Who wants to be a boss? - Parting Thoughts - Editorial

ALMOST EVERYONE wants to appear on Regis Philbin's TV show, "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire." If one changed the title to "Who Wants to Be a Boss?," there likely would be few takers. Feisty former Pres. Harry S. Truman enjoyed being the boss, though, and was proud of a sign he put on his desk reading, "The Buck Stops Here." Those were the days in the workplace when the person in charge was called the boss, and in most matters his or her word was law. Many half-jokingly boasted, "I don't get ulcers. I give 'em!" Times have changed, however. Today, "boss" is a dirty word, as the person in charge is variously known as manager, facilitator, group leader, coordinator, etc. Moreover, his or her word no longer is law, as it is challenged almost with every decision made. Someone is bound to protest it and spread discontentment. The sad thing is that this is the normal state of affairs in our society and we seem little able to do anything about it.

The boss can be sued for discrimination on the flakiest of grounds. Once an employee is hired, it is practically impossible to fire him or her, as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will quickly be on the scene to intimidate the boss. The situation worsens considerably when the person to be fired is a minority member. Almost literally, all hell breaks loose. Not only the EEOC, but the American Civil Liberties Union and the person's union representative will be up in arms. Under these conditions, one needs a strong stomach to insist on firing the incompetent individual. If the boss doesn't buckle under to such pressure, is persistent and lucky, and the dismissal is upheld, he or she will probably be forced to write an innocuous letter of recommendation and the company probably will have to dish out some severance pay. Anyone who has gone through this bureaucratic misery is likely to think twice about getting rid of anyone again, no matter how poorly that person performs.

Usually, the government is to blame for this state of affairs by pushing affirmative action, which, by any other name--i,e., preferential hiring, quotas, diversity, or equal opportunity--is still blatant discrimination. Once in a while, the government gets caught up in its own machinations. In 1995, the Federal Aviation Administration fired a Pueblo, Colo., air traffic controller who refused to work on the Sabbath--namely, from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. He was not Jewish and had no religious affiliation other than a group that considered itself a nondenominational church. He regarded his request for that time off as a private right to a personal religious observance. The former controller sued the FAA. After years of litigation centering on First Amendment rights, he won his case in 2001, with the Federal judge awarding the plaintiff $2,250,000. Presently, the government is appealing the verdict.

Although this verdict will seem a travesty to some, it points out how vulnerable any person in authority or any organization is in our society of virtually unbridled freedom, frivolous lawsuits, and violent protests. Decisionmaking is perilous today. One seems damned if one does, and damned if one doesn't!

One wonders why any sane person would take a boss' job, such as Gale Norton's Secretary of the Interior. She receives brickbats no matter where she stands, especially on environmental issues. Everyone thinks he or she knows better about a given controversy, such as drilling for oil in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge, giving permits for grazing cattle, or adding to logging roads in national forests. Norton and her office are constantly being sued by various conflicting interests. The building or removal of dams, what to do with wild mustangs that overgraze public lands, and the protests of Indians against those who "violate" their sacred lands--such as Devil's Tower near Sundance, Wyo.--are just a few of the conundrums her office faces. Never truer than in her case is the adage, "You can't please all of the people all of the time." This saying should be changed to "You can't please some of the people anytime."

Protests, of course, are as American as apple pie. The Boston Tea Party in colonial times surely played its part in helping us become independent, Yet, the "activism" of today, a euphemism at best, is fraught with violence and lawbreaking, and increasingly is disruptive of societal order. There can be no ethical justification for spiking trees--an act that might seriously injure a lumberjack. The same can be said for the recently inspired idea of spiking lawns, where polluting gas-driven mowers will be damaged, as well as the people pushing them.

Many such protesters are nothing more than eco-terrorist extremists, virtual anarchists who respect no legitimate authority. Meetings of The World Trade Organization and the recent Genoa conference of the G-8, for example, have attracted activists like flies to a zoo. Some are plain and simple troglodytes who don't comprehend the working of world economics and the help undeveloped nations will receive from its agenda. Others are just looking for excitement in the sometimes near-carnival atmosphere. Prior to the meetings, a training session is hosted in which key members receive instructions on how to create maximum chaos, break through police barriers, etc. As a result, the Genoa meeting brought about one death, hundreds of injuries, and $145,000,000 in damages. One wonders why the token few who are arrested usually are released in a few days.