State of the unions no more?

Like “pro-life” and “pro-choice” for reproductive issues, labor issues have their own winger words, with no legitimate purpose other than to make the speaker easier to label. For example, one man’s “right to work” (RTW) is another man’s “right to work for less” or “right to fire.” We’re seeing that play out well in Michigan, which may soon become the 24th RTW state in the union, and where President Obama took a decidedly anti position on that prospect.

Under this legislation, most workers in Michigan would not be compelled to pay union dues as a condition of employment; police and firefighters are exempted. Proponents argue that this will make state business more competitive, and boost individual worker freedom. Opponents contend that it would undermine union influence, and that the legislative process involved is unfair. Indeed, the measure is attached as a rider to an appropriations bill, and Gov. Rick Snyder (R-MI) is expected to sign it after today’s vote in the Republican-controlled Michigan Legislature.

I have consistently opposed the practice of using riders to make policy, and this is certainly no exception. By doing this, RTW proponents have demonstrated a fear of challenges not at all unlike that of the unions, who fear challenges to their authority. If they think this is a solid enough idea, they will put it at risk of being overturned by itself, without the cushion of the appropriations bill, then sell it hard and hope for the best. That’s what they can do to level the playing field.

Why does the same go for the unions? Because they worry, rightfully, that giving workers the choice not to join them will mean lower membership and, consequently, lower revenue. Given the fact that these workers would have to pay union dues out of their wages, however high the union may help push them, staying out of it certainly has its temptations. Not to mention the loss of pay that would come from the union telling everyone to walk off the job.

So of course RTW laws have the potential to curb the power of unions. But if they can successfully educate workers about the benefits of joining up, they should have nothing to worry about. For those who are unhappy with the idea of workers benefiting from things the unions have fought for, they might compromise by shutting them out of new benefits, with a non-retroactivity clause for good measure. That would require those workers to put their money where their mouth is in every sense of the word.

RTW provides an opportunity for all workers to receive an education on the pros and cons of union membership. Neither the unions nor the politicians should take that opportunity away with their undemocratic rhetoric and/or procedures. Personally, I’m happy not to be a union member and hope I’ll never have to deal with that in any workplace.

Economic headlines we could really use

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by every member of the media, myself included, and the political establishment who has ever made news out of the national unemployment rate. I’ve already criticized the practice of doing this on a month-by-month basis, since those numbers tend not to mean much that close together. But they don’t mean much over long periods of time, either. How often have you heard economists ascribe drops in the unemployment rate to something other than more and better employment? They’re right!

President Obama is using this month’s jobs report for cosmetic purposes, which we can hardly expect him not to do. Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) isn’t reacting with quite as much enthusiasm, pointing out that “millions of Americans [are] still struggling for work, living in poverty and using food stamps to feed their families.” Both of these are somewhat better measures of economic improvement, although they, too, are skewed by the fact that people can be below the poverty line and financially ineligible for food stamps while still having a hard time putting food on the table. You need to ask.

But even that’s not what I’m talking about. More bearish commentators on jobs reports will often tell you about people who have dropped out of the labor force by ceasing their work searches, thereby lowering the unemployment rate, which only applies to those still in the labor force. There is such thing as the civilian labor force participation rate, which measures how many people are employed or actively trying to be. That went up by 0.1 percentage points in September.

Or how about wage growth? (Yes, that links to last month’s numbers, but it illustrates my point.) That tells you if the jobs people have are getting better; as I’ve written before, job gains in the private sector could be heavily dependent on how many more people start working at Wal-Mart. That also gives you an idea of where growth in consumer spending is coming from – paychecks or savings?

I’ve got more. Manufacturing output, sales of durable goods (basically, consumer crap, as opposed to food and gas and other things you actually need), home prices. The unemployment rate doesn’t quite mean nothing, but it definitely shouldn’t be touted as some kind of economic oracle. The near-myopic focus on that and the number of new jobs added increases the chance that the average news skimmer won’t get the whole story. So we, as writers and politicians, need to give them more indicative stuff to skim when these reports come out.

Two campaigns, no understanding

You know people who attack their opponents’ spelling when they don’t have a comeback against the substance of their argument? (I never deal with this.) An attack on their vocabulary is only marginally better. That is to what this weekend’s firefight between this year’s presidential campaigns amounts: incorrect word usage. Which is, of course, missing the point.

Here’s what happened in a nutshell: President Obama’s re-election campaign is continuing its offensive against former Gov. Mitt Romney’s (R-MA) record as co-founder of Bain Capital by saying he would be the “outsourcer-in-chief” as president. In response, Romney’s campaign rather snootily clarified the word the Obama campaign used and the word they were probably thinking of:

Outsource, verb: To purchase (goods) or subcontract (services) from an outside supplier or source. (Random House)

Offshore, adjective: Located or based in a foreign country and not subject to tax laws. (American Heritage)

Got it? Outsourcing implies that a job that’s being moved out of one American company might be moved to a different American company. Offshoring means a job is staying within an American company, but moving out of America. And if you think I’m using the word “American” too much, man, are you in for a treat.

Now, I suppose we could argue that by attacking the Obama campaign’s diction, the Romney campaign is making the point that their guy understands basic business terminology better than the other guy. In a year when everyone wants the president to know something about ideal conditions for domestic business growth, that is, obviously, somewhat important. But any idiot – well, most idiots, I guess – can memorize a few definitions. Does it really mean anything when you put that idiot in the Oval Office?

The answer, in short order, is no. Romney and his people can trumpet the fact that he was in the private sector in some capacity all they want. But if that presence doesn’t include figuring out how to keep middle- and lower-tier jobs where they originated, people still aren’t going to be impressed. I’ve already made the point that Americans won’t feel like things are improving if they have to uproot their lives for a paycheck. If Romney’s people can meld this and the importance of free trade into a coherent jobs message, they might have something more than a prissy semantics lesson.

And another thing: No dictionary I checked lists “offshore” as a verb. If we’re going to split hairs, let’s split them right.

Makes you long for the days of factories

In fairness to President Obama, there was a small kernel of truth in his statement last week that the private sector was “doing fine”; it is currently adding jobs at a faster rate than the public sector. And in fairness to former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), Wisconsin’s recall election did reflect a desire to shrink government and its payroll. So why did I call both of them “idiots” when I wrote about this on Saturday? Because neither one is making a point that makes anyone feel better.

In a strong sign of things to come in terms of campaign rhetoric, the two spent the entire weekend trying to one-up (one-down?) each other by pointing out all the ways each one is out of touch with the concerns of middle-class voters. Both agree that Americans are worried about the job market. Both have dug in their heels about whose ideas to fix it are worse. Neither one seems to have any idea what would assuage those worries. But I think it’s pretty easy to come up with a list:

• The local economy has opportunities available. I cannot stress the word “local” enough. The people who are suffering the most are the ones who can’t just pack up and leave for a city or state with a better jobs picture: They’re older, they have payments to make, they don’t want to uproot their families, etc. National numbers don’t mean much to these people unless they’re part of a long-term trend that might mean something for their community.
• The public-sector jobs that are available have an evident return on their investment. Teacher, police officer, firefighter? Sure. A bureaucratic title that goes on for six or more words (six being a completely arbitrary number)? Nobody wants to do that and nobody wants to pay for anyone who does that.
• The private-sector jobs that are available aren’t typically occupied by high-schoolers. I don’t know how many Americans get excited when they hear that McDonald’s is hiring 50,000 new assistant managers across the country.
• There is less need to alter their lifestyle drastically. Dipping into the kids’ college funds to help with the mortgage payments? Unable to take even a weekend trip for a year? Lost all hope of retirement at 65? Chances are, your lifestyle has been altered drastically.
• They’re not voting for you out of economic desperation. And that’s that.

It’s really not a job market, in general, that Obama and Romney need to be worried about. It’s a good job market. You’ll know things have turned around when millions of Americans with families to feed have a lot less pride to swallow.

. . . so are the months of our unemployment

In my first two weeks of working full-time, I measured my tenure in days. After that, I started thinking of it in terms of weeks; the days just became too numerous to count. Now I think of it in terms of months. Eight, to be exact. It’s something you’ll find yourself doing whenever you’ve been doing something long enough. For example, do you feel like jobs reports come so often that they don’t indicate trends the way they did? Because nobody in politics seem to feel that way. What a surprise.

March’s report yielded a gain of 120,000 jobs and the unemployment rate falling to 8.2 percent. Original projections promised a gain of 203,000 jobs and the rate holding steady at 8.3 percent. Reasons cited include people leaving the labor force after giving up on finding work (how exactly do they find those people?), plus unseasonably warm weather. Monetary policy hawks fear another round of quantitative easing from the Federal Reserve; Republicans just see an opportunity to bash President Obama’s economic policy, despite the fact that unemployment was at 9 percent this time last year.

If you go to Google’s helpful unemployment rate chart, you will note that the unemployment rate was rising rather steeply from January 2009 to October 2009. Since then, it has been fluctuating, but downward. If you wanted to back up former Gov. Mitt Romney’s (R-MA) contention that this report proved that “the president’s excuses have ran out,” you would have to demonstrate that he had a) nothing to do with the general drop over the past several months and b) everything to do with this month’s numbers. Or just explain this chart.

I don’t mean this column to be a ringing endorsement of Obama’s approach to the economy, although it’s preferable to the New Deal approach he took in his first two years. My point is that federal policy, especially the kind that’s drafted, passed and enacted in a month – in short, the kind that doesn’t exist – is not the only factor that allows jobs to be created, and it never has been.

In a one-month span, any number of events could come up that simply do not a trend make. Wouldn’t it make more sense to stop paying attention to the monthlies? Stop seizing on them for political purposes as if they mean what they used to, when we had only been paying attention for a few months? I don’t expect candidates to ignore an opportunity, however meaninglessly, but the rest of us should think bigger.

I will note one thing about this report: Factory jobs have increased, especially in the auto industry, which provides a political opportunity for anyone but Romney. Who would he like to blame for that?

If only they had these conversations about primaries

To the best of my knowledge, none of whatever is deducted from my paycheck goes to a union, which makes me very happy. I don’t need to be represented by one, for a number of reasons that none of you really care to know about. However, a few economic sectors do need a strong union presence, as other bodies designed to protect workers have dropped the ball on enforcement of their own regulations. But certain members of Congress don’t want to make that too easy.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is set to vote on a regulatory change that would make it easier for unions to organize. On average, it takes 38 days between a proposed union election and the election itself. The NLRB wants to cut that to 10 days for the sake of expediency. The House Education and Workforce Committee, chaired by Rep. John Kline (R-MN), wants to set it at 35 days for the sake of giving workers all the information they’ll need.

This could be as simple as taking these two numbers and splitting them down the middle. 22 days would be enough for the employer and the union to make their cases, while at the same time drastically reducing the length of the decision-making process. While I personally don’t think 35 days is particularly excessive, it would be interesting to see how the employer’s contingency planning would be squeezed. On the other hand, if you don’t have a unionization plan already, you should write one up soon. Because, really, you never know.

On the other hand, one of the NLRB’s concerns is that anything above 10 days would be plenty of time for employers to exact revenge on subordinates who are about to sign a union card. Before they actually did that, they wouldn’t have many people to whom to turn for help, unless they already had a solid lawyer. And when everybody is, or should be, tightening belts, picking off a few disloyal employees can be pretty tempting, more so than cutting bonuses.

I have to admit, I’m pretty torn between siding with the NLRB and siding with the committee. I will say, however, that there is an insidious level of fear-mongering on both their parts. One says workers are going to be manipulated by their employers; the other says they’re going to be manipulated by their unions. Is this really the time to be treating American workers like malleable idiots?

The likelihood of workers joining a union is directly proportional to the number of workplace-specific reasons for them to do it. Instead of fighting off the NLRB, larger employers might want to take a look at their existing labor practices and fix them before somebody else does.

Boeing’s got a brand-new state

At the request of tipster Allan Gates, who sent his tip in before I thought to ask for the sender’s location, we’ll be covering some legislation that will probably remain off the radar until next week. The House Education and Workforce Committee has voted to “prohibit the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from closing, relocating or transferring a business.” While we could call this “Boeing v. NLRB,” the two haven’t met within the judiciary since 1973, so that’ll be our shorthand.

Having witnessed four labor stoppages since 1989 (as long as I’ve been alive), Boeing, headquartered in Washington state, wants to set up a production line for 30 percent of its Dreamliner jets in South Carolina, a right-to-work state, where workers cannot be compelled to join a union. The NLRB believes this is the company’s way of retaliating against unionized workers, an “illegal transfer of work,” and is trying to force them to keep production in Washington.

It would be foolish for anyone to claim that South Carolina’s right-to-work status wasn’t at least a factor in Boeing’s decision. Certainly it would be easier for them to avoid ceding too much to unions there. My father likes to point out that in these states, unions are essentially stripped of their power to bargain effectively for the entire workforce, although this may not matter if employees have the right not to join but do so anyway.

However, the NLRB is an agency of the federal government, and any court in the land would find their efforts unconstitutional. That such efforts needed legislation before they were considered worthy of prohibition is, to put it mildly, surprising. While I would not personally support moving factories around and possibly spurring employees to uproot their lives for the sake of their jobs, there’s nothing illegal about it.

It would be fair for the NLRB to get involved to this extent if Boeing were actually violating employees’ rights. But since they are not, the board might instead take on the role of consultant, as opposed to arbitrator. An average of one work stoppage every five-and-a-half years merits a revision of Boeing’s relationship with the Machinists Union. Even then, with the South Carolina line already set up, no good can come of bringing it to Washington and spurring those employees to uproot their lives.

I should point out that Boeing has donated $5,250 to Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC), the bill’s chief sponsor, in case you think he’s the selfless savior of South Carolina.

Take two placards and call me in the morning

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by any doctor in Wisconsin who provided sick notes for public workers wanting to go out and protest Gov. Scott Walker’s (R-WI) union-busting legislation. 22 of them in particular have been under investigation by the state Department of Regulation and Licensing, facing the possibility of ”reprimands, pay loss and demotion” for doing this. A lot of people I know would call that an act of bravery. I call it blatantly political and damaging to the integrity of their profession.

Those who have read previous columns on the issue know that while I am not a fan of public sector unions, I believe their members should have the final say over whether or not they want to keep them. I’ve also written that both Walker and Wisconsin Senate Democrats were at fault for their initial refusals to have a rational discussion with each other. Neither one is off the hook, least of all Walker, who has admitted that ensuing cost savings would be minimal at best but is pushing for the legislation anyway.

Now we have a new group of people to add to the list of those who acted wrongly in this debacle. One wonders if these doctors would do the same thing if, for example, the governor were a Democrat and public-sector workers sympathetic to the Republicans wanted to go out and protest a tax hike. I would not suggest that their political preferences bleed into the actual practice of medicine. But its administrative requirements count for something.

Furthermore, they were aiding and abetting the removal of human resources from public-sector offices on false grounds. It’s not unheard of for individual doctors to be persuaded into writing sick notes for spurious reasons. But these were 22 doctors, and you can’t call the “need” to protest an acceptable medical excuse – especially when you consider that no true progress on this front could be made outside the Senate.

I think we can all agree that when one works in a position of trust such as this, they should not use the resources of that profession for political action. Unions get flak for this all the time when they should be paying attention to their workers. Let’s not let the workers themselves fall into that trap.

Manufacturing’s descent and the limits of green jobs

If you’ve read my posts on job creation before, you’ll know that one of my favored strategies is investment and green technology and energy. The one flaw in the plan is that many jobs created in that sector, in its current state, will lack permanence. If Mona Charen’s column on the subject is to be believed, green energy is also far less labor-intensive than its fossil fuel-based predecessors, already translating into losses.

Keep in mind that her sources are Hot Air and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), neither of which has ever been particularly friendly to any of the Obama administration’s ideas – and only AEI has any reputation for serious policy research. So take everything the column says with a teaspoon of salt. Her central point is this: Government spending on green jobs has not made energy cheaper and is excessive when compared to the return on investment.

This should come as no surprise, considering that green energy is far from the point of market saturation. High prices in the early stages of any business cycle are natural. But you can bet that many voters will disregard this in favor of attacking the White House for perceived inaction on jobs. In any event, hiring required for putting up wind turbines, solar panels and other such infrastructure can only last so long.

The goal, then, of the administration’s job agenda should be to spur a resurgence of the general manufacturing sector. Large-scale green technology for trade purposes is not the only thing they can do toward this end. The development of smaller-scale renewable energy apparati, for use by individual residences and businesses, is another, as is installing the larger variety on American soil.

Even with those in the pipeline (no pun intended), there should be additional prongs to a comprehensive manufacturing strategy. A more incentive-based approach to moving plants back to America, as opposed to punitive taxation, would be one of the most significant. These incentives should be targeted to the newest sectors, including medical and mobile technology, with smaller breaks for older industries that have been growing at a slower pace or not at all.

I wish American corporations felt a moral imperative to keep jobs here, but not all do. Any federal effort at creating this imperative should be limited, especially if pressure from customers and shareholders were powerful enough to make it unnecessary. This alone may be the closest thing to a silver bullet for rebuilding the job market in the U.S.

Labor’s love’s lost

As much as we’d like it better if they were more concerned with individual donations, the worst fate for any major political party is to lose one of their single largest funders. Such is the problem looming before the Democratic Party. AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka is threatening to limit the union’s campaign support for Democratic candidates, as revenge for their perceived absence in fights against union-busting legislation. Cut to millions of non-Democrats laughing their asses off at Richard Trumka.

. . . labor probably would spend more time and money combating union-busting efforts by state officials. . . . Trumka called for “an independent labor movement” and said unions were not responsible for building the power of any political party, but for improving the lives of working families.

Gee, YA THINK?! Trumka has been president of the AFL-CIO since 2009, and was its Secretary-Treasurer for 14 years before that. If it had hit him at any point during the last 16 years that a union’s responsibility is to its members, and not a middleman in the form of the Democrats, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. They would have started pouring money into more impactful local campaigns long ago.

The AFL-CIO is not alone in this sentiment. The International Association of Fire Fighters halted all political donations last year after getting a minor return on their investment. The Service Employees International Union, on the other hand, is staying involved in federal politics. They shouldn’t expect to be there long, considering local and state governments have more influence over labor legislation. Has anyone figured that out?

Would you like to know how much money the AFL-CIO spent on donations during last year’s midterm elections? $50 million. That could have bought a hell of a lot of health benefits in Wisconsin and Ohio, where they’re currently involved in recall campaigns. Correct me if I’m wrong, but lobbying should be secondary to directly protecting workers’ interests, shouldn’t it? I would like to know how many rank-and-file members of the largest U.S. unions are losing any sleep over Trumka’s tactics.

If the Supreme Court is going to allow unlimited campaign spending by unions and corporations, it’ll be up to their own insiders to decide some limits. Member locals and shareholders should have authorization by vote over donations. As it stands, there is too much power over donations in the hands of the people at the very top; if the general public can’t decide, their own publics should.