All right, at the risk of getting my legs broken, I'm going to write this anyway.
I just sent in a contribution to the Federalist regarding John Sweeney and the AFL-CIO. It seems that there's a crowd in the union that wants him out because he's spending all his money on politics and not enough on trying to get more union members. And as I recall from having an ex-wife in the union, it's not hard to get one. You really have to try to not get unionized in the grocery business. Basically as I recall once 50% + 1 employees are coerced into signing a union card, voila! you have a union. It's not like they sit you down and do it by secret ballot, otherwise the union might lose! And they can't have that, they need to shake you down for union dues so they can send it along to whatever lap dog the Democrats put on the ballot.
Trust me, I read the monthly UFCW propaganda they sent to my spouse, if for nothing else than to laugh and occasionally get my blood pressure up with their most egregious lies.
As part of writing this article, I got a bit curious and did some research. What I found (and I'm really not shocked by this at all) is that 21 of the top 100 campaign contributors between 1989 and 2002 were the AFL-CIO and its affilated unions. I suppose I shouldn't have counted in the Teamsters since they weren't always in the AFL-CIO during the time, but still, they were a fractional part of that $280 million. Yes, I think in the mob parlance (how appropriate for the Teamsters) that's 280,000 large. Over 90% went to the D's; what a surprise, huh?
Now, don't get me wrong. Organizing to bargain for wages and benefits isn't a bad thing. I didn't do it myself, I told people what I wanted to make and when I got an acceptable employer who wanted to pay me that sum with a good benefit package, I took the job. But that's a lot for one guy who pushes a broom to ask for, thus the idea of strength in numbers was born. Get 100 broom pushers and they could shut down a company. Great idea in the 1900's. The unions claim that they're the ones who brought you the weekend, and I'll not argue with that...although a lot of times my weekend is one day.
But it's when they cross the line and give away money that was originally meant for the running of the union and bargaining (like money for unionistas on strike) to political candidates who may or may not reflect the views of the average rank-and-file guy - that's where I object. There was a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court (Beck v. CWA) where it was decided that unions could not force workers to pay union dues for political purposes. But just try that and see how quickly the blackball takes effect.
My dad summed it up this way, "unions are for the lazy man". It seems that if one wants to excel at his craft, the union's there to discourage innovation. Say there's a worker who can assemble 200 widgets a day, when the union contract says he only has to do 100. Rather than encourage the excellent performance (which would help the company he works for profit from increased production), they tell the worker that he better stop at 100, even if he only works a half-shift, if he knows what's good for him. One of my good friends was a union worker for a summer and saw this happen.
And it's my contention that Democrats are the party of the lazy. But someday Atlas is going to shrug if the liberals continue to advance an agenda of larger and more intrusive government. It's already happening in the union movement, their rolls continue to shrink in all areas except for public employees (in other words, bureaucrats). Why do you think it's almost impossible to kill a government program?
While it's true that with recent election results that conservatives are ascending, there's still a need for vigilance against a backslide. One thing about Democrats, they stop at nothing to hold power. Ask the would-be Governor Rossi in Washington state.
Hey, now for something completely different. Heard something interesting on Rush today. He cited an columnist who was familiar with the newspaper business who noted that the drop in daily circulation was congruent with the increasing coverage of political items on the front pages. Looking at the Daily Times, while today's lead article is about the Ocean City Springfest, plastered next to it is an AP story, "Hiring picks up, hopes lift for economy." And at the bottom below the fold, "New district court judge selected." So about 1/2 the front page is devoted to at least some type of government. Not saying that these aren't important, but the AP story especially carries a touch of editorializing.
But I don't read the paper in its print version, just online. And half the time it's because I have a pending letter to the editor or Grapevine comment. Well, that and check on how the Shorebirds did the night before. But I skip most of the paper. Maybe I'm ill-informed because I don't watch the evening news here either, but I use the internet for my news. It's much easier to pick and choose sources I consider reliable that way, there's thousands to select from. No need to wait until the afternoon paper shows or 6:00 to get my news now. Competition and a free market, you gotta love it.
