After reading Christopher Gable's article in the Feb. 18 Mirror, I wasn't sure what he was trying to say.
One thing I came up with is that he thinks state liquor store employees are being paid more than they should be paid and more than they deserve. He implied other things, as well.
It seems Gable would like to see the state stores privatized so that the new owners can hire people at a lower wage. These state employees are also consumers and more importantly, taxpayers.
He asks why millions of consumers should be held hostage, financially speaking, by employees who serve them. This statement could be applied to every single branch of government.
Consumers/taxpayers are held hostage every single day by politicians who ride around in limos, who eat at expensive restaurants, who are provided excellent health care benefits and enjoy a healthy retirement, all thanks to consumers, otherwise known as taxpayers.
Do the consumers/taxpayers footing the bill ride around in limos, eat at expensive restaurants? No. Most of them have little or no health care and certainly do not have the retirement package our politicians receive.
Gable states that competition is the friend of all consumers as it delivers the lowest prices for the greatest selection.
This may have been true at one time, but with the state of the present-day economy, competition is now used as a tool to lower wages.
There are too few jobs and too many people looking for work so employers can keep wages as low as possible, knowing that someone will take the job out of desperation.
Why single out liquor store clerks? These positions are not exactly the highest paid in state government.
If Gable favors privatization, why not just say so?
Private owners will pay less wages, leaving their employees (otherwise known as consumers) less money to buy with. And no doubt, these private owners will offer part-time employment so they won't have to provide benefits. So the only ones to benefit from this privatization would be the owners/investors, as usual.
If you are a prosperous business owner or an investor, you probably agree with Gable. However, as a senior citizen living on a fixed income, the view from where I sit is vastly different.
I'm not sure what his agenda is, but I doubt his concern for consumers plays a part.
Elizabeth K. Shade