Color Me Shocked
February 12th, 2008 | by Craig |What?
Instead of helping workers, the AFL-CIO used state money for it’s own staff?
Why, that’s just inconceivable!
It found that for every $1 spent to help displaced workers in Montana, the AFL-CIO spent $4.01 on its own staff salaries for its Project Challenge: Work Again program.
“An ongoing audit review showed all the money was going out the door for all the salaries, but we’re way behind in getting money to the participants,” said state Labor Commissioner Keith Kelly. “Holy smokes! We’re upside down.”
Oh, but this is nothing new:
The incident is the latest black eye for the Montana AFL-CIO’s Project Challenge in recent years.
In April 2006, the state Labor Department ordered the AFL-CIO to pay back $47,515 in federal job training funds spent but not properly documented to assist laid-off Flathead Valley workers. The AFL-CIO paid back that money, Kelly said.
In October, the Labor Department accused the AFL-CIO program of “gross fiscal irresponsibility” after Project Challenge’s former program coordinator in Cut Bank paid for his stepdaughter’s four years of college in Arizona with $35,111 in job training money. The ex-program coordinator hadn’t told his supervisors of the relationship. The AFL-CIO has appealed the determination of portions of the money owed.
This is pretty much Exhibit “A” in making the case that unions have long outlived their usefulness, and now just exist for the sake of their own existence.
Union Yes!
26 Responses to “Color Me Shocked”
By Jim - PRS on Feb 12, 2008 | Reply
Grand jury, Yes!
By Mark T on Feb 12, 2008 | Reply
Let’s see now - what is the logical fallacy involved in making grandiose conclusions based on small and anecdotal evidence … “unions have long outlived their usefulness…” I’ve no doubt that would have been your opinion in the early 20th century too, when Pinkertons were hanging union organizers from bridges.
By Mark T on Feb 12, 2008 | Reply
Hasty generalization!
By Craig on Feb 12, 2008 | Reply
Let’s see now - what is the logical fallacy involved in invoking stuff that happened 100 years ago and has little relevance now. In this case, I do believe that would be a straw man.
Also, it’s hardly anecdotal evidence — it’s a specific example to illustrate a general idea. Further, the prosecution is not resting on Exhibit A. There are tons and tons of examples of this very thing.
Who engages in thuggery, graft, favors, protectionism, and intimidation today?
That would be your labor unions.
By Wulfgar on Feb 12, 2008 | Reply
I’m sorry, Craig, but using a “specific example to illustrate a general idea” is *precisely* anecdotal evidence.
The government, who’s word you selectively take here, to indict an entire institution? … Just askin’ …
By Craig on Feb 12, 2008 | Reply
Erm, no. Saying, “I heard from Frank down at the barber shop that the unions are losing their contract” is anecdotal evidence. Taking specifics from a general is more along the lines of deductive reasoning.
Well, for one thing, it just goes to show that there’s no honor among thieves.
Further, one doesn’t have to go too far to find incidents of unions behaving badly. How about the unions pushing for no more secret ballots? How about teacher’s unions protecting sub-par and outright incompetent teachers and administrators? What about the myriad incidents of unions using dues being embezzled, “misappropriated,” or other financial shenanigans.
I’ve been beating down the unions for years, you don’t need me to write a tome about it for one simple example.
By Mark T on Feb 12, 2008 | Reply
The general principle is that the only power workers have is in organization. That has mostly positive outcomes, a few negatives. Mostly it makes lives better. Your general principle seems to be that the only organizational structure permitted is by and for the wealthy, who form corporations and bust unions. Some getting together is good, as you love corporations. With you it’s this: If you already have power and are wealthy, organize! If you don’t, bite me. We will outlaw your attempts.
Unions 101, by Craig Sprout.
By Chad on Feb 12, 2008 | Reply
“Who engages in thuggery, graft, favors, protectionism, and intimidation today?”
Huh. And the first thing I thought of was corporations.
By Craig on Feb 13, 2008 | Reply
Mark–
If you can show me somewhere that I have professed my undying love for corporations, then you might have something, otherwise you’re putting words in my mouth.
Since we’re on logical fallacies in this thread, I’ll go ahead and play “False Dichotomy,” for the win.
By Dave Budge on Feb 13, 2008 | Reply
Mark’s an expert at putting words in mouths. But I like the line of thinking that “a little corruption” is OK as long as the “greater good” is served. Machiavelli would be proud.
By Eric Coobs on Feb 13, 2008 | Reply
The AFL/CIO just endorsed Gov. Schweitzer (great timing) - there will be no Grand Jury.
By Gman on Feb 13, 2008 | Reply
Read Ludwig von Mises “Bureaucracy” and you’ll understand why a group like the AFL-CIO, which is not much different than your everyday gov’t bureaucracy, is unable to conduct their affairs in an economically rational manner. Basically, gov’t programs are not an opportunity to, say, help displaced workers; they are rather an opportunity to line the pockets of, and to justify the existence of, bureaucrats. This AFL-CIO boondoggle is a classic example.
By Chad on Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
Having actually been a displaced worker (twice within a year in 2001-02, even), I really must disagree.
I didn’t have heat, I barely could afford to eat, I had my power shut off twice, couldn’t afford gas, but I kept a roof over my head for a year and a half thanks to unemployment insurance.
By Steve T. on Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
Chad-
We’d really appreciate it if you didn’t put a human face on any of this. It’s a whole lot easier to bitch about you when you’re not around.
Thanks.
By Craig on Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
Where did we make the leap equating (apparently non-existent) training programs to unemployment insurance?
Just wondering.
By Mark T on Feb 15, 2008 | Reply
The right wing in general is against organization and unions, and has been since time immemorial. The reason is simple - labor produces wealth, which percolates upwards to ownership - unions step in and capture that wealth - it’s not that enterprises produce less. It’s that the wrong people are getting it.
The principle is so rock solid in their minds that over the decades untold violence has been visited on people attempting to organize, or God forbid, strike. Today the laws in favor of union organizing sit there unenforced. People who attempt it are usually just fired or intimidated into silence.
Complaints about unions being corrupt are hypocritical nonsense. If you guys on the right cared about workers, you’d allow them to organize. Cry me a river of crocodile tears.
By Gman on Feb 20, 2008 | Reply
Mark T, I’m not sure what the “conservative” position is on unionization. The free market (call it libertarian if you want) position is that workers have every right to “freedom of assembly” but the gov’t should not intervene in the negotiations between workers and management (owners). Labor prices (wages) are determined by the market, and should be left to the market.
Moreover, we live in a relatively free society where there is still some modicum of private property rights. So, ownership takes precedence over labor. Yes, one can’t function without the other. Even so, entrepreneurship and business expansion comes from the profit motive by property owners. If you tilt the balance towards labor, sans ownership, which we see in communistic and socialistic systems, you dampen or eliminate the profit motive.
I think labor is much better served by the free market than command and control economies. Moreover, free markets are sustainable while planned economies aren’t.
So, if workers understood economics they might find peace through understanding. It isn’t gov’t intervention in the market that has enhanced the living standards of workers; it’s capitalism.
Are you really convinced that there is no such thing as union corruption? Geez!
By Mark T on Feb 21, 2008 | Reply
Your understanding of economics is only exceeded by your understanding of how it works in the real world. There is no free market, there is no capitalism. You have the luxury of defending a perfect system that doesn’t exist, and doesn’t exist because it doesn’t work. Free markets are fire pits - everyone runs from them. The more power and wealth you accumulate, the more protection from markets you enjoy. Workers are the least protected from markets are exposed to the free market everyday, and face unemployment at the employers’ whim, devastation and deprivation.
Workers seek some protection from markets by forming unions. It’s their only tool, their only protection. Of course you want to take it away from them! Call out the damned Pinkerton’s again, why don’t you.
By Dave Budge on Feb 22, 2008 | Reply
Mark, this is the second time you’ve insisted that capitalism doesn’t exist. Let me parse a comment you left at my place.
So I think we need an explanation here. If capitalism doesn’t exist then how can socialism “infest” it?
Secondly, there is little doubt that there are really free markets. Just like there are no absolutely free societies, but with both markets and societies is it not true that some are relatively more free than others?
Arguing in absolutes is silly, n’est pas?
By Mark T on Feb 23, 2008 | Reply
Capitalism, if allowed to flower, forms weed patches that eventually dry out and catch fire. It leads to bad outcomes, extremes of wealth and poverty, oppression and oligarchy. Over the years, we’ve come to understand that for ti to flower, it needs to be strictly regulated. So we’ve injected it with healthy doses of socialism. Socialist countries do work, and are prospering all over the place.
“Free” markets and capitalism are often used in the same sentence. As Dwayne Andreas of ADM said, “There is not one grain of anything in the world that is sold in the free market. Not one. The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians.” But I’ll temper that sentiment - in the world you aspire to, workers will have to deal with free markets, and unemployment will hang over their head like a guillotine. Keeps them in line. The rest of your free-market lovers will be protected, nestled away in corporations that monopolize markets and gain special treatment from government.
That’s your world.
By Dave Budge on Feb 23, 2008 | Reply
Mark, I don’t care if free markets and capitalism are mentioned in the same sentence or not. They are, by definition, different. You’re doing it again - arguing to a point that I have not made. You said capitalism doesn’t exist. It does.
And please stop misstating what world I aspire to.
By Mark T on Feb 24, 2008 | Reply
Capitalism does not exist in the pure sense - where it is not tempered by socialism. It flames out.
By Dave Budge on Feb 24, 2008 | Reply
So in other words, capitalism does exist. And one has to wonder if socialism exists in a “pure sense” as well. When it has been attempted it has failed.
Here’s the deal, Mark. You are confusing market definitions with levels of regulation. Regulation may or may not be “socialist”. Trade unionism may or may not be socialist (because by definition socialism is where the state controls economic allocations) and in most American unions that is not true.
You argue as if your understanding of theory is correct yet you fail to give examples of why that is so.
Here’s what I can say categorically: economies that have been closer to free market capitalism have flourished at a much greater rate than those that are closer to pure socialism. The facts are undeniable by all most every metric. Yet you seem to refuse the obvious, confuse economic terminology with market restraints and seem to assume that every regulation supports socialism.
Last, why don’t you admit that your line about capitalism not existing was foolish.
By Gman on Feb 24, 2008 | Reply
Both socialism and capitalism have shortcomings, but no one can deny the fact that people in general are freer under capitalist economies than socialist ones. Socialism is more guilty of many of the charges heeped against capitalism - inequality being a perfect example. Socialism creates its own inequalities by favoring certain groups over others, and always at the expense of certain groups over others. Socialism also doesn’t insulate society from the haves and have nots effect. In fact, socialism, when taken to its logical extreme, actually perpetuates this gap by placing a vast majority of the people in a sort comfortable mediocrity while enriching the few powerful, bureaucratic elite.
The greatest differences between the two are that capitalist systems generally honor the individual and enable him or her to voluntarily associate with his or her fellow persons, which in turn leads to social cooperation. Socialist systems are predicated on classism and an attempt to manufacture equality by coercively taking from one group, generally portrayed as an enemy of society or a pariah, to give to another group, generally perceived as oppressed and deserving of unearned benefits.
Capitalism’s success depends on the will and freedom of acting individuals. Therefore, its maxim has been identified as “anything that’s peaceful.” Socialism’s success relies on legal plunder - literally confiscating wealth, which is morally and peacefully procured by individuals and firms, in order to correct perceived injustices.
So, capitalism is based on peace and freedom.
Socialism is based on violence and coercion.
Which would any free people choose?
By Mark T on Feb 26, 2008 | Reply
Dave - Lassaiz-faire, or pure capitalism with no government interference, does not exist. You’re straining to make a very fine point - straining too hard, wanting to have the debate you want to have no matter the subject at hand. Of course there are elements of capitalism in every system. So too are there elements of socialism in every system - where not outright government ownership of basic industries, basic subsidy. In the US we have far more than mere regulation, we have massive subsidy.
But pure capitalism does not exist - you seem to be arguing that yellow exists even after it is mixed with blue.
You claim to be a libertarian, act like a Republican, and then favor a mixed system when push comes to shove. But I take your libertarian offerings as best evidence that you believe that economies can operate without subsidy and government interference. You are quite wrong, and evidence shows this - very practical evidence - hardly anywhere on the face of the earth operates according to your philosophical dictates. It ain’t practical.
Your statement “economies that have been closer to free market capitalism have flourished at a much greater rate than those that are closer to pure socialism” is unprovable and essentially meaningless, as there are no real test cases to be had. I suppose you could point to some island paradises like Sri Lanka and tout your ideals - ironic that a place that practices the purest capitalism we have on the planet lacks basic freedoms.
By Dave Budge on Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
Nice try, Mark. I never said there was any pure capitalism and I’ve never said there were free markets. I’ve also never claimed that subsidies were a good thing (although my guess is that you believe in them if they have to do with the fight of global warming.)
Secondly, tell me where I have really taken a position on a “mixed system” when push comes to shove. You’re being fooled by the voices in your head that seem to force you to stuff words in other’s mouths.
As for evidence that economic freedom is tied to prosperity, check out the The Economic Freedom Index and its relationship to GDP and living standards.