This is a long one folks, but it goes to the core of why this country
is so far off track- Education. Americans don't educate themselves on
the world around them, and the information they do get from schools, the
media and elsewhere is increasingly anti everything that has made us
what we are. I firmly believe that the solution to ALL of our problems
as a nation can be remedied with a return to teaching virtue in or
schools and above all, teaching freedom. With that in mind, I'd like to
share with you my take on unions, and what can be done to steer them
back on course.
I wanna start by saying that I believe that public labor unions are a
cancer that will bankrupt us if left unhindered. Even FDR knew that
public sector unions were a terrible idea, especially when it comes to
collective bargaining because the most important party doesn't get a
seat at the table- the taxpayers. With that said, my focus below will be
on private sector unions and what can be done to make them work for
everyone. I don't advocate getting rid of them, but I know they can be a
much greater aid to workers if we can get priorities straight. I'll
start with some common sense observations I've made regarding these
private sector labor unions
It's not right that a group of people can decide that they somehow
deserve $50 or $60 or $90 an hour, for doing a job that warrants $30 an
hour, and then threaten to leave a company without a huge chunk of
workers unless their demands are met. That's not fair pay, that's
extortion. I am NOT saying this is standard operating procedure for
unions, but it DOES happen. This kind of negotiation seems great on the
surface to those reaping the benefits. And it seems legitimately
Capitalistic on the surface, because each side must AGREE to the terms.
However, if employers are persuaded to agree to compensate workers at
more than the market value, it has negative consequences for the
employees, the business, and eventually the market itself. Employees,
employers and consumers together decide what fair prices for goods,
services and labor are. Some goods are worth less money because of
quality, and some simply cost less because either the retailer has
decided the price should be low to make it an attractive purchase, or
the consumers have decided that is the most they are willing to pay for
that item. That is how the market is supposed to work. It is the same
for labor. Workers want to earn as much as possible to maximize their
income. Employers want to pay as little as possible to maximize their
profit. Both are perfectly reasonable expectations, and neither is
greedy. It just makes sense to want to maximize the amount of money you
make, whether wages or profits. Mutual benefit us what creates the
"fair" labor price. Employers and workers come to an agreement that
benefits each- the employer pays more than they wanted, but they have a
qualified employee getting the job done, and the employee is paid less
than they wanted, but they have a job and money coming in, etc. This
agreement is reached based on what each party needs out of the other, as
well as what each party can offer the other. The "fair" wage I refer to
is reached through this negotiation, and it goes beyond that employer
and worker. If most people will do the job for a certain price, that
gets factored in. If most employers pay a certain price, that gets
factored in. And if one party or the other has a better offer, it can be
used as leverage as well. So, yes there is such a thing as "fair"
compensation, and if everyone participating in the market understands
how it works, then it does work out well for everyone. Problems arise
when demands go beyond what is fair, and they are agreed upon to the
benefit of one party and the detriment of the other. That is where I
take issue with unions as far as negotiations go. Yes, get as much as
you can reasonably justify, and be assertive about it, but don't look to
get so much that other employees and the company are hurt by it. Look
at Hostess. I don't know the specifics of the original contract the
unions had negotiated. I will even assume that their compensations had
absolutely nothing to do with Hostess' decline. What I do know is that
once bankruptcy became imminent, Hostess tried to negotiate the
contracts down. They offered an 8% pay cut. The other option was to
close their doors and eliminate 100% of every position. Given that
choice in that situation, working in a stagnant industry, in a down
economy, when things are bound to get worse, the obvious choice is to
take the cut. It's common sense. If that seems unfair based on the
current market, then you can always change jobs. After all, if it's
truly unfair then your industry has jobs available and there's an
employer out there that can beat that offer. Instead, the union
leadership says no, and refuses to accept anything less than their
previously negotiated contract. Now, Hostess has closed its doors and
18,000 people are out of work because the union wouldn't budge. That is
stupid folks. No way around it, it's just stupid. That's the problem I
have with these union bosses that breed this culture of "give me
everything I ask for or else."And what's really bad is that this sentiment is breeding not only a
sense of entitlement among members, but also an animosity toward people
who don't give them what they want or who give the employer another
option, i.e. non union workers. We saw that animosity manifest itself in
Michigan last week. This kind of behavior is unacceptable from
children, let alone grown adults. And this certainly isn't an isolated
incident. Around the country, the atmosphere and the attitude being
perpetuated among unions is turning more demanding and more violent. I
can't tell you that it's all the union leadership's fault, just like you
can't place the full blame with employers. What I can tell you is that
when you have union bosses pushing to squeeze out all they can, and
spending members' dues on their own pet political projects, and trying
to keep people from discovering how Capitalism actually works, and you
add in a slow economy, looming tax hikes, and a presidential
administration that openly endorses big government as the best solution
for everything, it can only exacerbate the feelings people have
developed, wrongly so I might add, about the "unfair" shortcomings of
Capitalism. I'll play this card again: if Americans understood value,
virtue and the way Capitalism is meant to work-with everyone
participating- then we would not have many of the problems that we do.
In fact, as far as the economy goes I believe most of our problems would
not exist.
It's also not right that if an individual or business chooses to
employ a non-union entity instead of a unionized one, they are
automatically attacked as if the only possible explanation is that they
hate unions and want to destroy them. Price and quality factor in too
you know, and so do the behaviors of the people being hired. No one
should have to endure protests or attacks for basing their choice of
labor on price, quality, speed or the morality of the people doing the
work. If you can prove that someone passed on the union for
discriminatory reasons rather than BUSINESS reasons, then feel free to
protest and sue all you want. It's destructive to attack people for
making the best decision for their family or business, and its
destructive to deny people the ability to choose whether to belong to a
union. Again, if Americans were taught how Capitalism works...
I've heard the argument made that right to work legislation allows
non union workers to reap the benefits of collective bargaining without
them having to pay dues or work for those negotiated perks. First of
all, if an individual is not tied to a union contract, then an employer
is not bound to pay them your "negotiated benefits." Secondly, if an
individual DOES manage to convince an employer to pay them the same
wages and benefits without a union contract, what does that say about
the worth of that union's leadership? It would mean that the union
didn't do anything more than what qualified individuals could do on
their own (without the cost of union dues I might add). Third, anyone
should be allowed to apply for any job, and any employer should be free
to hire whoever they want, at whatever price that person is willing to
work for. If they ask too much, an employer should be able to turn it
down. At the same time, if an employer won't agree to a fair enough
salary, the employee should seek out an employer that is willing to give
them the most compensation for their abilities. A free market
determines what the fair price is for a certain amount of knowledge,
ability and experience. Like I said before, it's about mutual benefits
agreed upon by both parties. The idea is to make yourself more valuable
than the guy working next to you. What the big unions seem to like to do
is to convince everyone that they all have equal talents and abilities,
and that they should all receive equal compensation (rather than just
compensation based on their value to the market). That works out great
for the guy that can barely complete a full days work with a morsel of
competence. But the guys that bust their butts and have knowledge,
skills and a work ethic that goes above and beyond that of the rest,
they get shafted. What is the point of getting an education, busting
your butt or gaining experience and skill if you and Dick Dumbass
picking his nose in the corner are going to get paid the same amount of
money? If all you have to do is pay money to a group of people who will
"go to bat for you" and boom, your salary goes up, why would you even
try? It's counter-intuitive. I'm not saying all union workers are
unskilled and do poor work, or that all non-union workers have amazing
work ethics. What I'm saying is that, union or non, it hurts good
workers when the bad ones get the same compensation for lower quality
and productivity. So it doesn't make sense when unions push for equal
compensation for unequal abilities. Let's say for argument's sake that
both the union shop and the non-union guys prove they can do the same
quality of work at the same pace. If the union guys cost $50 an hour per
guy and the non-union guys cost $35, it just makes good business sense
to go with $35 an hour. Let's say the labor costs the same too. Let's
say you have a reputable local non-union group that has a great BBB
rating, and a union group whose union bosses are known for threatening
and extorting people to get their way (and we will even assume that
every member of the union is an angel of a human being). It makes good
sense, in a free market where firms and consumers understand their
roles, to pick the group with the better reputation. It's about
business. You are judged not only by your work, but also by your deeds
and association. Regardless of unions, it just makes good sense to go
with a reputable organization over a dirty one.
Now, there are people who will put in the effort day in and day out
regardless of the contract their union happens to procure. Some people
just want to earn a living and take care of their families. I applaud
that wholeheartedly. Those are good people. They are the ones we need
more of. Unfortunately, for every one of them, there is at least one who
either expects excellent compensation for mediocre work, or who refuses
to give the effort to make himself more valuable unless the
compensation for that amount of effort has already been secured. That is
another problem with unions. They have bred a large chunk of their
members to expect much more compensation than they are actually worth,
and to expect it sign sealed and guaranteed before ever lifting a finger
to improve their own value to the market place. That essentially
equates to expecting the same price for regular and premium gasoline, or
expecting to fill your tank and confirm the benefits of the premium gas
before paying for it. It just doesn't make sense. I Americans were
taught about Capitalism...
The principle I agree with- we need to make sure no worker is paid
less than what they earn, and that no worker is subjected to unhealthy
or hostile working conditions. Where I take exception is in the loss of
the concept of virtue. A virtuous person knows the line between just or
fair compensation and outright greed. A virtuous person expects fair
compensation for an honest, fair day's work. A virtuous person expects
that they will be treated justly, and judged on the basis of their own
merit. A virtuous person understands that one should seek to be virtuous
because it is right, AND because it will only make you more valuable to
the market place. A virtuous person understands that America was built
on the guarantees of freedom and opportunity, not a guarantee of
results. No one that came here through Ellis Island looked at the statue
of liberty as they sailed onto the harbor and said, "Finally, I've
reached America, the land of success." We are the land of opportunity,
and we have achieved success in so many ways because of the freedom and
opportunity we hold so dear. And because people used to understand the
concept of adding value to the market. If Americans were taught about
Capitalism...
Another big problem with unions in general, but more so with big
labor unions, is that they ask the question, "What are you going to do
for me"? without offering in return, "This is what I can do for you."
For decades, the concept of Capitalism has been ripped to shreds by
academics, politicians, journalists, you name it, and over time the
concept has become unrecognizable. We hear about greedy capitalists who
want to exploit their workers for personal profit. We hear about unfair
wages. We hear about lavish spending, big lobbying and political
cronyism. But we don't here about the solution to the problems, at least
not the right one. People will try to tout unions and social justice
and high taxes for high earners and minimum wages and endless pages of
regulations as "solutions" to the defects that are a part of a
capitalist society. But none of these are real solutions. They actually
add to the problem. They dilute the free market and choke it to the
point that it can't work at all, let alone "fairly." It's like starting
out playing Monopoly (go crazy Libs), then adding the rules from
Yahtzee, Checkers and Battleship, increasing all penalties for the
player with the most money, and creating a Player that gets to decide
what is a fair move, regardless of what the actual rules say- then each
player gets to make demands of the players with the most money and
property, threatening to throw the board unless they get their way.
That's what Capitalism looks like now. That's what Americans see on
their television screens. Then we wonder how we got here. If Americans
were taught about Capitalism...
The real solution, lies with workers and consumers. Consumers determine
what price, quality, speed and business practices are acceptable for any
good or service at any particular moment. When we make a purchase, we
give tacit consent to the quality and price of that good, as well as to
the business practices of the firm from which we make that purchase. In
other words, if you buy it, you are admitting that you are OK with the
amount you are paying pay for the quality you are getting, AND you are
telling the store or other entity that you agree with all of its
business practices. But you say, "I'm not saying I'm OK with anyone's
business ethics, I'm just buying a Playstation." And THAT is where
you're wrong. If anyone had bothered to teach you about Capitalism, or
at least teach you to value and seek out that knowledge for yourself,
you would know that. You have to be aware of the world around you. You
have to be aware of how X treats its employees and what Y does with its
profits and whether Z honors its commitments. And you should know about
the manufacturer as well as the retailer. You shouldn't contribute your
money to the store or the manufacturer if they are not a reputable firm.
If you do, shame on you for not caring. You have no right to complain
about the condition of the market place if you aren't participating as
an informed consumer. You can't be a good consumer if all you do is walk
into a store and go, "That shiny, I want!" That plays out great for
firms, the good and the bad, who will gladly accept your money,
regardless of why you want to give it to them. It doesn't end so well
for consumers and workers when people just keep forking over money for
stuff, completely ignorant of how it came to be sitting on the shelf.
Consumers say with these actions, "I don't care who you are or what you
do, just keep bringing me the stuff!" That my friends is destructive to
Capitalism. Don't hate the game because the players don't know the
rules, and don't hate the players because the judges decided to keep the
rules a secret, and add to them constantly so that it takes a special
degree to figure them out.
The worker who knows not of the role they play in the process is also
a destructive force. Workers are the engine of business. Without them,
no business is successful. However, workers ignorant of their influence
on the market are a strain on business. Here's what I mean:
Just like consumers, quality Capitalist workers need to be educated
about their surroundings. When you apply for a job you are saying, "I
think I am och with the wages, working conditions and business practices
of your company." And when you accept a job you are actually saying, "I
AM OK with the wages, working conditions and business practices of your
company." When you take a job without knowing exactly what the wages are
like or how the company treats its employees or the quality of the
goods/services that company provides, you are taking a great risk. When
you continue employment after finding out one or more of these items is
unacceptable, you are doing yourself and consumers a disservice. You
have to know what's going on around you or you simply can't make common
sense decisions.
Now, some might argue that labor unions do the leg work for you, and
fight on your behalf for good wages, working conditions and business
practices. You could make an argument (though flawed) for wages and
working conditions, but if you think unions give a damn about business
practices that don't relate to getting more money and power, you're
dreaming. Union Bosses care about power, nothing else. The more "stuff'
they can negotiate for their members, the more power they can elicit
from them, the more money in their own pockets and so on. They
perpetuate the myth that the only way to get ahead in our society is
with the help of a labor union negotiator. They may have been necessary
at one time, but that day has long passed. With the media and
information access we have today, there is no reason that any unethical
treatment of workers should go unnoticed without the aid of a Union thug
twisting arms. Know about it and show about it folks. Always be
conscious about what's happening around you, and when the ugly rears its
head, you pounce on it and you don't let up until its out of fight. You
have the power as an individual to take charge and make a difference
when injustice happens. You don't need a Union organizer or negotiator
to do your bidding. You are much better off proving your worth as an
individual than you are relinquishing your uniqueness to a collective
mind that may or may not have your individual situation and
circumstances at heart when it "goes to bat for you." The role of unions
in America has shifted over a century, from necessary protectors of
worker's rights and promoters of ethical practices, to embodiments
collectivist power-hungry agendas. We see too much "I deserve" and not
nearly enough explanation of WHY it is deserved. The consensus would
seem to be, "I thought it, and so I must deserve it." Union leaders have
convinced millions to think in this way, and it is destroying the
market. I will not pretend that unions are the only or even the biggest
problem with our markets or the economy. We have a host of issues, and
the current philosophy of union leadership is only one of many, but it
is not to be ignored or marginalized. Something has to change and soon
before we lose this economy for good to devastating progressive
policies.
My Solution to Union Misconduct
Last week on 'Hannity', I'm a union vs. Non-union debate, the
pro-union Andy Sullivan said he was surprised that Republicans are
wasting a "golden opportunity" to basically get into the ring and
campaign to be part of the union movement. Mr. Sullivan is a rarity in
that he supports unions but openly criticizes union leadership. While I
disagree with his assessment of the attack on Steven Crowder during the
right to work vote in Lansing, I will say that he does make a valid
point. Union bosses are notorious for greasing palms, making campaign
contributions with member dues and forcing their own agendas on the
union members as well as Americans in general via political connections.
They have no concern at all for their members. They do what they want
knowing they can simply swat down anyone that tries to challenge them.
It's because these guys all think alike. They share the same Marxist
ideology, and the same "ends justify the means" philosophy. So what can
anyone do about it? I think a great idea lies within Mr. Sullivan's
statement. Someone from the right should challenge them. I don't think
we're going to flip opinions on unions over night. And I don't think we
will ever live in a union-less society, and that may not be a bad thing.
If we manage to get some conservative leaders heading up unions, we
could certainly see a return to unions like they ought to be- fighting
to ensure fair wages and acceptable working conditions, and spending
members' dues as the members want it spent. If I were a leader of a
conservative PAC, or if I just had tons of money to spare, I would be
looking for conservative unions members and appealing to them, backing
them for leadership positions, and providing help in any form, from
funds to protection from union bosses, to promoting them to other
members. First you find someone that understands what unions SHOULD be
doing, then you throw your support behind them and get them into a
leadership position. I think Sullivan was right. We have a different
view, in my opinion a much better view, of how unions should operate. We
need to present that view and our solutions from within. Unfortunately,
because of the way many unions are currently run, it's difficult to get
those ideas recognized, and even harder to find an individual willing
to challenge the leadership for fear of retaliation. It would be quite a
task to accomplish, and it would take a lot of time, but it's certainly
not impossible to do. It's a worthy cause, to be sure. I think that if
we want to change the way unions operate and make them work for the
members but NOT against the taxpayers or the market, we have no
alternative but to do so from within. Unlike the president, we know that
real change does come from inside, if you have the fortitude to pursue
it, and the resilience to see it through. That is what must happen. And
for it to truly work, Americans need to know how Capitalism ACTUALLY
works. Yet another uphill battle, with no end in sight.
Stay Conservative, and Keep Looking to the Future
