiators implicitly recognize the sovereignty of Canada and its provinces while denying that of the U.S. and its states?
The projections of jobs gained and lost are just that, projections. The U.S. Department of Labor states that there will be 150,000-200,000 jobs gained by the NAFTA agreement. Yet James Carville, the president's campaign manager, when he was lobbying in favor of the job bill, stated that 150,000-200,00 jobs would be lost due to NAFTA -- using that figure as justification for the need for job retraining legislation. The administration can't have it both ways.
My remarks at the anti-NAFTA rally in Lansing, Mich., were mainly on the issue of the threat to U.S. sovereignty inherent in both the NAFTA and the GATT. It was the first opportunity I have ever been given to raise the issue of the loss of the U.S. courts' powers over all of interstate and foreign commerce in the national media, including your newspaper, which has never explained the sovereignty issue to its readers.
In commenting on my xenophobic protectionist associates, you failed to mention among the opponents, also, are Rep. David Bonior, D-Mich., the Democratic whip and Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., the Democratic majority leader.
Rather than disparaging the broad range of opponents to the NAFTA -- from the left to the right -- across the two parties, one wonders why such growing opposition would not make thoughtful people re-examine the agreement with some regard for the issues being raised -- like U.S. sovereignty.
Since, as a congressperson, I am sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States and thereby protect not only my constituents but the people of the state of Maryland, I feel that my position on both the NAFTA and the GATT and my trip to Michigan are consistent with that charge.
My record of representing my constituents and their interests is well known. This fact has been mentioned in every editorial of endorsement of my many congressional candidacies by your newspaper. The question I would like to ask you is what U.S. constituency your position represents?
Helen Delich Bentley
The writer is the Republican representative from Maryland's Second Congressional District.