Decline of Labor Unions Continues

In 2010, the number of union members in the government sector outnumbered those in the private sector by 7.6 million to 7.1 million.  The union rate for the private sector employees was 6.9%, compared to the huge government sector rate of 36.2%.  Among all jobs, union members decreased from 12.3% in 2009 to 11.9% in 2010 due to a loss of 612,000 union members.  These losses should continue since union membership is highest among those workers who are 55 to 64 years old and lowest among workers who are 16 to 24 years old.  Because unions have been such a strong force for socialist programs and special interest programs in government, this decline is a very good thing.  Unfortunately, this decline has made them more desperate and as we saw in the general elections of 2008 and 2010, the unions are willing to spend huge sums to push the government in the direction of socialism and a greater play of factions.

The highest union membership was among local government employees with a rate of 42.3%.  The heavily regulated private sector industries of transportation and utilities had the highest degrees of unionization at 21.8%. and they were followed by the regulated telecommunications industry at 15.8% unionized.  Agriculture at 1.6% had the lowest rate of unionization, though financial services was also low at a 2.0% unionization rate.  Teaching had the highest degree of unionization at 37.1%.  Protective services had the second highest rate of unionization at 34.1%.

Broken down by race and ethnicity, black workers had the highest rate of unionization at 13.4%, while whites were 11.7% unionized, Asians were 10.9%, and Hispanics were 10.0% unionized.

Union membership rates rose in 17 states, but fell in 33 states and the District of Columbia.  The map below shows the distribution of unionization rates in the states:

New York has the highest unionization rate at 24.2%.  Alaska and Hawaii are next at 22.9% and 21.8%, respectively.  This is apparently because these two states have a very high ratio of government workers to private sector workers.  Washington state has a 19.4% rate, while California's rate is 17.5%, and New Jersey's rate is 17.1%.  Unionization is concentrated in the Pacific region, the Northeast, and the East North Central.  To these, Minnesota and Nevada should be added.  The high unionization rate in Nevada played a big role in the re-election of Senator Harry Reid.

It is no accident that population growth rates and state domestic product growth have generally been better in those states with low unionization rates.  The states with the fastest population growth rates from the 2000 Census to the 2010 Census are:

Nevada, 35.1%
Arizona, 24.6%
Utah, 23.8%
Idaho, 21.1%
Texas, 20.6%
North Carolina, 18.5%
Georgia, 18.3%
Florida, 17.6%
Colorado, 16.9%
South Carolina, 15.3%

Of these states only Nevada has a high unionization rate.  People generally migrate to those states which have the best job growth.  The unions are much better at destroying jobs than creating them.

Arizona Encourages Government-Dependent Politicians

29 November Update:  The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the free speech case argued by the Institute for Justice discussed in this earlier post.  Congratulations to the Institute for Justice in its efforts to protect our individual rights!

Arizona has an interesting way of promoting the political career of government-dependent politicians.  Arizona law puts politicians on the dole even before they are elected.  Now, I ask you, how can We the People expect politicians on the dole to government to look out for our interests in keeping the power-lusting governments off our backs?  The answer, of course, is that such politicians are guaranteed to be bought and paid for big government supporters.  The Arizona "Clean Elections" Act is the mechanism for buying big government politicians and putting them in office.  The bias in favor of government doing what it most wants to do, which is to gain more and more control of the People's lives, is huge.

The Institute for Justice has challenged this Arizona interference in elections on the basis of its interference with our freedom of speech in a case called Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett.  The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to hear the Institute for Justice's challenge of this law on Tuesday, 23 November.  The Institute for Justice is also representing the Arizona Taxpayers Action Committee, Arizona State Treasurer Dean Martin, and State Representative Rick Murphy.

The Arizona government subsidizes those candidates for office who elect to take a subsidy.  For every dollar an independent candidate brings in, the subsidized candidate is given an equal amount of money.  The candidate on the dole does not have to do any work to acquire donations from those who believe so strongly in his principles that they will donate their own money to the candidate.  The candidate on the dole is then free to be a perfect demagogue and has no need to be persuasive enough to get people who will carefully consider his viewpoints before giving him campaign donations to actually do so.  Those who part with their money often think about why they are doing so before acting.  Those same Arizonans who favor an independent candidate are then forced to subsidize the candidate whose views they may abhor.  This is not just an abridgment of the freedom of speech, but it is an inversion of speech.  If you believe one thing, you are actually forced to say you believe the opposite!

Fortunately, in January 2010, a federal district court ruling struck down the matching funds in elections as a violation of freedom of speech.  But, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the order of the initial federal district court ruling.  In June, the U.S. Supreme Court took the unusual action of reinstating the initial court ruling which had prevented Arizona from matching funds.  As a result, the 2010 elections in Arizona were not sullied by this big government attempt to bias the selection of politicians in its favor by effectively limiting the freedom of speech of the People of Arizona.

Bill Mauer, an Institute for Justice attorney, said

Matching funds violate the First Amendment rights of candidates, citizens and independent groups.  The government may not give an electoral advantage to one candidate by ‘leveling’ the speech of his opponents.  The system is set up to punish those the government believes are speaking too much, while subsidizing those it believes are speaking too little.  In a free society, the government has no business micromanaging how citizens debate, of all things, who should run the government.

Having been so serious for so long, you deserve a break.  The Institute for Justice has a fun cartoon video summarizing their viewpoint on the effects of the Arizona "Clean Elections" Act.



The Institute for Justice has been very effective in protecting our freedom of speech in other cases involving election laws in a number of states.  Most recently, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on a Colorado law that forced six neighbors opposing a ballot issue to register with the state government and comply with very complex campaign election finance laws.  In this case, Sampson v. Buescher, Judge Harris Hartz wrote for the unanimous court that the campaign finance disclosure requirements were too complex for most citizens and simply prevented them from speaking out on political issues.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the federal government could not restrict how much individuals gave to SpeechNow.org or other similar groups in another Institute for Justice case.  That victory was marred by the ruling that the group did have to abide by the difficult rules of operating a political committee, despite the Supreme Court having ruled in Citizens United that corporations did not have to do so.  Go figure.  The Institute for Justice has also won victories in Florida where its very broad "electioneering communications" law was ruled unconstitutional and in Washington where the state tried to regulate talk radio commentary on a ballot issue.

Not only is the Institute for Justice very effective in winning vital cases to protect our freedoms, but it does it very cost efficiently.  It has won the highest 4-star rating from Charity Navigator for the 9th year in a row.  Please consider fighting for your freedoms by making a donation to the Institute for Justice.

A First Amendment Free Speech and Free Association Victory

The valiant defenders of liberty at the Institute for Justice and the Center for Competitive Politics have partially won a free speech, free association, and elections court case before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of SpeechNow.org.  The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC expanded the free speech rights of incorporated entities, including corporations, unions, and non-profits, but did not address the right of independent citizens to form an unincorporated association to pool their money and perhaps other resources to advocate a particular viewpoint at or near election time without undue restrictions administered by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC).  Those restrictions included limits on how much one person could donate to the political action committee, despite the fact that one person acting alone has no limits.  Some of these restrictions on free speech and free association were due to the infamous McCain-Feingold so-called election reform law, which was designed to protect incumbent politicians from public criticism.

A September 2009 decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals in EMILY's List v. FEC struck down a number of FEC regulations that severely limited the ability of non-profit organizations to raise and spend money for political purposes.  It ruled that such entities could raise unlimited funds for non-federal political campaigns.  If they set up a federal political action committee (PAC), for most practical purposes they could use unlimited funds as long as they do not coordinate with candidates.

Incomprehensibly, the SpeechNow.org D.C. Court of Appeals decision, however, retained some restrictions on private individuals banding together for political free speech purposes which were deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be too restrictive of free speech for corporations and unions.  It removed the individual limit on contributions, but it retained disclosure requirements and other regulations on political action committees. One would think that this part of the decision should not long stand, given its absurdity!

The announcement of the court case win from the Center for Competitive Politics is here and that from the Institute of Justice is here.  Bradley A. Smith, Chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics and a former FEC chairman said,

It's unfortunate that the court did not recognize how political committee status regulation by the FEC places restrictive burdens on grassroots political groups.  The court's decision means that the FEC regulatory regime will continue to favor large, established special interests over ad hoc groups of like-minded citizens who gather together to enhance their voices in politics.

I certainly agree with him.  The rise of the many small groups in the Tea Party movement will surely challenge the right of the FEC, on behalf of incumbent politicians, to make it difficult for these groups to challenge the many incumbent Senators and Representatives who will not listen to us, who look down their elitist noses at the vast majority of the American People, and who find our sovereign rights an inconvenience.  The SpeechNow.org ruling may be carried on to the Supreme Court to try to remove more FEC restrictions for unincorporated associations.  If they do so, they might lose something they have already gained, but that is quite unlikely given the Citizens United v. FEC ruling by the Supreme Court.  If they do not carry this case onward, there will soon be other cases to challenge these continued unconstitutional restrictions on our freedom of speech and on our freedom of association.

It would be best to get these issues straightened out before the November 2010 elections.  It is clear that the incumbent Democrats and perhaps some incumbent Republicans too, would like to use such FEC restrictions to prevent the People from challenging them for their wanton disregard for our individual liberties and for the financial soundness of America.  We know we can count on the Democrats playing dirty pool.  They are specialists in deception, lies, and dirty tricks in their never-ending quest for the power to subjugate the American People!