Issue 511 How I would Run a Union January 22, 2015

Well, you are probably wondering why I am writing this one.  The reason is, I am disturbed by how some of the union bosses make millions a year off the contributions of their membership.  On top of this, the union bosses also use the money to fund political campaigns which may go against the ideology or values of the membership.  As such, I write today's issue on how I would run my own union (if I was a boss of one).

Pay: For one, union bosses should not become multi-millionaires off the contributions of the union membership.  If a union boss becomes a millionaire, then how do we expect them to keep their own values and relate to the workers they are supposed to represent.  As such, the top wages of a union boss should be equal to double of the highest take home pay of a union member.  So say, I represent a steel worker who gets paid from his boss $45,000 a year, and then after taxes takes home $40,000.  As such, my pay as the union boss would be $80,000 a year.  If the highest paid worker should have a pay cut, then so does the union boss so as to feel the same pain financially (or a semblance of pain) the union workers might feel. From there the secretaries, the accountants and other union staff have a pay scale based on whatever the union boss makes and has it fluctuate along with the bosses as well.  As such, the union boss, and the staff have an incentive to maximize pay of each of their membership so that they themselves can make more money. 

Healthcare and Insurance:  If the union membership is going to be useful and maximize pay, then they may as well provide healthcare and insurance in various forms to the workers.  This allows the businesses the membership works at to not have to provide such benefits and thus maximizes the businesses productivity which typically means them hiring more workers which expands membership, or by them raising wages which enriches the membership.  

Support Services:  Say members are dealing with financial issues at home.  The union should help them by providing aid in the form of financial counseling.  Also, as the union will typically have lawyers on staff, or on retainer, these lawyers should be made available to answer any legal questions and provide any legal aid to members of the union.   This also includes tax help and even help for home issues like substance abuse.

Banking:  To ensure that the membership is safe from market depressions, the union will also act as a credit union.  This protects union membership money as the money is not subject to market influences, and allows the union to give loans to its membership that are more in line with the pay the member makes on a daily basis.  It also insures that loans are fairer, and that the union can make a small profit on the side to support its activities and benefits without asking for additional dues from the membership.  (This means that people outside the union can also bank with the union’s bank so that again profit can be maximized while ensuring that the union has money to support its activities.)

Outside revenue:  In order to maintain these activities and collect revenue while ensuring maximum take home pay for the membership, businesses would be allowed to buy advertising space in union offices/facilities and the union will allow them to put ads on/in official emails and correspondence so that the union can profit off the bought advertising space.  This also may include coupons and other discounts being distributed as well.  So by allowing businesses (union and non-union alike) to advertise with the union, the union can acquire the money it needs to support itself beyond what can be done solely via member dues.

Restricted spending:  The final component of this would be that money collected will be restricted to union activities and operations.  Political campaigns and donations will be done individually so as to ensure that the views of each member of the membership can represent themselves as opposed to the union boss supporting causes the membership may not agree with.  

Conclusion:  This is how I would run it.  A union boss has a responsibility to protect and serve its membership.  Thus by providing all these benefits, and removing responsibilities from the employers, a union came maximize take home pay and thus continue to enrich its membership.

Issue 510 The Church Should Provide Health Care January 21, 2015

Ok, I am going to criticize the Church.  The Catholic Church, my own faith. I am annoyed that they keep saying that government should provide health care.  You are probably wondering why I am against such an advocating.  Well I'll tell you why.

The Church Should Just do it:  So the Christian ethos is all about helping thy neighbor.  So basically be kind, be helpful, and do the right thing.  This includes voluntary charity.  That voluntary charity also may include health care.  As such, the Church wants the governments of the world to provide health care (a form of charity) for everyone.  Ummm, one question though.  Where does the Church get off pushing its Catholic beliefs (mine) onto other peoples?  And on top of this, the charity is supposed to be "VOLUNTARY", but the way the Church wants it, is so that governments around the world will provide it for the poor, tired, and huddled masses.  Yea, this does not fly with me.  The Church to me in this case comes off (from my perspective) as shirking its responsibilities.  The Church is supposed to be Gods implement to show the light of God through various methods including charity.  So why does the Church shrug off this responsibility to someone else.  Sure, yea, there are Catholic Hospitals, but that is not the kind of healthcare I am talking about.  The one I'm talking about is free clinics and providing universal health care itself.  I mean, the order of the Knights Templar during the Crusades became the world’s bank for a while (this caused them to gain power and thus why they were destroyed), so why cannot the Church accumulate this amount of power and use it toward a positive end like health care.  Every Priest and Nun can be trained in the basics of health, hygiene and physical exercise.  They can be nutritionists, herbalists, farmers, and instructors in yoga, tai chi, and more.  Heck the Buddhists first adopted martial arts to stay healthy, so why cannot priests become the peaceful monks to the Asian warrior monks.  The Church can raise masses amounts of money to educate young priests to become Nurse Practitioners or other lesser equivalents to doctors and even pharmacists.  There is so much potential for the shepherd to educate their flock in more than just the word of God, but on nature's laws created by God, and in doing so help prevent disease and if the time should arrive treat a disease.  As far as I know, the Catholic Church dominates almost all of South America, North America and Europe.  And it has outposts throughout the rest of the developed and developing parts of our world.  And when even this is not enough, we have Christian brothers and sisters in the greater Christian philosophy that would be more than happy to join in.  I definitely see the scion of Christianity, the Mormons, joining in along with the Orthodox Church, and many Protestant sects looking to do some greater good.  I also have no doubt that our Jewish and Muslim brothers and sisters would be more than willing to fill the gaps left behind.  Yea, we can do it if we try.

Conclusion:  Yea I am a little annoyed.  I mean why the hell would you tell someone to do your own job when you are more than capable of doing it yourself.  There are numerous methods to making this work cheaply and successfully, but instead the Church just brushes it off.  So I say quit telling someone else to do your own damn job, and then maybe I will actually donate more than $5 to my Church every Sunday cause at least then I know it will be helping to do more than just keep the Priests fed.

Issue 509 Fighting Ebola with cellphones January 20, 2015

Ok, you are like, "how do you fight Ebola (and other diseases) with a cell phone"?  Well it is elementary my dear reader.  It provides doctors (and people) with information.  Here is how it works in a nutshell.

How Cell phones fight Ebola:  No, the cell phones do not transform into crime fighting robots akin to Optimus Prime, but they do link people together.  What you must understand is that most of the Africa's electronic infrastructure is based on cell phone technology (and who in America or the rest of the world does not have a cell phone?).  And that means we have access to the cell phones data.  It is fairly big brotherish, but by looking at the data a doctor can see all the places an individual has been and thus make it easier to see who they have interacted with.  From there they repeat the process until every individual who has come into possible contact with the infected person(s) can be found, quarantined and then treated if they should prove sick.  Cell phones act almost like mini-tracking devices and if a person passed through a crowded area, it is possible to see what other people were in the immediate proximity via their cell phones (or other electronic devices).  So by doctors playing the part of an electronic stalker, we can prevent outbreaks from spreading and thus save lives.

Conclusion:  Yes it is intrusive, but in an emergency this will be an approved method by which to stop the spread of any sort of contagion.  Sure, the fact that you can be located 24/7 365 is kind of scary, but so long as it is done for something like this, then I really have no problem with it.

Issue 508 Postal monopoly: Letters and magazines January 19, 2015

The United States postal service still holds a monopoly on two forms of U.S. mail.  And last I checked, monopolies are never a good thing and that government supporting one is even worse.  Allow me to express why I believe this monopoly should be broken.

The Postal Monopoly:  I believe that due to the post office having total control and authority to deliver letters and magazines that it has caused businesses to go under (case in point are certain businesses that could not afford the prices of the post office to deliver advertisements or their wares, or the actually shipping companies falling under due to not being able to deliver a wider variety of goods).  My reasoning is that if letters and magazines were allowed to be delivered by say DHL, or UPS that they could actually deliver the mail cheaper and possibly easier than say the United States postal service.  This is because competition is the mother of invention in a free market society like ours.  An example of this is when Cablevision on long Island New York had sole monopoly on providing channels outside of broadcast channels.  When Verizon and Dish network were allowed to begin selling their services Cablevision reduced the price of its services.  From there, the cost fell further, or services were added that made the continued use of their other services more worthwhile.  As such quality improved.  This same thing can happen with the breaking up of the monopoly that is the United States postal service.  By allowing private companies to deliver letters and magazines, businesses could get better deals and we the consumers will get more options with respect to price and quality of service.  Not only that, but if Congress allowed it, the post office could be freed up from most of its constraints to allow it to act as a real private enterprise that would as a result increase its quality as an institution and thus its revenue.  Sure, letters are slowly disappearing with each passing generation (though they may become a novelty item), but magazines are here to stay.  So let us remove the monopoly already.

Conclusion:  No this is not about eliminating the United States postal service, it is about doing the counter intuitive things to save the post office from obscurity.  What needs to be done is increase competition and variety in services so that it can survive (this means allow it to run like a true private company).  But to do that, it means creating a real even playing field with the other companies who are in the package delivery business.  So shall we increase the quality of services or are we just going to continue to allow the post office to languish into obscurity forever.

Issue 507 Jobs for the less skilled January 16, 2015

We talked about skilled labor making the big money while the less skilled of us getting relegated to being the working poor.  But there are jobs out there that the least skilled of us can learn and thus overcome this gap to a degree.  Let us discuss.

Jobs that last forever:  Basically, the unskilled will still have the opportunity to find jobs in the lower end jobs with respect to skills.  Jobs that are often looked down upon, but society thankfully cannot exist without them.  Those jobs include farming, plumbing, auto mechanic and other repair based jobs.  These three job types will last forever.  The reason being is that despite the jobs taking in more technology, the jobs simply become easier, but the human eliminate so far has yet to be seen as replaceable.  You still need the human touch to harvest most crops, and even if grown inside special facilities, the food grown there requires human beings at certain points and times.  Plumbing still as of yet is not idiot proof and thus plumbers still have their jobs.  Also, computers still need fixing along with cars, trucks and other pieces of technology.  Sure mechanics jobs have gotten easier with diagnostic computers to say what is exactly wrong with say a car, but it takes a human being to replace those parts in such a way that they will still work.  So there you have it.  The less skilled jobs that will be unskilled labors salvation.

Conclusion:  Yes I know, these jobs may not be enough to save all the unskilled members of the labor pool.  And no, there are other jobs they can learn that ultimately require even greater skills so that these unskilled members of society can achieve a higher standard of living.  But here I just wanted to make a point.  That point being that despite the future looking so grim for a large group of our society, there is still hope and places where you can advance and thrive in our ever changing world.

Issue 506 Technology: rewards the skilled January 15, 2015

Well, the gap between rich and poor is only going to increase.  The reason being is that technology rewards skilled labor and reduces those who are unskilled to the poorest class of society.  Allow me to explain.

How the skilled are rewarded:  In a technology driven society, the business climate and technology itself is constantly in flux.  Basically it is adapt or die.  As such, people with skills generally are able to survive in this environment as they can adjust to these fluctuations on the fly.  So skilled people who specialize in computers, using computer programs or repurposing techniques and technologies become the upper middle class and higher.  In addition, people who once worked the dull, the dirty and dangerous jobs are slowly being supplanted by either new methods of doing those jobs, or those jobs becoming outmoded due to technological changes.  Case in point is the robots working an assembly line as opposed to traditional workers.  But this too rewards skilled labor.  Blacksmiths, carpenters and others who make things by hand can know sell their wares at much higher prices due to the fact that what they sell is hand made.  Their skills allow them to create novelties that fetch much higher prices at markets and thus makes them richer as well.  

The Unskilled:  On the other hand we have the unskilled.  Those who are just starting out in the workforce, and without any particular skill set.  These people get assigned menial jobs that pay very little and thus they are relegated to a less fulfilling existence.  As such, these people are the new working poor.  Until they find a skill of some sort or they move up the corporate ladder (something that becomes much harder with the slow decline of middle managers) they will always be on minimum wage.  Hence why skilled labor makes the big money, while the unskilled will not.

Conclusion:  We are in the start of a new industrial revolution that will see the rise of new methods of manufacturing and greater standards of living.  However, it comes at the cost of many people becoming poor first to get there.  So my best advice to you my readers is find something you are skilled at and embrace it while you can, you never know if that skill will save you from obscurity.

Issue 505 Mandatory Minimums and Judges January 14, 2015

Mandatory minimums like plea bargaining has its problems.  With mandatory minimums we have people who are declared guilty in a jury trial forced to serve out a sentence of say a set 30 years even if the other facts in evidence would be cause to have the guilty person to have a much reduced sentence of say five years.  Let us discuss.

Mandatory Minimums:  As I said in the opening, Mandatory minimums mean that a petty theft charge could bring a 30 year sentence, the same kind of sentence an individual could get for grand larceny.  Obviously this is unfair.  Another example is that a drug dealer, and a drug addict caught with their personal stash would be given the same criminal sentence of 25 years in jail.  Obviously their crimes are not equal, but this is what mandatory minimums unfortunately do.

Solutions:  Well, many judges are calling for the mandatory minimums to be scrapped altogether. Some think this a good idea because it allows maximum flexibility when it comes to judges deciding sentences for a convicted individual.  It allows for judges to take into account all factors in a case to the point that an individual could be remanded to a rehab facility for six months as opposed to a jail cell for five plus years.  However, this does risk people being under sentenced for a crime, or even being let go for a crime despite being guilty (case in point is the judge who let the Muslim husband who raped his wife go without penalty because his "religion" allowed it).  Also, mandatory minimums support plea bargaining by making it easier for prosecutors to convince suspects to take a lighter sentence.  On top of this, mandatory minimums also reduce costs because it prevents lengthy sentencing trials after the guilt of the individual has been determined.  Taking all this into account, if mandatory minimums was to be removed from our system, then strict conditions on punishments or even newer updated penalties that allow for flexibility in sentencing will have to be implemented.

Conclusion:  I do not favor mandatory minimums for most crimes.  In fact, for a majority of crimes, a televised public trial where the defendant is humiliated (or exonerated) becomes the main source of punishment.  Then if the defendant is guilty (crimes like petty theft to grand larceny) the individuals become forced to pay back all the money they stole (no jail time).  People who are drug addicts would go to therapy and other programs to aid them in resisting their addiction and the economic and social consequences associated with it.  Rapists and child molesters on the other hand is another story.  I want penal colonies where they stay for life and that they can volunteer for medical experiments to receive extra "privileges".  Murder though is entirely different and thus needs maximum flexibility with respect to sentencing (the nuance in these cases is a little beyond me and thus why I have this opinion).  But I think you my readers get my view and the issues surrounding the tool known as mandatory minimums in criminal sentencing.  Hope you enjoyed the read.