Tag Archives: jobs

A Reason

Posted on by
Reply

…to decertify public “service” unions. And to terminate for cause the government’s “negotiators” for agreeing to such a thing.

Under the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act, “official time” was named, and it allows public service union members to use company time—that is, time they’re formally working for the government in a government job as a government employee—to do union administrative things. Doing union-specific work on the government’s clock also means they’re being paid by the government—by us taxpayers—to do union, and not government, work.

The thinking behind this little fillip was the premise that the union bargains in the name of all government employees, whether they’re union members or not, and this was a way to compensate the union for those alleged extra costs.

Like all sweetheart deals, this one has gotten out of hand.

According to the Office of Personnel Management, in 2012 (the most recent year there are statistics for) federal workers spent 3.4 million man-hours on union issues and not the work they were hired for. OPM estimates the cost to taxpayers was more than $157 million.

What’s more, at two government agencies that would seem least able to afford a loss of manpower—the Veterans Affairs Department and IRS—hundreds of workers spent 100% of their time doing union work. At the VA, 259 employees worked solely on union issues. At the IRS—which only disclosed their statistics when the National Review sent them a Freedom of Information Act request—the number was 201.

But wait—there’s more:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 939,000 federal workers belonged to a union in 2014. Another 139,000 were covered by collective bargaining agreements, but weren’t in a union. That brings the total number of employees covered by the unions to 31.6% of the total federal workforce.

However, there’s no requirement for any union to bargain for non-union employees, nor is there any requirement for any employer—even the government—to apply union contract terms to non-union members. Indeed, there’s no requirement for non-union employees to accept union contract terms as their own employment terms.

And so there are no costs for bargaining for the benefit of non-union employees. There never has been, requirement or cost; those are just fictions peddled by self-serving union leadership in order to get more money for union coffers.

Hence my call for decertification and termination.

These Explain a Lot

Posted on by
Reply

Joseph Clancy, Secret Service Director, testified before a House Appropriations subcommittee, and this loose exchange between Clancy and Congressman Chris Stewart (R, UT) ensued:

Clancy: It’s going to take time to change maybe some of this culture. There’s no excuse for this information not to come up the chain. That’s going to take time because I’m going to have to build trust with our workforce. And the best way for me to work or earn that trust with our workforce is by my actions.

Stewart: I understand what you’re trying to do. I really do. But when you say, I have to set an example, I have to earn their trust. Dude, you don’t have to earn their trust. You’re their boss. They’re supposed to earn your trust.

And this:

The Secret Service director said he didn’t learn about the March 4 incident until five days later from an anonymous email, a delay he described as unacceptable. He said he delivered a “good, stern talk” to his staff upon learning he was kept in the dark.

“Good, stern talk?” Why is the head of that staff still on Clancy’s payroll?

Hmm….

Of Course He Will

Posted on by
Reply

The National Labor Relations Board, the union arm of the Wagner Act, enacted a rule a few weeks ago that allows unions to hold organizing votes in non-union companies before company management has a chance to respond.

The Senate passed a resolution canceling the NLRB’s rule with a party line oriented vote. The House is taking up the bill and is expected to pass it as well, and with a party line oriented vote.

President Barack Obama, who succeeded in packing the NLRB for this sort of purpose, is expected to veto the resolution.

Of course he will. Remember this veto in 2016.

A Number of People Predicted This

Posted on by
1

The first stage of the Seattle-mandated $15/hr minimum wage, to $11/hr, takes effect next month, but already Seattle’s low wage workers are feeling the pain of their pay “raise.”

…the city is experiencing a rising trend in restaurant closures.

The closings have occurred across the city, from Grub in the upscale Queen Anne Hill neighborhood, to Little Uncle in gritty Pioneer Square, to the Boat Street Cafe on Western Avenue near the waterfront.

The shut-downs have idled dozens of low-wage workers, the very people advocates say the wage law is supposed to help. Instead of delivering the promised “living wage” of $15 an hour, economic realities created by the new law have dropped the hourly wage for these workers to zero.

After all,

About 36% of restaurant earnings go to paying labor costs.

Restaurants operate on thin margins, though, with average profits of 4% or less….

The Seattle Eater offered a more itemized breakout [emphasis added]:

Bottom line, labor can only be a function of sales. If a busy restaurant at lunch serves 150 eaters during the lunch hour, and each person spends $15, the restaurant just grossed $2,250. If labor comprises significantly more than 30%, the restaurant won’t be in business for long. So that allows $675 total for labor for the day, and before the employer taxes we pay that allows $550 or so. At $15 an hour, that allows 36 labor hours, which means four people can work a full day. This assumes that everyone is making the new minimum. Now look around in a busy restaurant serving 150 people—do you see more than 4 employees? Of course you do.

The 16.2% increase in labor cost that first stage represents over Seattle’s current $9.47/hr minimum wage represents a total cost increase of nearly 6%—turning that 4% profit margin into a loss. Even taking Brendan McGill’s (Chef/Owner, Hitchcock, Hitchcock Deli and the gentleman quoted just above by the Seattle Eater) estimate of 30% labor costs, that spike in the minimum wage coming in a week or so works out to just under a 5% increase in total costs, still wiping out that 4% margin. No wonder restaurants are closing.

The question remains: are the targeted low-wage folks better off for being out of an $11-$15/hr job than they are for having a $9.47/hr job? Really?

Another question: how many other low-wage industries besides the food services one are getting hammered by this minimum wage law?

A final thought: maybe next, to cover Seattle’s minimum wage requirement, Seattle will impose a minimum business profit requirement on Seattle’s taxpayers.

 

…including AEI‘s Mark Perry, to whom h/t

Of Course They Did

Posted on by
Reply

Several unions filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging the constitutionality of a recent Wisconsin law which bans mandatory union dues as a condition of employment.

Because they claim a higher right to the fruits of a man’s labor—his wages—than the man earning those wages has.

According to The Associated Press the unions are arguing that the law violates their constitutional rights because it requires unions to act on behalf of workers who are no longer required to pay union dues.

Of course, this is nonsense. Nothing in the law prevents unions and employers from negotiating contracts exclusively for union members. Nothing in the law requires employers and non-union members to use the unions’ contracts as their own. That employers and non-union members might find the shortcut handy is irrelevant. The employers and non-union members may very well negotiate better contracts than the unions did.

And, of course, the unions have no claim on non-union members’ wages, or anything else of theirs, from those non-members’ negotiations on their own behalf. Federal law, as well as Wisconsin’s law, makes this clear. James Sherk, The Heritage Foundation Senior Policy Analyst in Labor Economics:

Federal law [the National Labor Relations Act ] does not require a union to act as an Exclusive Representative. The choice of whether to be an Exclusive Representative or Member Only remains with the union.