Tag Archives: unions

Labor Day, A Celebration of an Empty Victory of Socialized Labor

By Daniel Downs

The history of Labor Day begins in the late 1800s. During this period, labor unions arose to defend American workers against systemic injustice. Unions empowered workers to fight for safe and humane working conditions and for livable wages. The success of the unions what the Labor Day is all about.

Thus celebrating the American worker is the collective expression of triumphant labor union socialism.

Labor union socialism was fueled by the rise of mass production factories, low wage labor, and unjust working conditions. Although socialism was not a necessary way to resolve conflict between management and workers, it was the means federal courts and some state officials supported. Thus, Labor Day is the continued celebration of the victory of workers over corporate bureaucrats.

How has the victory of labor union socialism benefited American workers? The direct and indirect results of unionization include minimum wage, child labor laws, worker safety laws, overtime pay, holiday pay, vacation pay, flex-time, and similar developments. Union politicians are still attempting to make health insurance mandatory as well.

Unionization of labor also has caused Americans some losses. Because unionization excludes non-members, low-wage labor has been maintained. It’s rationalized under the labor market. It’s obvious that some jobs are more productive and contribute more value to a company’s product and service. For example engineering design new products, manufacturing make those products, and sales convince people to buy them. Such jobs are more profitable than maintenance, data entry, or customer service. The demand for certain job skills over others makes those job skills more valuable. Therefore, jobs requiring high demand skills pay more than those in less demand. The same applies to products and services. Therefore pay scale often reflects those market values.

The primary source of operating finance for corporations is the sale of stocks and bonds. Yet, this method of operational finance diminishes the overall value of labor. It is the result of the liability to investors. Another way to look at it, businesses must payback their loans with interest to their lenders, which happen to be investment bankers, stock market traders, and other investors.

A predominate group of early Americans, Thomas Jefferson included, regarded that form of corporate finance as a leech sucking the financial life out of American workers. That group of early Americans attempted to limit legislative representation to agricultural entrepreneurs, industrial craftsmen (machinist, foundry, blacksmiths, etc), merchants, and …. They believed only natural labor and those that served them actually promoted the common good of all. Corporations were regarded as quasi-government institutions and investors as non-laborers. They simply used money of others to make more money which in turn took more money from those whose labor added to the productivity of all.

Nevertheless, the Hamiltonians eventual succeeded in making bankers and investors a class represented in government.

The underlying principle of the value and rights of workers is found in natural law. The product labor belongs exclusively to the worker, not to government or anyone else. That is also why natural labor was also tied the value of owning property, because it was the means of production. Labor added value to productive property, according to natural law. This product of labor to property belonged solely to the laborer and conferred property rights to him or her. A property deed originally was an official recognition of productive use of property. Whether the value added was by planting crops, vineyards, raising animals, or building a house and barns, the land, the produce, any trade were summed up under property rights and a deed secured those recognized rights.

Labor unions have been counterproductive. They employ an ideology contrary to natural law embraced by our founders. Labor union’s victory undermined what should have been achieved by application of law. The reality produced has been a conflict between worker and management, between laborer and laborer, and between citizens.

Thomas Jefferson wanted all Americans workers to earn a livable wage. Actually, Jefferson used high wages meaning able to enjoy financial independence and enough leisure to cultivate or maintain moral character and cultural skills as well as enjoy one’s social relations. Being dependents of corporate and government bureaucracies was not part of the plan.

In a society in which all are mostly dependents of corporations, unions, and government, many workers have lost their natural property rights. Labor Day will never be meaningful of the American worker until they regain the right to their product of their labor. As Thomas Jefferson put it, low wage labor is slave labor. If one’s labor does not produce ownership of the bare necessities of life like food, clothing, and transportation as well as ownership of one’s home secure from theft by criminals and government, then Labor Day is more a mockery of the American worker. It remains an allusion perpetuated by self-ingratiated elites and their talking heads.

Why Vote Yes on Issue 2? Here Are Some Facts to Consider

Issue 2 is a referendum on the newly passed collective bargaining and other public employment contracts reform bill titled SB 5. The bill was passed in order to enable state government to reduce labor costs, balance the state budget, make public jobs more competitive and performance oriented, and attract as well maintain good workers.

One of the ways the governor, legislators, and many local officials agreed would enable them to accomplish these goals was reform the standards and practices of public workers.

Two organizations are leading grass root campaigns with regards to the passage of Issue 2. The union backed organization “We Are Ohio” lead the ballot referendum, wrote ballot argument opposing the SB 5, and produced most of the media ads seeking to persuade a no vote on November 8. “Building a Better Ohio” is the organization promoting the new law. “A Better Ohio” is behind the media ads, telephone calls, and literature campaign in favor of SB 5. It also has written the ballot argument for making it public law.

When in it comes to truth-in-advertising, “A Better Ohio” gets an “A” but “We Are Ohio” has earned an “F”. That is, statements and arguments made by “A Better Ohio” tend to be true while statement by “We Are Ohio” often have been shown to be false. The Plain Dealer’s PolitiFact Ohio is the source of these observations.

A number of other news, public policy think tanks, and other organizations have been focusing on this issue. They include Buckeye Institute (see links in right column above), Principled Policy Institute, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Dayton Chamber of Commerce, and others.

The ballot text voters will see presents two arguments. The “Vote No on Issue 2, Repeal SB 5” arguments make the following claims. SB 5 puts our families at risk by making it harder for fire and police to negotiate for needed safety equipment. Issue 2 also makes the nursing shortage worse by making it illegal for nurses, hospital and clinic workers to demand reasonable staffing levels. PolitiFact Ohio proves these arguments are clearly false. SB 5 specifically states safety employees DO have bargaining rights over equip and related issues (in section 4417.08 of the bill), and only about 10% of all nurse work for the state. What administrator is going to deny a real need for more nurses if a genuine health and safety issue can be proven? The state has monitoring mechanism to deal with such issues.

Another argument is that Columbus politicians exploited a loophole, giving a special exception to the same standards. As PolitiFact Ohio shows, politicians have always been exempt. The politicians already pay 15% into their healthcare and 10% to their pensions. And, they never can give themselves raises. Current politicians can only increase pay for future elected officials.

What is unfair about Issue 2 is the unions attempt to deceive voters into opposing the savings SB 5 will produce by making government more efficient.

A careful reading of the final argument against SB 5 is that Columbus politicians giving corporation tax-break incentives to moving businesses to Ohio, start new businesses, expand business operations, and keep them in Ohio is reason for Ohio economic problems. Union members should not be penalized for problems created by big business. Yet, politicians like Kasich are creating policies to curb corporate lobbyist influence peddling. Politicians like Kasich are not attempting to reduce pay but rather make public compensation, especially benefits, as fair as those creating profits that grow the economy. No public employee produces profits. As necessary as fire fighters, police, teachers, and support personnel are, public employee pay reduces available income or pay of all profit-makers, from the low-wage earner to the over-paid CEO.

Voting Yes on Issue 2 will NOT hurt us all. Ohio government made more efficient and public employee benefit package comparable the private-sector will not hurt us all either. It provides the necessary incentive for improving the quality of local education as well as all other sectors of government by making teaching and all other jobs based on results rather than mere tenure.

Yes on Issue 2 will provide more equality in union bargaining. Local communities and their representatives will be in a better position to handle economic down-turns when increasing taxes is reasonable. Taxpayers, in other words, will gain better legal standing regarding local government, schools, unions power, and taxation.

Ohio Teachers File Class-Action to Halt Compulsory Union Dues for Political Activism

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, 15 public school teachers across the state filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the Ohio Education Association (OEA) and nine of its regional affiliates for violating their rights.

The group filed the class-action suit after the OEA union unlawfully overcharged the teachers – who have refrained from full-dues-paying union membership – for union “fees” taken from their paychecks, charging them for costs supporting the union’s political activism and electioneering. Per Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution nonmember teachers cannot be forced to pay dues or fees for union boss politics and other non-bargaining activities.

Additionally, the OEA union’s regional affiliates are collecting compulsory fees from non-members without providing the kind of independently-audited financial statements required by law. In the Foundation-won Supreme Court ruling in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, the High Court ruled that public employees have due process rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to be notified how their forced union dues are spent, and how to prevent the spending of their dues for union political and other non-bargaining activities.

The teachers filed their lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, in Columbus, late Thursday. The teachers are employed at various school districts, including Marietta City Schools in Marietta; Green Local Schools in Green; the Western Brown School District in Mt. Orab; and the Trumbull County Joint Vocational School District in Warren.

The lawsuit focuses on unlawful union dues confiscations from Ohio teachers’ paychecks during the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years and seeks to reclaim the teachers’ mandatory union fees spent illegally. The OEA is currently pouring money in support of a ballot measure to repeal the recently-passed Right to Work law, which makes union dues strictly voluntary for teachers and other public employees.

“OEA union officials have a long history of abusing teachers’ rights in the workplace to fund their political coffers,” said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. “It’s important to remember where the OEA union machine gets a large amount of its money as it gears up its efforts to defeat recent public-sector reforms in the Buckeye State – reforms that allow teachers to opt out of forced dues payments.”

The National Right to Work Foundation – the nation’s premier legal advocate for workers who suffer from the abuses of compulsory unionism – has established numerous precedents and protected legal rights at the U.S. Supreme Court for both private-sector and public-sector workers who wish to refrain from formal union membership and full union dues payment. Currently, the Foundation has a case pending with the Supreme Court brought for teachers in California forced to subsidize union boss political spending.

Boeing vs. the NLRB: A Naked Power Grab by Radical Pro-Unionists

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) contends that President Obama’s chief of staff, Bill Daley, threatened and made coercive statements against Boeing employees.

You haven’t heard about these charges?

Daley was on Boeing’s board of directors when the company unanimously decided to open up a second assembly line for the 787 Dreamliner in Charleston, S.C. The NLRB argues this illegally violated the rights of Boeing’s unionized employees. The complaint against Boeing thus implicates Daley in any supposed wrongdoing — although the mainstream media has avoided mentioning this.

Of course, anyone familiar with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) will tell you that the NLRB’s charges have no merit. Daley would have never got past White House vetting otherwise.

In short, Boeing made a legal business decision that unions opposed, and the NLRB is using this as a pretext to unlawfully expand its power.

Read the rest of this article at Pajamas Media.

Today’s hearing on Senate Bill 5… Please come to the Statehouse this Thursday in red

By Rebecca Heimlich

I’m sitting in the Ohio Statehouse Rotunda listening to proponent testimony for Senate Bill 5, which would significantly reform Ohio’s collective bargaining law for public employees. I got to the Statehouse an hour before the hearing and saw several buses and knew our side’s buses weren’t coming until Thursday. The Statehouse is packed with union members who have been bused in from around the state. The Rotunda is the second overflow room for those who came to the hearing. Unfortunately, our red shirts are outnumbered.

We have to pack the Statehouse for Thursday’s hearing with SB 5 supporters in red shirts. I recognize it is more difficult for our activists to to get to Columbus. Most of us can’t get a taxpayer paid day off to come like many union members can, and we don’t have unions to pay for our buses. That said… Senate Bill 5 is crucial to balancing Ohio’s budget and getting us back on track to prosperity.

Under Ohio’s current collective bargaining law, public employers (which are ultimately taxpayers) cannot effectively manage their workforce. These laws take away public employers’ ability to decide how much to pay their employees and don’t allow flexibility in employment decisions.

Ohio must be able to hire, promote and pay based on merit.

Please join us this Thursday at 9am on the West Statehouse Lawn and wear red. Please come earlier if you can. If today is any indication, the union buses will already be at the Statehouse at 9am Thursday.

To read more, go to the Americans for Prosperity Ohio website. http://www.americansforprosperity.org/021511-todays-hearing-senate-bill-5-please-come-statehouse-thursday-red

Does Passing Issue 10 Make Any Sense?

By Daniel Downs

Xenia fire and police want us to believe passing their proposed charter amendment (Issue 10) will guarantee the continued safety of Xenia citizens and their property. What it will actually accomplish is force taxpayers to maintain no less than 42 full-time certified fire fighters and 46 full time police officers at all times no matter the cost to the city. City council claims passing Issue 10 will bankrupt the city by 2013.

Bankrupting the city does not make sense.

Issue 10 will also require the city to adhere to a staffing norm of 1.5 fire fighters per 1,000 population and 1.7 police officers per 1,000 population. The latest financial report has Xenia population at 27,314 and the above minimum number of safety personnel reflects this normative formula. However, the current number of police is 69 and fire fighters totals 41 not 46 police and 41 fire fighters.

Why then does Xenia employ 69 police officers rather than 46? The answer is response time and supervisors. Many years ago, city management and council decided they wanted police to respond more quickly to calls. That meant adding more police officers and supervisors per shift to guarantee the results.

Employing more police for quicker responses to calls does make sense.

What does not make any sense is allowing fire fighters to reformulate requirements that will result in more supervisory staff. It appears fire fighters are attempting to set a minimum number of fighters without clearly delineating the requirement for more supervisory and administrative staff to support them. If this is so, they are misleading voters to get what the police have–more personnel. The problem is no one sees the need for more fire fighters. In fact, city officials didn’t see the need for less either. Only 1 fire fighter was laid off, according to the city’s state audited financial report.

Failing to provide for a reduction of safety personnel should Xenia population significantly decrease only makes sense if you are trying to pass a 1/2% income tax levy. It’s the good cop-bad cop routine.

Whether or not this was intended, Issue 10 still lacks provision to reduce safety personnel in case of decrease on population. For example, if Issue 10 passes and Xenia population grows to 30,000, the city will be required by law to hire 4 more certified fire fighters. But, if the recession caused enough people to move away that the population shrunk back to 24,164 as it was in 2008, city could not lay off 5 police and 5 fire fighters.

It does not make sense to employ more safety personnel unless to improve call response times or prevent crime.

A question still needing an answer is how many residents are there now? Put differently, how many residents have moved away since the recession? According to recent U.S. Census Bureau estimates, Xenia population grew to 27,437, which is an increase of over 3,291 since 2007.

Assuming all of the new residents live in family households and average $20,000 of taxable income, the city should have seen an increase of nearly $400,000 in income tax revenue per year. That does not include any additional property tax increases. In actuality, the city reported $555,025 less income tax revenue, which means most of them became unemployed, some of them became unemployed and some other did as well, or census estimates are wrong. In actuality, the number of taxpayers increased by 76 in 2009 but paid $4,468 less income taxes. This suggests that most of the decrease in income tax revenue was the result of significant decline in local business revenue.

It does not make sense for taxpayers either to make up lost revenue for local business or to add more safety personnel when local unemployment rate is 12 percent as reported by city officials.

Issue 10 will also create an unfunded mandate, which is the reason past and present city council members oppose it. It does make any sense to pass a law that will cost taxpayers more money without creating legal means to fund it.

Passing Issue 10 simply does not make any sense, which is a good reason to vote NO on November 2.