OPINION

MIKE MASTERSON: Own your actions

Vanishing work ethic

I was visiting with Jack Hardcastle from Harrison the other day about our nation's once cherished work ethic. It wasn't that long ago when a person with a strong work ethic was respected, even admired in society.

Heard those two words used together lately? Me either.

Anyway, Jack told of a factory owner in a town near St. Louis years back who'd reached the end of his patience and financial rope with the bankrupting number of monthly errors made by the union workers who staffed his plant. There was no work ethic to speak of in a situation where sloth and carelessness had become the norm.

The owner told Hardcastle he was flat fed up with the attitude where the majority of wage-earners assumed no responsibility or accountability. The endless blizzard of errors had become so bad he planned to shutter his factory unless things changed radically.

In a last-gasp measure, he said he called the workers together to announce he was implementing a new work plan. Those who didn't agree, or wouldn't participate, were free to leave and strike to their heart's content. Pressure tactics wouldn't matter anyway with the plant shuttered.

First, he'd appoint a committee of five responsible employees, including three from the factory floor, who would begin closely reviewing the how and why of every mistake.

If this committee determined the error was the fault of the company's inadequate instruction or any other aspect related to its responsibilities to the workers, the plant would pay the costs of fixing it. However, if the blunder turned out to be the fault of one or more employees failing to exercise due diligence and responsibility in their work, those costs would fall on them, up to and including docking their paychecks.

"Within no time at all, the number of those costly errors had plummeted from an average of 1,600 to fewer than 100," Jack said.

"All it took to reverse that man's enormous losses from errors was changing his workers' attitudes from careless to caring when they knew their irresponsibility meant there would be a price to pay. Suddenly, they each had a direct stake in the game," said Jack, who spent 45 years in consulting and factory management before retirement.

Isn't it remarkable what a difference it makes when all of us are held directly accountable for our actions? Sounds like a work ethic.

Price of life

The unnecessary ballot initiative known as Issue 1 will be ballyhooed with big media buys until November. So prepare yourselves, valued readers.

I've always been against this latest move to limit jury awards for the most vulnerable victims, most certainly to include residents of nursing homes, thereby favoring those responsible for their injuries and neglect. I'm hoping the good people of our state will turn out come November to roundly defeat the idea of capping damage and contingency fees in civil suits, thereby limiting unrestricted access of our most financially disadvantaged to the halls of justice.

Some who oppose Issue 1 call it the "Price of Life Amendment." By approving this unnecessary effort, special interests hope to move the authority to create rules to the Legislature (picture former legislators' scandals regarding both nursing homes and GIF grant corruption), where the Senate and House could change or eliminate current rules in favor of their politicized versions.

Proponents contend amending our Constitution via Issue 1 would stem frivolous lawsuits, as if our state is awash in huge, unfair judgments. Oooh pig, hogwashy.

Simply put, this proposed amendment promoted by the Arkansans For Jobs and Justice Legislative Question Committee, which already has raised well over a million dollars to sway your opinion, would enable special interests to rewrite rules of pleading, practice and procedures historically within the purview of our Supreme Court.

Retired state Supreme Court Justice Annabelle Imber Tuck told Hot Springs Sentinel-Record reporter David Showers that if Issue 1 is approved, the Legislature, by a three-fifths vote of the House and Senate, would be able to amend or repeal existing rules and initiate new ones.

Tuck, who chairs the Defending Your Day in Court Legislative Question Committee, told Showers Issue 1 would replace the current open rulemaking process with political maneuvering and influence-peddling.

Currently, committees of attorneys, judges and representatives from Arkansas' two law schools develop proposals for the Supreme Court to consider. Those are published for public comment before the high court acts.

Legislative rulemaking would become a process of good ol' boy politickin' and big money, where regular Arkansans would lack power because they couldn't compete politically against special interests. The process instead would become who has the money to lobby the Legislature and establish a rule. "The tilting of the scales of justice will grow in favor of those with resources," she told Showers.

How wonderful for all average injured Arkansans seeking fair judgments.

------------v------------

Mike Masterson is a longtime Arkansas journalist. Email him at [email protected].

Editorial on 06/03/2018

Upcoming Events