Response to the CWA

In this post I will respond to some assertions that the CWA has made in a pamphlet they used for their "Lunchtime Lingo", which was supposed to be a discussion they had during their lunchtime about union issues. Here is a link to the original pamphlet http://files.cwa-union.org/district6/Lunchtimelingo22709.pdf .

Under the section "Collective Bargaining is a Public Good"

"-It strengthens our democracy. You can't have a democracy without strong, independent, democratic unions."

“It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”
Alexander Hamilton June 21, 1788

First off, this country was never intended to be a pure democracy. On the other hand if you are talking about the more loose definition of democracy, as in our representative government that we currently have, the second part of this statement by the CWA is obviously false since this country prospered for almost 200 years without a strong union presence.

"-It raises everyone's wages, not just union members."

The immediate effect of a labor union forcing a certain wage on an employer is for the employer to downsize the positions that are not worth whatever that minimum wage is. All you have to do is look at what happened to the percentage of teenage employment as the government has implemented the minimum wage, and continued to raise it.
For a longer term effect lets take a look at industries that the unions have traditionally had a strong presence in.
Mining
Steel working
Textile
Auto
Teaching
In every instance the union has taken a thriving US industry and destroyed it. Though there is a temporary boost to the current workers' pay and benefits, it ultimately hurts more people than it helps.

"-It reduces wage inequality and demands that workers get a fair share of the profits."

This assertion is one of the most ridiculous statements I have encountered in a long time. No employee of any company is entitled to the profits of the company they work for. Each of us as individuals has a certain skill set we are able to trade to the company that we work for in exchange for an hourly wage or yearly salary. In every instance the individual willing to work for that wage, values that wage more than the time they are spending working for that company, and the company values the work that employee is doing more than the money they spend for that employee. It is a fair trade, I cannot think of a rational argument that someone could make that would show where an employee of a company is entitled to the profits of that company.

"-It promotes political participation by workers."

If by political participation they mean confiscating union dues straight out of paychecks, and donating them to the Democrat candidates on behalf of the union membership regardless of the approval of the members, I guess you are technically right there.

"-It promotes healthy and safe work environments."

It is a good thing they are on top of this, or else people would be losing limbs every day over there in the call center.

-On page four of the pamphlet

"The middle class is shrinking."

While this is true, the lower class is not where they are going. The lower class is actually shrinking along with the middle class, the class that is growing is the upper middle and upper class which I don't know anyone except a straight up Marxist that would believe this is a bad thing.

I thought I would address in this post some of the easiest points to refute. I welcome comment, and would love a discussion along these lines. Thanks.

Freedom vs. Unions

My experience with unions have been very limited throughout my life having come from a right to work state. The only exposure has been in passing as I have pursued my personal quest to learn everything I can about individual freedom, natural rights, and the principles espoused by the founders of our great nation. In almost every instance that I have run across mentions of unions in my studies it has been in an example where the union is in violation of principles of freedom. So, needless to say I entered into my first encounter with a real union with a sour taste in my mouth.

I was hired by AT&T to work in their customer service and sales department, it had a decent starting base wage and offered "commissions" on top of it (I found out that the union is opposed to commissions because somebody with less seniority might make more than somebody with more, so they had to create an incentive program outside of our actual paychecks). I began with the excitement of starting a new job. I met the group that I would be going through training with and everybody seemed very professional and nice, and I generally get along with most people. I have since that day made many friends and a few good friends.

That first week we were introduced to the CWA which is the union "representing" anybody in the call worker industries. One of the first things out of the mouth of the union steward that covers the building that I work at was a comparison of the wages of the people that worked at that building and the CEO of AT&T, as if there is some actual comparison between her person skill set and her ability to command a high wage and the skill set and responsibility of the CEO.

Let me segway here to have a short discussion about individual freedom, capitalism and a free economy, because I think it applies to her thought process as well as many in society today who have not made a study of principles of liberty. All people, in all of the world have the natural right to be free from any type of force. This can be divided into two types of force, the first is physical force and the threat of physical force. This is the looter, thief, and all type of criminal that physically imposes their will on others, it also includes any government that imposes its will outside of its proper role through the threat of physical force if the will is disobeyed. This could be a brutal dictator, or a constitutional government, no government has the right to deny natural rights. The other type of force, and possibly the more sinister and destructive is the forcing of the mind. Thomas Jefferson said "I have sworn, upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man". He along with almost all of the founding fathers of this country were great advocates for reason and enlightened thinking, and sought knowledge wherever they could find it. Thomas Jefferson actually learned several new languages in his adulthood so that he could study the writings of various civilizations in their native writings. Lies and deceit, fraud and corruption, which is the forcing of the minds of others is immoral and should be fought with as much effort and vigor as any physical force.

In a free economy(the only moral economic system), where all men everywhere are free to trade with other free men, the only trading that would be done is where each party in the trade is trading something of value for something that they value more. In the case that we are talking about the CEO with his expertise and skill set, his experience and competence as an administrator and executive have been well earned and he is able to trade his unique skills to the company of AT&T for something that the company values more than the $20 million, which I assume is a well run and profitable company. This union steward I assume was trying to make the case that his job cannot be that hard, that it would be worth it for AT&T to pay an executive such a high salary. From the little bit that I know about this particular union steward, I believe she is a single mom, in her late 20s or early 30s and I do not believe she has any college degree, she has worked at AT&T for most of her career and except for union steward has never had any actual responsibility in her career. Do not get me wrong I am sure she is good at what she does, I hope so, at least after so many years at doing the same job. The company is willing to pay her $25/ hr plus bonuses, she wins because she values the $25/hr more than she values the time she spends at work and the company wins because they value the work she does more than the $25/hr they are paying her.

Throughout the presentation of the union to the class she kept throwing around words like "entitled", "deserve" and "fair", all words I have found in personal experience used by the looter. People that expect something or are entitled to something that is unearned solely because of their need. It is these same type of people that have put into place a "progressive" tax system in the US and almost every other civilized nation in the world. This system punishes success, the more successful you are, the more you are punished. The wealth is removed by threat of force from successful individuals and businesses and handed out in large quantities to unsuccessful individuals and businesses which gives less incentive to be as productive as possible to those that are inclined and gives no incentive to unsuccessful people and businesses to make the changes necessary to be successful, which leaves us in the situation that we currently find ourselves in as a country.

The oft repeated mantra of unions the world over is "workers of the world unite", and is understood by few who repeat it. This phrase was first penned by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the Communist Manifesto, the authors of the manifesto also advocate, in their piece, for "abolition of private property", "abolition of the family" and marriage, as well as "abolish countries and nationality". It is appropriate that the CWA asks all of its members to wear red on Thursdays as a show of unity.

I was also told in the meeting with the union stewards that if I did not join the union that I was a free loader, getting the wages and benefits of the union members without paying dues. As if AT&T would not pay a skilled salesperson that has a proven track record and skill set as much as they would if I got together with a bunch of other employees and bullied the company through the threat of force into paying me more than I am worth. The only thing that the union has actually done is ensure that there is little to no ambition to improve yourself and move up within the company, and the income potential of the sales people is limited, to more equally distribute the pay among all workers. Also, that the pay favors those in seniority rather than those that are the most productive.

Workers of the world unite? I say give me liberty or give me death.

From the Elementary Catechism on the Constitution of the United States by Arthur J. Stansbury, 1828

"...remember that this precious Constitution, thus wise, thus just, is your birth-right. It has been earned for you by your fathers, who counseled much, labored long, and shed their dearest blood, to win it for their children. To them, it was the fruit of toil and danger ---to you, it is a gift. Do not slight it on that account, but prize it as you ought. It is yours, no human power can deprive you of it but your own folly and wickedness. To undervalue, is one of the surest ways to lose it. Take pains to know what the Constitution is ---the more you study, the higher you will esteem it. The better you understand your own rights, the more likely you will be to preserve and guard them. And, in the last place, my beloved young countrymen, your country's hope, her treasure, and one day to be her pride and her defence; remember that a constitution which gives to the people so much freedom, and entrusts them with so much power, rests for its permanency, on their knowledge and virtue...

The virtuous citizen is the true noble. He who enlightens his understanding--controls his passions--feels for his country's honor--rejoices in her prosperity--steps forth to aid her in the hour of danger--devotes to her advancement the fruits of his mind, and consecrates to her cause, his time, his property, and his noblest powers, such a man is one of God's nobility... We have seen such men among us; we hope to see many more."

Good and Evil, Intentions and Judging Others

Throughout my life I have run into an interesting phenomenon. It is something that comes up in politics, economics, and religion. I have watched it from the outside, and had direct personal experience with it. What is this phenomenon? Well, in politics and economics it usually breaks down the lines of people seeking maximum individual freedom and those who want governmental intervention in our personal lives. In religion it typically is between those who embrace traditional moral values and those who see morality in relativistic terms.

What I am talking about is the way one side sees and talks about the other. First I would like to describe the way I view the people on the other side of the issues that are important to me, and I have found that most people that agree with me on the issues think similarly. I personally come from the school of thought of the Founding Fathers, more individual freedom, less government intervention, both politically and economically. I recognize that the people from all other schools of thought generally have good intentions, and want the best for the country and for the most people. Even most people that are on the complete other end of the spectrum from me, who want total control by government over the economy have good intentions, and are usually just ignorant to history. As far as religion goes, I come from the more traditional view of morality, and just for full disclosure I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or more commonly known as Mormon. Both as a Mormon and as somebody that holds to traditional values I view people of different values and religions or non-religions as generally good people that advocate for what they believe is right and good for the most people.

What I have observed coming from the other side of the issues disturbs me. In almost all encounters that I have had personally and observed in the news and the lives of others this holds true. Politically we are referred to as evil conservatives and compared to Nazis. Economically we are referred to as evil, greedy capitalists and told we hate the poor. As somebody that believes in traditional morals we are referred to as evil, hateful, intolerant people, equated to the KKK. Right here on Gather I have been told that Mormons are like the Mob, they all intentionally lie and are generally evil. This last one is not done by a huge group of people, but a sizable group known as anti-Mormons which mostly consists of former members who have been disenfranchised with the church for one reason or another, but also includes the few people, typically on "my side" of the issues(religiously/morally

) that I would not include in my analysis because they are such a small number and they actually usually fall into the category of more governmental involvement in our personal lives on the political side of things and thus in that group of people anyways.

Judging the intentions of somebody is something that I do very rarely, and would require much evidence of intentional dishonesty. This is, I believe, the rational approach, as we can never really know the intentions of any individual until we have a conversation with them about their reasons for what they believe. This is why I am able to state that generally the people that disagree with me politically, economically and religiously are good people, because as I have conversed with them about what they believe and why they believe it, I find them well intentioned people.

So who is it that is intolerant, the group that believes that the other is ignorant and doesnt know any better, or the group that believes the other is evil, hatefull and liers? It becomes obvious when you see the reactions of the two different groups in California. When a panel of 4 judges overturned the vote of over 60% of the people to maintain the definition of marriage, what was the reaction? Go back to work and fix the loophole. Now when prop 8 passed, what was the reaction of the other group? It was to pour into the streets in front of religious buildings and say the most vile of things, hold signs that are intended to hurt, vandalize and threaten buildings and people, and call for boycotts of all the businesses of the donors to the opposing view. All because they must be evil, hateful, intolerant people if they oppose your view, right?