Agency Fees

These are fees unions in a raft of jurisdictions are allowed to charge non-union members as a condition of those workers’ right to work at all.  Ostensibly, the fees are for the unions’ labor efforts in negotiating wages, benefits, and working conditions for everyone in the workplace.  The Supreme Court is considering a case, Janus v AFSCME, concerning whether such fees are constitutional.

It’s already the case that

Agency fees already are forbidden from paying for advocacy and other political activity.

Money is fungible, though, and even though agency fees might be barred from the purpose, the existence of the fees allows unions to reallocate equivalent money from other sources to the purpose—making it impossible actually to say that agency fees aren’t being used for the illegal purpose.  After all, if a union has $100, it can’t afford to engage in political activity.  If the union also collects a $10 agency fee from a non-union member, it now has $110, and it can afford to spend $10 on political activity, even if it’s forbidden by dollar bill serial tracking from using the non-union member’s $10 for the purpose.  Those ten bucks went illegally, however indirectly, to the political activity.

Moreover,

…plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case argue that negotiating with public agencies requires taking positions on government’s size and scope, which is a political question, so forcing employees to pay for the negotiations violates the First Amendment.

There’s the crux of the matter.  Agency fees are eminently unconstitutional, but I’m not sanguine that the Court will see it that way.  Both CJ Roberts and J Kennedy have shown themselves unreliable defenders of the Constitution, and the four Liberal Justices are a rock-solid bloc.

Against Their Own Interest

Fast food workers began protesting yesterday, demanding higher wages and the right to join a union.  Ashley Cathey, a 29-year-old Memphis fast food person, had this:

Fast-food cooks and cashiers like me are fighting for higher pay and union rights, the same things striking sanitation workers fought for 50 years ago.  We’re not striking and marching just to commemorate what they did—we’re carrying their fight forward. And we won’t stop until everyone in this country can be paid $15 an hour and has the right to join a union.

The work they do isn’t worth $15 per hour.  They’re just looking to price themselves out of their jobs, to be replaced by automated kiosks, as so many fast food restaurants already are doing.  Worse, if their unions, through strikes, force those higher wages, that will end with two outcomes: higher food prices for consumers, and from that, lessened demand for those restaurants’ fast food.  That, in turn, will result in fast food restaurants accelerating the move to kiosks or going out of business.  That last will cost not only the demanders their jobs, it’ll cost everyone in those restaurants their jobs.

And the right to join a union?  They already have that.  These folks should know that; they’re being misled by union leadership and the SJWs in the mix.

Deep States, Bureaucrats, and Incumbency

Whether the current idea of a Deep State plotting against the current administration is accurate or not, it has been clear for some period of years that bureaucrats who have been in Federal employ for too long become entrenched and begin working at cross purposes with those of their agency bosses.  The latter, being political appointees, are, at least indirectly, selected by the Federal government’s employer, us citizens.

While we can cure the overt incumbency problem of our politicians by electing others in their stead, the incumbency of bureaucrats, none of them elected, is both generally unseen and harder to correct.

There are, though, a couple of things we can do to correct this.

One is to limit the power of public unions by barring them from collecting “dues” or any other fees from non-members.  After all, rather tautologically, they don’t—can’t—represent anyone other than their members.  Non-members should be free to negotiate their own government employment contracts, and if those contracts happen to look like union contracts, that’s just a happy—or unhappy—side effect of those separate negotiations.  The wage competition also would apply downward pressure on government labor costs, to the benefit of us taxpayers who are the ones paying those wages, anyway.

It’s also important to take the government side out of the labor negotiations; although likely this is just pie in the sky.  Currently unions, when they make political donations, are donating to the politicians nominally negotiating those contracts on behalf of us taxpayers.  One possibility is to have a third-party negotiator represent us rather than those politicians, albeit this is even more pie in the sky.  Then put the union employment contracts up for final approval/rejection by plebiscite in the jurisdiction in which the contract is proposed.

Another measure is to change via legislation the nature of the employment contracts that are allowed.  Civil servant employment contracts should be limited to a five-year period with automatic expiration unless each house of Congress positively renews the contract.  Moreover, those contracts should be renewable only in three-year increments, and each renewal should be justified first by the agency for which the employee works and then by each house of Congress.

Additionally, transfers between agencies, whether permanent or temporary, should not be allowed unless the receiving agency eliminates a job position for each transfer in.  Such transfers should be for the expertise gained, not simply to increase headcount.

Finally, every five years, the public service union of relevance should be recertified, first by secret ballot vote of the union members, and then by roll-call vote in each house of Congress.

Five years is long enough to get useful work out of a new hire, and having to justify the continuation of the employment contract can help to hold down the disruptive power of bureaucrat incumbency by increasing turnover.  Requiring the public service union to recertify also can help to hold down the ability of the union to bloat off us taxpayers.

Yes, that will increase the work load of Congress.  That’s beneficial, too.  Working on this sort of thing will contribute to Congress not working on foolishness.

More Jobs

JP Morgan Chase says it’s going to spend its tax cut savings to

develop hundreds of new branches in the US, increase wages and benefits for hourly US employees, make increased small business and mortgage lending commitments, add 4,000 jobs, and increase philanthropic investments.

Nor is this a one-shot affair.  It’s a five year, $20 billion investment.  So much for pocketing the money and cutting out charity work, the loud Leftist refrain during the debates over tax reform.

As an aside, the pay raises are good and so are the additional jobs implied by the additional branches—400 of them (against an existing 5,130 branches, an 8% bump, which is also good for consumers)—openings.  But frankly, for my money, the additional jobs are more valuable than the pay raises for the existing employees.  The latter are getting a larger piece of the pie, which is good, but the former are getting their first slice—and making the pie itself bigger.

Here’s another datum.  Kim Lopdrup, Red Lobster’s CEO, is saying

Tax cuts, that’s clearly going to be stimulatory for the economy. We think that’s going to be great for the restaurant business[.]

More money left in the coffers of a small-margin business like a restaurant?  Yewbetcha.

Certainly, a couple of data points are little more than anecdotes, not a trend.  But they are promising anecdotes and well worth watching to see whether a trend develops.

This is the sort of thing, though, that the Progressive-Democratic Party opposed when they fought so hard against the just-passed tax reform bill.  It’s almost like they want Americans trapped in the Progressive-Democrat welfare cage.

Martin Feldstein Thinks the Markets are Headed for a Fall

He’s right, to an extent.  The Price-Earnings ratio for aggregated publicly owned businesses is at historic highs.  His reasoning centers on four factors: the Fed’s raising of its benchmark interest rates, which will make money cost more for businesses; the Fed’s reducing its own government bond holdings, which will contribute to upward pressure on interest rates generally; the Federal government’s needing to borrow to cover its still enormous deficits; and heretofore easy money has made the labor market too tight.

However.

There are a couple things about Feldstein’s four reasons. One is that the improving economic activity will greatly mitigate (albeit not eliminate) stock price falls by raising business earnings to meet those falling stock prices—both the numerator and the denominator of the P/E ratio, after all, are dynamic, not only the numerator (albeit the one is capable of moving faster than the other).  Prices won’t fall as far as Feldstein seems to think.

Another thing is that Feldstein’s third reason is a prime argument for the Progressive-Democratic Party to get out of the way and allow Federal spending to be cut.

A third thing is that Feldstein is overstating the case in his fourth reason.  The labor market isn’t as tight as it might seem, given that the underemployed per centage remains at elevated levels, as does the number of workers who’ve left the labor market because they’ve given up; the latter is a population that can be persuaded to return to the labor force.