A conservative state lawmaker with a penchant for controversial comments said Friday he will run for Congress in Maryland's 2nd Congressional District.
Del. Patrick McDonough of Baltimore County, who filed his candidacy with the State Board of Elections on Friday, criticized incumbent Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger of being too cozy with the Obama administration, and suggested that the Democrat had "lost touch" with the district's voters.
"He has become a 100 percent 'Obama-Dutch,'" McDonough said in an interview. "The point is, you have to live with your record."
The meandering 2nd District, includes portions of Harford, Baltimore, Anne Arundel and Howard counties as well as a few slices of Baltimore City. It is widely considered safe for Democrats, though Ruppersberger's votes have reflected a more centrist constituency than in some other parts of the state.
State Sen. Nancy C. Jacobs challenged Ruppersberger in 2012 -- a year after the 2011 redistricting -- and lost by a wide margin. Ruppersberger captured 66 percent of the vote that year. Two years later, Ruppersberger beat Republican David Banach with 61 percent of the vote.
Echoing other Republicans running in Maryland, McDonough said that last year's victory by Gov. Larry Hogan paved a path for a Republican to win in the 2nd District. Hogan did pick up support from several Baltimore County neighborhoods that are part of Ruppersberger's district.
McDonough said Ruppersberger, previously the top-ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, had "failed in his responsibility," citing the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, the rise of the self-described Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing.
"The President and 'Obama Dutch' have been absent without leadership, actively reducing the size and effectiveness of our national defense," McDonough wrote in a campaign announcement on Friday.
McDonough, who hosts a radio program on WCBM, came under fire in 2012 for suggesting that "roving mobs of black youth" were terrorizing Baltimore. He received national attention for suggesting the government should take away food stamps from parents whose teenagers who rioted last year following the death of Freddie Gray.
In a statement, Ruppersberger spokeswoman Jaime Lennon said the congressman has "always respected anyone willing to throw their hat in the ring, so it's a shame to hear Pat McDonough is going negative already. As always, Congressman Ruppersberger will run on his record of putting our country and his constituents first."
The percentage of American wage and salary workers who belonged to a union was only 11.1 percent in 2015, but the percentage of union members who worked for government was 48.9 percent, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
“The union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of unions--was 11.1 percent in 2015, unchanged from 2014,” the BLS said in press release published today.
But the 7,241,000 government workers whom the BLS estimates were members of unions in 2015 equaled almost half of the estimated total of 14,795,000 union-member wage and salary workers in the nation.
And these unionized government workers outnumbered the Census Bureau’s estimated 2015 populations for all but 12 of the states.
The 7,241,000 unionized government workers, for example, exceeded the populations of Washington (7,170,351), Arizona (6,828,065), Massachusetts (6,794,422) Indiana (6,619,680) and Tennessee (6,600,299).
The BLS has comparable data on union membership going back to 1983 and the percentage of wage and salary workers who belong to unions has generally been declining since then.
The highest percentage in any year in the 1983 through 2015 period was in 1983 itself. That year there were approximately 17,717,000 wage and salary workers who were members of unions and they equaled 20.1 percent of the total of 88,290,000 wage and salary workers estimated that year.
In 2012 and 2013, the percentage who belonged to unions was 11.3 percent. In 2014 and 2015, it was 11.1 percent.
Of the approximately 133,743,000 wage and salary workers employed in the United States in 2015, according to BLS, 14,795,000 were members of a union. (See Table 1.)
But of those 14,795,000 union members, 7,241,000—or 48.9 percent—worked for government. (See Table 3.)
Of the estimated 14,576,000 union members in 2014, 7,218,000—or 49.5 percent—worked for government.
Government wage and salary workers were far more likely to belong to a union than private-sector wage and salary workers, the BLS reported.
“Public-sector workers had a union membership rate (35.2 percent) more than five times higher than that of private-sector workers (6.7 percent),” the BLS said in the press release that accompanied the release of the data.
Union membership was most prevalent among local government workers.
On the federal-government level, said BLS, there were approximately 3,591,000 wage and salary workers and 979,000—or 27.3 percent—were union members.
On the state-government level, there were 6,875,000 wage and salary workers and 2,079,000—or 30.2 percent--were union members.
On the local-government level, there 10,126,000 wage and salary workers and 4,183,000—or 41.3 percent—were union members.
Employee engagement has barely budged in years
Measuring engagement isn't sufficient to improve it
Five proven strategies can improve employee engagement
The world has an employee engagement crisis, with serious and potentially lasting repercussions for the global economy.
Though companies and leaders worldwide recognize the advantages of engaging employees -- and many have instituted surveys to measure engagement -- employee engagement has barely budged in well over a decade.
Gallup has been tracking employee engagement in the U.S. since 2000. Though there have been some slight ebbs and flows, less than one-third of U.S. employees have been engaged in their jobs and workplaces during these 15 years. According to Gallup Daily tracking, 32% of employees in the U.S. are engaged -- meaning they are involved in, enthusiastic about and committed to their work and workplace. Worldwide, only 13% of employees working for an organization are engaged.
Why Aren't the Numbers Moving?
With so many organizations focusing on engaging their employees, the question is: "Why aren't engagement levels across the world increasing?"
Many different factors can lead to stagnant levels of engagement. Executives can find clues to answer this question for their company among the various ways organizations provide employee engagement data.
Gallup sees a clear divide emerging within the engagement industry. On one end of the spectrum are scientifically and experientially validated approaches that lead to changes in individual and business performance, supported by strategic and tactical development and performance solutions that transform organizational cultures. Though these approaches require more intentionality and investment, companies that use them are more likely to see increases in employee engagement.
At the other end of the spectrum are invalidated, unfocused annual surveys. Much like a traditional employee satisfaction survey, this type of survey usually measures a multitude of workplace dimensions that often have limited alignment with other business objectives and can be difficult to take action upon after receiving results.
Technology also makes it easy to create an "employee survey" and call it an engagement program, which allows a company to fulfill an apparent organizational need and "check a box." But metrics on their own don't drive change or increase performance. Many of these survey-only approaches measure employee perceptions and provide metrics instead of improving workplaces and business outcomes.
In reality, when companies focus exclusively on measuring engagement rather than on improving engagement, they often fail to make necessary changes that will engage employees or meet employees' workplace needs. These shortcomings include:
- viewing engagement as a survey or program instead of as an ongoing, disciplined method to achieve higher performance
- focusing more heavily on survey data or reports than on developing managers and employees
- defining engagement as a percentage of employees who are not dissatisfied or are merely content with their employer instead of a state of strong employee involvement, commitment and enthusiasm
- relying on measures that tell leaders and managers what they want to hear -- "We're doing great!" -- rather than research-based metrics that set a high bar and uncover organizational or management problems that are hindering engagement and performance
- "feeding the bears," or measuring workers' satisfaction or happiness levels and catering to their wants, instead of treating employees as stakeholders of their future and their company's future
Though most approaches are well-intended, with an ultimate goal of improving the workplace and performance, too many contribute to a status quo that is not helping the business. Businesses must choose among these different approaches, and procurement departments often make decisions based on cost and proposed deliverables rather than on a close evaluation of the end-game deliverable of an improved workplace and performance.
These flawed approaches pose significant barriers to improving engagement, increasing performance, promoting manager development and achieving lasting change. Companies that base their engagement strategy on a survey or metrics-only solution can find themselves caught in a "rinse and repeat" pattern, focusing on engagement periodically -- usually around survey time. The result is that these companies make false promises to employees, pledging change through intensive communication campaigns but providing little actual follow-through.
Ways to Improve Engagement
By studying and working with highly engaging and high-performing organizations, Gallup has identified five best practices that improve engagement and performance:
- Integrate engagement into the company's human capital strategy. High-growth companies have a clear purpose behind their strategy for engaging employees, Gallup research shows. This approach includes leadership involvement and commitment, a communication strategy, systems that hold leaders and managers accountable for follow-up and for using engagement data, and learning and development that align with the engagement elements. The most effective approach to engagement isn't "start and stop" -- instead, it's an ongoing process that works alongside regular business activities.
- Use a scientifically validated instrument to measure engagement. Since the engagement industry began in the late 1990s, it has taken on a life of its own. Almost every employee survey, regardless of its purpose, is referred to as an "engagement" survey. But few instruments have been validated or subjected to academic peer review. As a result, many companies are attempting to increase engagement by focusing on problems that may not affect engagement or by tackling problems in the wrong order.
- Understand where the company is today, and where it wants to be in the future. Many businesses seek to chart the same one-, two- or three-year journey to improved engagement. But every company's starting point is different, as is its internal capabilities and how fast it can change. After a company takes a baseline measurement, a three-year road map is a recommended strategy; however, it should be based on the company's needs for improving engagement. This approach will help create realistic milestones and actions.
- Look beyond engagement as a single construct. Some companies focus on moving the overall engagement number while overlooking the tactical elements that drive improved performance. Engagement isn't determined by an abstract feeling; it's the result of concrete performance management activities, such as clarifying work expectations, getting people what they need to do their work, providing development or promoting positive coworker relationships. For example, "expectations" are more than a job description. And "doing what you do best" has more to do with productively applying individual strengths than with general competencies.
- Align engagement with other workplace priorities. Engagement shouldn't be "something else" an employee, manager or leader has to do -- instead, it should be how work gets done. Engagement is about investing in everyday working moments and incorporating engagement concepts into the workflow, even as businesses change and adopt new initiatives. When leaders prioritize new initiatives, managers may need to reset employee expectations, provide workers with new resources and ensure employees have opportunities to do what they do best.
Creating a culture of engagement requires more than completing an annual employee survey and then leaving managers on their own, hoping they will learn something from the survey results that will change their daily behavior. It requires a company to take a close look at the critical engagement elements that align with performance and with the organization's human capital strategy. Managers and leaders should keep employee engagement top of mind -- because every interaction with employees can have an impact on engagement and organizational performance.
Gee, maybe if the employee's actually had a monetary stake in the company's performance, they'd be more engaged, think?
