While reading today’s Washington Post, I came across the following opinion response entitled “Who Will Protect Unionizing Workers?” I usually do not pull apart someone’s opinion piece, but I found some issues with this article that I wanted to address.

A March 15 news story reported that the debate over the proposed Employee Free Choice Act has evolved from a “narrow clash between unions and employers” into a debate over “fundamental questions of American capitalism.”

While this is true, the real issue here is a question of basic fairness that can never be reduced to one bargainer’s economic advantage. If the Employee Free Choice Act does not survive the Senate minority’s threatened filibuster, the public will demand to know what the minority proposes to substitute in place of this essential legislation. Instead of heated rhetoric and partisan bickering, what real solutions will be proposed to address the long history of employer intimidation against workers who seek to unionize their workplaces?

Point 1: The statement, “the real issue here is a question of basic fairness that can never be reduced to one bargainer’s economic advantage,” is misleading. While companies currently do have some recourse to a call for unionization, the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) will flip the power to the other party. So, in essence, the “fairness” will still be “reduced to one bargainer’s economic advantage.” Doesn’t that defeat the purpose?

Point 2: The statement, “the public will demand to know what the minority proposes to substitute in place of this essential legislation,” is also misleading. For starters, the minority doesn’t have to submit a substitute if they have no issues with the current rules. That is like someone proposing a rule that all Congressmen must wear pink ties while in session. If the minority party filibusters the legislation because they think it is unnecessary, why would they have to propose a new piece of legislation?

Many of our religious traditions, from the Jewish Workmen’s Circle and the Social Gospel of mainline Protestantism to the social justice encyclicals of the popes, have taught that denying workers the right to organize is an attack on human dignity.

When opponents of the legislation claim that technology has created the great prosperity of this nation, it makes us wonder whether the bosses forgot that workers without a decent wage cannot be consumers.

We’re in this together. The blindness of a few could beggar us all.

Point 3: I might not be the most well versed person on the Bible (as both Nicholas Cafardi and Jerome Maryon are), but I do not recall reading anywhere that unionization was essential to human dignity. Plus, with all the debate over the past eight years regarding “too much” religion in politics, I do not see how this helps the argument in favor of the EFCA.

Point 4: What determines a decent wage? If the technological advancements, such as computerizes plasma cutters, replaces a highly skilled position of a welder with a medium-skilled position of a computer operator, the company can pay the new employee less. This decrease in salary offsets the increased overhead cost for the new equipment; however, the company sees a net gain for increased production, efficiency, and quality.

While it might be disappointing for the company no longer needing the higher-skilled, higher-paid employee, it isn’t morally wrong to lay them off. In fact, we have many examples in our history where positions and skills become obsolete, new jobs and skills are created due to technological advancements.

For example, how many offices still use typewriters? Not many, since desktop computers have replaced the old technology. With the transition, offices could reduce the overhead labor costs since skilled computer users could produce more work in the same amount of time. Many secretaries and production/graphics employees went to school to learn news skills to use the computer and the software in order to retain their jobs and become more valuable. In essence, these individuals could now demand a higher wage over the lesser-skilled employees who did not evolve with the current technology.

Doing a Google search on these two individuals (assuming I found the right profiles), both authors are experienced men in religion and law, and so I welcome to be corrected on point 3. I do think, however, they could have drafted a better defense for EFCA than implying that the opponents are required to offer an alternative piece of legislation and that there is a moral reason for unionization.

(NOTE: I have yet to find a link for this article, so I’ve posted the whole text in the text above. Reference page A12 of the March 24, 2009 edition of the Washington Post if you wish to see the original article.)

Today, Congress wasted precocious time drafting and voting on a piece of legislation to place a 90% tax on to bonuses received by individuals who work for TARP funded companies. After it was discovered that Chris Dodd and the Obama Administration put into the stimulus package a clause to allow bonuses to be given to companies that received TARP funding, Congress put on a show of being upset and promised to get the money back. Well, I have to say that this is all unnecessary.

Before I go to far, let me just say up front that these individuals shouldn’t have received large bonuses if the companies were in dire economic condition. And if bonuses were needed to reward individuals, it should have been given in the form of company stock. That way, they would have a vested interest in improving the company’s financial situation.

Unfortunately, AIG used cash to provide bonuses last year, to the sum of $165 Million. These bonuses were written into compensation contracts, and the rushed stimulus package protected all contracts prior to February 11th. So where does Congress get off saying, “Oops, my bad. Gimme back that money,” when they said it was ok just a month ago?

Rushed legislation caused this mini fiasco, and now we have rushed legislation to “fix” it. However, is this 90% tax actually constitutional? Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution states:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

A Bill of Attainder is a process where the Legislature supercedes the Judicial by singling out one or a small group of people for punishment, such as high taxation. Justice William H. Rehnquist referred to it this way:

“These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.”

So let’s recap for a second. We have spent more time having hearings on the AIG bonuses and drafting legislation for new taxes than we spent reading and debating the original stimulus bill. You would think that if this was the other way around, there could have been debate on Dodd’s compensation amendment before voting. But since that didn’t happen, the House has passed a rushed piece of legislation that may or may not be constitutional. This can easily lead to those targeted under the Bill of Attainder to challenge the law in court, costing more than the $165 Million that is being debated.

Why are we wasting our time on this? Congress, just accept that you screwed up. You lived up to the old saying, “Haste makes waste.” These bonuses were provided legally under the legislation you voted for, so you have no grounds to go back and demand the money to be returned. And now you are setting the foundation for more time and money to be wasted over a legal battle. Don’t you ever learn?

Related articles:
Tech Law Journal – “Bill of Attainder”
Prison Planet – “Paul: Bill to tax bonuses an ‘outrage’ and unconstitutional”
TaxProf Blog – “Larry Tribe: 90% AIG Tax is Constitutional”
Real Clear Politics – “Dodd’s Deep Doo-Doo”
Just Politics – “Bread & Circuses (& Bonuses)”

If you’ve noticed on the right-hand side of the page, there is a new button labeled “The Exercise Challenge.”  I am starting a 6-week challenge to lose five pounds doing basic exercises without the use of gym equipment or any gizmos they sell on TV.  Five pounds might not sound like a lot, but it is a reasonable goal.

I was going to the gym regularly in 2007 and 2008 until I ended up in the hospital.  Unfortunately, I never returned to the gym after recovering.  This has led to me to regain all the weight I had lost since 2007 -plus five additional pounds – hence my goal.

The site will detail the exercises I will be performing, statistics on weight and measurements during the challenge, and any observations during the six weeks that I think are interesting.  If you are interested in joining me with the challenge, you are more than welcomed to contribute to the site.  The challenge will start on March 29th.