Church Teaching on Unions

[tommcguire]

Millie 1997,

I am sorry got so little from this thread. Democrats/Republicans, neither has THE answers. Unions good/bad do not represent evil!

As I read your comment, I thought of the blind workers I worked with in Hong Kong. The owners of the companies who hired them used and abused them. Only worker unions were able to prevent the most serious abuse. I think about the young girls 10 to 18 years old that worked in residential apartments made into factories, running knitting machines 12 hours a day. They had no unions, their labor provided the cheap goods that Americans buy in Walmart and other discount stores.

I think about the 100’s of thousand migrant workers in China who give up family and friends and move to urban areas to make a living assembling the computers like the one I am now using. They are allowed only unions controlled by the State. I think of the teachers who have been so vilified in the political chaos of the last few months.

I am sorry you cannot see these evils, but think those of us who have and are working for justice among the poor are manipulated by the evil ones. My experience of the evil ones. They are just like you and I. They are out making a living. For those who run businesses that exploit; their motivation is to make a living for their own family; they have little understanding of what suffering they cause. “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.”

 

[Abu]

A useful recall of reality
spectator.co.uk/australia/6866758/let-freedom-ring.thtml
Let freedom ring
Extract:
The mania for governments to solve all the problems of the world is, to borrow a phrase from environmentalists, unsustainable. It saps the body politic and creates a learned helplessness, turning citizens into subjects. It is also unaffordable, as budgetary crises around the world confirm. It’s time for Australia to give the nanny state her walking papers.

 

[tommcguire]

May you experience the freedom of the Resurrection. The Easter Vigil revealed the slavery human beings experience. The great mystery of being at one with the Risen Lord is true freedom.

I read the Australian piece. Maybe we need a Senate Committee to look into the price of milk; you can buy a gallon of milk for less than a gallon of water in some places. Something wrong with this picture.

 

[Tigg]

I am certainly learning alot by reading these posts. Thanks to all of you who take time to research and share your findings.

It seems to me that the poor are being used by evil people to manipulate those who have compassionate hearts toward them. If an evil group wants to achieve an evil end or steal a freedom from us, all it needs to do is throw out a plea for the poor – or education – and too many Catholics will give them a green light. Thus, we have abortion because the Democrats have discovered they can do any immoral thing they want as long as they throw money at welfare programs.

We may think we are helping the poor, but we are really enslaving them in their poverty and crippling the efforts of those who do work. It is greed disguised as “helping the poor.” If the Church had kept the responsibility to help the poor itself like Jesus taught, we wouldn’t be hamstrung by the government into divorcing help for the poor from evangelizing the gospel which is the very last thing Jesus commanded us to do before he left this earth.

Catholics need to start investigating a little deeper before jumping onto government plans to “help.” Unions, too, are guilty of this. They overlook abortion and corruption and cheating and intimidation just to get more money in their own pocket. Money truly is the root of all evil and it is not simply the rich that are guily of misusing it. In fact, many rich are much better stewards of their money than lower income people.

Peace.

:clapping:

And please, let’s not forget the envy factor which the unions can use to incite resentment and antagonism toward the rich which further draws the hearts of the needy away from that which they should be seeking first!

 

[tommcguire]

We could all do well to reflect on the readings for this coming Sunday. The Acts of the Apostles speaks about sharing wealth. I wonder if the sharing of wealth so that no one goes without the necessities of life is an evil act. I am a sinner for sure, I have all my life worked in some way with poor people. I perhaps have used them to boost my ego at times. But does that mean I am an evil man???

 

[tommcguire]

We read so much in this thread about the evil of unions, little about the 405 billion Wal-Mart, which has benefited the most from the destruction of unions. What are the benefits for the Wal-Mart workers who do not have health benefits, earn minimum wage, intimidated to support political causes, and some who lack the necessities of life?

A recent news item:* " The net effect of Wal-Mart entering a local market is to reduce local employment, reduce area wage rates and total payroll (especially in retail), eliminate other businesses (especially small shops and small chain stores that directly compete with Wal-Mart), and raise poverty rates. University of California, Irvine, economist David Neumark and colleagues reported in a 2007 study that “on average, Wal-Mart store openings reduce retail employment by about 2.7 percent, implying that each Wal-Mart employee replaces about 1.4 employees in the rest of the retail sector.”*

 

[MarkInOregon]

Please, tell me who sacrifices more than the wealthy person when it comes to paying tax revenue.

A family of five making close to 50k a year in this country can get what they paid in taxes back, and then some. With a federal refund check anywhere from 5 to 10k, just think how many people that is. Free money from the evil rich man coming straight to you thanks to your local democrat.

Do you know anything about taxes? It doesn’t seem like it.

Lets look at Joe working stiff

Income 50,000 (assumes all wages)

Less: Std deduction (11,400) (assumed married filing joint)

Less: Exemption (3,650 x 5) (18,250)

Taxable Income 20,350

Tax 2,219

Child tax credit (2,219) (assumes all children under 17)

Addtl child tax credit ( 781) (available because of 3 children)
Making work pay credIt ( 800)

Net refund (1,581) (a far cry from the 5-10K you cited)
social sec tax paid 3,100
medicare tax paid 725

Net tax paid 2,244

Now lets look at Joe Trust Fund

Income 50,000 (all from qualified dividends like IBM stock)

Less: Standard deduction (11,400)

Less: Exemption (3,650 x 5) (18,250)

Taxable Income 20,350

Tax -0- (due to a nice law giving them a 0% tax rate)

child tax credit -0- (limited to tax)

Additional child tax credit -0- (because of no earned income)
Making Work Pay Credit -0- (because of no earned income)
Social Security tax paid -0-
Medicare tax paid -0-

Net tax paid -0-

So here you have two people same $ of income, # of children & claiming standard deduction. The variable–one guy works for his money and the other collects dividends from his trust fund. Mr. Employee Family ends up paying Uncle Sam $2,244 in net ss and mc tax while Mr. Trust Fund Family ends up paying Uncle Sam -0-.

Tax policy is very complex and contains so many variables

Just because a wealthy person still has 50, 100, 200 million or even a billion still in the bank after taxes does not mean the government did not take enough. You are correct–but if you have that much left are you going to seriously tell me you are sacrificing more than the person who struggles to put food on the table from his job? I am sorry but there is a good chance that that 200 million came on the backs of some worker who is just getting by or on the back a some child in a foreign country and in my book that is exploitation–not fair labor practice.

At some point you have to admit to yourself that taking too much is going to cost someone else their job.

So the question is not only how much do you take, but who among us has the right to sit on the sidelines, with a pretty good chance that we are not sacrificing at all (unless you lost your job, or are in the 50 some odd percent that do pay taxes) to tell people that because they received a tax break they are not doing enough?

You?

I apologize. The tax examples above were in coloumns but I can’t get them to save that way when the post posts.

 

[MarkInOregon]

We read so much in this thread about the evil of unions, little about the 405 billion Wal-Mart, which has benefited the most from the destruction of unions. What are the benefits for the Wal-Mart workers who do not have health benefits, earn minimum wage, intimidated to support political causes, and some who lack the necessities of life?

A recent news item:* " The net effect of Wal-Mart entering a local market is to reduce local employment, reduce area wage rates and total payroll (especially in retail), eliminate other businesses (especially small shops and small chain stores that directly compete with Wal-Mart), and raise poverty rates. University of California, Irvine, economist David Neumark and colleagues reported in a 2007 study that “on average, Wal-Mart store openings reduce retail employment by about 2.7 percent, implying that each Wal-Mart employee replaces about 1.4 employees in the rest of the retail sector.”*

Wait wait–didn’t I see a Wal-Mart commercial extolling how if you work there you can buy a house? They must be paying their workers well–I saw it on TV. I was thinking about running down there for a job.

 

[MarkInOregon]

It should also be noted that in the above tax example with the $50,000 wage earner with 3 kids and a wife–the maximum refund they could receive is $3,800. They could acheive this if the had itemized deductions (things like mtg int, prop tax, charity)totaling $31,750 instead of claiming the standard deduction. That is $3,000 in refundable child tax credit and $800 in making work pay credit (which does not exist in 2011).

To be fair, to the op, if the wages drop to $48,362 – the taxpayer will start to get the earned income credit a whole $1. This credit will slowly increase as the taxpayers earned income drops. When the income has dropped to $21,499 the tax payer will receive the maximum earned income credit of $5,666 (if they have 3 children).

So a taxpayer, with 3 children, earning wages of $21,499 could get back $9,241–which is close to the max the op cited but of course you can only earn 43% of the income he cited to get that. And keep in mind they have still paid $1,645 in social security/medicare tax–so the refund is more like $7,596. (you get less with only 2 kids and even less with 1 child)

From a cash flow standpoint this family of 5 has $29,095 to live on or $2,425 a month. No sacrifice there–they’re are living the good life at the expense of all those sacrificing rich taxpayers who are struggling to keep up with the Jones. I can understand why you begrudge these free loading workers these tax refunds to help them get by.

Here are some observations:

1. These refunds will be promptly put back into the economy–spent at local stores–where they will actually help create jobs and help employers meet payroll. Stimulating the economy.
2. The same can not be said of taxes not paid by the “rich” Good chance that money just sits in the bank or in IBM stock. I guess the stock broker could earn a commission.
3. The “rich” get their tax breaks in the form of things like the qualified dividends rate (see the trust fund family example) and the capital gains tax break. Give me a good reason why when I sell my Intel stock to you and I make money–I should get a tax break–I’m not stimulating the economy or creating any jobs–I am just trading paper. I am all for a long term capital gains break for people who invest their money in starting a business, grow that business, create jobs and economic activity and then sell their business–but that is not what happens with trading stocks. Oh and on what planet is 1 year considered long term? It’s funny people are all for giving a big tax break to people who can afford to invest in and trade stocks, but cry foul when they see someone making $10 an hour get an earned income credit. Oh the unjustness of it all.
4. Who reaps the most benefit from a stable government/country in which to conduct business? From good interstate roads that allow easy transport of goods and services? etc. the wage earner or the business owner?

 

[tommcguire]

MarkinOregon, thank you so much for your (name removed by moderator)ut. So much of what we discuss comes from our ideology, and not from basic facts.

 

[Abu]

Tommcguire (post #155)
I really am not obsessed with unions. Unions are good and bad, can be improved, are needed till some better way is found to bring workers into solidarity in the pursuit of justice.

The idea of unions is part of the Church’s teaching, of free associations meant to cooperate in free enterprise and with those involved meant to exercise prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance – as are those owning and operating businesses. So again and again, it is people, always, who can make or break those virtues.

(post #159)
Catholics and Muslims both take from sacred writings justification for unjust actions.

We are concerned with Christ and the teaching of His Church, not with other religions which are not founded by God. Again and again, it is people who are responsible for good and evil.

Post #138 has given the applicability of the Church’s teaching to family allowances, and profit sharing is another worthy aspect.

The key is that only free enterprise has the potential, proved over centuries, to create and share wealth in a society based on the laws of human nature, with which no other man-made concoction can compare.

It is only by following Christ and rejecting false notions such as a pope rejecting the natural law, that the real solutions are found. Here Fr Robert Sirico is always very relevant as he refers to St Augustine effectively saying “It was not Lazarus’ poverty that saved him, but his humility. Nor was it wealth that kept the rich man from bliss, but his pride and selfishness (Sermon 24,3).

“Catholic tradition has always had a balanced view of the responsibilities, temptations and opportunities of wealth, and it has never sought to canonize the poor or to demonize the rich. Catholic social doctrine, rather, calls all people to responsibility, generosity and holiness.” Inside The Vatican, June 1997].

 

[tommcguire]

The Catholic Church may have balanced views of responsibilities, but the princes of the Church, who are human, have not always given great example. Jesus knew that from the beginning.

People in other religions also know truth, so the need for dialogue that we all may know the truth which makes us free.

We cannot change people, conversion of the heart of human beings is the work of the Holy Spirit. We can change institutions which have a profound effect on human life. So the need to reform unions.

Let us pray for conversion of the heart and work to change institutions.

 

[MarkInOregon]

The key is that only free enterprise has the potential, proved over centuries, to create and share wealth in a society based on the laws of human nature, with which no other man-made concoction can compare.

While it is hard to argue with this statement because of the use of the word “potential” it would seem to me that in practice–true free enterprise–seems to lead to the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few and to the oppression of the poor & powerless. If the “centuries” have proved anything it would seem that it is this: that free enterprise needs to be regulated by government–not managed as in a socialist or communist way–but regulated to make sure workers are treated fairly and provided safe working conditions. Unions have helped and continue to help (even in the midst of their short comings based on the fact that they are run by humans) insure this.

One need only look at the history of labor and the economy in the US–to see the cycle of increasing boom/bust of the great panics–in an unregulated free enterprise system. Of the great concentration of wealth, of the “robber barrons” of the great monopolistic trusts–and their unfair practices–that stiffled and eliminated competition. I will not deal with those and the industrial tragedies and labor practices that gave rise to unions.

But as it has been suggested in this discussion that we no longer need unions and that I see no evidence of that in the work place–I would like to list a few industrial accidents from the 1940’s through 2010. This should make it evident that not much has changed–business owners still put their workers at risk–to save money and make a larger profit. Unions do attempt to acheive safer working conditions for their members. This is only one area where unions attempt to help their members–and if this was the only area–it would show that unions are still needed. The workers need a voice–someone to speak for them to congress and to their employers.

Continued

 

[MarkInOregon]

Continued:

1. Centralia Mine Explosion. Saftey not enforced. The disaster forced congress to address mine safety. In the wake of the 2010 Big Branch Mine disaster what has changed? Just recently in Idaho I believe we had a mine accident in a metal mine – which has more lax safety requirements compared to coal mines. Mine owners are dragged kicking and screaming to provide a safe working environment and as Big Branch shows–often ignore the safety requirements for production.
2. The Donora Smog. Killed 20 & sickened 14,000. 10 years after the mortality rate in Donora was significantly higher than in the surrounding communities. Sulfer dioxide emissions from the US Steels Donora Zink Works and American Steel and Wire Plant were a frequent occurance in Donora. This one was made lethal by an air inversion. It wasn’t until the 5th day that US Steel ceased production at the plants. US Steel never acknowledged any responsibility. This disaster helped trigger the clean air movement.
3. Willow Island Disaster. Scaffold collapsed killing 51 construction workers. OHSA investigation showed that, like most disasters, it was a series of errors, short cuts and accidents that led to the disaster–things like substandard bolts–I’m guessing ordered because they were cheaper?
4. Imperial Sugar Refining Explosion. Dust explosions had been a concern of US athorities since 3 fatal explosions in 2003–with efforts to improve safety and reduce the risk of occurance. Still the Imperial factory was antiquated with old equipment–much of it dating back 28 years–but the factory was kept in operation because of its proximity to rail and shipping links.
5. Texas City Refining Explosion. BP charged with violating federal environment crime laws and was later fined $87 million dollars by OHSA for failing to implement safety improvements following the disaster. (Is this the same company that just had a problem in the Gulf? – No need for workers to worry–BP has their safety (not profits)first and foremost.)

And the best for last…

Continued

 

[MarkInOregon]

Continued.

Reported 1999 - to present. Montana Vermiculite Contamination. (Note mined since 1919 and contamination known about for many years prior to WR Graces purchase of mine in 1963 and mining because of the contamination was finally stopped in 1990).
Mine owners knew that the vermiculite ore that came from the Libby mine was contaminated with a form of asbestos called tremolite–an especially deadly form of asbestos. They also knew that there was no way they could remove the asbestos from the ore they were mining and processing and shipping out by rail to scores of other processing plants and manufactures.
Yet even knowing the deadly effects of the asbestos – WR Grace continued to expose their workers, the people in the town of Libby and the employees of other manufactures who used the vermiculite (and one might add the countless homeowners who found this vermiculite in their potting soil–breath deep when you plant). Yes today you can trust your employer.

While many of us are blessed to work for small employers who do care about us and treat us well–many Americans do not. I see many employers who’s only concern is how little they can pay their employees and how can they get benefits for themselves but not for their employees–who are helping them to generate their profit.

Without unions to advocate/lobby for safety–you would see more of these disasters. Even with safety regulations many companies flout the requirements endagering their works and firing those who question them or threaten to blow the whistle. Yes we still have an need for unions we have not progressed as far as some seem to think. Unions and government regulation is all that stands in the way of a return to the “robber barron” era and you and me shopping at the company store.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Abu]

MarkInOregon
free enterprise needs to be regulated by government–not managed as in a socialist or communist way–but regulated to make sure workers are treated fairly and provided safe working conditions. Unions have helped and continue to help (even in the midst of their short comings based on the fact that they are run by humans) insure this.

Glad to see this good sense. The “regulation” has to be laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and worse crimes, and to promote competition. That’s why we have the Catholic Church to guide us – She who invented charity in the West.

One need only look at the history of labor and the economy in the US–to see the cycle of increasing boom/bust of the great panics–in an unregulated free enterprise system.

False. There is no “unregulated free enterprise”, and the booms and busts are due to federal government finagling – see post #158. It is the wrong regulating that is the cause. Harding in the 1920’s sought to restrain government and let the free market make the necessary adjustments – the economy was restored to health.

More intervention cannot solve previous interventions which have distorted free enterprise.

The Popes have some realization of the cause and effect of economic laws:
“If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…[M]en must realise in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…[T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.” [Pope Leo XIII. Quoted in *The Church And The Market, Dr Thomas E. Woods, Lexington Books, 2005, p 4].

Pius XI wrote of “matters of technique for which [the Church] is neither suitably equipped nor endowed by office.” Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, 41]….“economics and moral science employs each its own principles in its own sphere.” [QA, 42].

 

[tommcguire]

Let the CEO’s whose income has increased during this time of economic crisis be free to continue increasing their own income at the expense of workers.

Regulation may be the problem for some businesses, so there must be give and take. For sure, “free enterprise” does exist for large uncontrolled multinationals. Walmart is a good example. Many productive small businesses that sustained small towns around the world have been destroyed by the downward pressure Walmart has put on their ability to earn profits. The “free enterprise” has made it possible for Walmart to hire people at wages that do not sustain family life, while causing small businesses who paid living wages were forced to go out of business.

No one formula works for all. Market economy is not bad, but there must always be a balance. There is an imbalance now. The common worker is the one who suffers; few billionaires or millionaires suffer in anyway compared to the suffering of unemployed workers.

 

[MarkInOregon]

False. There is no “unregulated free enterprise”, and the booms and busts are due to federal government finagling – see post #158. It is the wrong regulating that is the cause. Harding in the 1920’s sought to restrain government and let the free market make the necessary adjustments – the economy was restored to health.

More intervention cannot solve previous interventions which have distorted free enterprise.

[QA, 42].

I think you are more wrong than I am. O.K. how about “relatively unregulated” ? I will review post 158 when I have time and respond more fully. Prior to the 1880’s most regulation took place at the state and local level. It wasn’t until 1887 that the first modern federal regulatory agency was established. Much of the state regulation was business friendly as states tried to protect their business. At the beginning of the 19th century, aside from tarifs, was chiefly important to business in guaranteeing a uniform national currency and security for contracts, making gifts of land, and offering the protection of due process. And federal regulation remained low until the great depression. It would be a streatch to think over regulation was a factor in the boom bust cycle prior to the great depression.

I think you over state Harding’s role – he did not even serve one complete term. World War I layed the ground work for the 1920’s growth of consumerism. This culture of consumerism changed the politics of American society and set the tone for American attitudes about money.

More than the policies of Harding & Cooligde the economic growth of the 20/s was fueled by machines, factories and standardization or mass production.

WWI stimulated a number of old idustries and led to the creation of whole new industries–such as plastics. Money spent on new machinery went from $600 million in 1915 to $2.5 billion in 1918. Production tasks were steamlined and millions of dollars was spent on industrial research. This led to an increase in worker productivity which in turn allowed them to earn higher wages and become “better” consumers.

And at this same time the installment plan arrived–encouraging consumers to rack up debt purchasing consumer goods.

New industries–radio and motion pictures, electric appliances and the assembly line auto. The auto itself probably had more to do with economic growth than the policies of Harding & Coolidge.

Out of time for now.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Abu]

**Inflation: Food, Fuel, and the Fed
May 9, 2011, by Mark W. Hendrickson **
visionandvalues.org/2011/05/inflation-food-fuel-and-the-fed/

"The Fed has flooded the financial system with newly created money, and the inevitable result of a lot more money bidding for approximately the same supply of goods is markedly higher prices. Indeed, for Bernanke to deny partial responsibility for higher prices is more than disingenuous, since the Fed’s stated goal last September was for prices to rise more rapidly. Does the Fed now regret getting what it wished and aimed for?

“The solution to the problem of soaring prices of food and fuel lies in Washington. If Congress, the president, and the bureaucracies would restore free markets in food and fuel markets, prices would come down. If Bernanke and the Fed would quit expanding the supply of Federal Reserve Notes, upward pressure on prices would be diminished. It’s that simple, economically. Whether Washington’s frequent perverse, wealth-destroying policies can be reversed politically is another matter.”

Federal finagling as shown ad infinitum.

 

[tommcguire]

I am not a historian nor an economist, but I do not accept that economic problems are simple. From experience, the price of oil (gas) has something to do with inflation. The price of goods is also used as a means of fair and unfair competition. Those with great financial resources can lower prices to the extent that smaller less well financed businesses are run out of business. Then the well financed can control the prices… and this is especially true in the food industry.

Catholic Social Doctrine seeks for the common good, with preferential option for the poor. I do not see the unregulated “free enterprise system” making the poor a preferential option. Rather, it seeks the best returns, especially for those who already own more than they have a right to. (No one has a right to what he or she does not need when others lack the necessities of life.)

I also believe the free wheeling credit system that was in effect before the economic depression did much for those who traded in paper; it did little for those who were sold on quick investment of retirement funds in that over heated market. I saw this in operation in Highland Park Michigan. Where the rich made money on the exploitation of a City in bankruptcy.

I concede that I am no expert, but I will not concede the solution to the problems are simple…