The UAW debacle and a letter to the Secretary of the Department of Labor

I wrote this letter on May 4, 2009 to the Secretary of the Department of Labor, Hilda Solis. I have witness the destruction a labor union can impose upon a company first hand. It has never made sense to me why we willfully impose anti-trust laws against corporations, but support the formation of trusts in the labor markets, i.e. unions. The motivating reason is purely political.

Secretary Solis is a hard-line pro-union individual. Therefore, I suspect her response, will be cordial, but completely opposed. In truth, I fully support right-to-work legislation, but am curious if a strict partisan would be willing to broach the subject of compromise. We shall see...

Secretary Solis,

Last week Chrysler filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The Nation pensively awaits the fate of General Motors, suspecting a similar outcome. While there are many explanations for the demise of these two auto giants, one indisputably significant contribution is stranglehold on their labor markets imposed by the UAW.

United Auto Workers contract terms significantly restricted the fiscal ability to close non-productive plants or modify plants to produce more efficient automobiles. Car prices are ultimately determined by the market; with higher labor costs and similar market prices relative to competitors, the “Big Three” were forced to compromise on the quality of components in order to remain competitive. In turn, the UAW priced its represented employees out of the labor market and drove automakers to select more cost effective alternatives, such as placing factories in Canada, Mexico, and off-shoring manufacturing. The net result of the monopolistic stranglehold placed upon the automakers’ labor markets has been lower quality products, less flexible product offerings, reduced financial viability, and fewer domestic jobs.

It is perplexing that we uphold anti-trust law in the product and service markets, but legalize (arguably encourage) monopolies in the labor markets. Having worked in a closed union shop, I know that not every employee is willfully unionized. I also recognize the political inertia working against right-to-work legislation which supports the choice of those employees who do not wish to unionize. Therefore, I propose a compromise solution to organized labor laws that help keep labor markets competitive (i.e. oligopoly) thereby improving the competitiveness of domestic corporations, increasing the number of jobs in this country, and sustaining the strength of unions where workers choose to unionize:

1) Allow workers the choice of being union or non-union – do not impose one or the other, but prevent backfilling the jobs of union held positions during labor disputes.
2) Require more than one union to represent employees at the same firm with no union controlling more than 75% of the labor market within a particular company.
3) Restore reporting and oversight of unions to prevent corruption in union leadership.

By implementing these steps we can begin to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States of America by making our labor markets competitive once again. We cannot expect job creation if we are not willing to let companies be profitable. After all, corporations exist to maximize shareholder value; if shareholders are not getting an adequate return on investment they will seek other opportunities leaving our nation in fiscal stagnation, or worse.

Sincerely,
Letters to Leaders

In true government fashion, I received a response completely devoid of personal accountability and useful information. Given the burgeoning size of our government you would think an Department of Labor employee could take personal accountability for responding to my suggestion and, Heaven forbid, actually forward it on to Secretary Solis. This response exemplifies why government cannot, and should not, be given more responsibility - it can't productively handle the responsibility it has now.

The issues that you raise do not appear to be covered by any law administered by this Agency, the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS). OLMS administers the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), which governs labor organizations comprised of private sector or U.S. Postal employees, and section 7120 of Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), which deals with the standards of conduct for Federal sector unions. The LMRDA regulates internal union affairs such as the election of union officers and the reporting and disclosure of union financial matters. Regulations implementing section 7120 establish standards of conduct similar to provisions of the LMRDA. Additional information regarding the laws administered by this Office can be found at http://www.dol.gov/esa/olms_org.htm.

You may want to call the following Department of Labor toll-free referral line for additional guidance regarding your concerns: 1-866-4-USA-DOL.

This response is for information purposes only and does not constitute an official communication of the U.S. Department of Labor.

OLMS 25

Letter to President Obama Regarding Embryonic Stem Cell Research

I wrote the following letter to President Obama regarding federal funding for stem cell research. I hope I didn't tenderfoot around this issue too much, but this is something I feel very strongly about. Unlike Obama (ref. his campaign speeches), I do not believe children are a punishment for a bad decision. They may be an outcome of our decisions, but they are our responsibility to care for and love. Opponents argue that many of these children are neglected or cannot be provided for, but the reality is that is an outcome of a society that recuses itself from its responsibilities and is not justification for murder of the most innocent of God's creation.

President Obama,

On March 9, 2009 you signed an executive order that authorized the use of government funds for embryonic stem cell research. In reference to the order you said, “It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”

On April 21, 2009 Science Daily reported the Howard Hughes Medical Institute at Boston Children’s Hospital has successfully converted red blood cells into stem cells with all the traits, functionality, and therapeutic benefits of embryonic stem cells. The April 24, 2009 edition of the Wall Street Journal reported on a breakthrough at Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, CA whereby adult skin cells are converted into the equivalent of embryonic stem cells. Neither of these methods, or the myriad other breakthroughs already achieved, require the use of controversially obtained embryonic stems cells.

Contrary to your terse anti-scientific rhetoric towards the Bush Administration, it seems you are the President turning his back to science in favor of ideological dogma. Your approval for the use of taxpayer dollars for ethically depraved “science” is rooted in a political ideology that uncompromisingly condones the slaughter of unborn children. This is not about distortion of scientific data – it is about morality being compromised for the fulfillment of a campaign promise to your constituency. The American people are not fooled by your attempt to hide subjective morality behind the guise of science.

Perhaps you are aware of the atrocities committed against Jewish prisoners at Nazi concentration camps during World War II. Under the direction of Heinrich Himmler thousands of Jews were subjected to torture in the name of medical research. Based upon your rationale, we should be providing government funding for similar research efforts so as not to “distort the scientific data” and because of the great medical benefits such torture would be “ethically justified.”

How ironic that you vehemently oppose water boarding for national defense as “torture” while advocating the murder of unborn children for scientific knowledge (or avoidance of responsibility) as ethical. Stop trying to cover your own ideology and political agenda with scientific rhetoric. Respect the sanctity of human life: the needless destruction of human life is never justified or dignified by the possible gain of scientific knowledge. You need to immediately reverse your executive order on government funding for embryonic stem cell research and support a child’s right to life regarding all abortion issues.

Sincerely,
Letters to Leaders

Letter to the President

The following letter was submitted to the White House contact page on March 12, 2009. I can only hope it will be read by one of Obama's several hundred staffers. This is surely the first of many of my letters to the President given my sharp opposition to his policies. I eagerly await a response and will post it once [if] received.

As an interesting side note: when you submit a correspondence on the web site you are given five category choices - "Congratulations;" "I have a policy question;" "I have a non-policy question;" "I have a comment, no response necessary;" or "other." I wondered where the, "I have a major criticism respond if it's not going to be the same drivel," category was.

Mr. President,

I am not a politician; therefore, based upon your comment following Daschle’s withdrawal from consideration for Secretary of Heath and Heath Systems, I am not a “powerful” person. I guess that makes me an “ordinary” person in your class system, but I hope you will grant five minutes of your time to read this peasant’s letter.

Liberation Theology has its roots in Marxism, Jeremiah Wright is a Liberation Theologian, and you were a twenty year member of his church. While this is insufficient to convict you as a Marxist, your actions and philosophies are sufficient. Your election was not a mandate to “fundamentally change” this country into a communist state – you were elected merely because you are not George W. Bush. The Americans that cast their ballots in your favor were blinded by the “McCain is 4 more years of Bush” rhetoric; rest assured, we do not want a bigger, more intrusive government.

At face value, your policies and objectives portray you as economically ignorant. Your concern for “restoring science to science” seems almost genuine. Almost. However, we are not fooled. You are using the sour economy to leverage your economically disastrous, Marxist policies into place. You do not support objective science, but prefer a brand of science rife with political agenda. At your inauguration you said, “It is not the size of government that matters, but whether government works.” Certainly we all want a government that works, but where or when has any large government proven its worth? There are no prosperous communist countries and every one is plagued with social injustice. Can you possibly believe communism will work just because you are the President? Even entirely socialist countries are adorned with inequitable social division, or are you blind to history and current events?

While you repeatedly chastise the previous administration for its loosing formula of expanding government, inflating the deficit, and waging war in foreign lands you are taking the very same formula to new heights. You decry the failure of our entitlement programs and moments later talk about your plans to engorge those failures beyond all imagination. The bigger the government the greater an economic divide exists between “Ordinarians” and “Powerful” politicians. Only a fool could be so ignorant of the historical record to believe large government is a solution, and I don’t believe you are a fool; therefore, you lust for power.

The citizens of this country do not need a Czar. The fundamental change we want is the restoration of our republic. Once the free market is restored, government control returns to the people, and everyone (rich and poor) has less of their money confiscated by the government then we will reemerge as the greatest nation.

Sincerely,

Letters to "Leaders"

Where's My Bailout

I wrote the following letter back in January, 2009. It was tongue-in-cheek and intended to convey the audacity of the bailouts; more importantly, the lack of help to the middle class American. I did not expect anything from this letter (nor did I get anything) and we sold our house about 3 weeks after I sent the letter, although we did have to lower the price significantly.

I submitted this letter to the two Senators from Washington State, Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, as well as the Representative in my congressional district, Rick Larsen.

Mr./Mrs. Cantwell, Murray, Larsen (I used only the name of the individual in the actual submittal),

I am a home owner in Marysville, Washington where I lived with my wife and 3 children for 8 years before moving to Colorado on October 3, 2008. Our beautiful home in Marysville remains unsold despite price reductions, 2 brokers’ opens, 5 open houses, and many varieties of marketing. In a few short months we will no longer be able to pay our mortgage on the home and will join hundreds of thousands of similarly plighted homeowners facing foreclosure (in reality, we would have rented the home long before we were in financial trouble, but I thought this would sound consistent with all the other "victims of capitalism" crying for a bailout). For this reason, I am respectfully requesting a government purchase of my “troubled asset.”

Unlike many of my fellow citizens imperiled by foreclosure, we were not lured into creative financing. We sold our previous home high and bought our current home below market prices in 2005. Because the home was in mild disrepair we slowly made improvements using contractors where necessary and doing it ourselves when possible to save money. Instead of spending into excess, we paid off our car loans, avoided any revolving debt, and contributed to savings and a 401K. Despite our fiscal responsibility, we are now ravaged by the Government’s unabashed directive to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lend to risky borrowers, the fallout from predatory lenders, and the short-sightedness of irresponsible mortgagors. Additionally, our home value has dropped from a high of $405,000 in 2007, to $360,000 during a Spring 2008 appraisal, to $300,000 in today’s market.

While provisions now exist for troubled banks, businesses, and homeowners, there is nothing but the promise of higher taxes and inflation for those of us who acted responsibly. Conscientious homeowners like us cannot compete with the rash of foreclosure and short sale properties on the market, yet there is hope only for the latter. Instead of rewarding and emphasizing strong financial stewardship our government is reinforcing risky, haphazard practices.

For these reasons, I request a government purchase of my home at its current list price. While an expense to the American taxpayer, it is a valuable asset that can be resold to an investor or a new homeowner at a profit when the market recovers. The alternative is yet another foreclosure, another property depressing the current market, and a responsible citizen’s track record of stellar responsibility in ruin. We win, our home is sold; the bank wins, no foreclosure; taxpayers win, profit on the house; other homeowners win, one less short-sale on the market depressing home values; and the government wins, reinforcing positive behavior. (You'd think this would be something a rational politician would want, but therein lies the failed assumption - rational.)

Best Regards,

Letters to Leaders

____________________________________________________________________


About a week after I sent the letter I received the following response from Maria Cantwell's office. While I appreciated the response, its form-letter origin was highly evident. Moreover, this same sales line was used to later pass the massive Obama Stimulus plan, but I still haven't seen a dime. I could write a lengthy dissertation for my doctorate in economics on the perils and failings of the "stimulus" package that did pass, but that's beyond the scope of this blog.

Dear Letters to Leaders,

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts about the need to help American taxpayers as our economy continues to sour. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue, and regret the delayed response.

I understand that American families are struggling as our economy weakens, and the nation's economic plight is one of the most important issues facing this country right now. Homeowners, whether they are current on their mortgage payments or not, are seeing their home values plummet. Workers as well as seniors are seeing savings they have invested in the stock market dwindle. Some school districts and utilities are having trouble selling the bonds they need to operate. Small businesses that used their lines of credit to meet payroll or to buy supplies have been telling me of the difficulties they face, particularly in getting the capital they need to operate.

This continued economic deterioration has prompted the U.S. Congress to begin discussing work on a second stimulus package, to follow the package that passed in February 2008. Congress has considered a host of potential policy options, but to date, no legislation has been formally proposed.

A key component of any further stimulus legislation is a set of policies that will provide long-term economic benefits, like creating jobs, as well as having a rapid and positive short-term impact, like a stimulus check provided by the recovery bill. Long-term economic growth, will put us back on the path towards a strong and vibrant economy. One of the best ways to keep people in their homes is to ensure that they have stable jobs that allow them to pay their mortgages.

While there are currently no concrete plans regarding the timing or contents of a potential stimulus package, Congress will continue to seriously evaluate a number of proposals in our search for an effective plan. It is imperative that we act to turn our economy in a new direction, and I will continue to use my seat on the Senate Finance Committee to pursue policies that foster conditions to encourage economic growth and higher standards of living for our working middle-class families. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind as Congress considers legislation to ease the burdens you are enduring.

Thank you so much for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. Finally, I would like to keep you informed of what is happening in D.C. Every Monday, I provide a brief outline about my work in the Senate and issues of importance to Washington state. If you are interested in getting this update, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator

For future correspondence with my office, please visit my website at
http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/index.html

____________________________________________________________________

Only last week did I hear from Rick Larsen's office. It was an invitation to his Community Forum in Marysville. Apparently, three months isn't too much time for a person in economic peril to wait for a chance to sit around and talk about things we already know won't happen. Is it any wonder American's feel their politicians are out of touch?

____________________________________________________________________

I have never heard from Patty Murray's office. Perhaps the tone of personal responsibility didn't sit well with her. Or could it be that the little people (you know, you and I) don't count in American Politics? Maybe she looked me up and realized I hadn't contributed to her campaign like the big banks and trial attorneys. Then again, she might have realized I was espousing conservative values and wanted to stay as far away from me and my ideals as possible. I guess I will never know.