Labor Day

"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them." — American writer H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Labor Day began over 100 years. To appreciate it, one needs to know the history preceding it.

At the time the United States was founded, most jobs were agricultural or in trades, such as blacksmiths, cobblers, bakers, upholsterers, etc. Then the Industrial Revolution began with the harnessing of water and steam power, leading to the creation of factories which could mass produce items inexpensively. Most factories were located in the Northern States.

In early United States history, there was no Income Tax, as the Federal Government was funded primarily from:

Excise Taxes on items like salt, tobacco, liquor; and

Tariff Taxes on imports making them more expensive, so people would buy goods produced in American factories.

The problem was that the Tariff Taxes that helped the North, hurt the South, as the South had no factories to protect. At one point, nearly 90% of the Federal Budget was from Tariff Taxes collected at Southern Ports, fueling the animosity which led up to the Civil War.

After the Civil War, the North passed more Tariff Taxes which allowed factories to grow enormous.

Inventions and advances in manufacturing made more and more goods available to the masses of people at cheaper and cheaper prices, resulting in the fastest increase in the standard of living and per capita income for common men and women in world history.

New ways of making stronger steel led to the building of bridges, buildings, steamboats, and mining machinery. Railroads now could take people safely and inexpensively across the entire nation opening up unprecedented mobility and opportunity. Immigrants arriving in America could get jobs working in factories.

George Pullman founded a Pullman Railroad Sleeping Car Company in Illinois just outside of Chicago. He saw that workers needed a place to live, so he built them houses in a safe little village around the factory. Their rent was deducted from their paychecks and they were paid in company script.

There were company owned grocery stores. It was thought to be a utopian workers' community and worked well for over a decade. Then something happened. In 1893, there was a nationwide financial panic and orders for railroad sleeping cars declined.

George Pullman had to lay off hundreds of employees, and make cuts in wages to the rest, though the rent and groceries stayed the same price. Employees walked out, demanding lower rents and higher pay.

Growing discontent provided a seedbed for Karl Marx's theory of class struggle and Communist redistribution of wealth.

A young worker named Eugene V. Debs led a strike of workers, and railroad workers across the nation boycotted trains carrying Pullman cars. There was rioting, pillaging, and burning of railroad cars. It became a national issue when mail trains were interrupted.

Democrat President Grover Cleveland declared the strike a federal crime and deployed 12,000 troops to break the strike. More violence erupted, and two men were killed.

In 1882, Matthew Maguire, a machinist, first proposed the holiday while serving as secretary of the CLU (Central Labor Union) of New York. Others argue that it was first proposed by Peter J. McGuire of the American Federation of Labor in May 1882, after witnessing the annual labor festival held in Toronto, Canada.

Oregon was the first state to make it a holiday in 1887. By the time it became a federal holiday in 1894, thirty states officially celebrated Labor Day. Following the deaths of a number of workers at the hands of the U.S. military and U.S. Marshals during the Pullman Strike, the United States Congress unanimously voted to approve rush legislation that made Labor Day a national holiday; President Grover Cleveland signed it into law a mere six days after the end of the strike. The September date originally chosen by the CLU of New York and observed by many of the nation's trade unions for the past several years was selected rather than the more widespread International Workers' Day because Cleveland was concerned that observance of the latter would be associated with the nascent Communist, Syndicalist and Anarchist movements that, though distinct from one another, had rallied to commemorate the Haymarket Affair in International Workers' Day. All U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and the territories have made it a statutory holiday.

It was an election year, and Grover Cleveland thought it would help his re-election if he appeased the workers, so he pushed through a National Labor Day. He chose the first Monday in September, rather than May 1, as he did not want it to be in coordination with the Communist "International Workers Day.

Eugene Debs went to prison and Cleveland lost the election, but Labor Day remained a national holiday.

Unions successfully advocated the 8 hour day, the 40 hour work week, minimum wages, safer working conditions, and more benefits for workers. With these unprecedented improvements came a consequence: "out-sourcing."

After World War II America helped rebuild Germany and Japan. And a global economy emerged. With newer factories and cheaper labor, foreign countries could produce items for less, whereas in America costs continued to increase with:

• Higher wages;
• Increased taxes;
• Expensive lawsuits;
• Burdensome government regulations;
• Greater environmental restrictions; and
• Crony capitalism, where government favors particular companies which support a political agenda, leaving other companies at a financial disadvantage.

These cost increases resulted in American made goods being more expensive as compared to foreign made goods.

As people bought less American made products, American factories shut down and jobs disappeared.

In 1950, about 50 percent of workers were union members, but today it has shrunk to around 7.6 percent in the private sector. But the power and influence of the public sector and teachers unions has been growing since the 1970’s and today the number of public sector and teacher union members far surpass those of the counterparts in the private sector.

America's increasingly uncertain economic future is weakening its international influence. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who spent 11 years in Communist prisons and labor camps, warned in Washington, D.C., on June 30, 1975:

"I would like to call upon America to be more careful with its trust and prevent those, because of short-sightedness and still others out of self-interest, from falsely using the struggle for peace and for social justice to lead you down a false road. Because they are trying to weaken you; they are trying to disarm your strong and magnificent country in the face of this fearful threat. I call upon you: ordinary working men of America. Do not let yourselves become weak."

To bring jobs back to America, the answer is as simple as making it more profitable for factories to be located here than there.

Today’s labor movement is a far cry from the days of Matthew Maguire and Eugene V. Debs. It is no longer concerned with workers in the private sector. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2011, the union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of a union — was 11.8 percent, essentially unchanged from 11.9 percent in 2010 of wage and salary workers belonging to unions, at 14.8 million, also showed little movement over the year. In 1983, the first year for which comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent and there were 17.7 million union workers.

In 2011, 7.6 million employees in the public sector belonged to a union, compared with 7.2 million union workers in the private sector. The union membership rate for public-sector workers (37.0 percent) was substantially higher than the rate for private-sector workers (6.9 percent). Within the public sector, local government workers had the highest union membership rate, 43.2 percent. This group includes workers in heavily unionized occupations, such as teachers, police officers, and firefighters. Private-sector industries with high unionization rates included transportation and utilities (21.1 percent) and construction (14.0 percent), while low unionization rates occurred in agriculture and related industries (1.4 percent) and in financial activities (1.6 percent).

Some of the highlights from the 2011 data are:

• Public-sector workers had a union membership rate (37.0 percent) more than five times higher than that of private-sector workers (6.9 percent). To
• Workers in education, training, and library occupations had the highest unionization rate, at 36.8 percent, while the lowest rate occurred in sales and related occupations (3.0 percent). (See table )
• Black workers were more likely to be union members than were white, Asian, or Hispanic workers. (See table)
• Among states, New York continued to have the highest union membership rate (24.1 percent) and North Carolina again had the lowest rate (2.9 percent). (See table)

In 2011, 7.6 million employees in the public sector belonged to a union, compared with 7.2 million union workers in the private sector. The union membership rate for public-sector workers (37.0 percent) was substantially higher than the rate for private-sector workers (6.9 percent). Within the public sector, local government workers had the highest union membership rate, 43.2 percent. This group includes workers in heavily unionized occupations, such as teachers, police officers, and firefighters. Private-sector industries with high unionization rates included transportation and utilities (21.1 percent) and construction (14.0 percent), while low unionization rates occurred in agriculture and related industries (1.4 percent) and in financial activities (1.6 percent).

Among occupational groups, education, training, and library occupations (36.8 percent) and protective service occupations (34.5 percent) had the highest unionization rates in 2011. Sales and related occupations (3.0 percent) and farming, fishing, and forestry occupations (3.4 percent) had the lowest unionization rates.

When it comes to money collected from public sector union dues the Democrats are the largest recipients by far with the National Education Association ($6,800,167) and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees ($4,235,500) leading the pack.

Public employee unions represent workers at every level of government – federal, state and local. Since contract negotiations for these workers are dependent not on private corporations, but on the size of government budgets, this is the one segment of the labor movement that can actually contribute directly to the people with ultimate responsibility for its livelihood. While their giving pattern matches that of other unions (which overwhelmingly support Democrats), public sector unions also concentrate contributions on members of Congress from both parties who sit on committees that deal with federal budgets and agencies. (You can see more statistics on this by clicking here)

Union bosses have made such a big deal about being upset with the DNC’s pick of Charlotte, North Carolina for its convention (even going so far as having an August “shadow convention”) that, while they may be in the state for the Barack Obama nomination celebration, they’re making every effort to make it look like they’re absent. As noted above North Carolina is a “Right to Work State” with the lowest percentage of union membership (2.9 percent) in the nation.

Adding insult to injury, not only is North Carolina the least unionized state in the nation, the stadium where Barack Obama is giving his acceptance speech was built by entirely union-free labor.

The lack of union support (and money) at the convention is likely why the DNC is giving away free tickets to people from neighboring states to go and watch Obama’s acceptance speech on Thursday.

Although about a dozen of the building trade unions, along with Machinists’ union boss Tom Buffenbarger are boycotting (and some plan to protest) the Democrats’ celebration, other union bosses are attending the convention. However, they are taking fewer members and a much lower profile than past conventions. It should also be noted that the unions are upset over Obama’s cancelation of the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that would have created 20,000 union jobs.

Eight years ago, when John Kerry tried to defeat the incumbent George W. Bush, he accused Bush of leading a “jobless recovery.” When the economy started creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, Kerry and the Democrats then claimed that Bush was creating mostly “McJobs,” low-wage, non-union positions rather than higher-paying jobs for people with significant skills.

Today, the Obama administration keeps claiming to have added 4.3 million jobs by choosing to start from February 2010 rather than the start of the recovery in June 2009 or the passage of Barack Obama's stimulus package in February 2009. The Obama recovery in full has only added less than 65,000 jobs per month, far below the level needed to keep up with population growth (125K-150K per month), and the civilian population participation rate has fallen to a 30-year low this spring. A new study now shows that even those jobs that have been added are the “McJobs" that Kerry inaccurately accused Bush's recovery of generating. We're not even keeping up with population growth in this recovery. The average jobs added per month since January has been 83,286, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, still a long way from keeping up with population growth. That's not a recovery in jobs at all, which anyone looking at the participation rate (63.7%) would instantly recognize. The data shows that even the paltry job creation of the Obama recovery has done little to advance the economy. Businesses won't invest in job-creating activities that require more expensive labor until they can reliably calculate future costs, which in this regulatory and tax environment, they cannot do. That's why companies are sitting on their capital, and why we won't get anything but McJobs in significant numbers until those policies change.

You can see that there is a split in today’s labor movement. Unlike the 1950s when 50% of American Workers belonged to unions — the vast majority in the private sector, particularly in manufacturing and construction — today’s labor movement is much more focused on the public sector employee. Unlike the private sector unions where the health of the business economy influences the wages and benefits the public sector unions are bankrupting the United States with their wage demands. Pensions, health and welfare costs, and work rules. It is the American Taxpayer that bears the financial burden for their demands.

Public Sector and Teachers Unions are Bankrupting America

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt, letter to Luther C. Steward, President of the National Federation of Federal Employees, of August 16, 1937.

In his August 19, 1937 letter to Luther C. Steward, the president of the National Federation of Public Employees F.D.R. went on to say:

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

In 1955 George Meany, considered by many to be the father of the labor movement in the United States, said this about public sector unions:

“Nothing could be further from the truth. The main function of American trade unions is collective bargaining. It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government. Unions, as well as employers, would vastly prefer to have even Government regulation of labor-management relations reduced to a minimum consistent with the protection of the public welfare.”

That wasn’t Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul, or Ronald Reagan talking. That was George Meany — the former president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O — in 1955. Government unions are unremarkable today, but the labor movement once thought the idea absurd.

The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. F.D.R. considered this “unthinkable and intolerable.”

Government collective bargaining means voters do not have the final say on public policy. Instead their elected representatives must negotiate spending and policy decisions with unions. That is not exactly democratic — a fact that unions once recognized.

George Meany was not alone. Up through the 1950s, unions widely agreed that collective bargaining had no place in government. But starting with Wisconsin in 1959, states began to allow collective bargaining in government. The influx of dues and members quickly changed the union movement’s tune, and collective bargaining in government is now widespread. As a result unions can now insist on laws that serve their interests — at the expense of the common good.

In 1977 State Senator Ralph C. Dills (Democrat-32^nd California Senatorial District authored the infamous act bearing his name authorizing collective bargaining for public sector unions in California. The bill was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown in 1978, and as Frederic Bastiat stated; the unseen consequences began.

California is the nation's shameful example of what happens when Democrats influenced by big-government labor rule the statehouse for forty years. Jane Jamison wrote a very comprehensive article of the effects of the Dills’ Act in American Thinker in 2010:

“With 12.5% unemployment (up from 4.5% a mere three years ago) and a "recognized" budget deficit of $21 billion, California has just found that out it is in much, much more financial trouble than anyone, especially a Democrat, really wants to admit.

California's governor Schwarzenegger commissioned a study by Stanford University, which has found that California's three public employee pension funds (The California Public Employees' Retirement System [CalPERS], California State Teachers' Retirement System [CalSTRS], and University of California Retirement System [UCRS]) lost $109.7 billion in portfolio value in one year (June '08 to June '09) and are currently in shortfall of "more than half a trillion dollars."

By law, California taxpayers are required to pay the public employees' pensions shortfalls that may occur. Local governments cannot "print money" as the federal government does to cover budget deficits.

What should have been considered a huge scandal in the state pension fund system in the past year got little attention but is more pertinent now: The two largest plans, CalPERS and CalSTRS, were reportedly near bankruptcy in 2009 after it was learned the funds had lost from 25%-41% of their value due to risky investments in real estate and the stock market. Former employees of the state plans were accused in January of getting huge fees to direct pension investments to certain banks or ventures.”

…..

“Since Brown gave them a green light in the 1970s, public employee unions have become a muscular, dominating force in California politics. State employee unions spent a whopping $31.7 million on state races just from 2001-2006, according to the California Fair Political Practices commission -- higher than any other group, including corporations. The majority-Democrat California legislature has voted accordingly.”

There is a great new book available that explores the effects of government workers unions on our economy and politics. In his book, Government Unions and the Bankrupting of America, Daniel DiSalvo explains how Government-workers unions have been political juggernauts in the U.S. since the collective bargaining rights revolution of the 1960s and 70s. DiSalvo exposes how these unions have created cartels with their political allies, mostly in the Democratic Party, to the detriment of the taxpaying public.

Daniel DiSalvo, a political scientist at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, is worried that public employee unions upset the balance of power in a democracy. While the title suggests the topic is about unions bankrupting government, the actual focus of the book is on how unions give undue political power to public servants. The effects of generous retirement benefits and paychecks on state and local budgets are only one part of his argument. It is a thesis worth considering.

In brief, DiSalvo suggests that public employee unions differ from private sector unions (as did George Meany and F.D.R.) in that they have the power to elect their own bosses. This means that the adversarial relationship that characterizes private sector unions and businesses can be replaced by a more cooperative relationship. Moreover, government jobs do not include the same restrictions as private service jobs. If a union demands too much from a private firm, they may raise that firm's costs enough to force it out of business. As a result, unions in the private sector have some limits on what they can ask for. German unions have known this for years and have a saying; “Du sollst nicht töten die Gans, die goldene Eier legt” – “Don’t kill the goose that lays the golden egg.”

By contrast, in the public sector employees do not have to worry about driving the government out of business, though state and local budgets do provide some limits to their ability to bargain. And the elected officials who approve their contracts do not have to pay out of their own profits: the money comes from taxpayers. Finally, a portion of this money winds up as public service union dues, and is used to fund political activities and candidates who will continue to support the interests of the union. For the most part, DiSalvo argues, these candidates and causes are synonymous with the Democratic Party.

The following video, prepared by Declaration Entertainment gives a brief, but great overview, of the problem facing America today of the influence and dangers of the public sector unions.

Daniel DiSalvo exposes how these unions have created cartels with their political allies, mostly in the Democratic Party, to the detriment of the taxpaying public

Usually it takes a national government to spend itself into a debt measured in the trillions. Yet it comes as little surprise that the same profligacy that pervades the corridors of federal power infects this country’s 87,000 state, county and municipal governments and school districts. By 2013, the amount of retirement money promised to employees of these public entities will exceed cash on hand by more than a trillion dollars.

An April 23, 2010 Washington Times editorial states:

“The reason pension plans are headed toward financial disaster is simple. Ever-expanding public-sector unions have flexed their political muscle and larded up with lavish benefits to be be paid out decades from now. In a properly run, private-sector business, future retirement benefits are paid for using present-day contributions. This is not the case when lawmakers have the power to boost public-employee benefit packages while using accounting gimmicks to conceal and pass on the debt to future generations.

California’s public-employee retirement system stands in the most perilous condition, facing a half-trillion in unfunded liabilities. That’s not surprising when you consider a California highway patrol officer can retire at age 50 and collect up to 90 percent of his salary for the rest of his life. According to the agency’s website, a typical officer’s pay will reach $109,147 after just five years on duty - an amount that can rise significantly with overtime benefits. That means a fit and healthy 50-year-old “retiree” who began work at age 20 would receive $98,232 a year from taxpayers for the rest of his life, and nothing prevents him from taking another government job to collect two paychecks. This form of double-dipping is rampant.

While most private-sector firms have trimmed their work force during the recession to achieve more efficient and profitable operations, public agencies have expanded. State and local governments employ about 15 million individuals, a figure that has jumped up 40 percent from 1992. By 2016, the number of state and local bureaucrats is projected to reach 20 million. Too many of these people are being promised far too much money, leaving state and local systems as bankrupt as Social Security, Medicare and other multitrillion-dollar federal entitlements.”

Steven Malanga, a senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute, wrote in Real Clear Markets in February, 2011 why Collective Bargaining Doesn't Work In the Public Sector:

“Shortly after California voters passed Proposition 13 in 1978, open warfare broke out in the union movement between leaders of public and private worker groups.

In the Washington Post, an anonymous lieutenant of AFL-CIO president George Meany criticized the aggressive stance of Jerry Wurf, head of American Federation of State County and Municipal workers, in trying to defeat Prop 13, which capped property taxes. The problem, the Post pointed out, was that the AFL-CIO's members were the "taxpaying employers" of Wurf's workers and favored the tax and spending limitations of Prop. 13. "Jerry's big problem with the tax thing lies in convincing the rest of the trade union movement of the legitimacy of the positions he has taken," said the AFL-CIO official.

What a difference a few decades makes. Today, public sector unions dominate the union movement, including the AFL-CIO, and have become the chief lobbyists for higher taxes and more government spending in America. Meanwhile, defenders of government unions argue that any attack on them is an attack on unionization in general. So Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's efforts to trim collective bargaining for state workers has elicited a host of apocalyptic declarations from politicians heavily supported by government unions, including President Obama, who called Walker's agenda, "an assault on unions."

….

“George Meany himself once declared that "you can't collectively bargain with government,' and as government workers lobbied increasingly for unionization throughout the 1950s some private sector labor leaders resented the argument of their public sector counterparts that government workers were somehow oppressed and desperately in need of union protection. The period was one of reform, in which cities were already enacting civil service laws protecting government workers from being summarily fired, and employee associations rose to testify for public worker rights even, though these groups didn't have bargaining rights.

But the public sector union movement gained traction because of changing political currents. Unionization came to be associated increasingly during that period with the Democratic Party thanks to legislation like the 1935 Wagner Act, sponsored by New York Democratic Senator Robert F. Wagner, which gave private sector workers the right to bargain. As unions played an increasingly important role in the Democratic Party in the 1940s and 1950s, their political value became apparent to elected officials like Sen. Wagner's son, New York City Mayor Robert F. Wagner, Jr. Mayor Wagner jolted the public sector union movement into life when in 1958 he gave city employees the right to collectively bargain, in the process making them valuable political allies in his reelection bid and igniting a series of similar moves by other politicians in cities and states across America.

What happened next confirmed the fears of many critics. The 1960s were a time of government strikes, including several dozen in September of 1966 by teachers that shut down school systems in some of our largest cities. When cities and states responded with laws outlawing strikes among government workers, unions developed a new strategy, concentrating their firepower in state capitals and city halls to elect leaders sympathetic to their cause. Over time they've become the biggest players in places like Sacramento, Albany and Madison, and such a permanent presence that every effort at reform is eventually undermined.

In the late 1970s, for instance, New York State enacted changes to its pension system for state and local workers after rich employee perks played a role in New York City's near bankruptcy. But over time public workers clawed back their benefits so that today, as Gov. Andrew Cuomo said during his election campaign, public pensions are unsustainable in the Empire State. In New York City alone pension contributions in one decade have gone from $1.5 billion annually to $7 billion, straining the city's budget.

California enacted pension reforms in 1991 which limited the impact of pensions on the state budget. But in 1999, Gov. Gray Davis and the state's Democratically controlled legislature wiped out those reforms, retroactively putting everyone who had joined the state's workforce in the 1990s into a new, richer system so that today California has unfunded pension liabilities ranging from $200 billion to $500 billion.

That's become a strategy of public worker unions. They fight reforms, but if they lose they wait 'till they can elect a new set of more sympathetic legislators and then reclaim their gains.

Public unions are bolstered by the fact that government never goes away, unlike private businesses where unions overreach. In the public sector, there are always taxpayers to turn to when a pension system or health care plan needs to be bailed out thanks to rich giveaways to unions.”

According to the laws of the federal government and most states strikes are illegal for federal workers and many state and local government workers, but that does not prevent strikes from happening. New York City transit workers, Tacoma Washington teachers, Detroit teachers, and postal workers have all gone on strike illegally. When the Professional Air Traffic Controllers struck in 1981, in violation of federal law, PATCO president Robert Poli snapped: “The only illegal strike is an unsuccessful one.” PATCO’s strike was unsuccessful because President Reagan fired all the air traffic controllers who refused to follow his order to return to work.

On August 3, 1981, the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay and a 32-hour workweek. In addition, PATCO no longer wanted to be included within the civil service clauses that had haunted it for decades. In doing so, the union violated a law — 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p. — that banned strikes by government unions. Ronald Reagan declared the PATCO strike a "peril to national safety" and ordered them back to work under the terms of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Only 1,300 of the nearly 13,000 controllers returned to work.[4] Subsequently, Reagan demanded those remaining on strike return to work within 48 hours, otherwise their jobs would be forfeited. At the same time, Transportation Secretary Drew Lewis organized for replacements and started contingency plans. By prioritizing and cutting flights severely, and even adopting methods of air traffic management that PATCO had previously lobbied for, the government was initially able to have 50% of flights available.[4]

On August 5, following the PATCO workers' refusal to return to work, Reagan fired the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers who had ignored the order, and banned them from federal service for life. In the wake of the strike and mass firings, the FAA was faced with the task of hiring and training enough controllers to replace those that had been fired, a hard problem to fix as, at the time, it took three years in normal conditions to train a new controller. They were replaced initially with nonparticipating controllers, supervisors, staff personnel, some nonrated personnel, and in some cases by controllers transferred temporarily from other facilities. Some military controllers were also used until replacements could be trained. The FAA had initially claimed that staffing levels would be restored within two years; however, it would take closer to ten years before the overall staffing levels returned to normal. PATCO was decertified from its right to represent workers by the Federal Labor Relations Authority on October 22, 1981. The decision was appealed.

Some former striking controllers were allowed to reapply after 1986 and were rehired; they and their replacements are now represented by the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, which was organized in 1987 and had no connection with PATCO. The civil service ban on the remaining strike participants was lifted by President Bill Clinton in 1993.

But how would another federal worker strike transpire on President Obama’s watch?

According to Mallory Factor writing in Towhall.com National Security Unions represent a threat to America’s safety:

“Most people believe that while many other classes of government workers are represented by Big Labor, our military and national security employees cannot be unionized. But is that really true?

Could President Obama unionize our armed forces? Our active duty military, comprising about 1.5 million servicemen and women, cannot be unionized under current law. But our full-time national defense includes more than 700,000 civilians who are integral to our military. These civilian Defense Department employees are already almost 60 percent unionized. This means that our entire full-time military, including civilians, is more than 20 percent unionized. As former Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld told me: “Even the Department of Defense has come under the influence of unions.” Government unions are on our military bases and inside the Pentagon, determining workplace rules and norms, filing grievances, and influencing personnel decisions in these sensitive job sites.

What about national-security workers? The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act explicitly bars collective bargaining among CIA, FBI, NSA, and Secret Service employees. But many staffers who work for other sensitive security agencies have already been unionized.

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) baggage screeners could not bargain collectively until President Obama’s TSA Administrator, John Pistole, subjected them to unionization in 2011. Although less than 40 percent of TSA workers voted in the runoff election between two unions seeking to represent them, all 44,000 TSA baggage screeners today, and all future screeners hired will be spoken for by the winning union — the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) — absent an unlikely union-decertification election. That is how government unions work — once a union wins certification in a workplace, the union is the exclusive representative of that group of employees in perpetuity with no further vote required. Ever.”

….

“If national-security employee unions haven’t created enough policy concerns already, President Obama is giving government employee union unprecedented input into policies affecting the federal workplace. Early in his administration, President Obama issued Executive Order 13,522, which requires federal departments and agencies to consult with these unions before setting almost any workplace policy—even on matters over which these unions cannot lawfully bargain. Never before have government officials needed to first consult union officials before making workplace rules and personnel policies. It is hard to imagine what greater powers the president could give these unions over the federal workforce and workplace. The one certainty, however, is that greater union control will be on the agenda of a second Obama Administration.

As more and more sensitive civilian national security and military jobs are unionized, this sets the terrible precedent to change the law and unionize our active-duty GIs, CIA members, FBI agents, and any other federal security workers not yet captured by the labor bosses. While the government-employee unions would love to swell their ranks and dues income, Americans must resist the temptation to let any private interest, especially strike-happy unions, wrest control of our critical and sensitive government workplaces.”

While the power and influence of private sector unions decline in the United States due to outsourcing public employee unions are on the rise, and have been for the past 20 to 30 years. Industries such a steel, auto, electrical appliances, computers, and rubber tires have gone out of business or moved their operations to India, China, or Mexico. Foreign and domestic manufactures have moved their operations out of the traditional “rust belt” states to southern climes where there are right to work laws and they do not have to deal with unions and their demands. In essence the goose of our traditional manufacturing sector died years ago.

According to a new report Co-authored by former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge and former Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection Robert B. Stephan From 2000 to 2011, nearly 66,484 U.S. factories closed, and millions of skilled manufacturing workers lost their jobs. We've lost capacity to make drywall, steel, concrete, antibiotics, high-tech circuit boards--the list goes on. Most of these were private sector union jobs,yet the union drones will continue to support the Democratic Party.

On the other hand a new goose was born — and this goose is named the American Taxpayer. The public sector unions have a goose with an unending supply of golden eggs – or at least until the nation or state goes bankrupt. They will continue taking more and more of these eggs and giving some to the politicians that will give more opportunities to plunder the taxpayer as long as the unions will keep them in power.

Unless the voters come to realize that this cycle of public sector unions and bureaucrats supporting politicians and politicians handing out golden eggs to the public sector unions can be broken we will continue to amass more and more public debt and unfunded liabilities. Scott Walker has shown us the way, but it will be tough row to hoe. If you have any doubts just watch the upcoming Democratic National Convention and see all of the special interest groups (including public sector unions) laying their claims on the Democratic Party.

A Modest Proposal

“Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie that one party can gain only at the expense of another.” — Milton Friedman

In the 1930’s, during the Great Depression, the Roosevelt administration turned to the use of taxpayer’s money to reduce the unemployment rate. In 1932 when Franklin Roosevelt was elected the unemployment rate was 24 percent. After spending billions on public works programs and creating agencies like The Works Progress Administration (WPA) and The Public Works Administration (PWA) the rate had declined to 17%.

The Works Progress Administration (renamed during 1939 as the Works Project Administration; WPA) was the largest and most ambitious New Deal agency, employing millions of unskilled workers to carry out public works projects, including the construction of public buildings and roads, and operated large arts, drama, media, and literacy projects.

It fed children and redistributed food, clothing, and housing. Almost every community in the United States had a park, bridge or school constructed by the agency, which especially benefited rural and Western areas.[citation needed] The WPA's initial appropriation in 1935 was for $4.9 billion (about 6.7 percent of the 1935 GDP), and in total it spent $13.4 billion.

At its peak in 1938 it provided paid jobs for three million unemployed men (and some women), as well as youth in a separate division, the National Youth Administration. Headed by Harry Hopkins, the WPA provided jobs and income to the unemployed during the Great Depression in the United States. Between 1935 and 1943, the WPA provided almost eight million jobs. Full employment, which emerged as a national goal around 1944, was not the WPA goal. It tried to provide one paid job for all families where the breadwinner suffered long-term unemployment.

The WPA was a national program that operated its own projects in cooperation with state and local governments, which provided 10%-30% of the costs. WPA sometimes took over state and local relief programs that had originated in the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) or Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) programs.

Liquidated on June 30, 1943 as a result of low unemployment due to the economic boom of World War II, the WPA provided millions of Americans with jobs for 8 years.[6] Most people who needed a job were eligible for at least some of its positions.] Hourly wages were typically set to the prevailing wages in each area.[8] However workers could not be paid more than 30 hours a week. Before 1940, there was very little training to teach new skills, to meet the objections of the labor unions.

The Public Works Administration (PWA), part of the New Deal of 1933, was a large-scale public works construction agency in the United States headed by Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes. It was created by the National Industrial Recovery Act in June 1933 in response to the Great Depression. It built large-scale public works such as dams, bridges, hospitals and schools. Its goals were to spend $3.3 billion in the first year, and $6 billion in all, to provide employment, stabilize purchasing power, and help revive the economy. Most of the spending came in two waves in 1933-35, and again in 1938. Originally called the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works, it was renamed the Public Works Administration in 1939 and shut down in 1943.

The PWA spent over $6 billion in contracts to private construction firms that did the actual work. It created an infrastructure that generated national and local pride in the 1930s and remains vital seven decades later. The PWA was much less controversial than its rival agency with a confusingly similar name, the Works Progress Administration (WPA), headed by Harry Hopkins, which focused on smaller projects and hired unemployed unskilled workers.

The PWA headquarters in Washington planned projects, which were built by private construction companies hiring workers on the open market. Unlike the WPA, it did not hire the unemployed directly.

More than any other New Deal program, the PWA epitomized the progressive notion of "priming the pump" to encourage economic recovery. Between July 1933 and March 1939 the PWA funded and administered the construction of more than 34,000 projects including airports, large electricity-generating dams, major warships for the Navy, and bridges, as well as 70% of the new schools and one-third of the hospitals built between 1933–1939.

Streets and highways were the most common PWA projects, as 11,428 road projects, or 33% of all PWA projects, accounted for over 15% of its total budget. School buildings, 7,488 in all, came in second at 14% of spending. PWA functioned chiefly by making allotments to the various Federal agencies; making loans and grants to state and other public bodies; and making loans without grants (for a brief time) to the railroads. For example it provided funds for the Indian Division of the CCC to build roads, bridges and other public works on and near Indian reservations.

The PWA became, with its "multiplier-effect" and first two-year budget of $3.3 billion (compared to the entire GDP of $60 billion), the driving force of America’s biggest construction effort up to that date. By June 1934 the agency had distributed its entire fund to 13,266 federal projects and 2,407 non-federal projects. For every worker on a PWA project, almost two additional workers were employed indirectly. The PWA accomplished the electrification of rural America, the building of canals, tunnels, bridges, highways, streets, sewage systems, and housing areas, as well as hospitals, schools, and universities; every year it consumed roughly half of the concrete and a third of the steel of the entire nation.

Some of the most famous PWA projects are the Triborough Bridge and the Lincoln Tunnel in New York City, the Grand Coulee Dam in Washington state, the longest continuous sidewalk in the world along 6½ miles of Bayshore Blvd. in Tampa, Florida, and the Overseas Highway connecting Key West, Florida, to the mainland. The PWA also electrified the Pennsylvania Railroad between New York and Washington, DC. At the local level it built courthouses, schools, hospitals and other public facilities that remain in use in the 21st century.

While these programs had their critics they did provide valuable and lasting infrastructure assets. I am not so positive about the funding of the arts programs as most of artists, writers, musicians, and photographers involved in the program were communists or fellow travelers. Some of the critics compared Roosevelt’s progressive public works programs with those of Mussolini in fascist Italy and Adolph Hitler in National Socialist Germany. Both of these dictators used public spending to create full employment. Mussolini had his corps of fascist workers who built massive public works projects like draining the Pontine Marshes and building new towns. Hitler established the Reichsarbeitsdienst (RAD) to provide labor for agriculture and civic construction projects including the building of the Autobahns

It is difficult for me to harshly criticize the Roosevelt administration for initiating these public works spending. The national economy was in big trouble and with almost one –quarter of the workforce unemployed there was a real threat of socialism or communism sweeping into power. Also the nation benefited from the improvements in the infrastructure, especially in roads, electrification, flood control, sewer and water, and irrigation.

With this in mind I have a proposal for President Obama to reduce our national unemployment. Taking into consideration that most of our major infrastructure has been built and we now require only maintenance and upgrades. We don’t need to subsidies artists, musicians, and those in the entrainment industry, they are doing just fine. What we need is a program for unskilled workers who can’t seem to find work in the service or fast food industry. We need low skilled construction jobs.

With the president’s belief that only government can create jobs and that we all owe any success we have to government or a teacher I think he will jump right in to this proposal.

I call my proposal the Earth Supply and Renewal Project. Here is how it would work. First, our excavation specialists insert their shovels into the ground and remove the soil. This presents the problem of an existing hole in the earth, creating a dangerous situation that could lead to hazards, including but not limited to tripping, falling, and bodily injuries.

Then there is the renewal process. At the Earth Supply Division, professional backfillers will be trained to renew the soil in place of the existing hole, restoring the earth to its original condition.

Some folks say we’re just digging ditches and filling them back up again. But it’s about more than that. It’s about jobs.

Just think of the business opportunities this government program will create. First we have the shovel makers. The government will set the standards for the size of the shovels making them at three-fourths the size of a conventional shovel yow old buy from your local Ace Hardware store. Of course two types of shovels would be needed. Firstly a spade to remove the earth and then secondly a flat-end shovel to scoop up the earth to fill in the ditch. We will also need picks to break up the hard ground.

Second we would have the trainers who would no doubt require a college education in civil and construction engineering. This would help them pay off their student loans.

Third we would have the environmentalist, biologist, and botanists who would select the locations for each project so as not disturb the desert tortoise or the woolly daisy.

Finally we would need the inspectors to make sure the unskilled earth movers were doing the proper job.

Of course the unions would be involved to make sure all of the workers joined unions like SEIU and received prevailing wage, health care, and a pension.

I can’t take full credit for this proposal. I have to give a tip of the hat to James O’Keefe writing in Breibart.com for his Project Veritas idea. O’Keefe’s purpose was to expose union corruption as he wrote:

“That’s the setup. O’Keefe’s Project Veritas then takes this newly-created non-existent company – a company dedicated to digging and filling holes – and asks for help from local union bosses to help move subsidies for Earth Supply and Renewal through legislatures. After all, they argue, even if we’re just digging ditches and refilling them on the taxpayer dime, at least we’re creating new union workers.

And, unbelievably, the union bosses are only too happy to help. They couldn’t care less about wasting taxpayer dollars. And that’s precisely what they say.

John Hutchings, director of the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA) New York State Laborers’ Organizing Fund (NYSLOF), explains:

Right now it’s all about jobs. It’s awful hard for anybody to vote against like a jobs bill right now …

He agrees that even if there are sites where this ditch digging and filling has no environmental program, legislators will decided, “it’s a jobs program for the laborers.” And when some of the Earth Supply and Renewal “employees” explain that they literally dig a ditch, then fill it up again, Hutchings says, “It sounds like, it almost is exactly the same as where we were with Green Jobs, Green New York.” Green Jobs, Green New York was a $112 million state plan that was designed to create environmentally-friendly jobs. And it was sponsored, in large part, by unions.

Anthony J. Tocci, business manager of the Local 601 for LIUNA AFL-CIO, goes even further. He says that he’d be willing to help find public funds just to dig and fill ditches:

Hey, if people are willing to give you money, if people will give you the money, that’s fine.

And Hutchings adds:

You know, the Green Jobs, Green New York, between us, a lot of it is bullshit… even if it’s bullshit, I think as long as people are working, that’s not bull, you know what I mean?

Tocci and Hutchings say that this is just the sort of stuff that happened under FDR in the 1930s with the Works Progress Administration. “They dug the roads up, put ‘em back!” says an animated Tocci.

Says Tocci, “You just wanna get the money. Then you figure out afterward.”

Hutchings then explains the economic theory behind all of this:

Well, I think, I think the key thing is, even if it’s bullshit, I think as long as people are working, that’s not bull, you know what I mean? Then you’re doing a service. If there are people working, there are people paying taxes, there are people paying goods, there are, you know what I mean… You’re doing right by the economy… anything that brings work into a community is a plus…

And, of course, the union benefits. Says Hutchings, “It’s a win-win for everybody. Everybody understands that part of it.” Especially the unions, who will be including “employees” of Earth Supply and Renewal in their collective bargaining from now on.”

Two read the rest of O’Keefe’s article and watch the video click here.

Once the Earth Supply and Renewal Project gets underway other special interest groups will no doubt get into the act. The Audubon Society and Burpee Seeds will lobby for trees and flowers to be planted in the ditch and the ditches dug alongside of roads. They will argue that this will beautify the nation in the same manner as Lady Bird Johnson’s Highway Beautification Plan did in 1965.

I am positive that President Obama and his progressive masterminds in his administration will enthusiastically adopt this proposal. It will create “shovel ready” jobs that will dramatically increase his chances for reelection. Of course he will gave to appoint a czar of hole digging.

The Tale of Two Cities

"Most bad government has grown out of too much government.” — Thomas Jefferson

A Tale of Two Cities is a novel by Charles Dickens, published in 1859, set in London and Paris before and during the French Revolution. With well over 200 million copies sold, it ranks among the most famous works in the history of fictional literature.

The novel depicts the plight of the French peasantry demoralized by the French aristocracy in the years leading up to the revolution, the corresponding brutality demonstrated by the revolutionaries toward the former aristocrats in the early years of the revolution, and many unflattering social parallels with life in London during the same time period. It follows the lives of several protagonists through these events. The most notable are Charles Darnay and Sydney Carton. Darnay is a French once-aristocrat who falls victim to the indiscriminate wrath of the revolution despite his virtuous nature, and Carton is a dissipated British barrister who endeavors to redeem his ill-spent life out of his unrequited love for Darnay's wife. The 45-chapter novel was published in 31 weekly installments in Dickens' new literary periodical titled All the Year Round. From April 1859 to November 1859, Dickens also republished the chapters as eight monthly sections in green covers. Dickens' previous novels had appeared only as monthly installments. The first weekly installment of A Tale of Two Cities ran in the first issue of All the Year Round on 30 April 1859. The last ran thirty weeks later, on 26 November.

My tale of two cities is not about the French Revolution, Robespierre or goutiness. It is, however, about aristocrats and peasants. Think of the aristocrats as the statist, utopians, and masterminds and the peasants as the taxpayers. As in Dickens’ novel the aristocrats are forcing tyranny upon the citizens and the citizens’ only recourse is at the ballot box. This is not working very well.

The cities I refer to are not London and Paris, but Stockton, California and Sandy Springs, Georgia, cities almost 2,000 miles apart. I will begin with Stockton. Once a thriving community located at the north end of California’s Central Valley and a virtual suburb of Sacramento Stockton, as city of 290,000 people is declaring bankruptcy. It is out of money and can longer meet its debts or obligations. Fox News reports:

“Officials in Stockton said Tuesday that mediation with creditors has failed, meaning the city is set to become the largest American city ever to declare bankruptcy.

City Manager Bob Deis said officials were unable to reach a deal to restructure hundreds of millions of dollars of debt under a new state law designed to help municipalities avoid bankruptcy.

Monday marked the three-month deadline for negotiations.

"Unfortunately we have no comprehensive set of agreements with our creditors that would eliminate the deficit and avoid insolvency," Deis said at a City Council meeting. He said, however, that the city was still negotiating with some creditors and could reach deals with as many as one-third of them.

"We think Chapter 9 protection is the only choice left. If we get any agreements, those will be honored in Chapter 9," Deis said.

The Council was expected to vote later on a special bankruptcy budget to plug next year's anticipated $26 million deficit.

The budget is expected to suspend debt payments, reduce payments for retiree medical benefits and increase revenue through code enforcement and parking citations, among other steps.

City lawyers could file for Chapter 9 protection in court as soon as Wednesday.

The river port city of 290,000 in Central California has seen its property taxes and other revenues decline, while expensive investments and generous retiree benefits drained city coffers.

In the past three years, officials in the city that was slammed by the collapse of the housing market dealt with $90 million in deficits through a series of drastic cuts.

They eliminated one-fourth of the city's police officers, one-third of the fire staff, and 40 percent of all other employees. They also cut wages and medical benefits.

To plug next year's anticipated $26 million budget shortfall, a proposed budget to be considered Tuesday night would suspend payments for debts and legal claims, reduce payments for retiree medical benefits, further cut some pay and benefits, and increase revenue through code enforcement and parking citations.

The proposed budget includes no major service reductions, Deis said earlier.

"The whole purpose of filing Chapter 9 is to avoid an uncontrolled chaotic situation," he said. "Bankruptcy provides the equivalent of a pause button. It retains services and provides structure so you don't have a bunch of lawsuits."

City officials say the city has run out of options. In recent years, thousands of new homes mushroomed in Stockton, part of a suburban housing boom that attracted buyers from the San Francisco Bay area and beyond.

When the economy crashed and the construction bubble burst, Stockton was battered by foreclosures and lost income from property taxes and other fees.

Multi-year labor contracts for city workers carrying escalating costs and generous retirement plans added to the burden.

In addition, expensive city investments -- a promenade, sports arena and hotel -- failed to produce an economic boon.

The city also has high crime and unemployment rates. It has twice topped Forbes magazine's list of "America's most miserable cities."

Under a bankruptcy filing, officials would retain power over day-to-day city operations and staffing, but a judge would take over all decisions concerning the city's debts, said Robert Benedetti, professor of political science at the University of the Pacific in Stockton.

The judge would decide which creditors should be paid, how much and in what order. He would make allowances for expenditures needed by the city to function, and it would be up to city officials to decide how to spend that money.

"One of the reasons a city might want to go the bankruptcy route is that they don't want a situation where they have to pay out debts and have to close the police or fire department," Benedetti said. "Filing for Chapter 9 means you're asking the court to protect you against lawsuits from people who hold your debt."

Stockton's bankruptcy would make it the largest city by population to file for Chapter 9 protection, according to Jim Spiotto, a Chicago bankruptcy lawyer who tracks such cases. He said Bridgeport, Conn., was the largest city to file for bankruptcy, which it did in 1991, followed by Vallejo, Calif., which filed in 2008.”

For years Stockton, like many cities in California and the nation, has been run by utopians and masterminds who have spent like drunken sailors and passed out entitlements like Chinese fortune cookies, with the biggest entitlement of all being the defined benefit and pension programs given their public union employees. All went well while the spending spree was going on, but when the recession hit in 2008 the city went into a tailspin.

As mortgages defaulted the tax base shrunk and the entitlements continued to escalate, especially for the unemployed and welfare class. As the State of California is also broke Stockton could and not expect any help for the state, nor should they. They made their bed with the public service and teachers unions and now they can lay in it.

2,000 miles away lays the town of Sandy Springs, Georgia located just to the north of Atlanta. The left-leaning Huffington Post reports:

"In 2005, decades after Sandy Springs first attempted annexation to Atlanta, the Republican-dominated Georgia state legislature allowed the city, located adjacent to Atlanta, to break off and become a largely autonomous, self-governing entity.

Scrambling to ready themselves for the division, Sandy Springs effectively privatized the large majority of the municipal services by entering into a public-private partnership with CH2M HILL, a full-service operations company that now controls nearly all of the once-public sector, from road maintenance to cleaning up trash in the park.

"Nobody likes change," Sandy Springs Mayor and former economist Eva Galambos told Reason, a libertarian magazine. "But, if your city is fiscally bankrupt, there may have to be some change."

The city, sixth-largest in the state with a 2010 population of 93,853, wanted to separate itself from what it saw as wasteful government spending in surrounding communities. The city benefits greatly, though, from the number of Fortune 500 companies headquartered there, boasting an extremely high per capita income, with the median family household income, according to a 2008 census estimate, approximated at $129,810, and the average family income $169,815.

Comparatively, the surrounding Fulton County has a median family income of only $58,573. The median national income is $49,777.

Adding to that, only 3.1 percent of families — 7.9 percent of the entire population — live below the poverty line in Sandy Springs. The percentage of Fulton County families living in poverty, in comparison, is nearly four times higher at 11.5 percent. Without needing to provide to as many poverty-stricken families, who typically use more public services, Sandy Springs can more easily keep taxes at a lower, sustainable level.

Not all of Sandy Spring's public services have been privatized, however. Public safety continues to be handled by government police officers and firefighters, and the Fulton County School System still operates public schools within the city, something not noted in the below video by Reason magazine. Mayor Galambos also notes the city "made a clear decision" to not hand out "defined benefits" of any sort to police officers and firefighters, in order to keep taxes low and avoid future obligations.

In light of municipal budget crises wreaking havoc across the country, the fiscally-conservative Sandy Springs government is proud of their radical decision, which they say has left them with no long-term liabilities. The $25 million they paid to CH2M HILL for one year's work, Reason argues, is less than half what they would pay in a typical, government-run scenario.

Since 2005, four surrounding Georgia cities have adopted the model.”

I have written about Sandy Springs in the past so I will not give much time to how this Georgia city is fighting against the public sector unions by just not having any public sector employees of the city’s payroll, they outsource most all of the city’s services with the exception of police and fire. You can read that blog by clicking here.

For years government including federal, state, county, and municipal outsourced most of its needed public service needs to private contractors. This included public works, legal, accounting, maintenance, and construction. It usually excluded fire and law enforcement except for municipalities having volunteer fire departments. Even law enforcement was outsourced by some smaller towns and cities to county sheriffs’ or to an adjacent city’s police department.

I recall a close friend of mine who was the mayor of a small city in Orange County, California. The town did not have its own police department and was not in a financial position to form one. She was approached by the Orange County Sheriffs’ Department with an offer to contract for the town’s law enforcement. She was not happy with the OCSD’s offer so she put the contract out to bid to several adjacent cities. She selected one of the adjacent cities as their offer posed the best for cost and service and subsequently gave the contract to them. The OCSD was not too pleased with her action, but she obtained the best deal for the city. This is the way it used to work and still does in many parts of the country.

With the growth of the public service unions, in power and numbers, across the county since the early 1980’s cities, counties, and states have been sliding down a deep abyss into higher costs for public service and the real millstone of the liabilities for their unfunded defined benefit programs of pensions and lifetime health care.

Lately states such as Wisconsin and Indiana have begun to reverse this trend much to the hew and cry of union leaders and progressives who garner much of their political support from these unions.

On the same day the people of Wisconsin voted to support Governor Scott Walker in his battle against the public service unions the people of San Diego and San Jose voted by an overwhelming majority to curtail the influence and cost these unions are imposing on the cities. Too bad Stockton did not take this action years ago, but they were just too close to Sacramento – the home of public service unions and Jerry Brown.

Many cities and towns outsource most of their public service needs. When I was in business running a consulting engineering and land surveying firm we worked for some of these cities by providing civil engineering and land surveying. It was their belief that if you could buy something through the Yellow Pages, especially from a local business, there was no need to provide those services by in-house, permanent staff – a staff they would have to support until the day they died.

In years past government outsourced almost everything to qualified contractors from Jefferson giving Lewis and Clark a contract to explore and map the lands he purchased from Napoleon in the Louisiana Purchase to the surveying the lands for incorporation into the United States Rectangular Survey System, building of the Transcontinental Railroad, Hoover Dam, the Interstate Highway System, and thousands of other public works including your local post office. Government provided the funds for these projects, but not the public service employees. The planning, design, engineering, and construction was carried out by the private sector.

Consider the interstate highway system as a classic example of how this system worked and should work. In 1956 Congress passed the Interstate Highway Act and it was signed into law by President Eisenhower. The law imposed a federal tax on fuel and trucks. This tax would be collected by the federal government and placed in a Highway Trust Fund. This money was then apportioned out to the states to construct modern, four lane divided highways. The apportioning was done on the need for the highway and the and the state’s ability to pay for the highway. In this case some states were considered donor states, while others were deemed recipient states. As example the larger, more populous states like California, New York, and Illinois were donor states and states with small population such as Montana, Wyoming and Nevada were considered recipient states. This was considered fair and necessary as you could not have a true interstate highway system if the roads were not connected through the lesser populated states and if you did not purchase fuel you did not contribute to the Fund.

The monies from the Fund were usually apportioned back to the states on a 90-10 basis – 90% federal and 10% state or local. The states then provided all of the design, engineering, and construction services to build the roads. Fiducial and design standards oversight were provided by the federal government through the Bureau of Public Roads (now the Federal Highway Administration). The BPR and various state highway officials through the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) set the design and construction specifications and standards for building the system. Items such as; lane and shoulder widths, percentage of grades, sight distances, curve radiuses, design speeds, bridge clearance heights, pavement types and structural sections, signage, and minimum median widths. These specifications and standards were incorporated into the design of any highway qualifying for federal funding under the Interstate Highway Act.

As the design, engineering and construction management were left to the states he door was opened to the public employees to move in. Some states, mainly in the south, outsourced most of this work to the private sector. Other states such as California, New York, and New Jersey brought this work in-house and began to build massive bureaucracies. As an example when I worked for the California Division of Highways (now Caltrans) from 1962 to 1972 the agency had about 9,000 employees and all design, engineering, and maintenance work was done in-house. Today Caltrans has 22,000 employees and a budget of $12.8 billion dollars and the Interstate System was completed years ago. Today they outsource about 10% of their design and engineering services, and that took a court decision and referendum (Proposition 35) to accomplish that.

Throughout the ensuing years The Professional Engineers in California Government (PECG), a public service union representing 13,000 state-employed engineers and related professionals responsible for designing and inspecting California’s highways and bridges, has held Caltrans hostage by constantly fighting against and outsourcing of these services to the private sector. They claim that state employees are better qualified and will do the work for less cost is fallacious and ridiculous. The average Caltrans employee earns $100,000 including benefits, benefits that will be paid for life. Also, Caltrans has no way to reduce their in-house staff due to civil service rules, even if there is no current work for them.

While Sandy Springs is not the only municipality to outsource most of its public services it is certainly one of the best. Other towns, cities, counties, and states are beginning to see the light and eliminate their public service staff, thus reducing their costs and unfunded liabilities.

Where Are The Jobs?

“When it becomes dominated by a collectivist creed, democracy will inevitably destroy itself.” — Fredrich August von Hayek

In a new Gallup survey, 9 of the top 10 U.S. markets with the highest job creation are in red states, states with a Republican governor. While 7 of the lowest 10 markets in job creation are in blue states, those with Democratic governors.

Gallup surveyed workers in the 50 largest metro areas about whether employers were hiring or letting people go during 2011. The spread is what Gallup calls their Job Creation Index.

Oklahoma City, OK led their list. Although, coming on the heels of abysmal March job creation numbers from the Labor Department, it's faint praise. Gallup noted, "Oklahoma City led because of the relatively low percentage of workers (12%) who said their employer was letting workers go or decreasing the size of its workforce."

Oklahoma City, Okla., had the highest score on Gallup's Job Creation Index among the 50 largest U.S. metro areas in 2011, followed by Pittsburgh, Pa., and several Southern metros. More than one in three workers in each of the top-performing metro areas said their employer was hiring or expanding the size of its workforce, Although, coming on the heels of abysmal March job creation numbers from the Labor Department, it's faint praise. Gallup noted, "Oklahoma City led because of the relatively low percentage of workers (12%) who said their employer was letting workers go or decreasing the size of its workforce."

The individual components of the metric reveal some other successes and challenges. The San Antonio, Houston, and Memphis, Tenn., metro areas reported the most hiring, while the Riverside, Calif., Virginia Beach, Va., and Las Vegas metro areas reported the most letting go.

The large metro areas in the South tend to have better job creation situations than those in the East and the West. Eight of the top 10 metro areas with the highest Job Creation Index scores are in the South, while eight of the bottom 10 are in the East or West.

It should also be noted that the largest metro areas overall — New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago — ranked closer to the bottom of the list than to the top.

Gallup's Job Creation Index tends to be a strong predictor of jobless claims at the national level, and these results at the local level may also be an indicator of future local unemployment rates. The top five large metros in Gallup's Job Creation Index for 2011 had an average unemployment rate of 7.4% in January 2012, according to not-seasonally adjusted data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, while the bottom five large metros' unemployment rates averaged 10.7%.

In this reporter's opinion, government doesn't create jobs, employers do. Nevertheless it's interesting that so many of the markets which reported relatively strong job creation were in states such as Oklahoma, Florida, and Texas that generally rank low in taxes, and, yes, government services.

Even with Pittsburgh, the Rust Belt city near the top of Gallup's list, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett has made job creation and tax relief priorities.

These results would seem to support the GOP's contention that lower taxes encourage job creation and economic growth.

Even more troubling for Dems, the markets where the most folks reported employers were laying off workers were in blue states. Combined with increasing agony at the gas pump, soaring food costs, and depressed — and depressing — real estate values, this could potentially mean more trouble for the “O Team” if this turns out to be a pocketbook election, as many observers expect.

Conversely, if Obama manages to carry these states despite job losses, it may indicate that the nation has reached a tipping point at which more people prefer government benefits to a job.

Along with the jobs report Gallup also publishes and interactive political map showing the recent trends in conservative and liberal leanings in the states. A few examples of the so called “battle ground states” show slight increase in “leaning Republican” from 2009 to 2011:

• Ohio: 2009, 37.0%, 2011, 41.2% and a conservative leaning increase of 3%
• Virginia: 2009, 38.5% 2011, 42.3% and conservative leaning increase of 2.8%
• Florida: 2009, 38.5%, 2011, 40.5% with a conservative leaning increase of 1.6%
• North Carolina: 2009, 38.3%, 2011, 42.1% with a conservative leaning increase of 1.6%
• Missouri: 2009, 37.5%, 2011, 42.8% with a conservative leaning increase of 5.2%

According to Gallup Mississippi is the most conservative state, while D.C. is the most liberal. Mississippi, Utah, Wyoming, and Alabama are the four most conservative states in the U.S., each with 50% or more of its population identifying as conservative. The District of Columbia and Massachusetts are the most liberal states. — no surprises here.

Gallup shows that more states have moved to GOP in 2011. Seventeen states showed a Republican advantage in party affiliation of at least five points in 2011, up from 10 in 2010 and 5 in 2008. Meanwhile, 19 states including D.C. showed a similar Democratic advantage, with 15 competitive Seventeen states showed a Republican advantage in party affiliation of at least five points in 2011, up from 10 in 2010 and 5 in 2008. Meanwhile, 19 states including D.C. showed a similar Democratic advantage, with 15 competitive.

Gallup also shows that Obama’s approval above 50% in 10 states and D.C. in 2011. President Obama's job approval rating exceeded the majority level in 10 states plus the District of Columbia in 2011. His ratings were highest in D.C., Hawaii, and Maryland, and lowest in Utah and Idaho, and declined in most states.

You can use this interactive map to make your own Electoral College predictions.

It should be noted that the top states in hiring are states with right to work laws.

As today’s government-union bosses push higher taxes, establish dues schemes to fund their bloated salaries and union-bought politicians, the evidence has become pretty clear: Government unions have become political, parasitic entities injuring taxpayers and the communities they control (see Central Falls and Providence, RI; Detroit, MI; and the once-great State of California for examples).

In the private sector, however, where taxpayers’ pockets are not in endless supply, the parasitic model of today’s unions, far too often, allows unions drain companies and ends up killing their hosts.

In large measure, the power unions have gained to cripple economies and companies comes from the ability to require workers to pay union dues (or have the workers fired from their jobs should they refuse to pay the union tribute).

In the public sector, union bosses have declared war on Wisconsin’s Scott Walker, Ohio’s John Kasich, Florida’s Rick Scott and, to a lesser extent, Arizona’s Jan Brewer, for their threats to union treasuries through collective bargaining reform.

In the private sector, however, while Indiana finally became the 23rd state in the nation to became a Right-to-Work state—which outlaws unions from having workers fired for refusing to pay union dues—other states like, Maine and Ohio are considering the reform, as well. (Note this page contains an interactive map showing the various states and their RTW laws.)

In Ohio, for example, where unions spent in excess of $30 million to crush reforms to the Buckeye State’s antiquated laws governing collective bargaining for government unions, the state is among the worst states in the nation to do business—only topped by California, New Jersey and New York.

In their Pyrrhic victory in beating back reform, Ohio’s union bosses demonstrated they can dominate a state, regardless of the price. This, in part, may explain why Ohio is losing more high-tech jobs than the national average and companies like NCR are moving to more business-friendly climes like Georgia.

In late March, Ohio’s Buckeye Institute released a report entitled: Ohio Right-To-Work: How the Economic Freedom of Workers Enhances Prosperity.

In the report [in PDF], Economist Richard Vedder and his colleagues state that Ohio’s residents would benefit if the Buckeye State enacted a right-to-work law, making Ohio a more attractive place to do business:

“The typical Ohioan today would have a higher income and standard of living if the Buckeye State had matched the nation in its rate of economic growth in recent decades. However, it did not, and one reason is that the labor climate in the state is unattractive both to businesses making strategic investments and workers wishing to work.”

In addition to pointing out that Ohio’s “substandard performance with respect to economic growth since the late 1970′s would have been eliminated if a right-to-work law had been adopted several decades ago,” Vedder and company estimate that personal income for a family of four would have been $12,000 higher annually if Ohio had a right-to-work law in 1977.

The report provides an excellent analysis on the history of unions’ legal authority to coerce dues from workers, as well as the emergence of states’ ability to enact right-to-work laws in 1947 and the chronology of individual states’ enactment of those laws.

The report also provides a history of Ohio’s failed efforts to enact a right-to-work law in the late 1950s—much of it due to a lack of a clear and cohesive campaign. Like the recent SB5/Issue 2 campaign, where unions outspent and out organized collective bargaining reform proponents, the lack of a united front (right-to-work proponents were besieged with internal divisions in the late-50s) gave unions the upper hand to defeat right-to-work and solidified union power for decades.

Unions and their union dues-funded think tanks, like the Economic Policy Institute, continue to downplay and fight right-to-work laws by claiming right-to-work states have a negative effect on wages.

However, the Buckeye Institute report addresses that issue as well:

“A recent study by Robert Reed helps clear some of the ambiguity by demonstrating that when one controls for the economic conditions of a state prior to its adoption of a RTW law, the relationship between RTW and wages is positive and statistically significant. Reed estimates that when “holding constant economic conditions in 1945—average wages in 2000 [were] 6.68 percent higher in RTW states than non-RTW states.”

The Buckeye Institute’s report on Ohio Right-to Work is an excellent read, both for the economic argument behind right-to-work, as well as the history of the effort in Ohio.

As Ohio continues to lag behind the nation due to the continued domination of unions in that state, over time, more may realize the right-to-work is right for Ohio (and elsewhere, as well).