Category Archives: jobs

It’s Not about Fair Wages

Posted on by
Reply

A letter-writer to The Wall Street Journal‘s Letters section seconded the editors’ editorial on unions and their Leftist push. The letter-writer had this in support:

Instead of focusing solely on issues like wages and benefits, union representatives demanded that the company allow different pronoun pins. They also demanded that the company cover abortion and gender-affirming care in its health plans, which the company already did.

Both the letter-writer and the editors, though, were a bit wide of the mark.

Pronoun pins and demands for far Left perks that already exist aren’t moves toward improving workers’ lot. These are moves whose sole purpose is to achieve and demonstrate union power and control for the sake of that power and control. The labor force of any particular business that is targeted by a union are merely pawns in the union’s emphatic exercise.

Driverless Trucks and Good Paying Union Jobs

Posted on by
Reply

Keith Hernandez, of Teamsters Local 727, doesn’t like driverless trucks.

Driverless trucks endanger good-paying jobs and the communities that rely on them… he says. And

Automation would remove the real-world, first-hand experience and knowledge drivers gain on the road.

No, they wouldn’t and don’t. All that “real-world, first-hand experience and knowledge” is contained in the computers that operate the autonomous vehicles. Delivery drivers are my friends and sales people, as Hernandez also claims? They may well be friendly, even friends, but that’s wholly outside of and separate from their role as drivers. And, no, neither the UPS driver, nor the FedEx, nor Amazon—nor even the Door Dash driver nor the pizza delivery guy are salesmen and women. They don’t pitch me, and I wouldn’t be interested if they did.

Driverless trucks, though, to the extent they succeed in safe, efficient, speedy delivery actually will reduce costs to consumers by taking the labor cost out of the picture. And if they don’t succeed, the truck drivers will continue to thrive in their own right.

No, leave it to a union man to take this tack. Your money belongs to the union. If it can’t get your money by forcing dues payments, it’ll try to get it by featherbedding into unneeded jobs, driving up your costs.

Self-Serving and Dishonest

Posted on by
Reply

The Chicago Teachers Union wanted to raise dues on its Chicago membership to the tune of an additional $800 per year. They claimed they wanted the additional money for

win[ning] a majority of the first 21 person fully elected school board

and

resources to fund a statewide millionaires tax campaign

Union management doesn’t care that their own union bylaws say

…our dues are not used for political purposes—so our PAC relies on extra contributions from our members to support progressive candidates….

The CTU’s dues and its PAC are entirely separate from each other. So why raise dues in order to fund political purposes? Because CTU’s management is that dishonest and that contemptuous of union members’ intelligence.

It turns out that CTU members are not as dumb as their Betters think they are. The dues increase was voted down by roughly 3:2.

Members will need to be actively vigilant, though, these Betters have shown their colors, and they’ll be back with more attempts, or they’ll simply weasel-word their way around the members’ No and go ahead, anyway. This is, after all, Chicago.

Couldn’t Possibly Be

Posted on by
Reply

It seems that more than 3 million folks once getting “Federal food aid” have stopped getting that aid. This is due, primarily, to tighter work requirement restrictions:

Under the new rules, able-bodied adults aged 18 to 64 without children under 14 must work, volunteer or participate in approved job-training programs for at least 80 hours a month. The previous age limit for work requirements was 54, and allowed exemptions for adults with children under 18.

Naturally, the Left is engaging in its manufactured angst over this.

Colleen Heflin, a professor at Syracuse University who studies food insecurity, said larger state drops like Arizona’s were “beyond anything we’ve ever seen.” Heflin said she was concerned it would result in vulnerable Americans not getting enough to eat.
“These large state drops in SNAP caseloads represent a fundamental restructuring of the food-assistance safety net,” she said. “We should expect to see a surge in food insecurity and its related negative consequences at new levels.”

Of course. The large drop couldn’t possibly be an indication of the bloat in the program and the number of ineligible folks taking the aid “beyond anything we’ve ever seen.”

And there’s Bruce Meyer, a University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy Professor, who accidentally let that cat out of the Leftists’ bag:

Most of the people who are getting food stamps are needy. When you’re cutting that many people, you’re probably cutting into some people who really do need the benefits.

It certainly should be “most,” and it should be far more than just that. Only cutting “some” who really need the benefits is a strong indicator of the amount of bloat that’s been present.

A Thought on Farmworkers and Welfare

Posted on by
Reply

Pity the poor American farmworkers. That’s what Jason Yarashes, Legal Aid Justice Center‘s Director of its Worker Justice Program, wants us to do. He was responding to an earlier Letter in which that letter-writer was lamenting the troubles that farmers are having as a side effect of our government regaining control of our borders and the ensuing lack of illegal aliens coming in to do those farmers’ farm work.

Yarashes is correct that such labor is backbreaking, and most of it goes unaccompanied by Social Security benefits or health insurance, despite paying taxes. Never mind that the illegal laborers are happy to get the work and most of them succeed in sending some of their pay back to their families in their home countries.

There’s an obvious solution to this conundrum, although it’s one that Leftists like Yarashes will decry to the heavens.

The US has a bloated collection of welfare programs, each of which is itself bloated. Most of those on these programs are able-bodied, healthy, and unemployed, even with the light work requirements attached to these programs.

Put these folks to work on the farms. Let them pick the lettuce, detassel the corn, harvest the apples and oranges, and on and on as a criterion for collecting welfare payments.

Let the farmers pay these modern day CCC workers the wages they would have paid their illegal alien workers—not Yarashes’ precious minimum wage rate—and collect their welfare payments on top of that, which the illegal aliens do not get. The kicker: the farm work is heavily seasonal, but these farm CCC-ers would be eligible for their welfare collections year-round. And: boost the farm workers’ welfare payments by some amount—say 10% as an opening move—to reward them for their actual, and harder, work than skating by on volunteering, entering “work training” programs, or scattering around resumes like so many advertising fliers.

One onus on the farmers: they would have to rate these farm CCC-ers on the quality of their work, with their eligibility for continuation in the next year’s farm work contingent on getting satisfactory ratings this year.