A fair deal at Kaiser
Re: “Over 3,000 Colorado Kaiser front-line workers ready to strike,” Aug. 21 commentary; and “A fair deal at Kaiser that keeps care affordable,” Aug. 27 commentary
I am one of those roughly 650,000 members of Kaiser Permanente. The impassioned plea conveyed by letter writer Shelly Fowlkes in her commentary disturbed me very much because my every contact with Kaiser personnel has been represented by the highest level of professionalism. However, after reading CEO Ron Vance’s response to Fowlkes’ rant about unfair treatment of her union by Kaiser management, I now wonder just who is not being forthright in this negotiation process.
According to Vance, the company is offering union members above market wages and benefits, no wage freezes and no contemplated layoffs. This being the case, what is the problem? As free-market enterprise sets the value of wages and benefits in America, I ask what is the value of these members’ services in the open market? Where could they do better, in terms of work environment, remuneration and job security, than at Kaiser?
Finally, a caveat to the union: Be careful when you threaten Kaiser management with a strike. Just remember what President Ronald Reagan did in 1981 to 11,000 air traffic controllers who thought they were irreplaceable and called his bluff. They were all shown the door!
John Marshall, Arvada
No need to renovate DIA
Re: “DIA had to get out of a bad P3,” Aug. 25 editorial
I fly about 10 times a year through DIA. When they announced the renovation, I could not fathom what they were trying to improve, especially for several hundred million dollars. The airport has matured and is operating very smoothly, with reasonable wait times at security, a wide variety of dining options on the concourses and reliable baggage and transport systems. I sense that airport management had a lot of money burning a hole in their pockets. I expect this from my young grandchildren, but not from senior management at the airport or the mayor. Maybe next time they could ask their customers whether they want a big disruptive project of suspect value or a reduction in rates.
Peter Smith, Castle Rock
Keeping foreign automakers out of federal contracts
Washington is considering a defense spending bill that includes a section covering spending for big-ticket transit items. Up for debate is a rule that would prohibit federal-backed contracts for electric buses or railcars made by a foreign state-owned, controlled or subsidized company.
Itap another way of saying “no federal tax dollars to subsidize manufacturers backed by the Chinese government.”
But a weaker rule may pass instead, and it would allow a company such as Build Your Dreams (BYD) — an automaker that receives billions of dollars in subsidies from the Chinese state — to win U.S. federal contracts for the electric buses it imports from China and assembles in California.
BYD is looking for a foothold in the U.S. auto market, and access to federal contracts is a great one. If it gets it, the thousands of workers at domestic bus and auto manufacturers and their suppliers should watch out: They will be in direct competition with a Chinese “national champion” that is less concerned with its bottom line than with capturing market share.
Rep. Jason Crow is only in his first term. But he’s a member of the House Armed Services Committee and co-sponsored the bill with tougher language. Before this legislation becomes law, Rep. Crow will have a voice in this. Will Congress create a carve-out for China-backed companies such as BYD, or will it ensure taxpayer dollars stay out of the hands of companies that aren’t playing fair?
Rodney E. Crow, Aurora
