Here in Utah we’ve got ourselves a governor with grandiose political aspirations. I suspect he’s got his eye on a cabinet position in a McCain administration. Two weeks ago, Governor Huntsman mandated that all state employees were required to work a 4-day work week so he could close state buildings on Fridays and save energy. An article in yesterday’s Desert News says that the Guv has been making the rounds on the national infotainment circuit, appearing on CNN, NBC and Fox in just the past week. Not to mention numerous interviews with radio stations and newspapers.
Then yesterday the Guv, along with the mayors of Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County, announced that they were going to launch a campaign to get more people riding bikes.
I couldn’t stay silent any longer. I wrote the governor this letter:
Dear Governor Huntsman,
I want to applaud you on your efforts to cut energy consumption and reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout the State of Utah. You are showing that these changes can be made without jarring our strong economy, and other states are taking notice. But I have detected an inconsistency in your approach that could come back to haunt you in your future endeavors.
While saving energy is a noble cause, Guvna, if I may call you that, I have to tell you that you’re going about it the wrong way. By forcing twenty-some odd thousand state employees to adjust their work schedules to fit in a 10 hour workday, and by not allowing them any flexibility in choosing the days they’ll work, you are putting your own political aspirations ahead of thousands of parents with small children that are going to need another way home from daycare. You’re doing a fine job of tricking your constituents and the national media into thinking that employees not using energy on Fridays in state buildings will sit home in dark, un-air conditioned rooms all day counting the kilowatts they’re saving. But we’re smarter than that. We can see through it.
Come on Guvna, I know it’s hard to see things from the working man’s perspective when you grow up the son of a billionaire, but can’t you find a bit of room for flexibility in your energy savings plan. Must it be mandatory?
Jonny, I know you know all about voluntary programs, and how effective they can be. You often assuage your right-wing donors by reminding them that your actions to avert the impending global climate crisis are not regulatory mandates but are just “consultative administrative or statutory processes.” And just yesterday, the Salt Lake Tribune said you are planning a media blitz to get more Utahns out of their cars and onto trains, bicycles and buses. For that I must say thank you. I’ve been trying to do the same thing for years and, frankly, could use a little help from somebody with pull like you.
But what gives, Guvna? Why are you only encouraging greenhouse gas reductions? Why are you only urging people to ride their bicycles? Shouldn’t these be mandatory? We’re talking about significant business practice and lifestyle changes here. Either you’ve got to mandate that Utahns ride trains, bicycles and buses instead of using their cars, or you’ve got to allow your employees a bit of flexibility in creating their work schedules. A Senate Confirmation Committee will eat you alive for an inconsistency like this.
Here’s how I see it Guv. It’s going to be a heckuva lot easier to allow 20,000 state employees a bit of flexibility than to force 2 million Utahns onto bicycles. I suggest, just this once, you take the easy way out. Your political aspirations depend on it.
Sincerly,
A concerned voter
I like the letter. I am sure whoever is paid to read his letters will also enjoy it. I love politicians and their supposedly great ideas that sound good on the surface, but once you dig a little deeper really don't work. But boy they sound good on the news.
ReplyDeleteHe's got people at my place asking if they can switch.
ReplyDeleteI think your "place" should let them switch. Everyone should have the opportunity to work a 4-10 schedule. But it should be a choice and the employee should get to choose which day will be their extra day off; Friday, Monday or any other day of the week.
ReplyDeleteI agree that everyone should have a choice, however it is not that simple, what about an office with 10 employees and one support staff? Is the support staff screwed or are the employees who work the day the support staff chooses off screwed?
ReplyDeleteWhat about the 'customer' are they screwed when service goes down cause 90% of the people want Friday off, and since it is their day off they take the opportunity to run errands?
I imagine there will be an adjustment or 2 to the plan, but it is a step in the right direction. BTW, I don't work fo the state, my wife does, and I work form home 1 to 2 days a week. Except when it is too hot out, cause I don't have central air.
I agree with Bob. If the purpose of the 4 day work week is to conserve energy, wouldn't it foil the plan if the office is open 5 days a week anyway because a few people decided they didn't want to have Fridays off? But I do agree with Chad as well that it's a dumb idea to begin with since people use energy at home anyway. But at least it's not the government's money that has to pay for that energy, right?
ReplyDeleteBob, I work in an office where most people are on a flexible schedule and many take Fridays off. However, there are rules that require a certain level of coverage every day, including Fridays, so the customers don’t get screwed. Unfortunately, however, you’re right that the support staff gets screwed because under our current system they are not allowed to work a 4-10 schedule. I think every case is different, but in my office the support staff could work a flexible schedule because there are three of them. They could arrange their schedules so that there is always sufficient coverage whenever we’re open. However, our management isn’t that enlightened.
ReplyDeleteNate, you’re right that opening the office on Friday’s defeats the purpose of conserving energy. But as you rightly point out, the plan doesn’t really conserve energy, but rather displaces it. It does save the taxpayer some money, which is a good thing, but it does it at the cost of the employees' well being. Finally, as I stated in the original post, the governor isn’t doing this to save energy, but to look good when he campaigns, or schmoozes, for a position at the federal level. He’ll be able to say “I cut energy use in Utah and can do it nationwide.” He’s hoping by then people like you and me will have forgotten about how he is screwing the very people that work for him in the process