Showing posts with label unions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unions. Show all posts
10 December 2012
Politics is What Politicians Do
In response to this piece, a short memo to the president, who happens to be a politician:
1) Whatever a politician does as far as his job is concerned is politics. Not just when you disagree with what the politician does. Politics may be a dirty word, but it is the likes of the president and our legislators that have helped make it a dirty word.
2) The legislation proposed would not "take away" anyone's rights. It would give an employee the right to choose not to be represented by a union. And if union membership os so wonderful why is membership and dues paying mandatory?
18 June 2011
23 May 2011
15 March 2011
Why Shouldn't You Be Able to Drink on the Job?
My wife and I saw this a few weeks age and got a nice chuckle.
Unsurprisingly, their union is fighting their dismissal.
Fox 29 Investigates: Drinking Postmen : MyFoxPHILLY.com
Unsurprisingly, their union is fighting their dismissal.
03 March 2011
More on State Employees
Of course unions are building their campaign. Because, like teaching, selling liquor can only be done properly by unionized state employees.
More Rhetoric on Unions
Another predictably tendentious piece, this time from Hendrik Hertzberg of the New Yorker.
Mr. Hertzberg bemoans the fate of labor since its hay day on the middle of the previous century, completely disregarding the fact that corporations, big businesses, fat cats and the rest of the usual suspects don't sit around drinking cognac, smoking cigars and burning dollar bills they've stolen from the surplus value of the labor they've exploited. They've paid market wages for the labor required for production. Any so-called surplus value is typically reinvested, either directly or indirectly. This leads to increasing productivity and innovation. This leads to many goods and services increasing in relative quality will becoming relatively cheaper.
Think of computers. It was almost the stuff of fiction to think that people would have computers in their homes in 1970. It was expensive but feasible in 1980. Slightly cheaper and better and more common in 1990. Almost ubiquitous in 2000. In 2010most people carry around with them phones that have more computing power than anything imaginable by the gentlemen who turned ENIAC on in 1955. And it's a phone. And a camera. And a radio. And, in real terms, much cheaper than anything you could have bought in 1980.
Life has gotten better because companies can pay market wages for the services provided by employees and not occur dead-weight losses due to union wages.
As we produce more, we all benefit. Increasing "income inequality" is a social fiction. Saying rich people make more than they did in 1970 is a fool's argument. And one, not surprisingly, embraced by Mr. Hertzberg. First of all, GDP growth has outpaced population growth. So while the "top earners" may have more, percentage wise, of the "take," everyone is earning more money. And with all due respect to P.J. Proudhon, property is not theft. The CEO of WeWantToRuinTheEarthAndPoisonYourChildren Oil Co. making $150 million dollars does not mean that you or me or anyone else earns less money. Just as the Yankees presumably paying Albert Pujols $300 million over the next ten years doesn't mean there's any less money out there for you or me. A capitalist system is not a closed system. Capital can increase, especially as the factors of production become more efficient, cheaper, better &c.
My absolutely favorite line of the whole piece by Hertzberg is this one describing the new "anti-union" movement in Wisconsin: "The bill, dictated by the new Republican governor, Scott Walker..." Classy move. The verb in the dependent clause is brilliant. Denotatively, Hertzberg is covered in that the wording of the bill was probably crafted by the governor. But he is also able to present the man as a dictator. Never mind that the bill was introduced to the state senate for a vote and it is the Democrats who fled the state, making a vote on the measure impossible.
The rhetoric is that the bill came out of nowhere and the Democrats wanted time for what was in the bill to become public. Well, it's public. It has been for two weeks. If you don't like a bill, vote against it. If it becomes law that you don't like, introduce a bill that will change it. But running out on your job? Because your "side" might lose? And the governor is dictatorial?
Mr. Hertzberg bemoans the fate of labor since its hay day on the middle of the previous century, completely disregarding the fact that corporations, big businesses, fat cats and the rest of the usual suspects don't sit around drinking cognac, smoking cigars and burning dollar bills they've stolen from the surplus value of the labor they've exploited. They've paid market wages for the labor required for production. Any so-called surplus value is typically reinvested, either directly or indirectly. This leads to increasing productivity and innovation. This leads to many goods and services increasing in relative quality will becoming relatively cheaper.
Think of computers. It was almost the stuff of fiction to think that people would have computers in their homes in 1970. It was expensive but feasible in 1980. Slightly cheaper and better and more common in 1990. Almost ubiquitous in 2000. In 2010most people carry around with them phones that have more computing power than anything imaginable by the gentlemen who turned ENIAC on in 1955. And it's a phone. And a camera. And a radio. And, in real terms, much cheaper than anything you could have bought in 1980.
Life has gotten better because companies can pay market wages for the services provided by employees and not occur dead-weight losses due to union wages.
As we produce more, we all benefit. Increasing "income inequality" is a social fiction. Saying rich people make more than they did in 1970 is a fool's argument. And one, not surprisingly, embraced by Mr. Hertzberg. First of all, GDP growth has outpaced population growth. So while the "top earners" may have more, percentage wise, of the "take," everyone is earning more money. And with all due respect to P.J. Proudhon, property is not theft. The CEO of WeWantToRuinTheEarthAndPoisonYourChildren Oil Co. making $150 million dollars does not mean that you or me or anyone else earns less money. Just as the Yankees presumably paying Albert Pujols $300 million over the next ten years doesn't mean there's any less money out there for you or me. A capitalist system is not a closed system. Capital can increase, especially as the factors of production become more efficient, cheaper, better &c.
My absolutely favorite line of the whole piece by Hertzberg is this one describing the new "anti-union" movement in Wisconsin: "The bill, dictated by the new Republican governor, Scott Walker..." Classy move. The verb in the dependent clause is brilliant. Denotatively, Hertzberg is covered in that the wording of the bill was probably crafted by the governor. But he is also able to present the man as a dictator. Never mind that the bill was introduced to the state senate for a vote and it is the Democrats who fled the state, making a vote on the measure impossible.
The rhetoric is that the bill came out of nowhere and the Democrats wanted time for what was in the bill to become public. Well, it's public. It has been for two weeks. If you don't like a bill, vote against it. If it becomes law that you don't like, introduce a bill that will change it. But running out on your job? Because your "side" might lose? And the governor is dictatorial?
22 February 2011
FDR on State Unions
From here, reprinted in its entirety:
My dear Mr. Steward:
As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.
Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.
The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."
I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.
Very sincerely yours,
Mr. Luther C. Steward,
President, National Federation of Federal Employees,
10 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.
APP Note: Although this letter appears to be signed, "Very sincerely yours, Mr. Luther C. Steward, President, National Federation of Federal Employees, 10 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.," the letter is from Roosevelt to Steward. The placement of the addressee's name and address at the bottom of the document was an editorial decision in the original "Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt." The American Presidency Project's policy is to reproduce documents in their original form.
My dear Mr. Steward:
As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.
Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.
The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."
I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.
Very sincerely yours,
Mr. Luther C. Steward,
President, National Federation of Federal Employees,
10 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.
APP Note: Although this letter appears to be signed, "Very sincerely yours, Mr. Luther C. Steward, President, National Federation of Federal Employees, 10 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.," the letter is from Roosevelt to Steward. The placement of the addressee's name and address at the bottom of the document was an editorial decision in the original "Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt." The American Presidency Project's policy is to reproduce documents in their original form.
21 February 2011
Wisconsin logic
I saw this on NPR's website and loved this paragraph:
Jacob Cedillotootalian, a 27-year-old University of Wisconsin-Madison graduate student and teaching assistant, said Sunday was the third night that he slept in the Capitol as part of a union representing teaching assistants and he didn't see an end coming anytime soon. He said he was worried about paying more for his health insurance and tuition, but what kept him protesting was the possibility of losing the union.
Why should Mr. Cedillotootalian have to pay more for HIS insurance or HIS tuition. It is much better, after all, to have other people pay for it.
31 March 2010
Public v Private & the Yoke of Unions
I had lunch today with a builder who is a client of ours. We were discussing the current state of affairs apropos the recession, healthcare and "stimulus" spending. He let me in on something I didn't know. The new health insurance reform law requires firms with more than 50 employees to offer health insurance. Bad idea, but fine, what the hell, that part I knew.
What I didn't know was that if you are a construction firm and you have more than five employees, you must offer them health insurance benefits. Which is just a terrible idea.
We were also discussing that any stimulus finds going to public works (those shovel ready jobs you've heard about), workers must be paid "prevailing wage." (See here and here). Which basically means that the work must go to union labor. Which inflates wages, slows development, reduces productivity and keeps unemployment higher than it otherwise would be if the work went through competitive bidding (not that that is apolitical or without problems, but it's better). I will post later why unemployment hasn't improved appreciably.
But the thrust of this post is the following clip I caught on reason.tv:
So while the federal, state and local government are hemorrhaging money, they are: increasing their staffs; increasing payrolls and associated expenses; increasing debt and future obligations; increasing the current and future cost of borrowing; crowding out further private investment and real economic growth. Good job, fellas.
What I didn't know was that if you are a construction firm and you have more than five employees, you must offer them health insurance benefits. Which is just a terrible idea.
We were also discussing that any stimulus finds going to public works (those shovel ready jobs you've heard about), workers must be paid "prevailing wage." (See here and here). Which basically means that the work must go to union labor. Which inflates wages, slows development, reduces productivity and keeps unemployment higher than it otherwise would be if the work went through competitive bidding (not that that is apolitical or without problems, but it's better). I will post later why unemployment hasn't improved appreciably.
But the thrust of this post is the following clip I caught on reason.tv:
So while the federal, state and local government are hemorrhaging money, they are: increasing their staffs; increasing payrolls and associated expenses; increasing debt and future obligations; increasing the current and future cost of borrowing; crowding out further private investment and real economic growth. Good job, fellas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)