My Photo

November 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            

BlogStats


« When you don’t know grammar | Main | New People, New Jobs »

25 June 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e54f86f2ad8833017742b3cd6c970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference States enforcing federal laws:

Comments

A Facebook User

George,
I wonder how you feel personally about the immigration issue since you proclaim to be a proponent of the free market. Do you believe in labor moving across borders as much as corporations and capital?

It is Illegal To Employ, Recruit, or Refer Illegal Aliens for Jobs
. It is unlawful for a person or other entity- to employ or recruit or refer for a fee an illegal alien in the United States. Commercial advantage or private financial gain offender can be fined under title 18, US code, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both. ...Any person who, during any 12-month period, knowingly hires for employment at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that the individuals are aliens described in sub paragraph (B) shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both. (Sec. 274A. [8 U.S.C. 1324a] )

No Jobs No Immigration Problem. It makes more economic and practical sense to go after a few dozen large corporations in every major industry who give the incentive of crossing the border without documentation by ignoring the existing laws and hiring those who do not have proper documentation instead of ineffectively going after millions of undocumented and illegal immigrants. The reason the US doesn't do this any longer is due to the absolute control of big industry has over our government, can't throw big contributors into jail and cut into their profits. We hired international workers all the time but always made sure proper paperwork/ documentation was in place.

B. Emery

George Rebane

BenE 1108am – Good question Ben. Yes, I “believe in labor moving across borders as much as corporations and capital” as long as it moves so legally. As I’ve written countless times ‘immigration’ and ‘guest worker’ programs are two-party process, one of which is the welcoming government.

Going after “a few dozen large corporations” will not fix the problem with the current attitude that the feds have toward enforcing border security and illegal entrant laws (our immigration laws are in fine shape). Notice that SCOTUS struck down the enforceable parts of the Arizona law reducing illegal alien populations in the country. The corresponding parts of the federal law have lain fallow for years and continue to do so. We must remember that Arizona’s law broke no new ground regarding how such federal laws must be enforced.

It is odd that our governments allow and even require the presentation of verifiable IDs for doing most types of commerce, but restrict the use of existing governmental databases for verifying the status of people who claim to be within our borders legally. The solution is simple and has nothing to do with corporate interests, since eliminating illegal, lower paid workers would affect every enterprise, and therefore continue a level playing field in the markets. But what such verifiable IDs would do is to eliminate the ingress of reliable voters for Democrat and collective causes. In short, the impediment is political, not commercial.

Douglas Keachie

How about school districts that have to depend on the courts to get your little darlings to show up? Here is a wonderful set of examples of why society fails teachers, and not the other way around.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-city/index.ssf/2012/06/when_oregon_kids_miss_too_much.html

George Rebane

DougK 1133am - a most interesting and curious perspective, 'society has the ability to fail teachers'. What exactly does that mean?

Douglas Keachie

What it means is that society is producing children who are sent to school unprepared to learn, in many, many, ways. When you've got a kid in front of a judge who lies about having a cell phone on their person, then you got a kid who is not properly prepared to learn, except at the threat of jail. Teachers are not allowed to commit students to jail. Might not be a good idea to change that.

For something lighter, have fun wandering around here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/keachie/page11/

George Rebane

DougK 1154am - your explanation assumes a teacher-centric social order. This ties with your historical arguments involving education. I would suggest that society provides the function of education for its children so as to continue and build on a growing human knowledge base, and pass on tenets of its culture.

Society does NOT establish the institution of education as one of its sacraments that is administered to properly prepared children, which supports your view of teachers being failed by a society that doesn't properly prepare its children before rendering them to be educated.

Douglas Keachie

"Society does NOT establish the institution of education as one of its sacraments which is administered to properly prepared children, which supports your view of teachers being failed by a society that doesn't properly prepare its children before rendering them to be educated."

And therein lies the problem. Society does behave as though it thought teachers should be capable of doing that which is not possible for every single student sent to them. You might just as well expect that doctors will cure every patient and make for immortality. Wishes and fishes. Good luck with both projects.

Douglas Keachie

"I would suggest that society provides the function of education for its children so as to continue and build on a growing human knowledge base, and pass on tenets of its culture."

I would agree 100% that this is what society professes. What they do to insure success in the endeavor is altogether another matter.

Gregory

The problem with most schools in Calfornia, including those in the Grass Valley and Pleasant Valley school districts, is that students whose parents get them to school on time with breakfast in their bellies and a lunch or lunch money packed away, with homework done, also get a poor education.

There is no doubt curriculum and teacher centered schools like Bennett-Kew in Inglewood, with poor children of color with Spanish in the home, outperform "child centered" schools like Hennessey in Grass Valley with "Cousin Jack" great-grandparents from Cornwall.

Reactionaries like Keach refuse to consider lousy teaching and/or worse curriculums, drawing a new line in the sand with every challenge.

Sorry, no. It's the knee jerk apologists for poor performance, at all levels, who keep us from getting the schools we need.

A Facebook User

George,
E-verify and enforcement of laws on employers is my position on illegal immigration/ undocumented workers. No jobs = no need to immigrate for a vast majority of those who come into our nation illegally/ undocumented, to my understanding there is a difference. H1B visas are a pretty big chunk of the immigration issue as well, once again benefits employers and pits workers against each other in a race to the bottom.

B. Emery

George Rebane

BenE 534pm - Your position is fine as long as it is reinforced by a secure border and the ability to deport identified illegal aliens - either immigrants and visitors with lapsed documents, or illegal entrants. At about 60K a year, H1B visas are a minor problem, and one that we would appreciate since they involve people employed in critically skilled jobs.

But pitting workers against each other in a race to the bottom is an idea that will forever separate the collectivists cum communists against Americans who foster individual liberty and republican forms of democracies in which free market capitalism is used to organize enterprise and commerce, and distribute the wealth it creates. Labor is a cost element to an enterprise, as are its needed raw materials and overhead costs.

Anyone who competes in the sale of costs to commerce should understand that in their customers' minds their success depends on how well they do in their race to the bottom. No supplier of 'costs' has ever been successful in racing to the top by pricing high what they have to offer.

That collectivists are forever ignorant of this explains away the misery and murder of millions that their policies have caused in the lands where they have been dominant. That is why I and mine continue to fight that ignorance on these shores.

George Rebane

Administrivia - two off-topic comments by parties known have been removed. These sought to continue an ongoing private debate that has co-opted the comment streams of other RR posts.

Douglas Keachie

George, what all workers everywhere are facing is the race to a global minimum wage. While this may have worked just wonderful for those at the top in the USA, it is causing great discomfort to those who jobs have been exported, but who are expected to go on living and paying for stuff at the old USA prices, stuff including health care, gasoline, etc, some of which have had the nerve to go up, even though this era of global economic wonderfulism is upon us.

How much of the old lower and middle classes can the USA top dogs afford to lock up, when they are out to steal a loaf of bread, or act out in anger? There is probably a tipping point at which the whole house of top dog cards comes crashing down. Do we really want to just let it happen, or would it be better to find another way out of this mess?

George Rebane

DougK 954am - (Excellent multi-purposing of your comment here and on RLC's blog. I approve.)

Continuing on my 548pm, your assessment of the abject stupidity of the "USA top dogs" is in error. The process you describe is self-correcting in a freer marketplace. No money grubbing capitalist will tolerate the destruction of his customer base. All capitalists make more money, buy better toys, and live a better quality of life when they promote and act commercially to sustain a vibrant and growing middle class. It just makes dollars and sense.

It is the collectivist elites who have done away with such systems, brought about aberrations in the wealth creation and distribution processes, and then point at 'the failure of capitalism' while decrying what they see as 'trickle down' economics. The poor masses that such state interventions have created will then willingly continue voting for more tribute from the 'ill-gotten wealthy'. We are on such a path now.

"... another way out of this mess" would be to again increase individual liberties and make the markets freer.

A Facebook User

George,
If my position is implemented the influx of immigrants coming either through the land borders or through H1B visas would be slowed to a crawl. The need for massive border patrol wouldn’t exist.

I cannot understand how an intelligent educated human being could be so blind to history. People can want to have a say in their work place, decent wages, and safe work conditions and not be communist sympathizer. Communism has proven to be a failed system over and over again just as Chicago and Austrian economic policies have been proven to cause massive suffering among the people in every area of the world the policies were implemented. I know, I know, the policies didn’t go far enough and didn’t eliminate enough government programs to show how great they work. It is interesting that you associated misery and murder only towards collectivism a.k.a. left policies. I would say misery and murder comes from a small few controlling vast majority of the power, capital, property, and access/ ownership of natural resources. Check out this research
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2263690.stm

Your position on the race to the bottom is the recipe of feudalism, which dominated western culture for the first 500 years or so of the last millennium. Feudalism, Oligarchy, Plutocracy, Fascism, or Corporatism what ever we want to call it brings a power imbalance to overwhelmingly favor a small few wealthy/ powerful and the rest live in an existence of sustenance only.

George Rebane

Facebook (BenE) 117pm - you cite a specious piece of research, the relationship of which to this discussion is both tendentious and tentative. (How are we to assess the Greek suicide rate growth under austerity programs that were engendered by years of profligate socialism?)

Since the Austrian and Chicago schools formalized the free market capitalistic factors that a number of successful economies have enjoyed throughout history (e.g. from the Low Countries during the Renaissance to 19th century America), it is hard to accept your assertion that these systems "have been proven to cause massive suffering among the people in every area of the world the policies were implemented."

The truth of the matter is that wherever liberty and individual enterprise have been permitted, the quality of life has enjoyed the greatest and widest increase. Most certainly no sustainable collectivist system has ever worked. And those that have been implemented, as the aftermath to a freer society, have always crashed and burned as soon as the accumulated wealth that such governments needed to confiscate ran out. (Europe is in such throes now, with the US soon to follow.)

BenE, as I have said many times, we live in different universes.

A Facebook User

George,
Do you deny that before the labor movement (1791- 1935 such as NLRA) many workers worked 12-15 hour a day/ 7 days a week, no collective bargaining, very poor work conditions, and no job security? How can you want to return to that scenario?
B. Emery

George Rebane

BenE 153pm - you may be jumping from topic to topic here, but I'll try to follow. I have never been against private sector workers organizing as a unit to negotiate their working conditions and compensation. It is their intrinsic right in the United States. What I am against is when such unionized workers are granted rights against the private property of the employer. This is a hard distinction for most progressives who believe that organized labor has intrinsic rights which include the right to shut down their employer.

As a group, workers should be free to organize, negotiate a contract with the employer, and work according to the provisions of that contract. But the terms of that contract should be freely determined by the consensus of the workers and employer - government has no role in specifying the terms of the contract or participating in its negotiation. Government's only role is in the adjudication and enforcement of the nation's contract laws. Leftwing unions view the employer's property as belonging to society as a whole, or at least in shared ownership with the workers.

A Facebook User

George,
It is nice to know your opinion about the right to collectively bargain. I don't agree with your analysis of unions and employer property but I think we agree more than disagree on the issue.

Steven Frisch

I am sorry George but what exactly do you mean by...."for most progressives who believe that organized labor has intrinsic rights which include the right to shut down their employer."

Since February 27, 1939, sit down strikes have been illegal in the US because the Supreme Court decided in the case of NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Coorp. that sit-down-strikes, where the strikers occupy their stations, preventing replacement workers from taking over, were essentially illegal. Sit-down tactics were already outlawed by the National Labor Relations Board, a government agency, created by that inveterate socialist FDR. The Court ruled that workers who violated the law, regardless of whether that violation was provoked by a violation of the NLRA by the company, did not have to be reinstated. In other words, any worker who broke the law during a strike could be fired, no matter what.

So how are workers granted rights against the private property of their employer?

George Rebane

StevenF 657pm - Don't know what the problem is in your understanding my statement about the belief of most progressives.

Your point is about a specific law disallowing a specific kind of work action. An employer may be shut down (i.e. prevented from continuing his normal course of business) by a union through a number of perfectly legal ruses in addition to the usual thuggery.

Steven Frisch

I don't know what your problem is with understanding a simple question, but then this is a prime example of you implying something then not having the guts to stand by it. So don;t be so trite as to think you can say I did not understand your statement. I understood it perfectly.

The question is quite simple: how precisely are unionized workers granted rights against the private property of employers?

Unionized employees are under the exact same set of civi and criminal laws that any other citizen is in the pursuit of their objectives. If an action is legal (whether you think of it as thuggery or not) it is legal. If it is illegal it is illegal, and can be prosecuted as such. If sitting down in the workplace is illegal, workers who do so can be arrested. If trespassing on private property is illegal, workers who do so can be arrested. Any act of violence that is illegal is illegal for any worker, whether unionized or not. The rights of unionized and non-unionized workers are precisely the same.

So I ask again: how precisely are unionized workers granted rights against the private property of employers?

THEMIKEYMCD

Dammit! B Emery described my job (though he left out that IF I am successful the government takes about 50% and the fact that I invested my life's savings for the privilege).


Posted by: A Facebook User | 26 June 2012 at 03:46 PM
"...12-15 hour a day/ 7 days a week, no collective bargaining, very poor work conditions, and no job security?"

Todd Juvinall

I see Frisch is attacking George personally after havng whined about comity in posts up to yesterday. What a hoot! A liberal is too funny!

Regarding the quetion the SBC leader asked. A contract to maintain worker peace is actually a form of extortion from the employer. So, that would be a property taking.

A Facebook User

Steve,
I didn't want to start a bigger debate but I am right there with you. Not being able to strike drastically weakens workers position with collective bargaining. Stopping all creation of wealth, which comes from labor, is the teeth when companies aren't negotiating in good faith.

"What I am against is when such unionized workers are granted rights against the private property of the employer. This is a hard distinction for most progressives who believe that organized labor has intrinsic rights which include the right to shut down their employer." George Rebane

Mickey,
I am guessing it is your own business. You have the ability to have a say in the conditions in the workplace don't you. My wife and I owned and operated a restaurant and we were basically shackled to the business but along with that came many perks. We created a fun atmosphere to work and dine in, which made the long hours worth it.

Steven Frisch

Todd, note George's statement "I don't know what the problem is in your understanding my statement....." in response to me simply asking a question. There is not one iota of personal attack in my question. Yet George's response is to insult my intelligence. What is it abut being a**holes you guys always seem to thing starts with someone else.

George Rebane

Re StevenF's 756pm - "...this is a prime example of you implying something then not having the guts to stand by it. So don't be so trite as to think you can say I did not understand your statement." This does not contain "one iota" of a personal attack, but an implied "insult" most certainly contains such an "iota". Remarkable!

Here are union pilots illegally taking 'sick leave' as an example of the asymmetry in union/employer relations.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/13/uk-aircanada-pilots-idUSLNE83C01W20120413

Steven Frisch

Jeez George look at the time stamps...... I said that in response to your comment......In response...get it. My original question was a straight question. No sharp edges on it.

So now someone calling in sick and thus refusing to work is a granting a right over the employers property? Employers do not have property rights over people (any more at least). If the employer wants to fire them they can.

Todd Juvinall

George, some say unions are simply organized terrorist organizations run by "Johnny Friendly" types. Walt Disney got to experience that.

George Rebane

ToddJ 602am - one can make a case for that. And that an employer can always simply fire the lot of employees who strike illegally is neither true nor economically feasible. And, if attempted, the laws of the land will allow the new employees to organize again and repeat the process.

Steven Frisch

What a shame that just firing people may not be economically feasible! I guess that means that if employers may face a shortage of labor if they fire people indiscriminately they may actually have to work with labor to identify mutual goals and meet them. What a crime that would be. And what a crime it would be if the law allowed workers (or replacement workers) to organize.

If you really mean that, "As a group, workers should be free to organize, negotiate a contract with the employer, and work according to the provisions of that contract", that means the converse is true. Workers should be free to decide they don't want to work or should be able to propose terms of a contract. And if those terms are not met they should be free to walk out and strike. If it does not work that way then the workers do not enjoy the same rights the employer does.

George Rebane

StevenF 925pm - But of course. In a negotiation, both sides propose terms and modify them in the process of reaching agreement. The only problem I'm trying highlight here is the instability of the (employment) system. An employer has a much better understanding of the system's feasible operating point than does the union. However, the union, in almost all cases, has a more powerful arm on the system's control levers. In its faulty understanding, it often puts the company into an operating regime that makes it uncompetitive.

And soon we have another company either out of business, or having become a ward of the state, which is not sustainable unless the government creates a protected oligopoly of similar basket cases. For this the consumers wind up paying the invisible tax in higher prices and lower quality in order to sustain the scheme. And that is why right to work states do much better economically, and in terms of personal liberty than do union shop states.

A Facebook User

George,
You're kidding, right? Nothing in your comment is provable or true. When pensions are promised in place of wages but the company overpays their CEO for years those pensions are used as a hostage situation, cut your pension/ benefits or lose your job. Just ask Boeing employees of Washington State. In 2011 Boeing CEO had an increase of 16% of his compensation package from 2010, he was paid $22 million.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/business/21boeing.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/boeing-union-reach-tentative-deal-to-end-labor-dispute/2011/12/01/gIQAc7HUHO_story.html

Michael Anderson

George, re. your 6/28/12 9:43 pm comment: We have a false dichotomy here, there's another way. Open the books. Let the workers and the owners share the wealth. Make public companies that are truly public. Create wealth for everyone. It's the capitalistic way!

George Rebane

Facebook 1005pm - Ben, nothing in my 943pm has come to your attention, perhaps because of the information sources to which you limit yourself. If so, then RR is pleased to do a little augmentation there. Please check copious research papers on the topics by Cato, Heritage, Mercatus, ... .

MichaelA 1025pm - A company's books are opened during labor negotiations only as a last resort. And they are opened by the company only to demonstrate that their seemingly hard position is backed by the financial realities facing the company. (I had to do it once when negotiating with the Teamsters who represented my factory workforce.)

Opening the books to the union to have them start poring over and second guessing the woulda/coulda/shouldas is definitely not the way to run any enterprise. Both sides would have totally different appreciation of the risks, and what is considered the available 'wealth' and the approach to its 'fair division'. However, your suggestion is the one often offered by collectivists who don't understand how businesses are run.

Since you are a small business owner, I'm surprised to hear you suggest that for any operation that exceeds that of a family business. Nevertheless, it could work out for you, and I look forward to your report.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad