LABOR DAY

As we celebrate the 2010 Labor Day Holiday here are some thoughts on the subject of labor.

SOME HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:
The Labor Day Holiday was a creation of the labor movement. The true founder of this holiday has never been identified. Some historians credit Peter J McGuire (co-founder of the AFL) and others give the nod to Mathew Maguire, a secretary of the Central Labor Union. Whomever founded the holiday, the first actual Labor Day Parade occurred when an estimated 10,000 employees took unpaid time off to march from City Hall to Union Square in New York City on September 5, 1882, creating a “workingman’s holiday". Twelve years after that first parade, Congress passed legislation making Labor Day a legal holiday.

To hear the left tell the tale, the need for Labor Unions during the latter 19th and early 20th century was based on and justified by poor working conditions. Wages were low, hours were long, job conditions in many cases dangerous and there were neither benefits nor protection for an employee that was injured on the job. If you were hurt on the job you may very well be ruined financially. Young children worked in “sweat shops” and performed unsafe tasks. Riots over working conditions and wages were not uncommon.

But is this true? An alternate view is: “This oft-heard tale is, however, almost entirely false, and those parts of it that are true (the low standard of living that people enjoyed in the nineteenth century, for example) are true for reasons other than those alleged by pro-union historians, who see in them only confirmation of their prejudices against the market economy” (1)

“In order to fulfill their stated purpose of increasing the wages of their members, labor unions must restrict an employer's access to alternative sources of labor. That is to say, nonunion workers who wish to seek employment on the terms offered by an employer whose firm is unionized must be prevented from doing so. Harvard University's Edward Chamberlin once described the unique legal status that labor unions had been granted:

If A is bargaining with B over the sale of his house, and if A were given the privileges of a modern labor union, he would be able (1) to conspire with all other owners of houses not to make any alternative offer to B, using violence or the threat of violence if necessary to prevent them, (2) to deprive B himself of access to any alternative offers, (3) to surround the house of B and cut off all deliveries, including food (except by parcel post), (4) to stop all movement from B's house, so that if he were for instance a doctor he could not sell his services and make a living, and (5) to institute a boycott of B's business. All of these privileges, if he were capable of carrying them out, would no doubt strengthen A's position. But they would not be regarded by anyone as part of "bargaining" – unless A were a labor union.” (1)

What some historians consider the first modern union in this country, The American Federation of Labor (AFL) was founded in 1886 by English immigrant Samuel Gompers. This was four years after the first Labor Day parade and the same year as the infamous Haymarket Riot which left several people dead. Gompers’s father had been a cigar maker in the old country and young Samuel became “enamored of union organization, seeing it as a locus of social interaction and security. Indeed, even before he left for America, Samuel Gompers treated the union as a creed or a religion” (2).

Government intervention into the labor market over the past century has evolved today’s minimum wage laws, protections against age discrimination, and worker’s compensation laws at the state level as well as OSHA at the federal level, to compensate for injuries and prevent accidents when possible. We can thank the Labor Movement and Progressives for some of these changes, at least in part. Not all of these changes are completely beneficial or work as intended. But a larger reason for the improvement in working environments was capitalism itself. By creating more wealth than the world has ever seen, this nation increased the amount of leisure time that was available to the average American. That time was the seasoning that allowed us to become more interested about the human condition. This would not have been possible without relatively free markets.

WHO BELONGS TO A UNION TODAY?
In the modern world, how have unions changed and exactly what function do they serve today? For one thing, today’s unions are politically active and are further entrenched in the public sector. This latter condition is most likely due to the problem unions have convincing the vast majority of Americans that they need a union to protect them. But unions have become victims of their own success. They are largely unnecessary now due to government intervention.

Many unions today are associated with the socialist movement both here and around the world. It was not always so. Samuel Gompers “came to reject the radical ideologies of the socialists. On one occasion he grew so agitated by a socialist diatribe that he grabbed the speaker by the throat with the intent to kill him only to be dragged off by other patrons” (3).

How many union members are there are? Here are some 2009 statistics from the Bureau of Labor’s Annual Report on Union Membership Summary:

- Union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of a union--was 12.3 percent, essentially unchanged from 12.4 percent a year earlier.

- More public sector employees (7.9 million) belonged to a union than did private sector employees (7.4 million), despite there being 5 times more wage and salary workers in the private sector. The union membership rate for public sector workers (37.4 percent) was substantially higher than the rate for private industry workers (7.2 percent).

- Within the public sector, local government workers had the highest union membership rate, 43.3 percent. This group includes workers in heavily unionized occupations, such as teachers, police officers, and fire fighters. Workers in education, training, and library occupations had the highest unionization rate at 38.1 percent.

- Black workers were more likely to be union members than were white, Asian, or Hispanic workers.

- Among states, New York had the highest union membership rate (25.2 percent) and North Carolina had the lowest rate (3.1 percent).

According to a NY Times article dated January 10, 2010 the report referenced above “found that membership fell so fast in the private sector in 2009 that the 7.9 million unionized public-sector workers easily outnumbered those in the private sector, where labor’s ranks shrank to 7.4 million, from 8.2 million in 2008”. And the next paragraph said this: “There has been steady growth among union members in the public sector, but I’m a little bit shocked to see that the lines have actually crossed,” said Randel K. Johnson, senior vice president for labor at the United States Chamber of Commerce.

www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/business/23labor.html?_r=1&ref=bureau_of_labor_statistics

Since the 2009 Presidential inauguration there has been an explosion in the number of federal employees. According to Senator Orin Hatch, in 2008, there were 1.2 million civilian workers. In 2010, that number jumped to 1.43 million federal workers. FDR can be credited with the belief that it was folly to allow federal employees to unionize. Three decades later, John F. Kennedy signed the Executive Order that allowed them to do so. Given the deep recession and its affect on private payrolls, this increase of 230,000 public sector employees is instructive about this administration’s plans for the country. Senator Hatch recently introduced legislation to reduce the federal workforce. While not all public sector employees are unionized, there are more union employees in the public sector than private. Also, of all types of government employees, teachers lead the way as the most highly unionized workforce in America.

hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=4415a1f0-1b78-be3e-e0fa-fbe5e6b03e71&Month=8&Year=2010

UNION EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION AND CORRUPTION:
Consider a comparison of private versus public sector compensation. Today a job with the county, state or federal government can be more lucrative than a private sector job when all wages, health insurance benefits and pensions are considered. Due to union work rules and civil service protections, government jobs are more secure as long as government is growing. Of course the Left claims this is not the case if “educational and other qualifications” are taken into account. However, a recent Cato Institute study of state and local employee’s compensation shows that on average, government employees make more on a total compensation basis than their private sector counterparts. There is no reason to believe this is any different at the federal level. Individual accountability and levels of performance are not as important in the public sector; it is very difficult to terminate a poorly performing government employee. Take teacher tenure as an example. We have all heard the stories of the New York City “Rubber Rooms” where some teachers that could not be fired for cause are still collecting their pay and benefits without any work in return. And this can go on for years. As the old saying “it’s good enough for government work”.

www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-59.pdf

www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2009-04-09-compensation_N.htm

Think about the relationship of unions to government. Does having employees, whose wages and benefits are paid by taxpayers, negotiating with other government employees, who are also paid and benefited by taxes, make sense? In a normal private sector union negotiation, on one side of the table is the union and the other side is management. There are natural checks and balances in these negotiations. If the union wages, benefits and work rules are too excessive as a result of collective bargaining, the operations of the company may be negatively impacted. This in turn can cause the company to downsize and eliminate jobs or even cease to exist as an employer. Do you remember Eastern Airlines? On the other hand, if the company does not offer competitive wages and benefits, they may not be able to attract and retain quality employees and thus also suffer economically. But what incentives are there for public sector unions to hold back in their negotiations, or the government to tightly control their wages and benefits when they are on the essentially on the same team? In addition, due to this unholy alliance of government and unions we are facing a solvency crisis of underfunded public pensions. The pension problem is not only affecting public sector unions. Private sector unions are also going to be a potential problem for taxpayers.

www.ocregister.com/opinion/county-262076-pension-new.html

biggovernment.com/jwilliams/2010/02/15/public-employee-benefit-plans-up-to-1-trillion-in-unfunded-liabilities/

www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/243893/bobby-bailout-casey-put-taxpayers-hook-teamsters-shenanigans

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703960004575427402731178736.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/public_sector_unions_and_their.html

Consider the recent “teacher bailout” bill signed into law by Obama. That law will spend $26 billion in taxpayer money and gives it to the states, which in turn will use it ostensibly to keep teachers and other state employees on the public payrolls. The teachers pay dues out of their salary to the unions. Keep in mind those salaries are paid with tax receipts. Therefore, a portion on your tax dollars are being given to the union bosses to spend as they see fit. The NEA spent roughly $50 million last year, in a non-election year, on “political activities”. During the same year the NEA collected approximately $350 million in dues from its members. Yet we are now bailing them out to save their jobs and reinforce their pension funds? I did not realize it, not being a NEA member, affiliate or even a union supporter, yet I am paying “dues” to them thanks to the redistributionist policies of this administration. Ironic isn’t it, our money going for a political cause that many of us strongly oppose?

www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/10/house-approves-billion-teacher-bailout/

GOVERNMENT ACTIVISM AND SUPPORT OF UNIONS:
Another form of corruption is the pushing of the union agenda in all possible areas of the federal government. Union leaders have been emboldened by the election of Barrack Obama and many of his actions since then, such as the GM and Chrysler takeovers, the easing of rules to make it easier for airlines to unionize and so forth. So far the union bosses have not received all they wished for, especially their ultimate dream item: card check. We know they will keep pushing. And unions are also big supporters of global governance. Andy Stern is one of the bosses pushing for more government on a worldwide scale. What are they trying to do, make the United States and the rest of the world look like Greece?

sayanythingblog.com/entry/union_boss_appointed_to_obamas_deficit_panel_loves_wealth_redistribution_gl/

www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/05/07/athens_or_washington_its_the_size_of_government_105484.html

www.theblaze.com/stories/key-obama-ally-works-with-socialists-for-global-tax/

Unions are a home of the socialist movement. The Federal Government is heavily unionized. Therefore it is a natural, although unethical and immoral, tendency to use public resources to further their mutual interests. The current administration is using the Department of Labor in exactly this manner, to indoctrinate youngsters about the evils of capitalism and the joys of socialism. The U.S. Department of Education is also involved in this process and supporting outright political activity. The federal government has chosen sides, and it is not on the side of the average citizen. Here is some of the evidence of this activity for you.

www.thefoxnation.com/glenn-beck/2010/09/01/beck-exposes-socialist-working-pres-obama

www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Education-secretary-urged-his-employees-to-go-to-Sharpton_s-rally-651280-101839293.html

ARE UNIONS REALLY ABOUT HELPING THE COMMON MAN?
The left has historically used lies and distortion to further their aims. This is nothing new. The left and unions are inexorably intertwined and so is their hypocrisy. The labor movement has a history of hurting the very people they claim to defend when attempting to sell their message. Here is some evidence of this.

michellemalkin.com/2010/08/31/caution-big-labor-hypocrisy-at-work/

michellemalkin.com/2009/03/27/hypocrisy-thy-name-is-seiu/

Along the road to the union objective of global government, there are thankfully some speed bumps. Recently the UAW International ran afoul of one of their locals. This news was not widely broadcast but could be found on the World Socialists website. Here are 3 links that tell that story. Now elements of UAW leadership are looked upon as the enemy by the very union members they are supposed to be serving. This is a major shift in the historical union versus management paradigm and ironically the Obama Administration caused it in this case. I think this is good news that some elements of the left are starting to run afoul of each other.

www.wsws.org/articles/2010/aug2010/inds-a17.shtml

www.youtube.com/watch?v=owUjzuVLY-s

www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_081710/content/01125112.guest.html

Union activism has a long history of violence. It is true that much of the past violence was caused by company management calling in police and military forces to break up strikes. But unions themselves have also used violence and intimidation to achieve their ends. Below is an example of violence that was perpetrated by the labor movement. Ironically a person who was involved with this incident is meeting with President Obama this today.

www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38862

IN CONCLUSION:
I submit to you that the unions today undermine our Republic due to the corruption they create. They are unnecessary today. Over the years, unions have been co-opted by forces that are unfriendly to individual economic freedom. Union goals involve obtaining and maintaining power over the average citizens, not in aiding the “little people”. Big government and big business help them to accomplish this end. In essence, a relatively small special interest group is negatively impacting our entire society. You know that if unchecked, this trend will ruin our country.

This corruption must be ended and punished. We must hold the union bosses, elected officials and government employees with oversight responsibility accountable. That is why we must elect Republicans to all levels of government this November. The Republican Party is far from perfect. But it is traditionally the party of smaller, more limited government. I do not think they would join with the union bosses to change this country into just another socialist state. Electing a Republican majority will just be the beginning of a long fight to route the forces that are tearing the fabric of our nation apart. The American people can no longer afford to remain asleep. The enemies of freedom, both foreign and domestic, will always keep pushing their agenda.

I close this post on a more positive note with a piece by someone that has faith in the American voter. I hope she is right.

townhall.com/columnists/LindaChavez/2010/09/03/bad_news_for_labor_this_labor_day/page/full/

Have a happy and safe Labor Day holiday.

Notes:
1. Thomas E Woods, Jr. Forgotten Facts of American Labor History (website)
2. Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen. A Patriots History Of The United States page 439
3. Martin Gilbert. A History of the Twentieth Century 1900-1933 vol. 1