Matters Of Opinion

Union Stands Ground…On Republican Donations?

Ok. So first, I want to say that I have been reviewing the educational reforms proposed by Governor Daniels, and the bills that have been put forth, and will very soon give my official critique of those reforms. Some I like, some I’m not crazy about, but I’ll get into specifics on my next piece.

This piece doesn’t concern those reforms, after all. This piece has to do with the article that the Times ran a couple of days ago regarding Local 150 and it’s contributions to Republican causes. Excerpts taken from the aforementioned Times piece:

“Local No. 150 of the International Union of Operating Engineers, with local offices in Merrillville, last year gave a $5,000 contribution to the Aiming Higher Political Action Committee, according to campaign finance records at the Indiana secretary of state’s website.

Aiming Higher, established by Gov. Mitch Daniels, spent $1.5 million on television ads in the last election to retake the Indiana House for Republicans, which laid the groundwork for this week’s effort to try to pass right-to-work legislation.

In addition, Local 150 donated $50,000 to the Mitch for Governor Campaign in the 2008 election cycle, according to campaign finance records. The Indiana Council of Carpenters poured $20,000 into Daniels’ campaign.”

There are a couple of different aspects that I would like to address. The first, and primary, aspect, is that fans of Mitch go far beyond typical party lines. Yes, a lot of Republicans are fans of Mitch, and yes, he is a “blade” when it comes to slashing budgets (which moderate, libertarian, and far right Republicans can all appreciate), but he is also favored by many a different kind of voter. Many unions (including, apparently, 150) and union members like Mitch because he has helped to stem the tide when it comes to jobs disappearing in this state. I remember the last election, reading a Post-Tribune article, where several black Gary voters were announcing their support for Mitch. These all go outside the bounds of the stereotypical Republican voter, and helps to show why Mitch, as a Presidential candidate, would have a good chance of winning.

The second aspect is that, though I am personally for Indiana becoming a “right to work” state (as previously written), Mitch has been on record saying that he doesn’t want that bill passed right now because, quite simply, it wasn’t a campaign promise. This is important because at least SOME unions are able to recognize that the agendas of Governor Daniels and those that are in the House or Senate are not always parallel. Which means that, though some of the union big shots will certainly paint Mitch as an orchestrator of all of this, there are some that won’t take the bait, and that is good, because it increases the odds if Daniels decides to run.

The fact that Democrats, instead of standing their ground and just voting no in opposition to different legislation, are instead deciding to run to Illinois is an important factor as well. I had honestly thought that this scenario would play out:

Because many people were, at the beginning of this whole conundrum, were on the sides of teachers and union members, I thought that R’s would lose some seats. A handful, but enough to cause some calamity in future races. Because they decided, rather, to cut and run to a Democratic state that is consistently raising taxes and just allowed Rahm Emanual to win as mayor of Chicago, moderates and Independents have been changing their minds. On a recent poll I have seen, only 39% of those polled are in agreement with teachers unions, with 46% against. As written at the start of this post, I’ll be writing soon about my own thoughts regarding education reforms, but regardless, this is a bad sign for Democrats.

Because they are overplaying their hand, and consistently adding to their demands (ranging from the killing of right to work legislation, which has been met already, to the killing of illegal immigration reform much like Arizona’s), more and more people are seeing this tactic for what it really is: the hostage taking of our government by the minority.

The longer the Democrats hide out, the better it will turn out for Republicans, I think, and particularly Daniels if he makes a 2012 run. People don’t have a problem with protesting, and they don’t have a problem with differing opinions (I know I don’t), but when it gets to this point people get fed up REAL quick.

“Right To Work” Legislation Ruffles Feathers

It isn’t surprising that Indiana and Wisconsin are trying to pass “right to work” legislation; the benefits are immense and undermine the union leaders (not so much the union workers, but I’ll get to that later).

What is right to work? At it’s very core, it basically allows for a person to work at a place without being forced to join the union, which is standard practice at many mills, including my own place of work. There are other aspects, which will be covered, but that is the meat and potatoes of the legislation.

I, for one, am all for Indiana becoming a right to work state. No, I’m not “anti-union”, as I’ve covered on at least a dozen other posts, but I am skeptical of anybody who tells me that they have my best interests at mind, and yes, this includes the union. The biggest reason that the union bosses (my own unions VP had his picture in the newspaper, hooping and hollering along with the rest of the union members there, making me oh so proud) are against this legislation is simple; it’s all about the almighty dollar. Less people deciding to join the union makes for less union dues which, in turn, makes for less dollars for those in charge. Those in charge would love to tell you all day that this would bankrupt the union and that those dollars are needed for everyday funding, but my response would be that maybe they could save some money by not flying down to Mexico to try to unionize people that aren’t even American citizens, let alone union members who live and work in Northwest Indiana. Just saying.

The statistics on job growth and income ratio’s for right to work states tell it all.

» Twenty-two states and Guam are currently governed by Right to Work statutes.

» If Indiana had adopted Right to Work in 1977, per-capita income would have been $2,925 higher — or $11,700 higher for a family of four — by 2008. (1)

» Projecting the same growth rate in the next 10 years after adjusting for inflation, passage of a Right to Work law in 2011 would raise per capita income by $968, or $3,872 for a family of four, by 2021. (1)

» The primary goal of any Right to Work law is to safeguard employee rights by ensuring that no worker is forced to join or pay tribute to a union against his or her will. But it’s nice to know that Right to Work states also enjoy faster growth and higher real purchasing power than their forced unionism counterparts.

Here’s an excerpt from the National Institute for Labor Relations Research’s latest fact sheet on the issue:
Percentage Growth in Real Personal Income (1999-2009)

§ Right to Work States: 28.3 percent

§ Forced-Unionism States: 14.7 percent

§ National Average: 19.5 percent

Cost of Living-Adjusted Per Capita Disposable Personal Income (2009)

§ Right to Work States: $35,543

§ Forced-Unionism States: $33,389

§ National Average: $34,256 (2)

» As of 2008, according to economists Barry Hirsch and David Macpherson, 8.4 percent of private-sector employees nationwide were under “exclusive” union representation. But in 15 states — Alaska, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin — 10.0 percent or more of private-sector workers were unionized.

» In 2008, cost of living-adjusted average weekly earnings in the states with 10.0 percent or more of private-sector employees subject to union monopoly bargaining were $770. That’s $48 less than the average in the states with private-sector unionization of 5.0 percent or less. (These low-union density states are: Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Virginia.)

That comes to a roughly $2500-a-year disadvantage for full-time workers in states with high monopoly-bargaining density.

» Aggregate cost of living-adjusted weekly earnings for states with private-sector union density of 5.1 percent to 9.9 percent were $783, or, for full-time workers, nearly $700 a year more than in the highest-union-density states, but more than $1,800 a year less than in the lowest-union-density states. (3)

(1) Dr. Richard Vedder, Ohio University, Feb. 1, 2011
(2) Will Collins, National Institute for Labor Relations Research, Nov. 15, 2010
(3) NILRR, Aug. 28, 2009

Of course, this doesn’t matter much to those that have a vested interest in keeping states like Wisconsin (where the yellow belly’s that call themselves elected officials have decided to cut and run to avoid moving forward; you know, it’s times like these I think of the bull crap that Republicans had to endure with the ramming of health care legislation down our throats from DC and I remind myself of the dignity and respect that we had, for the most part, compared to those that would just up and run like weasels) and Indiana away from the successful right to work formula and retained in the union boss’s grips.

I actually first heard about the formation of these recent rallies about a month ago. I was able to get my hands on the talking points list handed out to those that are attending, and I read it in disbelief. Let’s start by outlining how this paper is worded. The very first sentence tells it all: Dangerous, anti-middle class legislation is at our doorstep. Really?! Another excerpt, from the center of the pamphlet: Who are “they”? The right wing, the rich, the powerful, the same companies and people who have tried to take our jobs overseas and turn us into a service-sector economy (sorry, had to jump in here to mention that Clinton DID sign NAFTA, and the biggest reason we are turning INTO a service-sector economy is for two reasons. One, that companies are being waged out of business by rising legacy costs and retirement/wage deals struck, and two, more and more kids are going to college, and those that aren’t don’t have the balls to work in a mill, they’d rather work at McDonald’s) where a few get very rich and everyone else is left to fight for the scraps. This is, of course, rhetoric meant to rile up the base (which, by reading through, they apparently think their base is stupid).

The pamphlet continues on to note the “myths” and “facts” of right to work legislation. I’d write it all out word for word, but it would take forever, so I’ll paraphrase much of it. The pamphlet refutes the claim that workers can be forced to join the union, noting that one can become a “Beck Objector”. By becoming a “Beck Objector”, you choose not to become a member of the union, meaning you have no membership right what so ever. Ok, I thought, let’s take a look at how this would work. The pamphlet seems to make a valid point. However, this is where right to work would still become necessary. After review, I found some instances of people that had tried that method, and ended up getting the screw. Almost all places of business have at least a thirty day review process where the union decides whether or not they are to be admitted. It’s actually pretty simple; they vote no, the company fires them. Sure, the company doesn’t HAVE to fire them, but it keeps a balance and keeps work flow from slowing down (which, if we’re talking about loop holes here, is a sure fire way for the unions to get what they want. While it’s technically against contract to do so, it’s hard to actually PROVE that a slow down in work is happening).

The pamphlet continues, claiming the most backwards economics I’ve ever read in my life. Supposedly, and I quote, a right to work law will “create a climate in which businesses will increase profits because of lower wages (which is wrong, right to work does not lower wages, in fact it creates more opportunity for good workers to have increased wages, but I digress) but that’s not good for the state or it’s workers. When wages fall, state revenues from income tax and sales tax fall as well.” Yeah, ok, so let’s ignore the fact that right to work states don’t lower wages, but actually increase them, as noted earlier in this article. Also, let’s ignore the fact that increase profits in businesses is never bad, because it means increases in job growth. So, what they are telling me,is that while they are downstate protesting cuts in unemployment (which has been cited in the local paper) they are also protesting increase in business profits are, there fore, increases in jobs, which would help to negate the need for decreases in unemployment, because unemployment would begin to go down, which would mean the state wouldn’t have to cut things nearly as much as they currently are doing. That, to me, makes no sense at all.

One of the last points on the pamphlet states that no union dues are used for political activities, that members have to elect to allow their dues to be used. Sure, this might mean that my dollar doesn’t go directly towards, say, President Obama’s re-election campaign, but it was used to make that pamphlet, wasn’t it? It was used to send people down to Indy in a bus, wasn’t it? Don’t tell me that my dues don’t help out with politics that I don’t agree with, because just me reading this load of garbage on a pamphlet not suitable to wipe my ass with is enough to make me want every dollar I’ve had to give to them back in my wallet, with interest.

There is one area that I have to agree with the unions. Part of the legislation states that those that choose to opt out of the union would still be afforded union protection; that needs to go. Right to work is all about fairness and choice for the workers, and it isn’t fair for those that pay their monetary dues if a person that doesn’t pay is afforded those that exact same protection. It would be like forcing all lawyers to represent clients, even if they can’t pay. It’s not right. But, even if that isn’t taken out of the bill, I still have my support behind it, because realistically, just because a union official is forced to represent a person doesn’t guarantee that that representation will be worth a damn. Heck, that already happens, so it wouldn’t be a leap from normality.

All in all, right to work legislation is a winner, and I think that once it passes and the dust settles, and the actual union workers are looking around, realizing that they still have their jobs and haven’t had their pay reduced, that it will be highly beneficial to this state and will reap rewards both for the workers AND the business owners.

WRITERS EDIT:

This aspect of right to work is written from the private sector point of view only. I hadn’t realized until later on that I had not clarified that, and I apologize. This does not take into account other aspects of pending legislation, particularly dealing with possible education reforms. The main reason for that is simple; I don’t write about what I’m not sure of, and I have yet to form a concrete opinion on the educational reforms proposed. Also, as a couple of emails have noted, though my use of the word “retarded” was of a literal sense, the word has connotations associated with it that may offend and take away from the piece itself. I have since changed that wording, and apologize if you were offended; no offense or ridicule was meant from the use of that word. Thank you.

You Have The Right To Remain…Talkative and High?

Ok. Let’s go through the list of things that qualify as a “right”. A “right”, as defined in the Dictionary, has many different meaning, but the one that we are covering today is:

Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.

The problem that I always have with the left is that EVERYTHING ends up being a right. We have the right to health care, according to the left (even if others are being forced to pay for it). We have a right to a job, according to many on the left (even if it means hiring those that are unqualified over those that are). And now, we, apparently, through governmental assistance, have a right to a cell phone.

I received some junk mail a few weeks ago from Assurance Wireless, in connection to Virgin Mobile. I didn’t give it too much of a hard look until the other day, when I started to scroll through exactly what the paper was. It was an application to qualify for a FREE cell phone and FREE wireless service. In order to qualify for this? I would have to prove that I am either on Medicaid, Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income, or one of the other programs on the extensive list.

Now, Virgin Mobile isn’t in the business of handing out free crap, so you know they are being reimbursed in full from the government. The only thing is, I can’t remember ever hearing about this, and this is something that should have perked my ears, because it essentially puts “cell phone rights” into the same category as, oh, I don’t know, liberty? The pursuit of happiness? Where, oh where, does the government get off thinking that everyone is in NEED of a cell phone? And before you yammer off the “in case of emergencies” talking points, realize that every cell phone, even if it isn’t activated, will call 911 from it. It’s a fact. So that still doesn’t explain the need for:

*250 FREE minutes, each month, for nationwide Local and Long-distance!

*FREE voice mail account!

*Caller ID!

*Not to mention the FREE Assurance Wireless Phone! All with no long term contracts, bills, activation fees, recurring fees, or surcharges!

This is so perplexing to me. How is this company applying for their federal assistance? Does this essentially mean that people can use food stamps to pay for a cell phone? Since WHEN has a cell phone been a right, and where does that end?

People wonder why I’m weary of welfare programs. Welfare programs are supposed to be for the ESSENTIALS. I understand food stamps, and unemployment benefits, and the like, as long as they are put at a low level. These programs aren’t supposed to make you live COMFORTABLY, just LIVE. It’s supposed to be enough to keep food in your mouths, roofs over your head, and a diaper on your baby. That’s it. But, alas, it never seems to be enough for those that feel that they are entitled to minutes, paid for with OUR tax dollars, on their cell phones. Not just minutes, mind you, but a FREE CELL PHONE. This is ridiculous. The fact that such a program exists helps to prove my point that welfare is a defunct system.

This brings me to my second point that has been proposed in the past and should certainly be a requirement to qualify for any kind of welfare: drug tests. If I have to pass a drug test in order to work, somebody that is receiving government assistance should have to pass one to receive their benefits. Would it be a costly endeavor? I suppose so, if you did it to every single person who applies. The nurses would have to be paid, the labs would have to paid to process the urine, etc., etc. However, just like my work has done in the past (and lots of other employers), random drug tests work as a good deter-ant. If the government took a handful of random welfare recipients each month and called them in for drug tests, this would keep a good majority of them from spending our tax money on drugs.

No matter what ones view on drug use is, whether it be complete outlawing or decriminalization or flat out legalization, the common thread that should bind these three groups together should be, I hope, that no outside person should have to pay for another person to get high. Most people don’t have a problem forking over some tax dollars here and there to ensure that those that can’t help themselves are able to put food on their kids’ plates and a roof over their families heads. But a line is crossed when people use those funds wrongly. Don’t tell me that it doesn’t happen, either. I’ve heard people at work brag about selling food stamps in exchange for cash. After the bad flooding that happened a couple of years back, over half the people in the locker room were bragging about waiting in line to receive free food stamps from FEMA. They didn’t have to show ANY proof, what so ever, that they had had any flood damage. It was, and is, a disgusting abuse of the system, and these abuses should be shut down whenever possible. We can start by not paying for peoples cell phones and their drugs and go from there.