Casual Friday Edition

Welcome to today's Casual Friday Edition of Sam's Taste of Chaos.  We had a lot happening this past week as the battle on American Idol began to heat up.  So let's jump right in to the Chaos.

>>     Newsweek polled 1000 average American citizens and gave them the U.S. Citizenship test.  The good new - 62% passed.  The bad news - 38% failed.  The worse news - realizing that nearly 40% of Americans aren't qualified to be Americans.  I'm not sure whether to laugh, cry or crawl under my bed and hide.

Newsweek's website has 20 questions from the 100 possible that are used for the U.S. Citizenship test.  (10 are chosen at random & test-takers must correctly answer 6 to pass).  Take the test and put your score in the comments section (if you dare).  [I did get 20/20, but #17 was a guess.]

Here are a few examples:

When was the Declaration of Independence adopted?

July 4, 1776.

Correct: 67%
Incorrect: 33%

What happened at the Constitutional Convention?

The Constitution was written, or the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.

Correct: 35%
Incorrect: 65%

We elect a U.S. senator for how many years?

Six.

Correct: 39%
Incorrect: 61%

How about now?  Are you laughing, crying or ready to hide under the bed?

>>     For the second time in the past 18 months the White House has been caught making a $2 trillion error in its 10 year budget.  But when your budget is out of control, these type of errors will happen.  A couple different issues are at play in this most recent issue.

The CBO corrects them for $300 billion from obvious mistatements from the Obamacare legislation, another $328 in funding that has never been passed by Congress and the rest in unrealistic projections on future revenues.  As the CBO report states, "...10 years from now, CBO sees a $1.2 trillion deficit that’s almost $400 billion above White House projections."

As Ed Morrissey at Hotair.com put it,

The findings in this puncture two myths perpetrated by Barack Obama.  First, ObamaCare is not “deficit neutral” in the first ten years, let alone constitutes a savings over the decade.  That was true even before the “doctor fix,” but the suspension of reductions in payments that came later sends ObamaCare well into red ink.  Next, the White House is inflating future revenue projections in order to protect its plans for expanded federal spending.  The difference in this case comes to $400 billion in year 10 of the projections, a difference that almost equals the worst total budget deficit under George W. Bush.

I thought the original budget was bad enough - not one year had a budget deficit under $600 billion.  I'm not the only one who thinks his math is fuzzy.

>>     I'm sure some of you are still upset with my stance in support of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.  Christian Schneider has a terrific article on why Gov. Walker tackled the public union issue as he did.  Concessions on pay alone won't fix the problem.

For instance, statewide average teacher salaries increased 6% per year in the 16 years before the Hortonville strike. In the 16 years after the strike, the increase is pegged at 7% annually. Not a big difference, for sure.

But salaries are only a part of the picture. Consider that in the 16 years prior to Hortonville [teacher strike], average state per-pupil spending increased 6.7% per year. Post-strike, it jumped to 9.6% per year in the 16 years following the Hortonville clash. [50% per year increase]

Today, K-12 education funding dwarfs the next-highest state spending program by a measure of 4-to-1. In 2011, Wisconsin spent $5.3 billion on public school aids, compared to $1.3 billion on Medical Assistance.

If those numbers don't make the case, then this graph will.  Notice how the spending curve change coincides with the Wisconsin teacher strikes in the early 1970's.

>>     While we are on the topic of government employees, I can only hope that you, as a taxpayer, are completely satisfied with the job performance of 99.94% of all Federal employees.  Why do I say that?  Because 0.06% of all Federal employees received a poor performance evaluation and were denied a step increase in pay according the most recent data from 2009.

Only 737 out of more than 1.2 million GS employees — or one in every 1,698 — were denied a regularly scheduled step increase and accompanying raise in 2009 because of poor performance...

That equates to a 0.06 percent denial rate, which is far lower than any estimates given of how many poor performers exist in the work force. OPM estimated in 1999 that poor performers make up approximately 3.7 percent of the federal work force. A 2000 survey by the Merit Systems Protection Board found that 14.3 percent of federal employees were judged by co-workers to be performing below reasonably expected levels.

"These step increases are tied to performance," Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said at a March 9 hearing on federal pay.

Well, I for one am glad to know that we have such high performing employees working for the Federal government.  Not sure how those $2 trillion errors keep happening with such good employees, but maybe that's caused by the elected and appointed leaders who can't seem to audit their own bookkeeping much less handle the Federal government's.

>>     A few quick hits on our efforts is Libya.  Here is the Senator Barack Obama in an interview with the Boston Globe during his run for the Presidency. 

In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.

First, rather than berate the man, let me say that, flip-flop or not, I appreciate his position now more than before.  But his new stance does raise some questions.  John Hawkins writing at TownHall wants to know why the left's response to our intervention in Libya has been so wildly different than it was to Iraq.  Right now, we need to support our troops and the war effort, but there should be a discussion to follow afterwards about this.

Second, Marc Thiessen raises another important issue in his article at the Washington Post.  Marc writes,

The U.N. Security Council’s stated objective is “the immediate establishment of a cease-fire and a complete end to violence.” This is entirely incompatible with President Obama’s stated objective of getting Moammar Gaddafi “to step down from power and leave.” If the violence ends, Gaddafi will not leave. To the contrary, if military intervention succeeds in achieving the United Nations’ goal of forcing a cease-fire on the warring parties, it will lock in the status quo on the ground.

What does this mean?  If the United States of America wishes to remove Gaddafi by force with anything other than air power, we can't.  And if Gaddafi stops fighting, we're done.  In signing on to the resolution, we have signed away our choice in the matter - unless you believe President Obama will defy a UN resolution.  Perhaps even worse, it ties our hands in aiding the rebels.

Once a cease-fire is in place, the terms set by the Security Council will have been met, and military action by either side would violate international law. This means that if the rebels attempt to remove Gaddafi by force, they could be the ones violating the mandate of the United Nations. The U.N. resolution could end up protecting Gaddafi and guaranteeing the survival of his regime.

The resolution also reaffirms the U.N. arms embargo, which most of the world interprets as barring the transfer of arms to both government and rebel forces.

Whether it's a rookie mistake or part of the plan remains to be seen.

NUTS

>  Hugo Cavez is as big a nut as they make.  Here he is explaining what may have happened to life on Mars. [h/t HOTAIR]

"I have always said, heard, that it would not be strange that there had been civilization on Mars, but maybe capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived and finished off the planet," Chavez said in speech to mark World Water Day.

"Careful! Here on planet Earth where hundreds of years ago or less there were great forests, now there are deserts. Where there were rivers, there are deserts," Chavez said, sipping from a glass of water.

For the record, here is the truth on our forest lands in America,

About 30 percent of the 2.3 billion acres of land area (745 million acres) in the U.S. is forest today as compared to about one-half in 1630 (1.0 billion acres). Some 300 million acres of forest land have been converted to other uses since 1630, predominantly because of agricultural uses in the East.

The forest resources of the U.S. have continued improving in general condition and quality, as measured by increased average size and volume of trees. This trend has been evident since the 1960s and before. The total forestland acreage has remained stable since 1900.

Two significant changes have helped stabilize our forestland.  One, Teddy Roosevelt began the modern Conservation movement and two, we moved away from using wood as an energy source.  What replaced it?  Coal and oil.  Who has a lot of oil?  Venezuela.  You'd think the President of Venezuela might know about this oil stuff...

>>  War by committee.  Apparently France believes the Libyan war should be fought under the direction of a steering committee.

France objected to NATO being in command of the war operations on a day-to-day basis and has now proposed a new "political steering committee," made up of foreign ministers from the United States, European, and Arab states, to oversee the war.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé announced on Tuesday that the British are in agreement with the proposal but the French government has not said anything about the position of the Obama administration.

If you've ever worked with a steering committee, God help you in getting anything accomplished quickly.  I can only hope that we are not on board with this idea.

>>  President Obama ran off to Brazil to create jobs back here at home.  Which makes this a little hard to swallow.  From Reuters, [h/t Gateway Pundit]

The United States seeks to be “a strategic energy partner” to Brazil, which recently discovered major new offshore oil reserves. Obama said the United States wants to be one of Brazil’s “best customers” when the oil starts flowing.

In addition, we will loan Brazil money to get the drilling started.  On a side note, thousands of American oil workers are still out of work waiting for the Obama administration to allow the Gulf rigs to operate. 

As Big Government put it, "To be fair, President Obama is in favor of drilling…but just not in the United States."  Sad, but true.

>>  Anthony Wiener, New York Representative, can often be seen on Fox, CNN, MSNBC yapping away like, well a little dog.  Here he is taking two sides on Obamacare in two different stories.  Here, he says,

"If lightning strikes, and it turns out that as many of us believe, the Supreme Court turns out to be a third political branch of government and they strike down the mandate -- big deal,"

"The solution, if the mandate is struck down, is not that the bill falls like the house of cards ... the solution is going to be offering something everyone agrees is constitutional and that's the public option in the exchange."

As he contemplates running for mayor of New York City, he has a different take,

"If you have better ideas that can accomplish the same thing, go for it,’” said Weiner. “I’m in the process now of trying to see if we can take [President Barack Obama] up on it in the city of New York, … and I’m taking a look at all of the money we spend in Medicaid and Medicare and maybe New York City can come up with a better plan."

Funny how these legislators do one thing in Congress, but it's suddenly all different out in the real world.  Let's not forget that the entire state of Maine has received a waiver from core provisions of Obamacare, so it should be a cinch to waiver NYC.

Mitt Romney has suggested giving a waiver to all 50 states.  Wouldn't it be easier to just repeal the stupid thing?

>>  NBC's Andrea Mitchell took up the task of defining the Obama Doctrine since the White House won't.  Here is Allahpundits view at Hotair.

it’s simple as can be. If (1) there’s a preventable humanitarian crisis looming and (2) the benefits of intervention outweigh the costs and (3) there’s international support for intervening, then “go for it.” Question: What if (1) and (2) are satisfied but not (3)? Just … let ‘em die, then?

This seems to leave a fairly large hole in the logic.  My local police department, sheriff's department and the Missouri State Highway Patrol may find working together on a big bust to be beneficial, but they don't need each other's approval to stop a crime in progress.  Neither should the United States of America.

Use the United Nations for whatever good we can, but we should never allow them to hold the leash on our military.

Well, that's my time.  You've been great.  I'll leave you with this last image of the new Wonder Woman for TV.  Please add your thoughts on the redesigned heroine's costume.

God Bless.

For GOP, Right To Work = Obamacare

As the battle with the Public Employee Unions in Wisconsin continues to rage, some states have taken the battle as a cue to push for Right to Work laws in their states.  But just as Obamacare became the key vote in the Democrats losses in the 2010 elections, Right to Work laws may be the GOP’s undoing.

Labor-supporters and detractors alike have historically been opposed to collective bargaining for the PEUs, but as union membership began to decline in the 50’s and 60’s, the public employees were seen as fertile ground to gain members and dollars.  In 1959, progressive Wisconsin became the first state to sanction collective bargaining rights for public employees.  While the practice has spread to other states, today 24 states still restrict or limit that right, as does the federal government.

Defining the difference between the PEUs and private-sector unions is key for the conservative viewpoint to prevail.  This is why the union leadership, Democrats and others have sought to blur that line.  But the case for PEUs is not analogous to the private-sector unions.  As The National Review's Jonah Goldberg stated in his article, Public Unions Must Go,

"Traditional, private-sector unions were born out of an often-bloody adversarial relationship between labor and management....

Government unions have no such narrative on their side. Do you recall the Great DMV Cave-in of 1959? How about the travails of second-grade teachers recounted in Upton Sinclair’s famous schoolhouse sequel to The Jungle? No? Don’t feel bad, because no such horror stories exist."

If this distinction becomes lost, the GOP cannot win this fight. 

Today, conservatives sit at the table as the adults.  They were given this place of leadership because they promised to cut spending.  In light of the budget deficits, conservatives are making bold choices.  As many see it, Governor Walker’s fight is not against the unions, it’s a fight for fiscal sanity – a fight for the taxpayers.  In this fight, the GOP has the high road. 

But in taking on the private sector unions, the Republicans relinquish their lofty position.  Ceasing to be a budget battle for the taxpayers, it becomes seen as an attack on union households.  In swing states, the GOP cannot win this fight - there are too many average households that contain current or former union members.  In these states, the fight is against their daddy or their grandpa's union?  For good or bad, unions have a relevant history for many generations, even if union membership wasn't passed down to the current generation.  If Gov. Walker and other like-minded Governors are to be successful in their fight, it cannot be seen as a fight against the long history of the private unions in this country.

When the line between the PEUs and private sector unions is drawn clearly, the battleground becomes less hazy.  In the proper light, even long standing union members can see the difference between their battles with the business owners and the PEUs fight against the taxpayers.  The case for PEUs has always been illegitimate and this argument can prevail when it is not hidden behind the private unions.

In the media, the words of former AFL-CIO President George Meany and  President Franklin D. Roosevelt in stating their opposition to collective bargaining rights for government workers were coming to light.  But no sooner were the words beginning to gain traction that the GOP controlled legislature in Indiana rose up to shoot itself in the foot.  By making a push for Right to Work laws in the private sector, they effectively blurred the line without any outside help from the unions.  The momentum in Wisconsin began to falter, as the Democrats in Indiana went on the lam in a concerted move to equate the two very different battles.  Luckily for the GOP, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels wisely chose to cut off the Republican charge against the unions before it ever started.

If the GOP believes it can successfully take on all unions, they have misread their mandate.  While the Indiana lawmakers may claim they are doing what is best for Indiana, they and other state legislatures must understand that their actions are not happening in a vacuum.  As the average person sits down to watch the news, the bits and pieces from each state begin to form a whole.  Wisconsin , Ohio and New Jersey are battling public unions, while Missouri, Indiana and Michigan are battling for Right to Work.  The President says the Republicans are trying to bust the unions.  If a person weren't up on the issue, how would it appear?  Republicans can only win the debate against the PEUs by contrasting them to the private unions, but not while they appear to be attacking those same private unions in another state.

In many states, the so-called swing states, the GOP has risen to leadership only recently.  Here in my state of Missouri, Republicans lead the legislature, but we have a Democrat in the Governor's mansion.  My county voted for a Republican in the last Congressional race for the first time since I've been alive.  The GOP (thanks to the Tea Party) has made tremendous inroads into the local Democrat strongholds.  But those gains are tenuous today.  Moving Missouri into strong if not permanent red territory is within our grasp.  But with the wrong moves, Missouri could quickly swing back the other way.

In Jefferson City, GOP leaders are pushing Right To Work in order to capitalize while the opportunity presents itself.  But with Jay Nixon as a Governor, the only way forward is a ballot proposition.  As a union officer, I can say that the charge against Right to Work will be hard and heavy - it in fact has already begun.  The union media blitz will seek to overwhelm.  Winning a ballot initiative in Missouri is difficult enough.   Winning over the union machine may be a bridge too far.

In Missouri, ballot propositions turn into a Hatfield and McCoy type feud.  By the time the vote takes place, no one really knows what they're voting for and after it's over, it's not over.  The results of a hotly contested ballot initiative will soon be fought again during the next legislative session as the losing side "reloads".

In Missouri, riverboat gambling failed before it passed.  It passed with limits that no longer exist.  Recently, one of our riverboat casinos was built several blocks away from the river.  It's okay though, since the gaming floor is floating atop a small layer of water.  Those who congratulated themselves on winning the war against casinos two decades ago understand what I'm saying.  Risking the GOP gains in the state on a ballot proposition would be folly.

In early 2010, the House Democrats went through a remarkable set of events to pass President Obama's Health Care Reform law.  Today, many of them are no longer in Washington because of that vote.  Republicans now hold control of that chamber and with the gains expected in the next election cycle, they should regain control of the Senate also.  If a Republican should be elected President, the formal repeal of Obamacare would be the first order of business - even though it may have been found unconstitutional by the highest court at that point.  It would be a vivid display of what happens when one party seeks to over reach its mandate in a strict party line vote against the prevailing will of the people.  

Let the thought of such an image be burned into the back of the minds of statehouse Republicans as they risk their party's leadership for what may be a fleeting victory.  If they continue down this path, Right To Work will be the GOP's Obamacare.

* This post has been modified after it was originally published.  I accidentally included Ohio among the states seeking Right to Work laws, when it should have been listed as a state opposing public unions.  I have updated the post and it should be accurate now.

The Return of the Taxpayer

For reasons, both good and bad, I have chosen to go for the trilogy.  I will write one more lengthy post concerning the public unions.  There are great challenges to the third segment in a trilogy.  Often the source material has been nearly exhausted and with the loss of beloved characters in the second act, bitter feelings remain.  Additionally, as the story arc leads to its ultimate climax, all story threads must be woven together to create something larger than their individual parts.  “The visual fabric [must be] maintained while the metaphor plays on different levels.”^*  Not only must there be a conclusion, but one must feel that the journey has been worth the effort.

* Bonus points if you recognize the quote

As we learned from Randy in Scream 3, a true trilogy is all about going back to the beginning and learning something that wasn’t true at the get-go.  Also, there are certain rules for the concluding chapter of a trilogy.  One, the [villain] is a super human.  Two, anyone, including the main character, can die. Number three, the past will come back to bite us in the [posterior]. Whatever we think we know about the past, forget it.  The past is not at rest.  The sins of the past are about to break out and destroy us.  The rules say, some of us ain’t gonna make it.
 

During the Great Depression, business owners found that the high unemployment gave them a lever that could be used on their workforce.  It was this unfair imbalance that drove the labor movement as well as the governments need to stimulate the economy that resulted in the National Labor Relations Act of 1935.  It was passed, but not without controversy.

In the 1920’s, the movement to organize had run afoul of anti-trust laws.  The mood changed following the economic troubles of the 1930’s.  During times of high employment and high earnings, workers had leverage.  But when employment falls below a certain point, the balance of power would shift to the employer.  The NLRA was created to establish a balance between the worker and the owner allowing for the workplace relationship to stabilize.  Further legislation has cemented some of the labor movement’s agenda in covering even the non-union workforce in America.

The slow decrease in the membership of private-sector unions is a direct result of the success of the unions in establishing certain standards to the employee/employer relationship.  Workers no longer needs to join a union to enjoy a standard 40 hour work week, overtime pay, paid holidays and vacation time and enjoy other benefits such as healthcare and a retirement fund.  As long as the threat of unionization is present, employers will usually seek to treat workers fairly.

I am a member of the negotiating committee for my local.  Our contract ends this year.  My fellow members and I understand that without a viable company, the contract is meaningless.  But with a fair agreement, we know that when the company prospers, we will prosper too.  It’s a win-win for both the workers and ownership.

But today’s crisis is putting that relationship into jeopardy.  Even now, our state has legislation pending that would make it a Right-to-Work state.  Management at our company is opposed to this, seeing that it would  put them at an economic disadvantage to newer competitors.  Not everyone will agree but the voters will decide the matter since our collective bargaining rights are statutory in nature.

Unfortunately, the public unions in Wisconsin have failed to understand this.  The anti-democracy forces have spent the past week forming mass protests in Madison.  The elected Democrats in their Senate have left the state.  Whatever my opinion of it, the will of the voters should not be blocked by force or cowardice.  As many have pointed out, the protests in the mid-east seek democracy, while the protest in the mid-west seek to block democracy.  This is shameful.

Like the Trilogy rules state, anyone can be killed.  Any look at the long-term finances of the federal, state and local governments can tell you a change is coming.  Whether we make the choices now or wait till the last dollar has been spent, a day of reckoning is coming.  There is no way to avoid the truth, but it doesn’t mean it has to end in this Mexican Standoff that currently exists in Wisconsin.  If the public unions, both there and other states, wish to make their last stand moment, so be it.  But as long as the private unions are there to hold their hand, we will be caught in the cross-fire. 

Governor Walker, far from wanting to bust the unions, has offered a middle ground.  The response has been an offer to give up the money, but not the bargaining rights.  What they have yet to see is that the money isn’t the problem, it’s just a symptom.  Kill the monster, take the money, but the beast will rise again.  Walker’s goal is to kill any future resurrection of what is wrong today.

In light of our last Trilogy rule, we now go back to the beginning of our story – the balance of power in the employee/employer relationship - to discover something that wasn't true from the get-go.  The NLRA gave workers the right to fight their exploitation at the hands of ownership.  But government workers cannot be exploited since they are also part of ownership.

Collective bargaining depends on an adverserial relationship between employee/employer. As David Denholm put it,

Unions view the employer-employee relationship as an adversarial one. Unions believe, or at least want their members to think, that employers are by their nature exploitative and that without the collective power of the union, the unorganized individual employee is helpless against the various forms of capital formation which employers represent.

While this may be true in the private sector, there is no reason to believe that it would be true in the public sector. The private sector is governed by an economic incentive – the profit motive. This system of economics has provided Americans with more goods and services, and a higher standard of living, than any other economic system in the world. But it is not applicable to many areas of the public sector of our economy.

Competition and the profit motive are at the heart of the union contention that employers are exploitative. That viewpoint leads the unions to an adversarial relationship. The absence of competition and profit motive from the public sector should cause us to then ask whether an adversarial relationship is necessary or desirable in public sector employer-employee relations.

The government by its very nature is monoplistic in providing society essential services.  Any services not essential, should of course not be offered by the state.  Unfortunately, some are.  The necessity for those services are now being used as the lever against their fellow citizens for whom they serve, while politicians, without a profit motive and dependant on votes from these citizens, have an incentive to keep these workers happy.

Since Wisconsin gave government workers collective bargaining rights,  total compensation (pay and benefits) and employment has risen faster than the private sector and is now higher.  Some of this is due to the often inverted supply/demand in the public sector.  In an economic downturn, tax receipts will fall, but demand for government services rise.  A more recent effect has also been the stimulus spending in which the Democrats in Washington sought to repay the support of the public unions. 

What we currently have is a system that is unsustainable.  All workers have the ability to make their voice heard individually and as a group.  Federations and associations have a long history in speaking for public workers.  But the right to collectively bargain is illegitimate outside the free market.  In the absence of a profit motive, that right becomes political rather than economic.  Denholm again, 

In the private sector the strike is an economic weapon. The employer faces economic losses through a lack of business, and the employee faces economic losses through a loss of wages. If there is a strike at one provider of a good or service, consumers – the public – can shift to another provider or not purchase at all.

In the public sector the strike is a political weapon. The employer does not suffer an economic loss, and in many cases (e.g., particularly in education where most public sector strikes occur) neither does the employee.

Because of its political impact, the public sector strike is disruptive of the normal political process. Under normal circumstances, various interest groups within society, all of whom have a legitimate interest in public policy questions, exert pressure from various directions on elected representatives. Of these groups, a union of public workers is the only one that has the power, if not the legal right, to unilaterally deprive the rest of society of an essential service. Once this occurs, divergent political forces show a strong tendency to coalesce into a unified voice demanding a restoration of service.

The only way to restore the service, in most instances, is to give in to the union's demands. Thus, by using a strike or the threat of a strike, the union can dominate the decision-making process and control the size, cost, and quality of government service.

If my employer negotiates a poor contract with us, the company may lose market share, may lose money, which may cause me to lose my job.  There is a moral hazard inherent to our negotiations.  But when the government negotiates a poor contract with their workers, the state's spending increases can cause deficits which can lead to tax increases hampering job growth affecting private businesses leaving me with either higher taxes or no job.  Without a moral hazard, it's heads you win, tails I lose.

When we gave government workers the right to collectively bargain, we breathed life into the monster that we sought to kill when we gave private workers the same right.  The private-sector employees were given a tool to bring balance between workers and owners.  The public employees have been given an axe and a mask with which to run roughshod over the taxpayers.  Even when the taxpayers revolt, the past pension & other benefits rise again, bringing the unstoppable monster back from the dead.  It's clear we’re not all going to make it out of this alive.  

In a Trilogy, the sins of the past will come back to destroy us.  But now, the taxpayers have returned and this time it's personal.  They seek to restore balance to the [work] force.  We are our only hope.

FDR & AFL-CIO Opposed Public Unions Before I Did

Yesterday's blog post has been highly controversial given my position as a Union Officer.  Today's post may help support my take on the conflict over public unions in  Wisconsin.

In the 1930's, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act laying a framework for federal regulation of private-sector labor-management relations.  As this was being debated, consideration was given on whether to include government workers, but it did not and for good reason.  Some of those reasons were stated in my post from yesterday.  Specifically, I wrote

The public sector unions...have a very different relationship with management...because the employers are elected officials who ultimately must answer to the voters, among which will be their workers.  As a collective, the union forms a voting bloc which creates the opportunity for illegitimate, though not illegal, quid pro quo activity.  The union can offer tangible benefits (campaign funds and votes) to elected officials  at little or no cost to the individual workers and the elected official can offer tangible benefits (compensation and work rules) to the workers at little or no cost to the official.

Because a profit motive is absent, worker productivity and job security now flow inversely. If worker productivity should lag, it has no perceived negative effect on the state’s vitality.  Far from adversely affecting the job security of the current workers, it has the added benefit of increasing their security as more workers are needed to maintain production levels.  As their numbers increase, this organized voting bloc will often supersede the rightful owners (taxpayers) at the bargaining table.

I concluded with,

The public sector workers, so far removed from the mechanisms of the market, have ceased to be a true labor union and are simply just one more aggrieved group seeking favors from our elected officials.  As a political action committee they are welcome to lobby their cause, but teachers on strike have forfeited the right to call their work a sacrifice.

For the benefit of my detractors, I wish to make it clear that I am not alone in my view regarding collective bargaining right for public-sector employees.  If, in spite of my position as an elected agent representing my union members at the collective bargaining table, you feel that I must be anti-union and opposed to worker rights in order to hold this view, let me enlighten you to what other labor supporters have said on this issue.

In 1937, Franklin Delano Roosevelt who had signed the NLRA into law, in a letter to the National Federation of Federal Employees, wrote

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service....The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. (emphasis mine)

Hey Gov. Walker! This Union Man is Right Behind You.

As a Union Officer for a local in the Laborers' International Union of North America, the events in Wisconsin have me very concerned.  But contrary to what you might think, I am not on the side of the public unions.  In fact, I believe what is happening now will ultimately hurt not only the public unions, but also the private sector unions.  If my fellow brothers in the private sector wish to preserve our unions, we should support Wisconsin’s governor Scott Walker.  Unfortunately, our union leadership has lost sight of the issues and is instead focused on the money.  It’s not hard to see why.  While union membership has been on a steady decline in the private sector, the public unions and their membership will continue to rise without end until our governments are bankrupt and the voters take their revenge on the unions.  The union coffers will overflow and empower new drives to organize the private sector.  But in their search for relevancy, the unions have pushed themselves to the brink of extinction.

Labor unions have existed primarily to balance the rights of the business owner with the rights of the individual workers.  Apart, each individual worker holds very little leverage in dealing with ownership.  But collectively, a group of workers possess a great deal more.  Just as the business owner’s first duty is to achieve profit, the workers seek to be compensated properly and treated well for their efforts.  This creates a synergetic relationship between employer/employee.  When the workers are productive, the business will prosper.  As the business prospers, the workers will be rewarded for their productivity.  If the workers’ productivity declines, the business will falter and this will lead to a loss of pay and jobs for the workers.  Production=Profit=Compensation=Jobs

There are three elements that are fundamental for a healthy union-management relationship:

1. Power Balance
2. Profit Motive
3. Moral Hazards

But what happens if workers are allowed to collectively bargain in the absence of these necessary elements?

Ruminations from the Void

From time to time here at Sam’s Taste of Chaos, I will post my current thinking on anything and everything.  It will simply be a collection of whatever random, often trivial thoughts are flying through my head.  Imagine it as cutting my skull open, turning it upside down and shaking it to see what falls out.  I can’t think of any particular reason why this should be interesting for anyone, but to paraphrase my favorite poet, mine not to reason why; mine but to do and to write.  So into the void we ride.

Minute to Win It - I was exposed to this show last night and now I fear for our nation’s ability to Win the Future™.  It was two hours of watching two girls compete in the type of backyard/church basement activities we would do when I was a kid.  That’s two hours of a national TV audience on a big three network watching two girls carry an egg on a tray, blowing ping pong balls off a pizza pan and trying to roll quarters into the tines of a fork.  (In my defense, we were at the neighbors for dinner.  At home we had the ABC and FOX lineups recording to the DVR.) (No, I still don’t know if that’s good, but it definitely makes me feel better.)

My alarm did not function properly this morning, so I went off to work without my coffee.  Keep this in mind as you read.

Children are off school today again (Note: be sure to read my post from yesterday – I Give Up, Al Gore! Now Make it Stop Snowing).   Cabin fever has set in at our home, so we are leaving town for a couple of days.  No real agenda; just tired of kids sitting in the same room for hours on end. (Indoor pool and hot tub are beckoning)

I’m a union officer with the Laborers. I represent workers at a mining/manufacturing plant.  Teamsters’ President, Jimmy Hoffa has a piece today defending public unions.  But even I am put off by the public unions.  My job is to leverage our workers’ rights with the private owner’s rights; even there, our stake is disproportionate.  But the public union workers as voters are part of the electorate and have de facto authority over ‘ownership’; in effect placing them on both sides of the bargaining table.

On the same topic, Right to Work is being debated in the Missouri legislature.  In my opinion, until we can enforce our borders against illegal immigration, this is a discussion to be put off to another day.  States have been flooded by illegals following RTW implementation.  In addition, the state should try to attract new businesses in ways that do not punish Missouri's current businesses which RTW would do.  Let’s evaluate our tax structure first.  Illinois has opened the flood gates by raising taxes.  Missouri can do its part to reap the rewards by lowering the cost for all businesses through lower taxes.  Several versions of a bill to eliminate the income tax through revision of the sales tax are on the table.  We should act now.

I’ll try to finish off my (starting to seem a bit creepy) obsession with Reagan on a lighter note.  If you have read the graphic novel Watchmen you know that in extending Nixon’s presidency into the 80’s, Reagan’s disappears from history.  The author Alan Moore, a terrific writer, wanted to write an anti-Reaganism story.  But he unknowingly, did the opposite.  Without Reagan, the only hope for averting a nuclear holocaust was having the smartest man on earth manufacture a perceived alien attack, with mass destruction and wide-scale death, in order to bring foes together against this unified threat.  Would I prefer that a hero might never be needed? Sure.  Unfortunately, events had degraded America to the point that finding one was imperative.  President Reagan was that hero.  The story was written in 1986, so Moore can be forgiven for being on the wrong side of history.  But why are so many still under the misconception that this Watchmen’s truth is still validated?

As to the underlying basis for it's title, the Watchmen rings true today.  We can give the government control over our healthcare, our businesses, our economy, our education, even our lives; but who watches the watchmen?  The beauty of America is that we, the people; each of us hold the keys to our own fate.  We write our own story and follow our own path.  The miracle of America is that we rise above our mortal failings as a people because no one is indispensable, yet none are unimportant.  As Dr. Manhattan found,

"But the world is so full of people, so crowded with these miracles that they become commonplace and we forget... I forget. We gaze continually at the world and it grows dull in our perceptions. Yet seen from the another's vantage point, as if new, it may still take our breath away."