Union Decision A Boon To Constitution

     The significance of this week's Supreme Court decision that stated home health care workers in Illinois could not be compelled to join a union, is not just the effect it will have on that relatively small group of workers, but on the nation as a whole. The decision supports the Constitution generally, and the first amendment specifically, like no other in recent memory. It almost makes me believe that the Supreme Court of the United States "gets it."
     There has been no greater threat to or violator of the concept of free association contained within the first amendment than the unions. Their power comes from politicians, mostly on the Left, and not from the workers they represent, who are compelled to associate with an organization that they may feel does not represent their values or political interests.
     Some union supporters say that the mandate placed upon workers in union shops to join under threat of losing their employment must exist in order to fully benefit from collective bargaining. That it is not fair if some workers are able to opt out and still benefit from the union's representation of their co-workers. But this situation is not without precedence, the American Medical Association and the American Bar Association represent the interests of all doctors and lawyers respectively without membership being required by everyone in those professions.
     Union membership in Wisconsin after Governor Scott Walker removed the membership mandate that was weighing down workers resulted in many of them choosing not to join. There, unions must register every year in order to keep their status as a labor union. The result has been that many unions have decided not to register and instead classify themselves as political advocacy groups. This is much more honest than claiming to represent workers and then laundering their dues back to Democrat politicians who support policies which benefit their organizations.
     I have never understood the dichotomy of union support and pro-constitutionalism. The compulsory nature of union membership and their aversion to the principles of freedom as they relate to right-to-work states, should be sufficient evidence in convicting unions as enemies of real liberty. Their origins may have been motivated by justice for workers, but in today's world where workers' rights are not threatened, except by the unions that supposedly represent them, unions have become the antithesis of their founding. They have become bloated and corrupt organizations where the elite leadership live lavish lifestyles, not off the sweat of their own brow, but off that of their captive membership.

Whip Me, Beat Me, Make Me Vote Democrat !

     Recently, the largest labor union in the country, the AFL-CIO, put pen to paper and wrote a searing rebuke of ObamaCare, the law they helped ram through the United States Congress. Who would have thought that the union thugs that syphon members' dues to support their lavish lifestyles actually could write. It is hard to say whether or not the union leadership knew that ObamaCare would cause their members' premiums to skyrocket and their choices in health care to be virtually eliminated when they were using their thug tactics to help pass the law, but that is the result it has had. And it has not yet been fully implemented.
     Union leadership was OK with ObamaCare as long as it was only imposed on the great unwashed non-union workers in this country. But now that they have found out that their health care benefits will be lessened in quality and increased in cost, they are throwing a conniption. The AFL-CIO's protestations will not change the hearts of those law makers they think they have in their pockets, because those politicians value their Leftist ideology more than their union constituents. Besides, no matter how badly Democrat policies may affect union workers, their dues will still be syphoned to Democrat campaign coffers and union thugs will continue to organize their own brand of violent love-ins for Democrat politicians.
     In fact, the union constituency is much the same as other factions of the Democrat voting base, i.e., they have bought the myths and lies about Republicants and will never vote for them, no matter how badly the Democrats treat them. And treat them badly they do. Everyone of the Democrat constituency groups have done worse under the Obama administration than under the previous administration of George W. Bush. And Mr. Obama has been truly blessed to implement everything he has wanted to, and things have gotten worse for blacks, single women, Hispanics and yes, even union members. But Democrats know they can count on the votes of these groups, so they can continue to implement policies that are not in their best interest or the best interest of the country.
     The psychology behind these Democrat constituency groups continuing to vote Democrat, no matter how badly they are treated by Democrat politicians, is much the same psychology that motivates a woman to stay with an abusive man. The only difference is that the Democrat constituency groups seem to be willing participants in their own abuse. The AFL-CIO's blind allegiance to supporting ObamaCare when they thought it would not affect them, and their continued support of the Democrats who they now realize have cut their hours and given them inferior health benefits, it just one of many examples of the willing participation of Democrat constituencies in their own abuse.

The Immorality Of The Modern "Public Servant"

     People who have no moral foundation, or aptitude for it, can sometimes be shamed into doing the right thing. The problem we currently face with our government, and its leaders like Barack Obama and Eric Holder, is that they have neither a moral compass or the capacity for shame. Beyond their disdain for decency, Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder have no desire for moral clarity or certitude and act as if their feet would catch fire if they stepped onto the righteous path that use to serve as a highway for United States public servants.
     The attitude exhibited by our President and Attorney General is not limited to them, but is endemic in too many "public servants" of the modern era. Six of the richest districts in the United States are in the Washington D.C. area, it is by far one of the wealthiest areas of the country. This area is almost entirely populated by "public servants" who have become millionaires through matriculation into the university of government workers. Former President, Bill Clinton, lived in public housing his entire adult life and has only worked government jobs, but has somehow managed to become a multi-millionaire. His wife, the disgraced former Secretary of State, worked for the Rose law firm in Arkansas only because her husband Bill was the state Attorney General and then Governor, she never actually tried a single case during her tenure at the firm. She was what they call a "rainmaker." She, as the wife of the Attorney General, and then as wife of the Governor, met with prospective clients to impress them.
       The corruption of the term "public servant" has transpired right under the noses of the governed. We have allowed those who enter public life as middle-class to rise into the ether of wealth with incomes of which average Americans can only dream. We have allowed politicians to scare us into voting for higher taxes on ourselves to support public sector union contracts that benefit a select group of people, including the politicians who threaten to take away our essential services like police, fire and teachers unless we pay our pound of flesh in tribute to the mighty "public servants." We have struggled to live frugally and save for our retirements for 40 to 50 years while "public servants" have spent their bloated salaries like drunkin' sailors and then retire after twenty or twenty fives years of "service." We resolve ourselves to labor in the ditch of employment to support these "public servants" for forty years or more in retirement, all while our cities, states and country go broke from their greed and sense of entitlement.
     Someone once said that democracy can only succeed when practiced by a moral people, and if no one said it, I am saying it now. It is time we put "servant" back into "public servant" and not allow these essential parts of our republic to bankrupt the very nation they are supposed to be serving.

Brass-Knuckled Librarians-These Aint Your Grandma's Librarian

      Why is it that while the relevance and importance of libraries in our culture has precipitously decreased in recent decades, the salary and benefits for librarians has had the opposite reaction. In my small town, for instance, the average librarian "earns" 45k a year. And that does not count the stocking full of benefits they receive. In fact, on average, a librarian in my town earns 7k a year more than the average police officer. With all due respect to librarians, I think I would rather spend my money on police protection than the keepers of videos, CDs and books.
     Do not get me wrong, I am pro-library and pro-reading, but I am also a realist. And libraries in recent years have become depots for taxpayer funded free videos and music for those unwilling or unable to pay for these entertainment items themselves. I fail to understand the difference between a 50k a year librarian job and the $8/hour clerk at my local video store. Both check out videos and restock them when they are returned. Actually the clerk's job is harder because he has to sell popcorn, candy and soda.
     The reason that these taxpayer funded video clerks who work in the library have such disproportional salaries and benefits is because of the librarian union, one of the most aggressive and thuggish of all the unions. This is no joke, the librarian union has grown into an organization that  makes the Teamsters look like...well, librarians. Maybe Teamsters legend and mysteriously vanished president, Jimmy Hoffa, was actually done in by the librarians and his body hidden among the 15th century French poetry section. But I digress.
     I never understood why librarians have to have masters degrees. I know a gentleman whose daughter is mentally challenged and restocks books at a local library. Now if she can do the job, why do we need to spend 50k a year plus benefits of taxpayer money to pay over-educated union members to do the same job. I understand the Dewey Decimal Classification can get quite complicated and may require higher education to understand and implement. My question is, "Why can videos and  audio CDs at the library be organized alphabetically, but books need this complicated system which requires a master degree and salary and benefits approaching 100k a year?"
     As valuable as libraries once were in our culture, they have become day cares and cyber cafes. People avail themselves of the Internet when they want information, they don't get in their car and drive to their local library. My local library always has small children running around screeching, or teenagers hanging out laughing and having a grand old time because there is no spindly, stern-looking woman in glasses with a tight bun on the back of her head shushing them. Now her I would have paid 50k a year.

Going Postal On The Mentally Challenged

     My full time gig is in a building which has a mail room housing the different boxes for each suite. Generally the mail room is about as exciting as an Obama speech, but Monday of this week the sparks were flying. Our mail carrier, who on a good day might get 80 percent of the mail in the correct boxes and is routinely rude while doing it, escalated her inappropriate behavior to a level that I didn't expect, even from a government worker. She yelled and swore at a mentally challenged man in his fifties because he wouldn't leave the mail room and wait until she was done misplacing the mail in the wrong boxes. Her rant continued on for several minutes after the gentleman had vacated the room in tears.
     This mail carrier had the unmitigated nerve to say she was going to report the mentally challenged man to her supervisor for impeding the mail delivery, of course I doubt that she will mention he is mentally challenged or that she screamed uncontrollably at him. It was like pulling teeth out of the mouth of a fully awake lion, but I was finally able to convince my boss to lodge a complaint against her with the post office. I don't expect any disciplinary action to be taken against the carrier. Her union membership wraps around her and her fellow carriers like a cloaking device and protects their right to mistreat the handicapped and a myriad of other offenses that 40 years ago would have lead to immediate job termination.
    The salient issue of my post is not entirely this one carrier's actions on this particular day, but the general disgust and irritation that public employees exhibit towards the taxpayers who pay their salaries and benefits. We have all experienced a downward spiral in both the competence and attitude of public service workers, from the slow as molasses license bureau worker up to the arrogant and dismissive politicians who are suppose to protect our best interests. It is as if they are entitled to their salaries and benefits and the taxpayers who fund them are an inconvenience.
     I wish the behavior of my building's mail carrier was an anomaly, but sadly it has become all too illustrative of the almost adversarial relationship that has formed between public servants and the public they serve. The cause, I believe, is the exaggeration of salaries and benefits far beyond what public sector workers' counterparts in the private sector receive. That coupled with the iron clad job security that union membership provides, creates an environment for public sector workers where the only expectation of them is that they continue to cash their paychecks every week. Maybe I am just old fashioned, but I expect my mail carrier, as well as other public employees, to be presentable in both their dress and attitude. Anything less use to be unacceptable by the public who paid the freight on the costs of government.

Right To Work Is The Real Pro-Choice

     Yesterday, the Michigan house past legislation that joined their state with over 20 others which have right to work laws. Simply stated, right to work laws eliminate the state mandate that workers must join a union and pay dues as a requirement of being employed. It seems like a no-brainer for people who fought a revolution to extricate themselves from a government that limited their right to make choices they deemed to be best for themselves. But the neanderthal unions protested the passage of the new law, in some instances with their trademark violence, in an effort to take Michiganders back to the days of King George III.
     My first problem with the union reaction to the law is based on free-market ideals, i.e. if the unions provide a valuable service to their customers, why do they need to use the force of law to require membership. Are they afraid that workers have figured out the unions' money laundering scheme that has union dues, and in the case of public sector unions taxpayer dollars, being funneled into Democrat political campaigns? These campaigns elect politicians whose policies are at odds with many union member's values. Have the unions and Democrats forgotten that the Constitution that they seem intent on using as toilet paper, guarantees the right of free association? Maybe they don't understand that this means free people can not be compelled by the force of government to join organizations they don't freely choose to join.
       My second problem with the union reaction to the new Michigan law is the dishonest way in which they frame their opposition. Even President Obama stated in a recent speech that right to work is the right to work for less. However, a recent survey completed by the Pew Research Center shows that the average pay for workers in right to work states is higher than it is for workers in states that compel union membership. Additionally, union membership drops significantly after a state passes right to work laws similar to the one in Michigan. This is the real reason that the unions fear workers' choice, they know that many will choose to free themselves from the grip of unions that no longer represent what is best for the worker or the country.
     The right to work debate is illustrative of the shear hypocrisy of the left who claim to be pro-choice when it comes to killing babies, but not much else. Mandatory union membership by workers is just one in a long list of impositions that the left has tried to thrust upon an unwilling populace that is capable and desirous of making their own choices. And this is what scares the unions and the left most, that given the opportunity, free people will choose not to labor under their oppressive policies.

Click here to watch my political song parodies.