A number of people who know me as a Libertarian question my other identification as a labor union president, naturally assuming that the two stances are somehow intellectually and politically incompatible. Tom Knapp does an excellent job explaining why this is not so : Most self-described libertarians rail against the "anti-trust" laws, which purport to prevent companies from colluding, price-fixing, cornering markets, etc. Yet when workers form an organization to offer labor en bloc at a premium price through negotiated contract (as opposed to a la carte by the single worker under "at will" conditions), all of sudden they're "anti-competitive." Hogwash. Yes, a union work force will generally demand (and get) higher wages under contract than a single worker would be able to negotiate on his own in "at will" employment. Yes, a union work force may well demand (and get) a "closed shop" agreement under which the employer will agree to...

Over at Delaware Watch, Dana has an interesting post on The Spreading Totalitarianism of the Private Sector , which I recommend to you. I agree with many of his observations, if not necessarily his conclusions. After detailing the kind of enforced groupthink ceremonies at MBNA that George Orwell appeared to describe in 1984, he concludes [edited for brevity not to distort; go read the original]: I am not making a case for smoking or obesity. I'm arguing that in the US we locate the fear of authoritarian control over our lives in the wrong sphere of influence. We fear it's the public sector that primarily threatens our liberty when, in fact , it's the workplace in the private sector that is undermining our liberties.... Some mistakes are so elementary that one must resort to uttering truisms to make the point: Totalitarian control is totalitarian control whether it occurs in the public or private sector.... But we mustn't control the private sector democratically throug...

Looking at the world through the eyes of Thomas Jefferson is very different then looking at the world the way I normally do. I find it is however helpful to do so in understanding international affairs. It should be I think, the way America deals with the world in the 21st century because it leaves us stronger, more flexible and helps us to maintain our national integrity in managing affairs. If we are going to use our power without congressional approval, I think we should use it against the real bad guys in the world. Not the weak Saddams and the bozo regimes we arbitrarily decide we do not like. If we choose to follow the rule of law, then we should not use the Barbary Wars as an example, but I have a feeling that Jefferson would approach Colombia differently from the way we are now. Jefferson, the Barbary Pirates and how those Pirates are Similar to Colombia This is Anthony Bundy's Honors Thesis from the City College of New York to discuss the Barbary War and interventionis...

Folks, I am sorry, I am still new at this so if the spacing or scope of the document is not correct, I apologize. I am not opposed inter-Americanism or pan-Americanism and I never really have been. I like the idea of an "empire of liberty" that Jefferson said his principles would bring about. I think it is the best and most socially responsible model out there for the development of trade agreements. That being said, that model is opposed to our managed free trade agreements in NAFTA and CAFTA which both 1.) create net job loss in the intended countries are fueling immigration, 2.) create jobs on one end, for one class, in the social scale, but are non-reciprocal agreements that do not promise jobs in this country and 3.) create political tensions in each region they are enacted in. Much like Roman trade agreements that assure stability by protecting the propertied classes, NAFTA and CAFTA fuel the problems of immigration normal North Americans are forced to deal with. I am s...

Let's see if I can beat Delaware Watch to the punch on this on e, so I can at least deny Dana bragging rights. The Snooze Journal today has the story of Chrysler telling local plant employees that they can no longer park their non-Chrysler automobiles near plant entrances , but now have to place them in a marked-off lot a considerable distance away. [Worse still, the UAW is apparently not fighting this action.] This is an example of non-physical coercion on the part of an employer, and gratuitously mean-spirited coercion at that. The employer is saying, "The salaries we pay you are not yours to expend freely, because if you don't purchase our products we will penalize you." As much as I hate to quote you, Dana, and give you the satisfaction, this is "stealing labor." This is the sort of corporatist, fascist decision-making that gives honest businesses a bad name. And this, after Chrysler has chiseled for years to get tax breaks just to stay in the State.

Mid-Atlantic States Labo r reports that nationwide union membership rose last year from 12.0% of the American work force to (STOP THE PRESSES) 12.1%!!!! OK, seriously, the 311,000-worker gain is the largest gain since 1983, when unionized workers represented over 20% of American labor. Here's the part I found particularly interesting: A total of 7.5 percent of private-sector workers were in unions, and 35.9 percent of public-sector workers. What this seems to mean is that public-sector unions now form the bulk of the labor movement, which would include government unions, police, firefighters, and teachers. Now, for a second, let's bop over to Delaware Watch , where Dana has an article on Christine O'Donnell dropping her suit against her employer: Or does the sensible intuition lurk in the recesses of O’Donnell’s pretty head that since, for most people, our society is structured to require employment for survival and to thrive that no employer should have the right to threat...

Over at First State Politics , Dave Burris has been taking a beating from the usual suspects about his stand against the Prevailing Wage law in Delaware . It's therefore intriguing to see that in the Sunday Snooze Journal Dave gets some back-up from Dr. Eleanor Craig , a well-regarded economist who formerly chaired the Delaware Economic and Financial Advisory Council. Dr. Craig explains why, among other things, Delaware's lack of a right to work law and its prevailing wage law provides a huge disincentive for manufacturing jobs to come to the First State: Delaware's prevailing wage law mandates union wages on all government contracts, increasing labor costs by 20 percent. Since half of the construction costs of buildings such as schools is labor, this adds 10 percent to all government contracts, increasing the cost of the same government services in Delaware, when compared with other states without prevailing wages. Other state law differences are significant. Delaware'...