Front and Center

Politics, society, and other random randomness

Tag Archives: Employment

About Granting “exceptions” and Free Contraception

I saw a piece regarding President Obama and the uproar caused by saying church-sponsored institutions have to provide contraception to employees.  Today, he reversed course and said that insurance companies would be forced to provide it for free to the employees of such institutions.    What’s funny is, it still means the institutions will pay for it, because typically a company will pay for part of the benefits package provided to their employees.  So, they will still pay.  Remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch!

While reading said piece, I found something in the comments section that I found to be very interesting, and spot-on:

There is a deep and very troubling issue being missed in not only this debate, but permeating the entire Obama administration. See today and also  recall yesterday  just how often the word “exception” is now used in edicts from Obama and his administration. In manufacturing, banking, education, health care by-passed senate confirmations and now religion, we get word from Obama that “we have granted an exception”. Granting  exceptions requires one be in absolute authority over those seeking relief from an onerous government imposed obligation. We are no longer being governed with our consent, but are in fact ruled by edict through Obama’s consent. Obama has not yet superseded  that authority which the Declaration of Independence plainly says  our individual rights come from and Obama must be told that in plain and simple words.

It makes me wonder if folks realize that–if you have to grant exceptions to a rule, then maybe, your rule should be changed?

I also wondered about “free” contraception.  Why should contraception be free?  Or Viagra?  Why should the government be involved in it?  Maybe there is a good reason, but its not coming to me right now.

Advertisements

$278k Per Job “Created or Saved.” So the Stimulus Worked?

From Jeffrey H. Anderson at The Weekly Standard:

When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.

The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.

Wow.  Not very efficient, right? I would say that in corporate America, and you were running a company that was that inefficient, you’d get canned. When hiring an employee, there is the employee’s salary. Then, factor in another 30%-40% of the salary, which is what it costs the employer to train the new employee. Then, factor in another 20% of salary to account for benefits, social security, and other costs. Even if every employee accounted for in the stimulus numbers were new hires, and they were all paid $100,000 salaries, it STILL wouldn’t cost $278,000 to hire them. So one has to wonder why the cost was so high.

In the face of these numbers, as well as the fact that unemployment post-stimulus is higher than pre-stimulus, the argument made by Obama supporters that things were “worse than they thought” doesn’t justify the inefficient spending. Then again, I have to agree with Anderson–that maybe the stimulus would’ve worked better if the money had not been spent “mostly on Democratic constituencies rather than in a manner genuinely designed to stimulate the economy.”

 

Thoughts about unions

  • I’ve admitted to not being a fan of unions.  The main reason for this is that I feel a job is an agreement between an employer and an employee.  The employer agrees to provide agreed-upon wages and perks in return for the employee doing a job.  Either side can terminate this agreement at any time.  Introducing a union into the mix adds an extra layer into the agreement, typically in favor of the employee.  Now, the employee can leave at any time, leaving the employer to have to fill the spot.  Meanwhile, the employer now has to go through red tape and hurdles to fire an employee.
  • Forced unionization is just flat out wrong.  In a forced unionization state, a non-unionized worker who goes to work at a unionized establishment MUST pay union dues whether they get involved with the union or not.  One of the reasons unions  are protesting in Indiana (and why their Democrats have fled) is because a new law up for vote by legislators would bar non-union employees from having to do this in a union shop.  This idea is being described as “an attack on workers.”  Isn’t forcing them to unionize an “attack on workers?”
  • I mentioned this in a discussion the other day.  Why is it no one on the supporting side of the unions can admit that maybe–just maybe–in some cases unions have too much power?  And that losing some things isn’t a total loss?
  • In any other situation, wouldn’t the idea that a group could take money, use that money to help elect people on the side of their cause, then go negotiate with these same people in order to get as much as possible for the group a conflict of interest?  Just wondering, since most complains are about conservatives attempting to “bust up” unions but one rarely hears complaints about Democrats giving more power to unions.

My last thought is a quote.  I found this comment online in response to a news article (“Right to Work Bill Puts Republicans, Democrats At Odds”) and it was one of the most sane, concise comments I’ve seen in the entire pro-union/anti-union debate:

All of these negatives that are presumed to happen to union workers if this bill passes are the issues the rest of us face already. All of us that do not have benefit of a union can be fired for no reason or replaced by someone just because they will do our job for less. That is Capitalism. When anyone suggests that there should be laws protecting all workers, as I do, they are called Communist. Anyone who has read Marx knows that laws to protect the rights of workers is a Marxist ideal. If it is fair and just for union workers to require certain benefits from employers then it should be so for all workers. I have seen both sides. I have been replaced by someone with less experience who would do my job for less money. Working for the state as a social worker, I have had my pay cut by 60% with no warning, then to have it ‘eliminated’ with no warning. I have been hired for a job and then had more and more of my supervisors responsibilities put on me. I have also been witness to my husband, who is owner of a national shipping company, struggling with incompetent workers whom he can not fire without a major ordeal and unreasonable demands from the union, even though he voluntarily pays two dollars more an hour than is consistent with the market. My mother was a union factory worker. She has attested to the fact that the union often protects people who take advantage of the power the union affords them. When workers cost a company money, it is the consumer, you and I, who absorb the cost. Someone always loses when the other side has too much power. There should be laws that protect all workers while still allowing businesses to function as they see fit.

Who has more disposable income–a minimum wage household or a $60k household?

I was forwarded an article-about-an-article that shows that “a one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year.”  Seemed unbelieveable, but the writer of the piece spelled it out very concisely.

In a nutshell, based on income, there are certain sources of financial assistance that are available to that minimum wage household that are not available to the $60k household–Food Stamps, Free Lunch, Medicaid/CHIP, and others.  When the available programs are added in in terms of financial benefit to the family, and compared to what the $60k household would have to do for similar benefits, the lower income household has more money left over.

Just left out there with no discussion, I suspect this would prompt a couple of scathing responses.  There will be those who will make it partisan and say something about conservatives attacking.   Some will be offended because how dare ANYONE say anything negative about programs that benefit the poor!  Still others will look at it as class warfare.  Obviously, things could go in a number of different directions.

Anyway, the article: Entitlement America.

TSA workers will be allowed to unionize

Full disclosure:  I’m not a fan of unions.  I’ve spent my working life at companies where you were hired based on your ability to fill a position, retained based on you continuing to do the job, and pay increases were based on merit.  Beyond the many things unions helped with in the past (workplace safety, 40 hour workweek), I don’t see a need for them now.

Last week, the Federal Labor Relations Authority decided that TSA workers could vote to unionize.  While workers could already individually join a union, they will now be able to vote as a block, and be able to collectively bargain.

Why do I not support this?  Well, in addition to all the other reasons I’m not a union fan,  what happens when the union doesn’t get everything they want in a contract and they decide to strike?  What happens to air travel?  Yep–gridlock, coming to an airport near you.