As the Democrats come closer to holding real power in Washington, the threat of unions to economic growth - and to individual liberty - is concentrating a few minds. -AS
First, if the Dems are coming to power it is just as likely because the GOP and their stewardship are getting voted out, after eight years of "free" markets and tax cuts that should have solved all our problems, by now.
Meanwhile, while gazing like a Texan girl at the dues that are the collective penalty imposed for any kind of real bargaining position, there are always a slew of issues that libertarians seem to paste over, the injustice of which seems to loom larger than a monthly coerced set of union "dues".
At the time of the Gore campaign, as best I recall, there was a great example of abuse that made headlines about some group that was abusing another by putting aside their issues with money they had collected from the very people they were shunting aside. I wish I could find the details.
Pick up the case of the woman, whatever you may come to think of her, who made national headlines when the suggestion that Judge Alito ought to have recused himself on her appeal came up during his confirmation. She lost almost all or all of the money in the retirement account that she was arguing about with the mutual fund company (they used it to cover their legal fees, lawfully, as best I recall the facts of the case).
This is all legal, too, so far as I know:
[The companies] have little to lose by trying. Typically, as such legal cases drag on, the employers save money as some of the retirees, who have to pay growing portions of their health-care costs, forgo costly care, drop out of the plans or die. If companies lose in court, the worst that happens is they have to resume paying benefits. They don't face punitive damages or penalties. And they may not have to resume benefits for those retirees who dropped out of the health plans.
...
One afternoon last December, Basil Chapman was sitting on his porch in Barboursville, W.Va., with his dog, Bo, when a union representative phoned the retiree to say an executive of his former employer wanted to speak to him. Mr. Chapman called the executive, at ACF Industries Inc., a railroad-car maker where Mr. Chapman worked for 38 years. He was told ACF was going to change health coverage, making retirees pay for a portion that previously was free.
"We have a contract. You can't do that," Mr. Chapman said, according to court papers later filed by ACF. "We will file in federal court against you b-----ds."
Asked about this, Mr. Chapman, who is 60, says he didn't swear on the phone.
The next Monday, ACF, ... sued Mr. Chapman in federal district court in St. Louis. The company asked the court to rule that it had the right to change or terminate health coverage for 678 retirees and their dependents. ACF said it was suing to protect itself, noting that "defendant Chapman has already informed ACF that he plans to file a lawsuit concerning the amendments of the plan."
"I can't understand why they're picking on me," Mr. Chapman says. "I'm just a retired guy who was sitting on my porch."
sullylink
