Michael Moore: "Go Union!" History: "That's New."

Michael Moore is on twitter spewing against Michigan's Right To Work law, just passed by their legislature.  According to him it's some kind of travesty.  Never mind that every right to work state in the nation is doing better, economically, than Michigan right now.

So, on twitter, he claimed that anyone working on his next movie would have to be part of the union.  Well, that's his choice, really, but it would be a departure.  See, as recently as 2009 (the last time he made a movie), Michael Moore was avoiding using union labor wherever he could.

It's always so strange to me that these limousine liberals are all pro-union- right up until they see what union labor costs.

Fratricide: Bakers' Union Kills Nearly 13,000 Other Union Jobs

Well, they did it.  Hostess said Wednesday that if the Bakers weren't back to work by end of day Thursday, they'd liquidate.  The Teamsters (hardly a friend of corporations) backed them up, saying that Hostess really couldn't afford a better deal than it was offering.  The Bakers still didn't believe them, and refused to return to work.

This morning, Hostess has declared it will seek judicial permission to liquidate its assets, shutter all of its plants, and lay off approximately 18,000 mostly union workers.  The Bakers union was the second largest, after the Teamsters, for Hostess.  The represent about 5,000 employees.  These 5,000 employees decided that it was better that no one get anything than that they take an 8% pay cut.

Think about that.  Rather than take 92% of their prior pay rate, they would rather take 0% and force the other workers (again: largely union workers) also to get 0% of their prior wages.

Heck of a job.

Now, I'm not sure what the Bakers Union told the employees, but I suspect people didn't really think things all the way through.  You see, when a company normally lays off employees, they are eligible for some benefits.  These include Unemployment and COBRA.  When a company liquidates, however, all of those benefits go away.  That includes for people currently on them.  So it's not just current employees who are being screwed over by the bakers, it's employees who had been fired, laid off, or otherwise left the company in the last 18 months.  I'm sure in this time of (real) 14+% unemployment, they'll really appreciate not having access to Unemployment benefits or COBRA.

Then there are retirees.  Pensions?  Gone.  Retiree health benefits?  Gone.  The company will discharge all of those liabilities in bankruptcy.  The bakers union has absolutely destroyed well upwards of 18,000 lives, because they didn't want to take an 8% pay cut.  Zero percent was better, in their minds, than 92%.

Now, it's easy to pin this just on the bakers union.  In this particular case, it's where the blame belongs.  But there is a larger point, here.

Unions often talk about a fraternity, or a sense of mutual respect even between unions.  One of the reasons strikes are often effective is that when one union strikes, others often will in solidarity.  Unions help each other out.  Union members respect members of other unions.  They're not like those icky Scabs who just want to work for a wage, and don't particularly care about Sticking It To The Man. 

But when it comes down to it, they'll throw that fraternity away.  Their selfish desires mean they'll use the other unions, but they don't really care about them.  If they think they can get more, even if losing the gamble means ruining other lives, they'll take the gamble.

And why shouldn't they?  It's not the union bosses who are going to be out of a job on Tuesday.  They won't be the ones losing their pensions and benefits.  The union bosses won't be looking for work in this economy.  What skin is it off their nose if these 18,000 families suddenly have no, or at least greatly reduced, income?

No More Twinkies!?

When the Unions screwed over GM and Chrysler, I was upset.  When the Unions attempted to jeopardize our military by striking against Lockheed Martin, I was incensed (also, got some results, however minor).  When the Unions forced American Airlines into bankruptcy, I decried them.  But this is simply a bridge to far.

They are now imperiling my Twinkies and Hostess Cupcakes. 

Hostess declared bankruptcy back in January.  Since then, they have been attempting to restructure both their debt and their organization.  The Unions, however, have fought them the whole way.  It seems they would rather have 100% of nothing, than 50% of something.  So, yesterday, Hostess CEO Greg Rayburn said that the company would liquidate its holdings if striking workers did not return to work by the end of business today.

That's over 18,000 jobs gone.  Not to mention the Twinkie, Hostess Cupcakes, Zingers, and other fine pastries.  Beyond the 18,000 jobs (and my precious cupcakes), there will be a ripple effect from this causing ancillary damage to the economy.  How many tons of flour must Hostess use in a day?  How many tons of butter, eggs, sugar, and other ingredients?  How many gallons of fuel do they use in their trucks?  Then there is their equipment which requires regular maintenance and replacement.

I'm not sure who is more to blame, here.  Hostess, the union workers, or the union bosses.  In the case of AMR, for instance, I know that AMR executives wasted a lot of good will when they got concessions from their unions several years ago, and then went ahead and paid bonuses to their executives.  So I can at least understand where the unions are coming from in that dispute, even if I think they're being self-destructive.  I have heard no such stories about Hostess, however.

Then there are the union workers.  Surely they're hearing what the company is saying?  Surely they realize that any job is better than none, and that it's better than a few hundred people get laid off (which means they would continue to collect unemployment, be eligible for COBRA, etc.) than for the company to completely liquidate (in which case none of those things is true)?  Why would they continue striking?

And finally there are the union bosses.  They, as always, are in it only for themselves.  They don't care about those jobs lost, they only care about those union dues, and you can bet union membership won't expire just because someone's job is gone.  Teamsters will keep their union membership up to date if they want to get another truck driving job elsewhere.  Same with the bakers' union.  And so on.  It's no skin of the union's nose if all of those jobs are gone, they still get their money.

It seems to me that union workers would wise up, here.  The Union bosses are not looking out for them, they're simply looking for a payday.  The company isn't looking out for them either, but it is more in the company's best interest to look out for the workers than it is in the Union's.  Be skeptical of both, but the one who is proving more trustworthy here is Hostess.

I hope this is resolved without loss of my beloved cupcakes.  But, if it's not, I side with the company.  What cannot continue will not, and if the union workers and union bosses refuse to acknowledge that simple fact, then I have no sympathy for them.

Union Democrats- This is what you asked for.

So Boeing is laying off 30% of its executive team due, if you read between the lines, to sequestration.  Funny.  They were SUPPOSED to announce those layoffs a couple of weeks ago, due to the Democrat created WARN act.  But Obama's Department of Labor decided that they shouldn't release that before the election- it might have hurt Obama's re-election chances.  So Boeing feigned ignorance, just like Lockheed did.

"Oh, no, the Government says we won't be hurt due to sequestration, and the Government wouldn't lie to us, would they?"

So Boeing pretended that the Government could suspend the laws of mathematics, and failed to issue the layoff notifications on time.  Now, miraculously, the laws of math have reasserted themselves, those scamps.  Suddenly, Boeing will be affected by sequestration cuts.  Imagine that.

Look out, union laborers.  Right now it's the executive team.  That won't be enough.  Your turn will come.

Just remember that you asked for it.

Update: A previous version of this post said Boeing was laying off 40% of it's executive team.  The correct number from the article is 30%.

Barack Obama: My Job Is Too Hard

Calls Debate Prep "A Drag"

The Hill is reporting that poor, poor Barack Obama is feeling sorry for himself.  I mean, he's only the Most Powerful Man in the World.  He plays golf like he's an addict.  He lives a jet-set lifestyle that cost the US Taxpayer $1.4 Billion in one year alone.  He has avoided responsibility for every major issue since he came into office.

But having to sit down and prepare for a debate?  "It's a drag.  They're making me do my homework."

Now, The Hill reports that as a joke.  Let me tell you something about jokes like that- they aren't jokes.  You don't make them if you're not really feeling sorry for yourself.  You might make a self deprecating joke.  Maybe something like, "Yeah, I'd love to get out more.  Unfortunately my memory also seems to want a vacation; I guess I've got more studying to do."  See, that's a joke that says, "man I don't like this.  Oh, well, better knuckle down."  His joke sounds petulant and whiny.

This is not behavior I expect from a grown man at all, and certainly not from the President of the United States.

Meanwhile, the Obama supporters at the AFSCME have a series of ads coming out about how mean Mitt Romney is.  Get ready for this, it's a bombshell. 

He's never offered his garbage man a hug or a Gatorade.

On the other end, Mitt Romney is the one showing leadership on issues from Taxation and Fiscal Policy to Foreign Policy.

Oh: And don't forget.  During his 2002 Gubernatorial campaign, Mitt Romney actually hauled garbage for a day himself.  That's really just a stupid ad from the AFSCME.

Unions: Anti-Capitalism At Work

Most people would begin a piece on how unions are bad by issuing some standard broiler plate that "they had their place," and "they were necessary once."  I don't grant that.  I don't grant that they were ever necessary- certainly not as they were actually constituted.  I don't grant that they ever provided a needed service- labor changes were already occurring, and the negatives associated with them were always higher than the benefits they provided.

Regardless of how one views the rise of the unions, however, one cannot seriously argue that they are still necessary.  They are a suck on productivity, they support the worst workers to the detriment of the best workers.  They are quite willing to destroy livelihoods of innocent parties to get their way.

Two cases to illustrate.

The union representing the pilots for American Airlines have successfully organized what is probably an illegal sick-out.  They were smart enough to do it vocally, so they'll probably get away with it, but ever since a Bankruptcy judge said that AMR could impose a contract on the pilots, an unusual number of them have been calling in sick, or submitting maintenance requests.  They will never convince me that this is a coincidence.  Whether the union itself organized it is immaterial- the pilots are engaging in a sick-out. 

As a result of this sick-out, less than 2/3 of American Airlines flights are arriving on time.  Given that most flight traffic is business in nature, this is costing the economy potentially millions or billions of dollars.  It is certainly costing American Airlines millions of dollars that, given it is in bankruptcy, it doesn't have to spare.  And even if the pilots are successful in getting a "better" contract, all they'll do is make American's fiscal situation worse.  That could ultimately cost all of them, all of the flight attendants, and all of the ground crews their jobs- not to mention the associated vendors.  As a result, more fliers will go on other airlines.  Since the competition will have decreased, meaning the supply of flights will have decreased, but the supply of flights will not have increased, you can expect airline tickets to increase in price.

The pilots don't care about any of that, though, they only care about their own paydays.  But it's the AMR executives who are the greedy ones.

The second case is that of the NFL Referee's strike/lockout.  Currently, an NFL ref probably has a full-time job outside of officiating.  So, for the six months a year of part-time work they do for the NFL, they get paid $150,000.  Yes you read that correctly.  For (being generous here) 80 days of work, they're being paid more than many "middle class" families.  So what's the problem?  They want a pension. 

Seriously?  You're getting paid $150,000 for 80 days of part-time work, and you can't put some of that money away for your own retirement?  Maybe referees are as stupid as people claim.  As a result, injuries are already up.  At least one, and possibly two, games have been decided by bad/questionable calls.  And the people who are going to be hurt, if the refs are successful, are the players and vendors, not the owners.  Owning a professional football team, unless you're Jerry Jones, is a hobby.  It's often a well-paying hobby, but it's a hobby.  You don't do it if you can't afford it.  So it's not going to hurt the owners, particularly, if the season is a shambles.  What will happen, though, is that more players will get hurt, games will be more boring, and fans will walk away.  And that hurts vendors.

But the referees don't care about that.  They only care about getting a pension for part-time work.  But it's the owners who are the greedy ones.

The thing is, this is the only tactic unions have.  The only thing they can do is destroy, or threaten to destroy, a business.  They're a legalized protection racket.  "Nice business you have here.  Be a shame if something were to... happen to it."

Coca-Cola Workers: "NO!" To Teamsters

Reject Unionization Again.

How many times does this make?  I think I heard (though I can't find a link, so take it with a grain of salt) that it's number 3 in 5 years.  Maybe Unionization should have a three strikes rule- you can try to unionize a shop three times, and after that you don't get any more tries.

I didn't talk about this while the talks were going on for two reasons: one, I think a private shop unionizing is stupid, but perfectly fine as far as it goes.  Second, I don't have a dog in this fight beyond my general disdain and distrust of unions.  Now, however, I will talk about it.

I work as a software developer.  Several times over the last five or six years, people have advanced the idea of creating a software developers' union.  It has been roundly rejected, cruelly ridiculed, and viciously mocked.  Software developers understand something that, apparently, some people do not.  We're all mercenaries.  Not just software developers- everybody.

When you work for an employer, you are looking for the best nexus of home/family time, pay, benefits, work environment, and other "intangibles."  Everyone does.  Similarly, when an employer hires you, they're looking for the best nexus of cost, performance, reliability, and a different set of intangibles.  That's how commerce works, and being an employee is nothing short of selling your labor as a service.  Just like any other commercial transaction, laws of supply and demand apply.

Now, when a worker is faced with the option of voting "yes" to a union, they are often lobbied by the union (the employer is prohibited from directly lobbying against it) to vote for the union.  Often they're promised "better working conditions," "better pay," "better benefits," and all sorts of pie-in-the-sky nonsense.  And, indeed, the union can often deliver those in the short run.  What they're leaving out (it's in their own best interest that workers never think of these things) is the costs.

Those costs can be on the employer, or on the employee.  Employer costs include greater labor costs, including compliance with a whole new "collective bargaining agreement," higher facilities costs, and greater administrative costs (over and above higher pay and more expensive benefits).  Costs on the employee, besides the union dues themselves, are things like favoritism of tenure instead of merit, and a worse work environment due to slacking and lazy coworkers.

When a shop unionizes, it is not representing the best workers.  They didn't need representation anyway.  The best workers were already getting raises.  They were already getting to take vacations, because they weren't calling in sick a day here and a day there.  They already had a relaxed, enjoyable work environment- such goes with knowing your boss is happy with your work.

When a shop unionizes, it does not even represent the "average," or middle tier workers.  They weren't in any danger of losing their jobs.  If they weren't getting raises all the time, they were getting them some.  If they're good at their jobs and the raises aren't coming, they could be fairly certain of finding gainful employment elsewhere.  They may or may not have been getting to take real "vacations" but they were being good enough with their time off to make sure they could at least take the occasional 4 day weekend.  Their work environment, if not jovial, was not bad- again, if it were, they could find gainful employment elsewhere.

No, when a shop unionizes, it represents the bad workers.  It represents the lazy and incompetent.  They are the ones who need union protection.  They are the ones whose jobs are most tenuously held, and the ones least likely to get another job in the same field if they're let go.  They are the ones who don't get vacation, because they're playing hooky every third week.  They are the ones with a "hostile work environment," because their bosses and coworkers know they're useless louts.

If you're a good worker, or even a mediocre one, and you vote for unionization, you're really voting to support the jerk next to you who takes seventeen "smoking breaks" during the day.  A vote for unionization, if you're a good worker or a mediocre one, is to say that some other worker- who is just showing up for his pay check, should have more perks than you just because he has "seniority."  A vote to unionize, if you're a good or mediocre worker, is a vote to allow the already lazy and useless to be insulated from their poor work habits.

The Growing Police State: Mob Tactics Edition

The police in Costa Mesa, California, have taken an irrevocable step, and I hope that the City Council will address it forthwith.

For those who won't click over (shame on you), the Police Union in Costa Mesa hired a law firm known for its mob-like tactics in handling "negotiations" with City Councils which were considering putting fiscal sanity before Police protection money.  Surprising precisely no one with a brain, this law firm then hired a PI who attempted to set up a City Council member for blackmail and extortion.  That attempt failed, and the Police Union and law firm are quickly back-tracking and attempting to throw the PI under the bus.  Read the whole thing for more details.

Once again I'm drawn to point that these are the logical consequences of a growing police state.  When the Police are seen more as revenue generators than as peace keepers and law enforcement, it only stands to reason that they will begin to see themselves as mercenaries and demand ever increasing payments. 

Gone are the days when police were encouraged to "walk the beat" and be part of the communities they patrolled.  Now they are apart and aloof, overseers and enforcers for the Government.  But, like any hired army, when you try to explain that they're too expensive, they don't consider your needs, only their own situation.  Thus activities like those in Costa Mesa can hardly come as a surprise.

Certainly this specific situation needs to be handled forthwith.  The police chief and all the upper command structure must be fired, and new officers brought in to help combat the obvious corruption of the police in Costa Mesa.  To do any less is to send the signal that these mob-like tactics will be tolerated, if not fully accepted.

But there is a larger problem here.  It is one that we, as a nation, need to address.  That is the problem of the ever growing police state.  From local governments banning smoking in restaurants, to proposed State-wide bans on using cellular phones while driving, to the Federal Government giving the department of Education a SWAT team, the state has gone from a posture of protecting Liberty to one of protecting its privilege.  This must be combated soon.  It is the neo-feudal system, where the government is made up of vassalage and fiefdoms, and those not in a position of power are, at best, second class citizens, and at worst slaves of the state.

Which, it turns out, is how Democrats view us anyway.

Government Motors Failing Already?

Once, General Motors was the largest automaker in the world.  For a long time, it was the largest automaker in the country.  Then, decades of mismanagement, union thuggery, and just generally selling cars no one wanted lead it into decline and, finally insolvency.  The end was seriously nigh.  The curtain was closing on this once great car company.

Unable to face the horror of a GM collapse, and unwilling to leave it to blind fate, King Barack The Magnificent invalidated decades, if not centuries, of bankruptcy law and engineered the GM Bailout.  With a price tag in the billions of dollars, and requiring that secured bond holders be denied their claims, the GM Bailout was laughably illegal.  But, we were told, it was necessary to save GM, and, it was darkly suggested, the country.

In the end, the US Government established a de facto new Board and installed a new CEO.  You, the US Taxpayer, own over a quarter of the company.  Most of the rest is owned by the UAW.  Very specifically unchecked by the Federal Government, the Union extracted a very nice contract for itself from GM.  Not for GM was the much reduced in cost contract that Ford Negotiated.  Neither would the union or the US Government simply allow GM to return back to private ownership.

Where Ford has battled back from the brink and is still making the number 1 truck in America, GM is still flailing.  GM has spent immense sums of money on bringing the Chevy Volt to market.  This car, mandated by the Government, is one that no one wants and isn't even as good as it's closest competitor, the Nissan Leaf.  A compact sedan that costs more than some full-sized sedans, and that includes a hefty subsidy from you, the US Taxpayer, the Volt is only moving at fire-sale prices.  By which I mean: when it spontaneously combusts.

So it should come as no surprise that GM is once more on the path to bankruptcy.  Math will not be denied, nor will the laws of competition.  If you make a product that is more expensive than your competitors, but isn't as good, you're not going to make money.  Add to that a Barack Obama approved CEO who had never worked in the auto industry before getting the job, and you can see why GM is on a collision course with reality.

Now there are two questions.  The first, which only time will answer, is if GM can turn things around, or when (more likely) they will actually be forced to go into bankruptcy again.  The second is, when (yeah, I'm not going with 'if') they are forced into bankruptcy, will they actually be allowed to go through it correctly.

See, had GM been allowed to go through the normal bankruptcy, things would be very different.  First off, the secured bond holders would have gotten their just share.  Beyond that, though, GM would have been able to shed its crippling union contracts.  They would have been able to restructure their debt.  Perhaps most importantly, they would have been able to select their own CEO.  Say, I don't know, someone who knew cars.

Instead, we're faced with a second bankruptcy, probably, within the next few years.  Worse than that, we're faced with the prospect that the Federal Government will try again to "save" GM by bailing it out.  Buy why should they care, it's not their money, right?




As an addendum, remember when Obama said that GM had come roaring back after the bail out?  Yeah.  Not so much.

Let's Do That Again!

You know how kids will do something incredibly dangerous, to the point they (and any observers) think they're going to die?  And then when they survive the experience they usually crack up laughing and screaming and then say, "Let's do that again!"?  Parents everywhere are cringing, because they do know.  They also know it's their job to say, "No, I don't think so."

Well, it's time to correct the child in office again.  And we'd better do it quickly because his defenders in the media are already trying to spin it as "he didn't mean it that way."

In Pueblo, Colorado, President Obama gave a speech "villifying(sic) Mitt Romney for opposing the auto industry bailout."  In that speech he said:

"I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back.  Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry."  (emphasis added)

Let's break this down, and you'll see how ludicrous it is.

First off, if he believed in the auto industry, why did he interfere with the normal market operation?  If you believe in something, don't you allow it to operate?  Don't you only interfere if you don't believe that it's capable?

And what about "I want to do the same thing...?"  Well, what did he do?  He directly intervened in the bankruptcy proceedings of both GM and Chrysler with the effect that secured bond holders' legitimate claims were voided and the unsecured claims of the UAW and other Obama Donors were honored.  Just coincidentally, the UAW no basically controls both GM and Chrysler, the US Taxpayer is on the hook for millions of dollars that we'll never see again, and Barack Obama essentially appointed the current CEO of GM.  Just coincidentally.

And now he wants "to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs... in every industry."  I don't know how many more times the SCOAMT needs to say what he believes.  From "you didn't do that on your own," to "I think at some point you've made enough money," to (now) admitting he wants to de facto nationalize every manufacturing job in the nation, Barack Obama couldn't scream "I'm a Marxist!" any louder if he had sworn his oath of office on the Communist Manifesto.

Really, DFW Media? Do your jobs.

I don't normally rail at "the media" or complain about double standards.  For one thing "the media" isn't one cohesive group, so complaining about "the media" generally does no good.  For another, double standards are a fact of life- you may as well complain about the fact it get hot in summer.

However, every so often there is a uniformity so pervasive that to believe there is not some kind of agenda or collusion stretches credulity.  The case of the Lockheed Martin Machinists' Strike is one of those.

Since bringing you the information, last Wednesday night, that Union Workers were seeking charitable assistance and even unemployment benefits, I have been attempting to contact various members of the Dallas/Fort Worth Media who pay attention to such things.  I have gotten no response.  Now, that, alone, doesn't really bother me.  I'm some no-name blogger on a free-hosted blog.  It's not like I have a big voice.

However, when I see articles like this, from the Star Telegram, I begin to believe the reason they are not covering this gross violation of any decent ethical standard is that they are cheer-leading for the union.  It seems that, from the beginning, the Dallas/Fort Worth media complex has had a conspiracy of silence regarding any misdeeds of the union (not least of which is urging its members to apply for unemployment).  When they do report, they go into contortions to paint the union in a good light, and as some powerful organization.

Example:

Lockheed said an additional 34 workers crossed the picket line in Fort Worth on Monday, bringing the total to 295 since the strike began.  That's less than 10 percent of the local union membership.

Now, considering 3,600 (by this article's count, I'd heard 4,200 previously) workers were striking, 295 is "less than 10 percent."  It's only 55 workers, less, but it is "less than 10 percent."  But why even bring that up?  What does the percentage matter, except to make it seem like those 295 workers are somehow less honorable than their brothers and sisters for having crossed the picket line?  "See, the majority still support harming National Security, you don't have to worry about those 295 honorable patriots."

Further Example:

The union said the changes would have forced workers into a "high-deductible, high-cost healthcare plan with no cap on annual out-of-pocket expenses."

Something's missing here... what is it... Oh.  No word from Lockheed or even any mention that Lockheed was asked about what the changes would have done.  Of course the union is going to paint the changes in as bad a light as possible.  Indeed, the article itself highlights only 2 of six pure benefit increases, and 7 total changes that would probably be beneficial, and the two weakest at that.  All without even mentioning that Lockheed might have a different take than the union.

For now, Lockheed and the Union have agreed to Federal Mediation (one report I heard said Arbitration, which would be different) to get the striking machinists back to work.  That's good.  Anything that gets these men and women back to work and gets the F-35 built properly and on-time is a good thing.

I just wish the Media would quit cheer-leading for the side that wanted to harm our Country's security, for once.

Union Members: It's Not About You or Lockheed, It's About the Union

Around the time IAM District Lodge 776 voted to strike rather than accept Lockheed Martin's more than fair offer, they also filed suit with the National Labor Relations Board regarding Lockheed.  Three suits were filed, but the primary one was that Lockheed violated "fair labor practice" by (gasp) attempting to "negotiate directly with employees."  How dastardly!  And how did they conduct this negotiation?  By putting up the details (bullet points, really) of their "best and final offer" on their website.  Yep, that's real one-on one negotiation, there.  I know everyone visits the public-facing website of the company for which they work with religious fervor.

A second suit claimed that Lockheed was intimidating workers by keeping surveillance on the union headquarters.  The union headquarters are located directly across the street from the Lockheed Martin assembly plant.

On Friday, the NRLB regional board in Fort Worth dismissed the suits.

Now, I could say a great deal about the NRLB, very little of it nice, but that's not the point here.  I want to draw your attention to that first suit.  Allowing the mask to slip, the Union is admitting that it may not be negotiating in good faith on behalf of its members.  Indeed, why else would they care if the plan negotiated directly with the workers?  If the Union is negotiating in good faith, and is truly trying to get the best deal they can realistically get, then any "direct negotiation" on the part of Management will not meet or beat what the Union is going for, nor what they have already rejected.  So why is there a problem there?

There is only one logical reason: the union is not, in fact, negotiating in good faith on behalf of its members.  The union knows that its demands are unreasonable and unrealistic.  However, rather than urge its members to take a very good pay and benefits package, they would rather sacrifice the well being of their members in service to themselves.

So, in what is probably a futile message to the IAM workers: decertify your union.  Negotiate directly with Lockheed Martin.  Go back to work.  As it is you are threatening your own livelihood, as well as National Security.  Worse, many of you are also turning into moochers, as you request charitable assistance and Unemployment Benefits.  To those who have the honor and character to feel revulsion over such behavior, the only way you can make it stop is to cross the picket line, return to work, and decertify the union.  It does not represent you or your interests.

IAM Strike: Charitable Org Info

I've had a couple of requests for contact information for the groups the IAM is asking for charitable assistance.  I was unable to locate information for the Angel Food Ministries, but the Tarrant County Catholic Charities and Texas Workforce Commission information is below.

If you do decide to contact these resources, remember this:

1) Be Polite.  They are not the ones striking, and they may not even be in the wrong- I simply do not know.
2) If you are going to contact the TWC, please only do so if you are a Resident of, or work in, the State of Texas.  In either of those cases you would have some interest in the TWC, otherwise you mostly don't.

Tarrant County Catholic Charities:  infocatholiccharities@ccdofw.org
Texas Workforce Commission (Commissioner Representing Labor): laborinfo@twc.state.tx.us

He Who Won't Work Shouldn't Eat: On the Lockheed Martin Strike

Last night, I reported the story of the striking IAM machinists requesting charity and unemployment benefits.  Also last night (and published this morning) I requested information from the Texas Workforce Commission.  I haven't heard back yet (I'm not holding my breath, either), but it's early.

On the radio when I heard the story, one woman called up in defense of the "good" union workers.  That would be: the ones striking but not asking for charity.  She was after the machinist who called saying he had been one of the strikers, but had crossed the picket line when he ran out of savings.  Both of them had, at the core, an idea which sounds so nice, but is wrong.

That idea is this: not all the union members are bad for this.  Don't blame the ones who aren't asking for charity.

They're wrong.  They're very wrong.  What's more, I don't think their world-view allows them to see why, but I'll try to explain it.

Lockheed Martin is building the F-35.  The Machinists are a vital part of that operation, and that fighter is a vital piece of our future National Defense strategy.  By striking, they are attempting to harm the future national security of the United States of America.  More over, as the radio host mentioned last night, they're are incredibly ungrateful.  The contract offered to them is, on examination, more than fair, and far better than most workers would get.  To strike over a moderately increased premium and an increased deductible- especially in a time of 14.5% Real Unemployment- is simply selfish.

So into this mix, there are roughly three groups of Machinists.  There are the good actors, the bad actors, and the worst actors.  The good actors are those who either never went on strike, or quickly crossed the picket line.  Whatever their reasons for so doing, they are doing what they can to mitigate the damage caused by the union. 

The bad actors are those (92%) who voted for the strike, went on strike, but have refrained from requesting any kind of assistance.  These include the caller from last night.  To you, sir, if you see this: what you did was wrong, if you'll examine it, you'll see why.  You admitted on air last night that you knew the offer from Lockheed Martin was a fair one, and that the increased pay and other benefits at least outweighed the increased cost, to you, for your health care.  Yet, despite that knowledge, you placed greed- yours and your union brothers' and sisters'- above decency and above National Security.

Then there are the worst actors.  Those are the ones who voted for the strike, went on strike, and now are seeking aid from already strapped charities as well as Unemployment Benefits.  Common decency demands that this not happen; a trait they obviously lack.  Those charities exist to provide assistance to those who really can't work, or to those who, though working, can't feed their families.  They do not exist to allow machinists to stay off the line a little longer to try to wring yet more money out of Lockheed.  Seeking unemployment may even be illegal- especially if you do not admit, up front, that you are a member of a union and that you are on strike.

On top of this is the union itself.  I understand that union has a vested interest in the strike succeeding, and so has a vested interest in assisting union members.  However- suggesting that they throw themselves on charities is just wrong.  Suggesting that they apply for unemployment benefits borders on (if it does not cross the line) suborning perjury. 

You see, when you apply for Unemployment, you have to explain why you're no longer working.  Voluntarily having left your job (except for a very, very few very, very narrow circumstances) means you do not qualify.  So many will be tempted, at least, to claim they were laid off, or fired, or some other thing happened to separate them from work.  Then you must swear/affirm that everything in your application is true.  Swearing you've told the truth to the State when you are lying is a crime.  It is a big no-no.  And the Union is, at minimum, tacitly encouraging this behavior.

This needs sunlight; it needs to stop.  Please share this as far and wide as you can.

Open Letter to the TWC About Striking IAM Workers

Honorable Commissioner,

 I am a resident of Tarrant county and blogger (dedicatedtenther.blogspot.com).

It came to my attention today that the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) chapter in Tarrant County has contacted your office about eligibility for their members striking against Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth.  According to their website, their representative (a Tim Smith) spoke with 'Ms. Molina' with the TWC.

Ms. Molina apparently told Mr. Smith that the machinists could apply for benefits, and that cases would be approved or rejected case-by-case.

I can completely understand that response, but I would like your assurances that TWC Policy does not, generally, provide benefits for voluntarily striking workers.  If anyone in your office has at all followed the situation, you may already be aware of the deal offered by Lockheed Martin, in which case you know that it is actually very generous, especially in today's economic climate.

Would you care to comment on the general polices regarding organized labor walk-outs and TWC Unemployment Benefits?

My sincerest thanks,
dedicatedtenther@gmail.com
dedicatedtenther.blogspot.com

P.S.: This Correspondence (scrubbed for my name) will be posted on the above mentioned blog as an open letter.  Thank you.

URGENT: International Assoc. of Machinists Urging Striking Members to Apply for Charity

Huge Hat Tip to Chris Krock (of WBAP in Dallas/Fort Worth)

Right here on their website (IAM, don't bother taking it down, I've got screen caps).

Scroll down a ways and you will see that they are recommending their members, on strike against Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth, apply for Unemployment Benefits in the State of Texas.  The State of Texas requires that your separation be "through no fault of your own."  Striking (especially considering the increases they're getting in: base salary, raises, cost-of-living adjustments, and pension) would not appear to satisfy that requirement.

Additionally, they have multiple links to various charitable organizations in the area which they are urging their members to attempt to access.  This means they, voluntarily striking workers, will be competing for charity resources against those truly in need.

Expect Updates.

***************************

Update 10:21PM

Not to go all "ZOMG!" There, but this is bigger than some may think.

Let's take a look at it rationally, now.

Here are the hightlights from the Lockheed Martin offer that the union (92%) rejected.  For those who won't click over:

- 3% general wage increase in each of 2012, 2013, & 2014.  The page says that totals to 9%.  My math says it totals to 9.27%, so close enough.
- Ratification bonus of $3,000 (now off the table)
- Cost of Living Adjustment of $800/yr (yes, that would be in addition to the regular raise.)
- Increase of the pension multiplier from $79/mo to $90/mo (approx 14% increase)
- Improvements to their Savings Plan
- 37 Paid Holidays over the same 3 years (compare that to the 10/yr most people get)
- Voluntary Separation (early retirement buy-out, essentially)
- New Retirement Plan for New Hires only (defined contrib instead of defined benfit)

So what's the thing they rejected?  Their health insurance deductible would go up to $2000/yr and they'd have to pay higher premiums.

Now, I don't actually have a problem with them striking over that.  They certainly have the right to ask for more, and to stand up for themselves when they don't get it.  I don't agree with it; I think the offer was more than generous.  I do recognize their right to do so, however.

What I do have a problem with is the striking workers applying for charity benefits.  Links on the AIM Page include: Texas Workforce Commission (more on that, later, I hope).  Angel Food Ministries.  Catholic Charities Diocese of Fort Worth.  Catholic Charities Northeas Bedford, and Medicare Part D.

Now, on Medicare D, if you're eligible for Medicare D, you're eligible for Medicare D- I don't much care about that one (beyond wishing it had never existed at all).

As for the charities: how dare they?  According to Chris Krok (on WBAP), these Charities (at least one of them, and, if I was hearing him right, more than one) have confirmed they have been contacted by striking IAM workers.  That means that people who have turned up their noses at a pay and benefits package that (just pulling a number here) 14.5% of the rest of the country would die for are attempting to draw on the resources of private charities.  That is, they're asking for the resources you and I donated to help the truly needy because they're too greedy and ungreatful to accept the offer Lockheed Martin put before them.

So far, I know of no charity that has actually provided such assistance.  I hope to follow up on that.

As for the Texas Workforce Commission- I'm going to try to contact them, though I expect no response.  From looking at the IAM website, it appears there is at least one ear sympathetic to their 'cause,' at the TWC.  Further, if it isn't suborning perjury to encourage members to apply for Unemployment Benefits (one requirement being that you must be separated through no fault of your own) then it should be way too close for comfort.

I'm just trying to get the facts out there now.  I'll follow up with a more detailed thoughts and analysis post later.