Nick Balzano, president of the Service Employees International Union’s Allentown chapter, may have picked the wrong target for a threat of legal action by the union. Balzano threated the city with a grievance filing after Boy Scout Kevin Anderson, 17, says he cleared a walking path in an east Allentown, Pa. park so people could walk along the river. That should have been a job given to union employees, Balzano, claimed, and is threatening a legal filing.
The union was complaining that 39 SEIU members were recently let go by the city, which then allowed this scout to earn his scab badge. He is quoted as saying that the union would be “looking into the Cub Scout or Boy Scout who did the trails … There’s to be no volunteers.”
Anderson is a member of Boy Scouts Troop 301 of Center Valley and worked for more than 200 hours creating the 1000-foot path in Kimmets Lock Park along with fellow scouts, friends and parents. He is a junior at Southern Lehigh High School.
I think that the SEIU should insist on the garbage be put back and Anderson charged under National Labor Relations Act as a lesson to any scouts who would try something horrific like this again. Indeed, the federal government should look into how scouts have been supplanting cross-guard employees by helping elderly citizens across streets. The menace of scab scouting must be confronted before every footpath in America is cleared.
Below may (or may not) be a picture of the confrontation between the scouts and the union:
For the story, click here.
Buddha:
“Seriously, the real argument about government has been and always shall be FUNCTIONALITY, not size.”
It doesn’t function well at any size and it is dangerous in its Leviathan sized incarnation.
I think along with those executives a few congressmen and senators should be joining them.
Another year of recession and I think you and I can sit back and watch the heads role on Wall St. and Independence and Pennsylvania Aves.
Gyges:
If a company cannot exist without material support from the government, then let it fail.
Byron,
So I take it you’re anti-corporation then? The whole concept. At it’s core the idea of the modern corporation is “we, the government, say that there’s this thing called a corporation so there is.” I can’t think of a more stunning example of government regulation then the creation of an entity simply by the whim of the State.
By it’s very nature, the corporation cannot exist in a unregulated free market.
Byron,
Your argument fails because we have had our laws gutted by lobbyists.
You fail to the the forest for the trees.
And I’ve explained before, free markets are fine for 90% of the junk we sell each other. But some parts of infrastructure are too critical to national – not security – but survival. Unregulated banks and financial institutions sold a made up product based on bad math and it nearly broke the global economy. Because they were allowed to get too large.
Big government is a threat to corporate greed. Big is a distraction argument. I swear it’s like having a conversation with you before you realized liberals were not the enemy of individual liberty. Are they feeding you the FOX Newsios again, son? Do you feel okay? Are you built too low to the ground? The fast ones are going right over your head! Have you got a hole in your glove? Seriously, the real argument about government has been and always shall be FUNCTIONALITY, not size. That’s a distraction. People who worry about size miss the point of ANY system. From government to manufacturing to internal combustion engines to basic set theory you misunderstand complex systems if you think size is the best/sole way to judge a systems performance and performance needs for optimization. Size is a datapoint. One of many. When you design something, is the most important thing how big it is or if it works for the intended purpose? Designing useless systems is . . . useless.
And no one held a gun to the banks head over the money. Mischaracterization. The banks had rolled back regulation to the point they grew so large as to threaten GLOBAL financial collapse. It was a robbery without guns by people like those pricks at Goldman Sacks – who should have their senior management marched out into the middle of Wall St. in chains along with BoA and Merrill execs to name but a few. So you can stop that hoohah.
Buddha:
I think we need objective laws to make sure we have a level playing field. I think that if you have been harmed by a company the best way is to go to court to take care of it.
We don’t have unrestrained capitalism. Government oversight hasn’t protected us from anything. More people are protected by people doing their jobs properly than are protected by government regulations.
Who lowered the interest rates over a protracted period of time in contravention of economic reality? The Federal Reserve, Wall Street cant do that. Who gave 750 billion dollars to industry? Government. Who made banks and financial institutions take that money? Government.
Big government is a threat to individual liberty. A central bank (Federal Reserve) is a threat to individual liberty. Big corporations in the back pocket of government and vice verse are a threat to individual liberty. A free market is not a threat to liberty.
I agree with you on most things but I don’t believe free markets are a bad thing.
When a human being is unrestrained by government control they call it freedom.
Byron,
Part of the problem here is your blind refusal to recognize unrestrained capitalism’s role in our current state of affairs. You are clinging to an absolutist mentality that “free markets and no laws make a healthy economy” with all the zeal of a fundie. If anything recent history has illustrated what a load of pure unmitigated horseshit that it. It’s almost as if you’ve swallowed the Blue pill again. Your version of capitalism is corporatism so quit trying to hide behind the personal liberty argument on this. Your economics are flat wrong. You seem to think “healthy” and “unrestrained” are the same thing.
When is cell is unrestrained they call it “cancer”.
Mike:
The government did subsidize some businesses during that period of time but not all of them or even a majority of them.
Vanderbilt is one example that comes to mind, he created a shipping line in spite of competing with a government sanctioned and subsidized line. He kicked it’s ass. The same goes for railroads and other industries.
Not all were sucking on the government teat and any way I don’t call those types capitalists.
The Federal Reserve should never have been created and is an impediment to a healthy economy.
By your own admission government is the problem “During that period of time Government intervened on behalf of the “Robber Barons” to ensure that they succeeded.” As stated above they selectively supported various companies to the detriment of others. That is not capitalism that is Fascism and I am against any government intervention in the private sector.
Professor, I’m not familiar with that specific picture but I’m familiar with other pictures from the labor movement where strikers or organizers are facing down armed men and my own uncle did so during an organizing campaign in Georgia 50 odd years ago. Basic human rights for workers were secured with the blood of citizens that believed that they had more value than as economic slaves to an industrial or corporate master. The entire body of labor law, public and private, was constructed to avoid the real possibility of perpetual and crippling disruption to the manufacturing and transportation industries through the very real class warfare the union movement embodied.
Every benefit every worker, union and non-union, ever received was born in exactly the kind of confrontation that photo shows. People seem to think they have 40 hour weeks, a living wage, overtime, health care, some measure of safety in their working conditions, vacations, etc. as gifts from their benevolent industrial and corporate masters but that’s not at all the case. People died to secure those things and that those benefits. That they have been diminished and eroded over time is a direct result of the loss of union membership over the last 25 years and the government sponsored move to reward moving our manufacturing (and now technical) base off shore.
In this regard I will take the opposing view regarding volunteerism. In a tight labor market volunteerism is a positive force but in a loose labor market volunteerism is a way to avoid actually paying someone to do a job that needs doing. It is a way to conceal the destructive effects of a tax system that is inversely progressive (a ‘regressive’ tax system) and wasteful government (at every level) spending. It’s a way to avoid making collective decisions on what you want your tax money spent on and what policies you want your government to adopt and your corporations to adhere to.
Has anyone noticed the proliferation of subsidiary, specialized jobs in health care as an example? Duties that were at one time provided by a nurse are now compartmentalized by skill level and (lesser) pay level throughout a multitude of technicians and aides. This enhances the bottom line for a hospital, degrades the need for the highest skilled non-physician labor and requires unions to subdivide its organizing and representation among several communities of interest instead of one or two. It also insures internecine conflict among bargaining units with some employees getting the short end of the stick based on their position in the pecking order.
As duties are broken down into more discrete and less skilled jobs the opportunity to fill the least skilled with volunteers becomes more available. If I Google for volunteer opportunities in my area I can find hundreds of them , everything from retired physical therapists to help in hospitals with exercise assistance for patients; docents for museums, libraries and zoos/animal related exhibits in State parks; clerical work for small township governments etc. These all should be paying jobs, either on their own or as part of a larger job description for hired labor. If people are being fired or business’, public or private, are not hiring the appropriate workers and volunteers are performing their labor then I’m not for it.
Walter Reuther where are you when we need you. Dead I bet.
“you want to fix Detroit then eliminate all taxes and city regulations for 5 years. It is as simple as that. And so is fixing the national economy.”
Byron,
This is another case of don’t give me the facts, I’ve got my ideology. Considering your general thoughtfulness it is not worthy of you.
“And that was just in about 50 years, from say 1870 to 1920. Capitalism is not evil but government regulation is. The crash of 1929 and subsequent depression are a direct result of the Federal Reserve board and other government meddling.”
Like the previous paragraph in this comment lauding the “unfettered capitalism” from 1870 to 1920, this is simply not true and a historical. The Federal Reserve, by the way was a private capitalist creation, read the history.
During that period of time Government intervened on behalf of the “Robber Barons” to ensure that they succeeded. The entire railway system was a land giveaway of immense proportions. The encouragement of immigration was an effort to keep wages low to ensure profitability. Government intervened with troops and LEO’s to discourage the nascent labor movement and also protect the Robber Barons. The entire history of government during the time you recount so lovingly was one of government intervention on behalf of the wealthy. This is not “unfettered capitalism,” or even a free market, it is rudimentary fascism and/or feudalism.
Why is it that when confronted with national issues you consistently take the side against the interest of most of the people? Even in Ayn Rand, the villains were the greedy capitalists like Dagny’s brother. For someone who I know to be a compassionate person, when you get on one of your “free market”
rants, your philosophy comes down to basically “I got me mine.”
The worst part of your “anti-tax” rants is the fact that those politicians who claim most to be “anti-tax,” are those who want to lay the burden of taxation onto the middle and working classes, while freeing the wealthy from any obligation to pay a fair share of support.
If every social program in this country were eliminated, as you would seem to prefer, working people would still have a heavy tax burden, just paying for the socialism of keeping the military industrial cabal in business and in giving government aid to the wealthy elite. Read some history, without the biased filter of your political philosophy and you will see that throughout history this has been the norm. Libertarian philosophy is a con game that really hides a streak of amoral
selfishness, that in the end becomes hypocrisy when it comes to the “true believer’s” personal finances.
Byron,
If you don’t want to pay taxes for the welfare of society, then in fairness you should also avoid all society does for you.
Stop driving on public roads, don’t watch T.V. or listen to the radio (regulated), you’ll probably want to switch to bartering because money is a benefit you get from the evil state, you’ll probably want to stop using any knowledge you got in public schools, and college (if you went to a state university it was subsidized by the state), and avoid hiring workers who went to school, I’m pretty sure the government’s somehow involved in your electricity so nix on that too, oh and you can’t eat out or get food from a grocery store because you benefit from the food inspections if you do, don’t go to doctors\dentists\etc. (the school thing again). That’s the short list.
Oh and about your railroad example, why don’t you look and see how exactly those great “capitalist” railroad owners got the land to build on?
The problem with what you say is “unrestrained”, Byron. And you’re wrong. Revisionist history is beneath you. The last time we had unrestrained capitalism, it led to the Depression. Guess what led up to the mess we are in now?
*unrestrained*
Government regulation isn’t evil. It’s the FUNCTION of government – to insure order, equity and justice. This is whether business likes it or not. You don’t like it? Don’t do it. But rules you must have. Rules with consequences and with equity and justice. You’ll note equity and justice are at odds with “unrestrained” any damn thing much less capitalism. Unrestrained capitalism is fascism, Byron. It’s a Merchant Guild society. And bullshit on that. Laws are rules. Rules by definition are restraints. Rules that in this country are supposed to be geared to maximum personal freedom FOR ALL. If the rules are to apply to everyone but capitalists? Well, quite frankly I’m shocked that you cannot make the connection that rules are required for civilization and regulating business. That’s not only well within your intellectual grasp, that you steadfastly have been escalating your language sounds a lot like a kool-aid drinker. As an engineer, you should know the inherent danger of unbalanced systems.
You are coming dangerously close to the PNAC line with your unrestrained language.
Jill:
when was it tried? I think the last time we had full unfettered capitalism it created a huge amount of wealth and a huge middle class. It also ushered in the industrial revolution, created the airplane, electricity, the automobile, the airplane and hundreds of other beneficial products as well as millions of jobs that provided employment for people.
And that was just in about 50 years, from say 1870 to 1920. Capitalism is not evil but government regulation is. The crash of 1929 and subsequent depression are a direct result of the Federal Reserve board and other government meddling. We have had a mixed economy ever since and have missed out on who knows what fantastic inventions and progress because of government suffocation of our once free market.
I hazard a guess that if we had had pure unfettered capitalism in this country since 1900 we would probably be 100 years ahead of where we are now technologically and we would have had short cyclical down-turns that could be planned for rather than the abrupt stops and starts caused by Fed policy.
The steam engine was invented over 2,000 years ago, it took a capitalist to turn it into a railroad. Prosperity does not just happen, it is not a magical emanation from the penumbra.
I don’t want to pay taxes for the welfare of society.
“I am happy to pay taxes for the welfare of my society.”
My gosh but it’s refreshing to finally find a kindred soul. I just don’t understand these (greedy, selfish) Tax Freaks who think that income taxes are the root of all the problems in our society. Do these fools want to live without law enforcement, fire departments, trash/recycling collection, public parks, schools, Social Security, Medicare, etc., etc., etc.??
Byron,
You know I won’t agree with you. I am happy to pay taxes for the welfare of my society. Your way has been tried in this nation and in others. It doesn’t work.
I know an SEIU official. I think I’ll be giving her a call tonight. If for nothing else to ask,”What were you thinking attacking the Boy Scouts? Whose PR genius idea was that?”
Jill:
you want to fix Detroit then eliminate all taxes and city regulations for 5 years. It is as simple as that. And so is fixing the national economy.
Call me a socialist if you want, but I do have sympathy for someone who wants to work but cannot find a job. We have so many resources in this country. Can’t we figure out some way that everyone who wants to work can have a meaningful job?
The union is doing itself a real disservice here. They should have gone to the scouts and explained the situation from the beginning. Maybe the scout service project could have been trying to convince the city to rehire a worker for this job and for taxpayers to think about what services they want and how they will pay for them.
Local govt. budgets have been decimated. People in Detroit recently voted to raise their taxes because they were convinced it was necessary to save their schools. This was extremely admirable because most people in Detroit don’t have a pot to piss in, yet they wanted to come through for the next generation.
If there isn’t a way to hire someone to do a job, then we are going to need volunteers to do some of that work. The SEIU is wasting money and good will with this suit.
“I think that the SEIU should insist on the garbage be put back and Anderson charged under National Labor Relations Act….”
Legally speaking, public employees are exempt from the NLRA, but are covered by state public employee labor relations statutes modeled on the NLRA. PA has an extensive public sector labor relations act, probably called the PLRA.
Only employers and unions can be charged under a labor relations act, so Anderson is in no danger. A work assignment dispute would not ordinarily be an unfair labor practice under a labor relations statute.
The state labor act is probably not at issue, since SEIU mentioned a grievance. The union probably talking about filing a grievance under the applicable collective bargaining agreement, to be resolved ultimately by an impartial arbitrator agreed to by both sides.
Once again, a grievance procedure affects only the parties to the agreement, that is, the union and the employer, and the employees in the appropriate unit covered by that agreement. Anderson is also free and clear on that score.
The law notwithstanding, someone has taken out after a boy scout doing his “good deed for the day.” Substitute PLRA and PA, and all the points are valid. Never going to win that one in the grievance procedure of public opinion.