Tag Archives: jobs

Unions and Non-Member “Fees”

Posted on by
2

This session, the Supreme Court will hear, among other cases, Friedrichs v California Teachers Association.

On Jan 11 the court will hear arguments on whether public employees can be required to join a union or pay it a fee for collective-bargaining services.

The lawsuit contends such agreements violate First Amendment protections.

The argument is that, with public service unions, such fees also are political speech, since the unions also push for this or that domestic policy with their bargaining counterpart, the government, and there’s no way to separate out the union monies spent for bargaining outcome from those spent for political lobbying.

Such “agreements” (because paying the “fees” isn’t at all a voluntarily entered into arrangement, but a condition of having the job at all) go beyond that, though. They’re also a taking under principle of the 5th Amendment. Even though that Amendment binds the government and not private entities regarding takings, it’s not too far a stretch to apply it to the quasi-government entities of public service unions. Withal, the principle is valid, even if the Amendment itself is not strictly applicable.

Arguments in favor of the “fee” proceed from a false premise, too. “Fee” proponents argue that the payments are fair compensation for the union’s work in achieving an agreement for the nonmembers as well as the members. Of course, this is false on its face. The nonmembers are not represented by the union—that’s pretty obvious. As such, then, any arrangements between nonmembers and employers are strictly that: between the employer and the nonmember. If those arrangements look like what the union bargained for its members, oh well. They’re not required to be, and sometimes they are not.

Unions in Friedrichs also make the following argument:

If the suit prevails, public-employee unions say they could be crippled in about half the states that allow such agency shop clauses.

Couple things about that argument. One is that it may well be inconvenient to the unions (even extremely so), but that isn’t relevant. Either the “fees” are owed for the claimed services rendered, or they are not. The case should be decided on its merits, not on the basis of any supposed knock-on effects.

The other thing is this: so what?

The Bernie Sanders Economy

Posted on by
Reply

Lots of folks say Bernie Sanders, Democratic Presidential candidate and Socialist Senator from Vermont, wants the American economy to look like social democrat Europe.

Wrong. Look closer to home for the logical outcome of Sanders’ economic policies. Here’s Puerto Rico‘s “economy:”

Government debt has increased by two thirds since 2006…and exceeds 100% of gross national product. … The sales tax increased to 11.5% this year from 7% and next year will turn into a value-added tax. Since 2013 the tax on petroleum—the island’s primary fuel for generating electricity—has quintupled to $15.50 per barrel.

And

Employment laws, such as mandatory 15 days of paid vacation, and stringent job protections provide disincentives to hire. Generous welfare, housing, food stamp and health benefits discourage work. Nearly half of island residents are on Medicaid. A household can rake in 50% more in government assistance than the take-home monthly minimum wage.

The island’s 12.5% unemployment rate is misleading, coming as it does against a labor force participation rate of 40% [sic].

There’s more—lots more—but this is where President Bernie Sanders will take us, and it’s far enough.

Two Babies

Posted on by
Reply

Thirty-five years ago (nearly two generations ago), the People’s Republic of China government decreed that families in the PRC could have only one child. Ostensibly, this was to reduce population pressures on the country’s ability to feed itself. It’s also had, though, other consequences. One of them is this:

China has the world’s largest population at 1.37 billion, but its working-age population—those aged 15 to 64—is shrinking. The United Nations projects the number of Chinese people over the age of 65 will jump 85% to 243 million by 2030, up from 131 million this year.

That’s a doubling of the old-age population in just the 15 years it’ll take this year’s newly born babies to reach working age. Is the raise in the number of permitted babies per family to two sufficient to alleviate the problems brought on by the shrinking work force, with its reduced ability to produce goods and services, and food; or the problems brought on by a shrinking work force’s ability to pay for, in any way, the growing (relative to the working population as well as in absolute terms) population of elderly?

Many Chinese couples say the cost of having children is prohibitive, and some will opt to have only one child. A previous relaxation of China’s one-child policy did not lead to a significant increase in baby numbers.

“Many” is more than it sounds; it’s a significant fraction of today’s couples.

On top of that, though, most demographers say it takes 2.1 babies per woman (not just to women in marriages) just to maintain a population at a given level for developed nations. That minimum rate rises in less developed nations, as infant mortality rates rise. The PRC’s new limit of 2 babies per family (not all women) doesn’t reach the replacement rate.

Probably the raise in the limit on the number of permitted babies is insufficient.

For the Children

Posted on by
Reply

Liberals love their programs “for the children;” albeit they’re carefully paid for with OPM. Take, for instance Michelle Obama’s school lunch program, which has become a Federal government mandate—carefully paid for by the States and the school districts. But never mind, it’s for the children.

Now we get this. A food service worker in the Irving Middle School in Pocatello, ID, gave a lunch to a 12-yr-old girl who had no money to pay for it. The lunch cost all of $1.70, and the food service worker offered to pay the bill for the child.

No dice, said District 25 Director of Human Resources, Susan Petit. You’re fired, she said in her letter telling the worker that she’d been fired.

It’s for the children.

Update: The Pocatello/Chubbuck School District No 25 has apparently released a statement (it’s not available on the District’s Web site as I write this) that offers the food service worker her job back.  Buried at the bottom of the 600+ word statement was this sentence:

The District has been in communication with Ms. Bowden extending an opportunity for her to return to employment with the District.

However, as of last night, the food service worker hadn’t actually heard anything from the District, much less anything about the details of this “opportunity.”

Maybe It’s Time

Posted on by
Reply

Banks fear a growing number of employees are unwittingly exposing valuable information to hackers or in some cases leaving digital clues that make a breach possible.

And

Several banks are also increasingly testing whether their employees unintentionally leave them susceptible to hackers by falling prey to “spear-phishing” attempts, in which criminals lure recipients to click on links.

And

Weeks after JP Morgan Chase & Co was hit with a massive data breach that exposed information from 76 million households, the country’s biggest bank by assets sent a fake phishing email as a test to its more than 250,000 employees. Roughly 20% of them clicked on it, according to people familiar with the email.

There’s no excuse for employees, in this day and age, being so gullible or so careless.

If employees are going to continue to be willfully irresponsible, maybe it’s time for employers to get hard-nosed in the workplace: company equipment is for company business exclusively, including during lunch or other breaks. With firing being the default sanction for misuse.

Full stop.