An Open Missive to our Federal Elected Officials: Who Polices the Federal Government in Following Hiring Practices?

As a dual-service, disabled veteran, possessing two master-level degrees from accredited colleges and engaged in the pursuit of a Ph.D., I am finding, from personal experience and in speaking to others pursuing employment with disabilities, discrimination is alive and well.  I can understand the discrimination in private sector hiring; I do not like it but understand it.  Risk, costs of health insurance, and costs of doing business increase when hiring those with disabilities.  I do not see government as a “jobs program” in any way; however, the government has taken it upon themselves to enact rules specifically to hire those with disabilities.  Thus, the government should be more open to hiring those of us with disabilities.

People ProcessesFederal Government hiring procedures provide two hiring paths, competitive and non-competitive.  Under competitive, there are several ways of being placed ahead of others and points are awarded for certain hiring preferences, of which being a veteran is but one.  In non-competitive hiring, Schedule A provides for disabled people to sidestep the traditional, or competitive, practices of hiring to have an opportunity of obtaining employment without having to compete with candidates not experiencing the special conditions caused by disability

Disabled people are supposed to be able to employ Schedule A hiring practices for Federal Hiring because disabled people know how difficult it is to be hired for the private sector, city, county, and state government hiring.  Here is where those in hiring positions for the Federal Government are able to bypass the system and not hire disabled people:  no one is policing hiring.  I was informed, very politely, by the Inspector General’s Office that they do not inquire or investigate compliance with regulations for hiring.  The question to you, elected Federal Officials: who polices and ensures compliance with written protocols established by OPM for hiring?

As a disabled veteran, hiring in the private sector has become more difficult as my injuries have become more noticeable, from fall 2010 to present.  Having a disability that is nerve based, causing tics/twitches/spasms, hiring officials acknowledge directly or indirectly that since my cost to employer-based health care will come with a pre-existing condition and higher overall costs in ADA compliance and loss of potential (blue) money, I become the “candidate to beat,” and finally will be told, “you are overqualified,” “you are over-educated,” or my personal favorite “you are not a good fit.”  Thus, after four consecutive years of seeing my ability to be hired in the private sector diminish, I began more heavily pursuing employment with the Federal Government.

In June 2016, I was, finally, awarded a Schedule A letter to add to my documents in Federal Hiring.  With the Schedule A letter, I was provided OPM training on how to be “Direct Hired” and walked through the OPM website governing the policies that govern Schedule A hiring and disability hiring for the Federal Government.  Since the award of the Schedule A letter, I have had a VA hiring official refuse to use the letter claiming VRA and VEOA are both more efficient, and then not hire me for being “overqualified.”  I have experienced hiring managers tell me that “Direct Hire” authority lies with managers, and you need to know those managers to employ Schedule A preference, but the hiring managers cannot tell you who else to speak with to receive Schedule A hiring.  The absolute best excuse has been a hiring manager’s claim that there is no such thing as non-competitive hiring, that all applicants must be hired under competitive hiring standards, and then proceeded to tell me I am not qualified for the position because my degrees were not specifically those desired in the advertisement, even though the advertisement did not specify a specific degree, other than master-level.  Most recently I have been offered positions so far below minimum pay levels only because the government knows that desperation often breeds compliance, even if compliance creates actual harm, all in the name of some future date of possibly being hired for the wages qualified for at the time of hire.

Hence, I emailed the Inspector General’s office regarding these circumstances and received the following reply, “The Inspector General’s Office does not monitor compliance with hiring in the Federal Government.”  Thus, Elected Officials, I ask you, “Who regulates and ensures compliance in hiring for Federal Government positions?”  “Who is accountable for OPM regulations being adhered to by local hiring decision-makers?”  “Where can those who are disabled and trying to work turn for a reconciliation of just grievances?”  You, the elected officials, created this hiring system with preferences for disabled people to find work with the Federal Government, so who is policing the hiring for you?

I have now contacted elected officials in four separate states while living and voting in those areas, Ohio, Arizona, Utah, and Michigan, asking the representatives of elected officials directly the same questions posed in this missive.  Senator McCain’s office was the most oblique and obtuse claiming that if hiring practices are not being followed it is due to a lack of training somewhere, but the issue is not important enough for the senator’s time.  Upon arrival in New Mexico, I asked about hiring at the VA Hospital in Albuquerque and was told by several officials at the VA Hospital that the HR Department was under extra scrutiny due to a significant lack of following the hiring guidelines for Federal Government hiring; but, none of those people could tell me who polices the hiring practices and ensures compliance.

Why is this important; because disabled people are not receiving the kind of hiring support they need.  With the current costs to business operation in the private sector, I can understand, I do not like it, but I can understand, that hiring those with disabilities is going to be a major cash outlay upfront with increased risk.  As a business professional, I understand the risk/cost structure, and I understand that the speed of business dictates finding the lowest cost/risk, candidate.  For the city, county, state, and Federal Government positions, I cannot fathom why disabled people are dragged through such egregious hiring practices.  I did an unofficial survey of 25 Federal Government, NM State, Bernalillo County, and City of Albuquerque employees asking them one simple question, how long did it take for you to be hired initially.  The answers ranged from multiple months to 5 years of constant applying.  If the employee had been promoted, I asked how long did the employee wait for the promotion, and the answers ranged from 3-months in the initial position to 15-years.  As a business professional, I can confidently say this is where enormous amounts of blue (potential) money are being wasted, and as the axiom goes, burn enough blue money and green money, in this case, taxpayer funds, evaporate!

Ways to fix the hiring issue:

  • USAJobs.govEach Federal Government office needs to have a single person solely responsible for Schedule A and all other direct hire authority programs that non-employees can communicate with to apply directly to that organization. All open positions would run through this office first providing the option to request Schedule A preference, and upon that selection, USAJobs.gov would automatically drive the applications to the single person responsible for direct hiring and provide this person’s name and contact information to the applicant.
  • Stop the redundant efforts. Once a background and reference check has completed for one office, make this information available to all offices for 365-days.  With applicants making multiple applications to several different offices, this alleviates contacting those references multiple times, duplicating work, and wasting resources.  The technology to share is already available, and this is a low-cost, high-return option to invoke.
  • Every worker in government expects everything to take an inordinate amount of time to complete work. The longer the waiting game takes, the more potential (Blue) money is wasted exponentially.  Start shaving unproductive hiring practices, processes, and procedures.  Streamlining the hiring process overall is needed!

Blue Money BurningConsider the following as a general guide.  For every five dollars of blue money wasted, fifteen to fifty green taxpayer dollars evaporate.  Thus, when a position is open, the lost potential is the annual salary of the new hire for every month the position remains open and unfilled, and the green money loss is the annual salary of the position open every two months.  Between others having to work harder to cover the open position (Blue), the added strain and stress of working shorthanded (Blue), and the lost productivity of the entire team including the costs of long-term planning (Blue), along with other factors, are “hidden costs” of conducting business.  In the blue money loss, the green money evaporation is found in less time for maintenance, tools, and people are used harder and longer, overtime for important deadlines, and commitments lost are all, but not a complete list, of green money evaporation pits.

  • While not directly a hiring practice, reducing employee churn, training, and promoting more quickly is a best business practice. The people in government make the government, and I am not the only customer service professional pointing to government offices as the epitome of incompetent people wasting resources and destroying morale and customer relationships.

Case in point, at the Regional VA Office in Phoenix, AZ, three people regularly man the front desk and are the face of this VA facility.  Of these three, one person is incompetent and intentionally mean, remarking in demeaning and insulting tones to questions and speaking ill of the veteran they just “helped.”  One is trying and means well.  The third could not be hired to clean road kill off streets and is completely and utterly a drone, for example saying they are working on a task but never accomplishing anything productive.  Several times while being harassed assisted by these individuals, I witnessed the third person asking for help from another employee to staple forms together, asking “where does the staple go in the form again?”  Hence, I was not surprised when Phoenix became the face of incompetent and heartless government workers literally killing veterans.  Clean house of the deadwood, replace with hard-working people and streamline the process of work to reduce the opportunity for drones and hacks to manipulate the system.  Of the 10-15 people that regularly float through the Phoenix VA Regional Office Front-Desk/Waiting Area, I think two might actually be working.  The rest seem to have an amorphous purpose doing ambiguous work in a cloud of confusion taking taxpayer wages for no productivity.

  • Customer service improvement begins internally, employee to employee. Want to slow churn, improve how employees serve each other.  Want to reduce churn significantly, get the supervisors, team leaders, and other organizational leaders out of the office, onto the production floor, and actively exemplifying customer service and professionalism.  Improve employee to employee customer service and departments like the VA and DMV will immediately begin to change their horrendous reputations.

I am not the only person in this country paying taxes and angry about the drones and dregs hired to conduct government business.  It is past time to demand accountability for the taxpayer money waste at all levels of government.  Decreasing waste begins with improved hiring, respect for the government they work for by being honest in their employment, and increased regard for the people they serve.

When an employee commits a crime, they should be able to be fired and never re-hired by the government, then held accountable in a court of law for their crimes.  When an employee does not pay their taxes while working for the government, they should be fired and never re-hired, then held accountable like every other citizen not paying their taxes.  To hear about government computers full of porn, child porn, and online gambling, tells me there are workers that are not being supervised properly, work is not being done, and the supervisor and the offending employee need to be fired and never re-hired, then held accountable in a court of law for their crimes.  Being paid to work and not working is theft!  Child porn is a crime!  Watching porn on a computer while being paid is both sexual harassment and theft, both of which are crimes!

The taxpayer receives a slap to the face when federal, state and county government employees are caught gaming the system for personal profit, are not required to remit the monies ill-gotten, and are not fired, or worse are fired and an obscure union regulation returns them to work at the same salary and position of authority, or worse are promoted after being returned to work.  These are failures in treating people properly, honoring the tax dollars invested, and reflecting a failure of elected officials to supervise government workers needed to run the government.  When will our elected officials become the leaders we are paying them to be, holding those malfeasant characters legally and morally accountable and removing them from employment in government?

Your'e HiredWe hired you, the elected officials, to run the government for us, not to enrich yourselves at our expense, and not to allow nefarious and untrustworthy people to lie, cheat, and steal our tax monies and keep being paid with our tax money!  More egregious still is allowing those who have abused the power of government to cause harm, then allow those abusers to quietly leave the government with their pensions, and no criminal charges are ever pursued, e.g., Lois Lerner among many others.  When you want to know why the approval rating for elected officials is so low, look no further than the issues raised in this missive.  Fix the problems!

In Defense of the Rule of Law – Restoring “… Liberty and Justice for All”

This letter is pertinent to every American citizen as well as those currently holding public office and those seeking to become politicians. Politics has always been an American passion; we talk politics at work with co-workers, across the fence with neighbors, around the kitchen table with family and trusted friends, and almost everywhere else without exception…including public restrooms. Yes, Americans even discuss politics in public restrooms. Conversations overheard and notes written on walls provide plenty of evidence. This is apt; much of the political theater currently thrust into America’s attention is fit only for flushing.

President Lincoln is quoted thus: “Let every American, every lover of Liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their abuse by others. As the Patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor; let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear [down] the character of his own, and his children’s liberty. Let reverence for the [Constitutional] laws [of America]… become the political religion of the nation.”

President Lincoln continued on to proclaim, “When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise, for the redress of which, no legal provisions have been made, I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume I, “Address Before the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois” (January 27, 1838), p. 112.

Americans inherently seem to know right from wrong. Living in a Republic is messy and loud. Yet, from the clamoring on two extreme points, fairness, justice, and mercy continue to stand in the common argument for the regulation of society to ultimately benefit all. Since Americans inherently know right from wrong and are generally just and merciful, the most contemptible actions a politician can make is to forget, upon election, he/she must serve all his/her constituents, not only the political party he/she personally adheres to and represents. This contemptible action, witnessed in many past and current political scandals, simultaneously displayed the actions taken at every level of government from the dogcatcher and school board locally to the president’s office federally. For example, President Obama’s decision to hire Arne Duncan as United States Secretary of Education, the multiplicity of “Czar” appointments, the VA scandal across America, the IRS debacle and the continuing saga this represents, and much more, on both sides of the political aisle, all find their roots in the failure to adhere to the rule of law. Supporting a personal political party’s leanings over the rule of law causes all of America to suffer grievously.

Districts elect their politicians, and an elected politician has only one job, which is to represent the citizens, all citizens of this great Republic, at the level of office elected. This means that the higher in political office, the broader the constituent base, and the higher the public’s trust, and hence the more closely the politician must walk in honoring, obeying, and upholding the laws of the land. If the politician’s first waking breath is not commitment to equality under the law and obedience to America’s Constitutional Law, as described by President Lincoln above, he/she is a charlatan, a hoax, a fraudster, and needs removal from holding a position of public trust. More to the point, failure to honor the elected responsibility to constituents is, by law, criminal negligence and warrants a court of action convened in the form of a public hearing held forthwith to determine status of guilt and accountability under the law for failure to uphold the public trust.

Rugged individuals founded America for people who love Liberty. To love Liberty means fair play and equality under the law as the basic and fundamental building block of society. If an individual personally is unable to tolerate individual liberty, that individual remains free to leave America’s shores and find a more suitable place to live among the other nations on Earth.

Too many people in America have failed to embrace personal liberty for their neighbors; thus, compromising personal liberty for themselves and fundamentally jeopardizing liberty for every American. President Lincoln could not have been plainer on this point, and the extreme examples of the last 20+ years on the Federal, State, and Local government levels are obvious. America is in danger not from without, e.g. terrorism, war, etc., but from within, e.g. politicians, who fail to uphold equality under American Constitutional Law and honor the rule of America’s law. The axiom continues to verify itself, “The wise man in the storm does not pray for deliverance from the storms without, but the storms within.” Direct application of hope, faith, and trust dispels fear as a storm within. If a politician holds a position of public trust, people have placed upon him/her their hope and faith that he/she will honor the rule of law for the benefit of all peoples, not simply those who helped him/her become elected.

A particular point of contention generates with “Special Interest Groups.” Special interest groups do not the full population represent; hence, the reason and label of “Special Interests.” Special interest groups are not capable of representing all the population or they would be called “General Interest Groups,” and not every person in America can be represented by such narrow thinking on any issue, let alone the big issues, e.g. abortion rights, religion, immigration, education, etc. Because “Special Interest Groups” do not represent the full population, limiting special interests, disclosing fully special interest funding sources, and issuing complete disclosure of the reason that particular special interest is pushing a specific legislative agenda are key factors. During the Obamacare debates, in full spectacle of the world, America learned a valuable lesson on the need for full disclosure on special interests. Special interest groups intensely supported, as political favors for the benefit of one political group over all others, software that never lived up to the hype and wasted hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. This decision represented a deleterious action full of contempt for the rule of law rather than equal opportunity under the law for all persons. Anytime public money is used to issue a political favor, public trust is breached, the rule of law flouted, and the need for removal from office necessitated; then such persons are held accountable, along with those politically rewarded, in a court of law, and the public’s money is recovered.

The use of public funds in issuing political favors includes employment. Since public employees necessarily receive their wages from public money, politicians breach the public trust should they hire, as a reward for political favors and the public deserves their money back. Kevin Jennings is a specific example; President Obama, through Arne Duncan while in the office of Secretary of Education, hired Jennings as a “Safe Schools Czar.” Duncan knew Jennings would remain a prominent and outspoken member of the LGBTQ agenda through Jennings’ history with GLSEN, as well as a previous executive director for the group and an admirer of Harry Hays of NAMBLA. It seems particularly ironic that to achieve greater public support, under the leadership of Jennings the group GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network) changed its name (1997) from the Gay & Lesbian Independent School Teacher Network (GLISTN). His hire represents a significant breach of public trust as a pusher of the LGBTQ agenda. His role in government put him squarely into a position to coerce America’s Public Schools into becoming breeding grounds for the homosexual agenda instead of bastions for learning. Americans felt abhorred that someone who peddles in pedophilia was now in charge of making schools safer. For the record, anytime a legally recognized adult promotes sex with children under the age of legal majority is committing, or aiding in, the crime of pedophilia. By promoting books on adult/children sex, creating book lists and learning platforms promoting this deviant behavior, Jennings has aided and abetted, at the very least, pedophilia in America’s schools. While claiming success due to President Obama’s assistance, the LGBTQ Agenda became “anti-bullying” at a conference hosted by the White House with President Obama being the keynote speaker.

An investment of public money through employment for the political reward of a constituent is what landed Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois in prison. What put him in prison is and continues to be called, “Pay-to-Play.” Investing in a politician that leads to a reward, e.g. employment, with the ability to “play” with the laws of the land remains despicable and worthy of criminal charges with a public trial for all persons in the chain of decision-making; yes, this includes President Obama.

Rest assured politicians can hire whom they choose, but they must do so ever cognizant of the moral fiber and ethical standards of those hired, and the public trust invested through both the voting booth and tax dollars. Kevin Jennings never showed the slightest inclination to support the rule of law or equality under the law for all people. In fact, many of his friends and associates continue to believe that if a person does not think in a similar manner to themselves, that person needs to be destroyed politically, personally, and professionally, this is also referred to as being “Bork[ed].” Represented and exemplified through the actions of such supporters in the removal of Inspector Generals in the Federal Government at large, the changes specifically within the Department of Education, and the cover-ups in the IRS and VA scandals were all designed to hide truth from the American public. This is dangerous ground for America and represents terrorism at the most fundamental level, the terrorism of thought leading to action while holding a position of public trust paid for by public funds. By using the threat of government action to intimidate, coerce, and force societal change, many in government, like Jennings, are committing terrorist acts.

As the elections of 2016 draw near, this missive belongs to the politicians currently holding office as well as those hoping to hold public office: please uphold the rule of law. Please come out in full and unequivocal support of the rule of law and the liberty of all as the only hope for saving America, even if this means people suffer from the consequences of their poor individual decisions. Embrace the rule of America’s Constitutional law. Taxpayers, as represented by their collective elected officials colloquially known as government, cannot and should never be forced to pay for bad personal decisions with public money. Government is not a charitable organization. Hence, government cannot and should not be investing public money in abortion clinics, drug rehab clinics, and other consequences for poor personal decisions. Charitable and religious organizations are sufficient to this task and public money needs investing elsewhere, e.g. providing for the common defense, ensuring free trade among the states, reducing the debt, or lowering taxes, etc.

Stand for the absolute rule of law and America wins. Failure to stand for the rule of law and America loses, utterly and completely. With the failure to stand for the rule of law, politicians elected and trusted by their constituents, who transform themselves into being inadequate to the task to perform according to law. Their names are thence cast upon the dung heaps of history as charlatans and unpitied betrayers of the struggle to keep America the “…shining city on a hill,” full of “…liberty and justice for all.”

 

© 2015 M. Dave Salisbury

All Rights Reserved

Benefits in the Workplace – Or, shifting the paradigm on worker compensation

While discussing the shift of employment paradigms with a fellow traveler, the question was raised that if everyone is an independent knowledge worker, what about fringe benefits and non-wage compensation.  Whether these are called benefits, perks, bonuses, fringe benefits, the end result is the same; competition in non-wage areas is employed to attract talent to an organization.  The history of benefits can be directly traced to the Federal Government requiring, by legislation and non-legislation, business organizations to compete without direct wage compensation to attract and hire an employee.  Therefore, wage compensation cannot be used to compete for talent pursuing or attracting qualified employees.  The sources for this requirement can be found in several legislated actions, the most important being the War Labor Board during WWI and the New National War Labor Board during WWII both of which carried presidential power and were not legislated.  These two periods of wartime effort formed much of the landscape found in modern employment situations; namely, classes of employment with specified wage ranges, equal pay for all sexes, the mandated eight-hour workday, the forty-hour workweek, and non-wage benefits.  Frequently, the definition of benefit is challenged, attacked, and litigated.

The dictionary holds several definitions for the term ‘benefit.’  Those with direct application are “to derive … advantage,” “a payment or gift,” and “something that is advantageous (Dictionary.com, n.d.).”  A follow-on question often asked is, “If the benefit offered does not provide an advantage to you personally, why not choose something different?”  For example, medical insurance is often offered as a workplace benefit.  However, if wages are not sufficient to allow participation, if premiums are involuntarily removed from paychecks, if employment requires membership, and if the offered ‘benefit’ is not used, is advantage really enjoyed; of course, not.  Yet, the cost of the unused ‘benefit’ is not compensated in employee wages because of wage laws and the possibility of litigation or accusations of unfair labor practices.  Although adapting a diversity of plans to meet a diversity of employee needs is preferable, the costs of customization are, frankly, exorbitant and extreme.  Yet, the buzzwords in employee benefits are always customizable, morale boosting, and game changing, as benefits are tools to compete for talent.

The issue of shifting the employment paradigm regarding fringe benefits and non-wage compensation is a two-fold issue.  By no longer requiring organizations to invest precious capital in non-wage compensation, the business organization possesses the freedom to contract with another small business owner, i.e. the worker, as an equal.  This means that the right to control what is offered as compensation rests as a negotiation tool for contracted services.  The worker has the freedom to reject or accept terms offered to find a perfect match.  This also places the worker in a unique position to be accessible as an equal with other companies vying for business.  Being equal with other business owners provides an entirely new market for many companies vying to do business solely with other businesses.

Innovation, freedom, and empowerment are words that are bandied about often, but, when one side of the equation has had their freedoms and rights stripped in exchange for a paycheck, innovation, freedom, and empowerment are muzzled.  This is exactly what has transpired in the modern workplace.  The Federal Government squeezes employees into a one-size-fits-all mold and employers are forced into complying in exchange for favorable employment law interpretations that Labor Unions constantly and expensively attack.  The costs are passed onto consumers who are already forced into the traditional role of ‘employee’; the vicious cycle turns and the only winners are politicians and political appointees.

A paradigm is nothing more than a pattern, a mold, or method.  A paradigm shift is nothing more than changing the mold, pattern, or method.  Many paradigm shifts, especially where data is understood, refer to changing the perspective of understanding, interpreting, or analyzing.  Kuhn (1996) offers logic points that detail the paradigm shift argument while detailing how paradigms are chosen, created, and clung to.  A logic point worth considering is that rules can overturn paradigms.  The paradigm is the mold or pattern, but rules are processes that people cling to like traditions, this does not say that paradigms are not clung to, as the human psyche does not like change.  When paradigm shifts meet rules, rules rule; but, only until a crisis occurs can rules be disregarded for a new paradigm.  A paradigm is created first by thought; these thoughts become actions in a specific pattern.  The specified pattern, repeated, becomes habit, which become processes when taught to another.  Processes become procedures when written down and applied to a larger audience through training.  The training done in accordance to specifications is the paradigm molding the future.  Employment has become a pernicious and hostile paradigm draining freedoms from individuals, capital from business, and producing waste, which invites government to legislate more restrictions on personal power.

Yet, it is asked, where is the crisis that will provide the impetus for changing paradigms?  The answer lies in the current economic and government state of decay and overregulation.  Here is a conundrum of a crisis.  Businesses cannot financially afford to retain sufficient employees to satisfy consumer demands; however, businesses cannot afford the consequences of an insufficient number of employees to perform the necessary work.  Look at one of the exorbitant, non-wage costs of an employee workforce: medical benefits have quadrupled in less than four years.  This is a 100% increase in year-over-year costs for the last four years, and the forecasts say this is going to continue for the foreseeable future.  This is a crisis in employment driving a shift in paradigm thinking.  Right now the answer lies in reducing employee hours, which cramps budgets for workers, reduces payroll, and wreaks havoc.  The retail industry has reported the largest drop of employee hours, down to 30.2 for full-time employees.  This does not mean that 9.8 hours are no longer needed by those previous full-time employees, those employees simply now must either stretch their dollars farther, make more familial budget cuts, or get another job.  Putting this into greater focus, this means a stay-at-home caregiver is out of the question.  If both parents are working already and had their hours and wages cut, this means both parents are now working part-time jobs on top of reduced full-time work.  The added tax burden of the second job, does not improve the financial lot of the family, nor will it sufficiently cover the lost wages of the cut hours.  Since wages are not going to go up for less work, a second job is not going to be the value-added solution, a different answer to the paradigm must be found.  This is a prime example of lost freedom, lost ‘Right to Control,’ and lost liberty, all in the name of old paradigms.

Another fellow traveler postulated that no freedoms are stripped in the modern workplace; his argument being that sacrificing the ‘Right of Control’ is expected as a condition of employment.  The counter argument is that the employee should never have to sacrifice his ‘Right to Control’ for a paycheck.  Businesses gain and benefit from professional and credentialed knowledge, experience, efficiency, and education of those aligning themselves with a brand or business organization, and, therefore, lose nothing, but rather embellish and enlarge the scope of the organization with greater opportunity for success and profit.  The requisite of employment to disavow a person’s inalienable right to freely and rightly pursue his work in a manner subsequent to his credentialed preparation and professional experience as he sees appropriate is foundational to his basic rights.  This is the first paradigm needing to be shifted in the modern workplace.  In shifting this paradigm, much of the problems and costs inherent in human capital are reduced or eliminated entirely.

References

Benefit. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved May 06, 2013, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit

Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. (Third ed., Vol. VIII). Chicago, ILL: The University of Chicago Press.

 

© 2012 M. Dave Salisbury

All Rights Reserved

Shifting the Employment Paradigm – Or, ‘Organizational Psychology to the Rescue’

Before reading further, please follow this link:  Sir Ken Robinson – Changing Education Paradigms.  Sir Ken Robinson discusses changing the education paradigms and lays out a genetic heritage in modern schools.  This same model applies to modern business and the discussion here is to shift the business employment paradigm.  The reason is simple; Dauten (2003) discusses it and makes this proclamation, “Accept that organizations call to the worst in human nature, and be LIBERATED by that knowledge.”  [Emphasis mine]  Happiness is a choice.

As happiness is a choice, all emotion is a choice.  The choice is individual in nature and comes as a response to external stimuli in the environment.  Emotional choices build upon previous choices, snowballing into consequences affecting more than the individual and current environment.  Like ripples on a pond, enough ripples and waves appear; enough waves and danger to small craft can occur.  Emotional choices are similar to ripples on a pond increasing in size and frequency until damage occurs.

Dauten (2003) goes on to describe some interesting points in his book, ‘The Laughing Warriors: How to Enjoy Killing the Status Quo,’ namely, the genetics of why organizations continue to experience the same problems, the same genetics mentioned by Sir Ken Robinson.  These genetic problems are historical in nature, aggravated by government influence, multiplied by labor unions, and are 100% correctable through simplification and shifting the paradigm.

America learned early in the Industrial Revolution from those who considered themselves “enlightened” how to form organizational cultures.  Although the process was de-humanizing, the culture worked, to some extent, early in the Industrial Revolution, but the core problems in the genetic make up had not been addressed.  These enlightened founders of organizations knew the process was incomplete, stated their perceptions were not the full answer, and hoped those following would take the beginning they established and improve upon the design.  Dauten (2003) declares, rightly, “… People are hardwired for mediocrity and conformity.”  From this genetic make up comes bureaucracy, which supports more fear, and more conformity promotes mediocrity shunning change and learning in an attempt to cling bitterly to that which vexes all men, bureaucracy.

Consider the functioning culture of the Department of Motor Vehicles, Veteran’s Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, or any other behemoth bureaucratic organization that exhibits an organizational culture born from inefficiency, duplicity of work, lack of interest and enthusiasm, lack of desire to please, lack of accountability and responsibility, and much more, which causes impediment of work accomplishment, slow service, and often outright aggravation.  The example is clear; Dauten (2003) is correct; there is a genetic code calling for people to build inadequately designed organizations that down trod and digress rather than uplift and progress.  The functioning of such monolithic, controlling, inadequately structured organizations absorbs resources, devalues people, and almost repels change.  Change is feared; thus the tool of free people everywhere remains, initiate, demand, and force change.

The answer to resolving organizationally fed genetic bureaucracy is shifting the paradigms.  Paradigm is defined as a model or pattern.  One example of a paradigm is hierarchy, or work flow and command structure in a business organization.  Often linear hierarchy is the only method of describing this structure.  Shifting from a linear hierarchical structure to a circle hierarchy, parallel hierarchy, or eliminating hierarchy all together is, more often than not, unfathomable.  Thus, organizational psychology holds the answer to improving organizational dilemmas in shifting the hierarchy paradigm.  The topics of “Change Management,” “Organizational Communication,” or “Hierarchical Structure” fall into a simple paradigm in the purview of organizational psychologists intent on improving people to improve performance in business organizations.  More simply put, organizational psychologists review the genetic bureaucracy and help people rewire their individual response to environmental stimuli.  Dauten (2003) calls this the process of becoming a “Happy Warrior” “… intent on killing the status quo.”

Shifting the employment paradigm requires business leaders to consider letting go of the outdated term and perception of employee to focusing on people and their crafts.  At the same time, employees must let go of the genetic assumption that they are incapable of being a boss, being creative, or improving the job while working at the job. Letting go of these thoughts and gaining control of their rights to control their own destiny is essential to the success of the individual as well as the organization.  The Federal Government took the ‘Right to Control’ away from individuals, making them subservient to employers, and shifted the paradigm of control into an unnatural environment.  This single action has caused myriad problems, which bear fruit in the organizational culture, hierarchy, and societal problems in our modern world.

The natural order, provided to man from a higher being, is the individual right to control one’s own destiny.  The Declaration of Independence clearly delineates this natural order and describes man’s ‘pursuit of happiness.’  Once the ‘Right to Control’ was removed from the individual, the unforeseen consequences included groupthink, box thinking, drones forming larger bureaucracies, run-away mediocrity, unbridled conformity, and stifled creativity.

Shifting the employment paradigm should not need a ‘Declaration of Independence’ to bring attention to the need for change, but, if proclaiming independence through a declaration raises awareness to the problem and success is achieved, then employees the world over should ascribe.  The basic tenets of a declaration of employee independence should include:

  • The ‘Right to Control’ – Individuals want it back from their employers, unions, and government.  This ‘Right to Control’ comes with the following:
    • Schedule freedom
    • Remuneration for knowledge attainment
    • Control of the working environment
    • The power to affect change
    • Hierarchical Organization
    • Benefits that possess value – Cost and value are not the same and the new knowledge worker recognizes this fact.
    • Win-Win – Providing services in exchange for money requires a “Win-Win” scenario.  Thus, the organization wins workers, the workers win an organization to serve, both parties remain independent, and both parties can negotiate changes to improve.
    • Responsibility to:
      • Be treated as a knowledge worker
      • Treat others as knowledge workers
      • Level the knowledge playing field through acquiring new knowledge
      • Experimenting to drive value
      • Valuing experimentation in others’ performances
      • Honor – Work is honorable.

It remains imperative of the worker to take what is valuable to him/her and add these points into the conversation.  The business organization also must present that which they value and bring their points, ideas, requirements, into the conversation.  Thus, through the power of negotiation and debate, the employment paradigm is shifted.

Reference

Dauten, D. (2003). The Laughing Warriors: How to enjoy killing the status quo. Richmond, CA: Lumina Media.

© 2012 M. Dave Salisbury

All Rights Reserved

Shifting the Employment Paradigm – Or an Open Letter to the Politician’s of America

Pournelle and Sterling wrote an amazing Military Sci-Fi series of books under the banner of ‘Falkenberg’s Legion’ (1990) collected into a single title called ‘The Prince’ (2002).  In this series an interesting quote appears.

Every soul in his earliest stages of untutored awareness feels that the center of the universe resides within himself [or herself].  To learn that we exist and move for the most part in orbits, rather than preside at the focal point of even a minor cosmic system is a painful and difficult process for most of us…

So far in this series of writing, the origins of the current employment system has been uncovered and commented upon.  During this period of writing, the United States of America, a previously free Republic, has moved inexorably onwards in the path of less freedom, more chains of debt, and further into the dark abyss of history’s failed experiments.  This does not mean that hope is lost; it simply states for the record that leadership is needed very soon.  Toward this end, this missive is given.

The citizenry of the United States is comparable to a herd of anxious cows.  Let me explain.  No offense is intended; please do not choose to take offense.

Fear makes cowherds anxious.  Loud sounds, changes in temperature, atmospheric pressure changes, and even the simple desire to run have spooked entire herds into running, mostly into dangerous territory and always to the disgruntlement of the cow herders, ranchers, and farmers.  Ranchers have learned to make fences stronger, read the lay of the land, and place the herd into as tight an enclosed position as possible when the herd is put to sleep at night to protect the cows from harm.  Just before a herd breaks into a run, the signs of anxiousness are observed; the emptying of bladders and the evacuation of bowels makes quite a mess.  Other signs are apparent; the shaking of heads, the shifting of feet, the eyes roll back in the head, and restlessness or the shuffling of feet in every direction begins.  Finally, the most important sign is a refusal to listen to external leadership, i.e., cowboys/girls tasked to watch the herd.  The final straw before the herd breaks is usually not a major action but a minor inconvenience, which if it had occurred earlier would have been brushed off as nothing; but in the agitated state, the herd sees the minor as major and the herd breaks loose.  Once the herd begins running, those tasked with the herd’s care are forced into running beside the herd to try to turn the leading cows away from danger.  However, herd mentality has taken over.

The citizens of America are as restless as a herd of thunder struck cows right now.  Recent events in Hurricane Sandy, tornadoes in Alabama, the massacre in Newtown, the regulatory nightmare from Washington D.C., Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Israel, China, etc., all are culminating into a nameless fear.  The leaders of the herd, or the politicians at every level, have been entrusted to care for the herd, to take limited resources and spend wisely on that which provides the best for American interests.  The pathways the Federal Government have lead us down are filled with enough good intentions and self interests to pave a four-lane highway from Maine to London and Seattle to Tokyo.  Yet, these same leaders are causing the people to err.  Herein lies the problem.

America was founded upon, has lived upon, and rests upon a single principle, confidence.  The US Dollar is strong because those people, who possess it, trade in it, and bet futures upon it, have confidence in the dollar.  America’s military is strong because the US Soldier/Airman/Marine/Sailor are all possessing confidence individually, in their leaders, and in the political establishment.  The American voter goes to the polls from an overabundance of confidence that the person they have selected is the best choice, but even in a loss, that same voter and nonvoter instills the winner with their confidence.  This confidence forms a sacred trust, an unbreakable vow, an eternal contract, between the politician and the voters.  Breaking this sacred trust hurts every institution in America at the core of confidence.

Look at the abysmal numbers of people who trust the House of Representatives, the Senate, or the President to do the right, plot a correct course for America, or simply to tell the truth, and it becomes apparent that the core has been shook, people are restless, and the herd is about to run.  People need a paycheck, need to know how big the tax bill is going to be, and need to know that the collected taxes are going to reduce the debt, that the politicians elected will honor the contract America made by electing them to office.

Compensatory spending is wrong now and was wrong back in 1946 when passed into law for the euphemistic purpose of ‘Full Employment.’  No government from Ancient Greece to Modern America can provide ‘Full Employment.’  Going into debt does not bring true prosperity.  The only reason compensatory spending was entered into law was to cover up the pain the Federal Government created through fiscal policy failures accrued during the Great Depression.  It took a globe spanning war, millions of deaths, thousands of mutilated bodies, the complete destruction of every civilization on the planet, along with millions of gallons of tears shed in pain and misery to lift the world from the Great Depression, and no society has recovered since.  Our current society is at best a farce, Kabuki Theater, to what it could be if the government left people alone, followed the law, and had not accrued so much debt.

Not once in all the discussion about spending has a single politician offered to apologize for the laws of 1946 allowing compensatory spending and offered to remove this horror from the legal code.  Not a single politician has said, “No more debt, we will live within our means.”  America is a rich country; we are not alone in this label.  The United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, China, Brazil, etc., are all rich countries.  Yet all these rich countries share the same problem with Africa, Australia, and New Zealand:  debt, cold, hard, and totally unsustainable.  The politicians tasked with the people’s trust have failed them by running up huge mountains of debt for little or no purpose.  The end result is simple.  More debt equals higher taxes, higher taxes means less freedom to the people and more power to the government.

Another truth, simply expressed; money is power.  Ever since people began forming societies, the need to trade goods and services has required something of value.  Possessing more of that valuable substance automatically equated to power, for the possessor could stop providing the resource valued and the entire economic structure would topple and fall.  A final truth:  actions have consequences.  The creator gave man the unalienable right to choose, whether he chooses right or wrong. While man can choose his thinking and actions, he cannot choose the consequences, and wrong choices cause pain.

Going back to the legislation of 1946, the politicians had chosen to meddle in financial controls.  The consequence was lost value, destroyed confidence, and the crash of the world’s economies.  This brought pain, suffering, despair, and a tremendous backlash.  The answer chosen was to increase the government.  Increasing the government meant more taxes to pay for bigger government.  Bigger government took that which was valuable from those producing valuable tools and gave to others in a vote-buying scheme unparalleled in any society known in history.  Now to retain power, those currently in power have a choice to make:  stop spending at unsustainable levels, reduce the government, and return power to the people where it rightly belongs; or, to try and continue on the unsustainable path and end 200 years of experiment in freedom.  America cannot and will not survive if the debt mountain continues.  The monies must be repaid, the debt satisfied, which will occur in either money or blood.  This is not doomsday scare mongering, but simple truth.

Look to history for this to be unfolded.  A single example:  when Ancient Rome experienced serious debt dilemmas, they conquered their creditors with their armies and navies.  Once Rome could no longer conquer their creditors, fighting began between Roman and Roman, civil war weakened the empire, and external enemies and creditors destroyed that civilization.  This pattern repeats itself time and time again throughout the history of the world.  When a government can no longer conquer their creditors or raise capital to service debt, the debt begins to be serviced by the blood of its citizenry.  The unfunded liabilities must be serviced, the debt must be serviced, and the service of the debt will be painful.  Reducing government to live totally within its means, even during natural disasters and war is the only solution.  This path is difficult, but the more difficult and bitterer pill to swallow is to see civil war break out again in every state of this republic.

By tying employment to economic indicators, the Federal Government placed people in harms way.  Lose your job and suddenly you place the entire country at risk of debt default.  Mass unemployment means fiscal uncertainty for the entire world.  This is not right.  If the government provides more freedom to the electorate, the reward is longer terms in office to keep providing more freedoms to the people.  Be courageous, shift the paradigm, service the debt, and release the power of individuals by untying employment to the economy by annulling the laws of 1946 and 1976 that would free employees to become independent contractors capable of choosing their destiny, choosing those they want to work for, and choosing what they want to do.  Employers should not have by government intervention the ‘Right to Control’ free and independent people.  Employment should be the trading of time for something of value, negotiated between two free and independent parties with the intention of improving both parties.  Act now to rectify a wrong made by previous congresses; free the employee!

© 2012 M. Dave Salisbury

All Rights Reserved

LIC and the Labor Unions – Or Ideological Passion Drives Violence

Low Intensity Conflict or LIC is a misnomer; those who have become a victim of the barbarous cruelty of those practicing LIC find nothing “Low” about the experience.  The conflict is intense, the actions brutal, and the practitioners remain cunning adversaries using and employing willing dupes to hide the true depths of moral decay inherent in their societal destructions and depravations.  Many confuse LIC in trying to describe the actions of unbridled violence committed by ideologues under the banner of terrorism.  The US Military Joint Chiefs of Staff define LIC as:

“A limited political-military struggle to achieve political, social, economic, or psychological objectives. It is often protracted and ranges from diplomatic, economic, and psychological pressures through terrorism and insurgency. Low-intensity conflict is generally confined to a geographic area and is often characterized by constraints on the weaponry, tactics, and levels of violence (Tinder 1990).”

Some will proclaim loudly, mostly due to affiliation with or money from labor unions, that LIC is only limited to those more commonly perceived as terrorists, i.e., car bombers, hijackers, and rioters, and that labor unions are not terrorists, but are organizations with the sole purpose of “Protecting the Workers.”  This article will prove the lie behind this fallacy and the charade will fall.  I contend, if labor unions were truly for the worker, their names would be changed to ‘Human Resources,’ dues would never be mandatory, and the personal and political power of independent organizations would come to replace the useless and power hungry monstrosity referred to as labor unions.

As the definition demonstrates, LIC requires a “… Political-military struggle to achieve political, social, [and] or psychological objectives, ” along a “limited” front or axis.  Labor unions have always used the “Plight of the Worker” as their political and military casus belli.  As the basis for their actions, this excuse, the “Plight of the Worker,” also provides a limited but effective axis to justify their foul and loathsome acts of violence and degradation.  Throughout the history of the world, in every age, every society, in every single polity on the earth, children, women, men, all engaged in working conditions that were horrific, found themselves being exploited by power-hungry people, and/or were brutalized into serving others through war or other oppression.  These historical facts and political bents formed the modern labor pools the Industrial Revolution utilized to initiate the manufacturing of commodities.  By forming a collective, using violence to create news and through forced subscriptions, labor unions were born.  Upon forming an organized labor society, union members did three things: one, they changed working conditions in every organization employing people; two, they created the largest ‘Ponzi Scheme’ in history; three, they transformed politics into a beast which they can control by making a little news.  This took time, essentially from the late 1800’s to mid 1930’s.  The actions taken employed communistic literature, sympathetic rich people, and power mad activists to make a bad thing look good and appeal to the greater populace as respectable.  Taken one at a time, the following evidence is clear that the political-military struggle is all about power and not about employee health, wealth, or societal improvement.  Taken together, these three items showcase a dastardly design with the intended purpose of transforming a capitalistic society into a communistic community.

Changed Working Conditions

OSHA, MSHA, NLRB, Child Labor Laws, Education Mandates, and many other federal and state labor regulation boards were created through the insistence and political powers of labor unions.  This includes the most egregious law of them all, the Federal Minimum Wage Law.  By forcing the Federal Government to override state law, labor unions formed the first federal government overreach into the freedom power grab we face today.  Every single labor law, for good or ill, has been drafted, pushed, and violently fought through the actions of labor unions.  The very arguments swirling around the current president regarding class warfare, the individual mandate, and the freedom power grab have their beginnings in the labor union.  As stated, LIC must employ a three-pronged attack to justify the actions of those making violence, the fingers of the attack being political, social, and psychological.  For example, the injury of children working on looms was horrific and reprehensible and all societies now have child labor laws.  To pass child labor laws during the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, labor unions exploited children, who had been seriously injured, and those, who were young with mutilated bodies permanently deformed, by submitting their photos and stories to newspapers to begin the psychological war justifying the violence they created, such as destruction of private property, beating shop and business owners, and breaking laws with their organized crime efforts.  Enraged people then began the political and social war to change the laws.  But what laws did we get but forced federal governmental education of all children, and more power went from individuals and states into the federal coffers all in the name of “Protecting the Children.”  Parents were pushed aside, the needs of families thwarted, and child labor laws were deemed good for society as a whole.  The ‘Ripple Effect’ or the ‘Laws of Unintended Consequences’ meant that labor unions gained significant power, authority, and from these early gains, launched massive labor union growth, but not development.

Ponzi Scheme

Bernie Madoff has been given the title of running the largest ‘Ponzi Scheme’ in the world.  Yet, he is inconsequential compared with labor union organizations.  The Federal Security Exchange Commission FAQ’s on ‘Ponzi Schemes’ outline perfectly the points of this argument providing a wonderful base for the argument and can be found by clicking the link above.

Labor unions are organized as a ‘Ponzi Scheme’ with “Little or no legitimate earnings.”  Labor unions must finance themselves.  Labor unions do not produce a good or service for sale; so all monies generated originate from forced dues paid by members.  These members are people struggling to earn sufficient money through their employment.  Even when not working, many union members still have some dues mandated by the unions, which must be paid for membership to continue.  From the SEC definition alluded above we find this tidbit, “In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors and to use for personal expenses, instead of engaging in any legitimate investment activity.”  Consider the incredible bill of goods sold to new union members about retirement benefits upon reaching the age of retirement.  Because the benefits of retirement are convincing, thousands of union members gladly pitch money into retirement; few of these union members will actually have a usable retirement fund.  The disparity rests in several factors, namely, fraud and theft of the pension, mandates and restrictions, and union leadership.  The number of pension managers getting caught raiding the pension accounts has grown and continues to grow leaving the pension bereft of funds and the retirees bereft of benefits paid for.  Union leadership receives big money as compensation for managing their unions.  For example, Andy Stern as head of the SEIU (2006) was earning $249,000 plus a lot of lucrative benefits while the majority of his union membership earned less than $30,000 a year.  Yet, every dollar Andy Stern “earned” came from the forced dues of his members.  Ponzi Scheme, the top and early investors get benefits and everybody else gets to pay for them.  The worst part of this entire scheme is that the Federal Government turns a blind eye to the scheme because of all the forced dues being pushed into political election campaigns.  If you doubt this, consider this tidbit:  SEIU, just SEIU, donated over $28 million to Obama’s election campaign in 2012.  This is not to single out any particular union, but considering all union donations, comparing leadership wages versus union worker wages and benefit packages is irreconcilable and practically impossible.

Transformed Politics

A major shift in politics took place in 1907; labor unions began making large inroads into the political arena.  While labor unions had been around in an on again/off again pattern since the early 1870’s, the American Federation of Labor under the capable leadership of Samuel Gompers began the most recognizable labor union model still in use today.  Coordinating strikes, creating coalitions, and banding under a single banner, many of the smaller less organized labor unions achieved political power.  While Samuel Gompers’s death and the ‘Roaring 1920’s helped reduce the power of organized labor, the Wagner Act brought organized labor into the federal government’s embrace in the middle of the ‘Great Depression;’ the labor union was reborn as a political powerhouse.  The Wagner Act is also called the National Labor Relations Act or NLRA.  This single piece of federal overreach came through the militant actions of the railroad union’s demand for, through force, violence, and political subjugation, many good and many bad items.  For example, the NLRA set forth what has become the standard 8-hour workday that some call “good,” and demanded an employer cannot interfere with the workers forming a union that many call “bad.”  By their unlawful actions, the NLRA stomped on states’ rights, removed individual rights, and set the stage for the current fiasco in Washington State where labor unions are forcing Boeing to transform their plant located in South Carolina, a ‘Right to Work’ state, into a forced union membership plant, transforming politics incredibly, innumerably, and ignominiously.

The next part of the LIC requirement to prove the case of labor unions being terrorists comes directly from the definition of LIC.  “… Often protracted and ranges from diplomatic, economic, and psychological pressures through terrorism and insurgency.”  Any Google search on the terms ‘labor unions and violence’ will pull down millions of hits on the correlation between labor unions and their violent beginnings, violent actions, and current levels of violence towards non-union members, non-union political leaders, non-union lawyers, and other members of society who speak against union membership and the compulsory dues.  Political leaders, judges, and high-ranking members of society all turn a blind eye to the violence committed by unions.  This violence is always organized, sanctioned by the highest leaders in the union organization, and applauded by these same leaders.  A marvelous example is the ABC World News Article by Alan Farnham entitled, “How Nasty Can Union Violence Get and Still be Legal.”  Another case in point is the illegal imprisonment or borderline kidnapping of security guards by the Longshoreman Union and violent activities during a recent strike in Longview, Washington.  Since the SCOTUS ruling in 1973, many courts have turned the proverbial ‘blind-eye’ to violence performed by unions during strikes and also performed during protests not connected to strikes.  Like a spoiled child screaming in a grocery store when told ‘No,’ unions move quickly down the chain from diplomatic actions to violent revenge, when told ‘No’ again.  Terrorist activity and labor unions are inseparably connected.

Finally, we come to the most chilling part of the LIC definition and the terrorist connection to labor unions.  “… Low-intensity conflict is generally confined to a geographic area and is often characterized by constraints on the weaponry, tactics, and levels of violence.”  National borders formerly confined labor unions, but with the movement of labor unions being documented in the recent Egyptian struggle to replace Mubarak in power, we see geographic areas being violated.  The AFL-CIO is documented as having its hand in the recent spate of civil disobedience and unrest in the Middle East; this violence has left thousands dead, millions injured, and is employing levels of violence rarely seen outside of civil war.  Weapons, tactics, and levels of violence by the protestors and the government continue to escalate.  A mobster in Chicago from the movie “The Untouchables” is credited with this saying, “If they pull a knife, we pull a gun. They send one of our guys to the hospital; we send one of their guys to the morgue. THAT’S the Chicago way!”  This is also the labor union way of dealing with any and all obstacles to their agenda:  violence, more violence, and even more bloody violence.

It is important to always remember, labor unions are organized and sanctioned terrorists.  There is no difference between an ideologically driven person who straps on a semtex vest and explodes himself in a shopping area or airport and a labor union member.  No significant differences exist between these two ideologically driven individuals.  None!  Consider the recent violence in Michigan over the state moving from forced unionism to ‘Right to Work.’  The union’s disgruntlement turned violent, people lost resources, people were injured, private property damaged and destroyed, politicians threatened, “blood will be spilled,” and ideologically driven people become violent on demand.

Additional Links:

This article was compiled and presented on Michelle Malkin’s Blog, it has video’s and additional links to other sources:  http://michellemalkin.com/2011/09/05/happy-labor-day-top-10-union-thug-moments-of-the-year/

If the truth about LIC and Unions is not made clear above, this link has been certified and shows the case more clearly: http://www.unionfacts.com/crime-corruption/union-leader-fraud additionally links from this article span into election year activities and individual cases of fraud and corruption.

Finally, this article continues to deal with union violence and asks some good questions:  http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/08/22/why_do_we_accept_union_violence__99205.html

© 2012 M. Dave Salisbury

All Rights Reserved

Reference

Tinder, A. J. L. (. (1990). Low intensity conflict. Informally published manuscript, Air War College – Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. Retrieved from http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA241060