Unions fight for Georgians
Moderated by Tom Sabulis
Unions are in the news, as calls continue for MARTA to privatize services and Michigan enacts right-to-work laws. Today, a Georgia union official writes about the benefits union workers bring to our state, while an expert from Emory University’s Goizueta Business School says right-to-work freedoms are needed for states to remain flexible in the new global economy.
Commenting is open below Ray Hill’s column.
Unions fight for dreams of all citizens
By Charlie Flemming
As we approach the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom organized by A. Philip Randolph, vice-president of the AFL-CIO, we are reminded of Martin Luther King Jr’s 1961 fight against anti-unionism. “In our glorious fight for civil rights,” King said, “we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, as ‘right-to-work.’ It provides no ‘rights’ and no ‘works.’ Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining.”
Despite his warning, the anti-union crusade continues as de-industrialization, globalization and offshore production have diminished wages and greatly reduced the availability of good jobs.
Unions, despite the premature proclamation of their death, remain relevant in the continued fight for fair wages, decent benefits and safe working conditions. What happened in Michigan this week is a perfect example of corporations and politicians interfering with the freedom of employees to work together in unions to improve their lives. It not only undermines our belief in a voice for all who work, it lowers living standards for all of us.
Now more than ever, we need to be unified to create jobs and restore the middle class across our country, because work connects us all. While Martin Luther King Jr. made the ultimate sacrifice standing with the sanitation workers of Memphis in 1968, the work he gave his life for continues.
U.S. workers in right-to-work states, for example, earn an average of $5,538 less a year than their counterparts in states where they have the right to collective bargaining. Every citizen is diminished by these inequities, because the reduced salaries represent missed tax revenues and reduced money circulating in the local and state economy.
Unions and collective bargaining also make a difference in workplace safety; right-to-work states report 50 percent more workplace deaths. The campaigns for fair wages, decent health care, and safe working conditions through labor contracts are a continuing responsibility of the American labor movement.
Union concerns extend beyond the needs of our members. What is often left unreported is how unions work with business, civil society and government to realize the democratic vision established by our country’s founders. During the 2012 Georgia state legislative session, the AFL-CIO championed freedom of speech by opposing SB469. The bill would have curtailed the right to picket, a traditional American tool for social justice advocacy. Who can forget the picketing Memphis sanitation workers with their “I Am a Man” placards?
Organized labor also benefits the larger society in other ways often invisible to the public. More than 900 Georgia AFL-CIO members assisted in recovery efforts following the devastation of Hurricane Sandy. Each year, AFL-CIO members in Atlanta and Georgia provide millions of dollars of charitable donations to the United Way and many other charitable organizations that assist Georgians in need.
Organized labor also advocates for the reintegration of our U.S. veterans into the economy through our “Helmets to Hardhats” initiative. The program pairs our transitioning military veterans with quality career training and employment opportunities within the construction industry.
In the coming legislative session, we will fight for the constitutional and economic rights of all Georgians. We’ll push for Buy Georgia, Buy American legislation, which gives preference to products made in Georgia and/or the United States. We will also work on mass transit issues, immigration rights, privatization, unemployment, corporate tax breaks, living wages and public education.
In sum, your dreams for a better state with ample employment opportunities are what drive our work every day. The Georgia AFL-CIO will continue fighting to realize the dreams of all Georgians.
Charlie Flemming is president of the Georgia AFL-CIO.
Flexible workforce helps workers, economy
By Ray Hill
Right-to-work laws generate passionate arguments on both sides of the issue. All sorts of statistics are cited by those for and against these laws. Although econometrics was one of my Ph.D. fields, I don’t put much stock in any of this “evidence.” Too many factors contribute to an economy’s ability to create jobs and grow incomes to isolate the effect of right-to-work laws with much quantitative precision. I would rather consider right-to-work laws in a much broader context.
When we think of all the factors that contribute to an economy’s success, it seems clear to me that flexible labor markets are becoming more and more important in a world of globally connected business and rapid technological change.
The evidence is pervasive. A decade ago, Germany instituted a series of reforms designed to loosen up its very rigid labor market . Throughout the 1990s, Germany’s unemployment rate had been on par with France and much of the rest of Europe, and was consistently about twice that of the U.S. Ten years after these reforms, Germany has an unemployment rate half that of France but still pays its workers significantly higher wages. Indeed, Germany’s unemployment is now below that of the United States.
On this side of the Atlantic, we have the example of decades of migration of automobile manufacturing out of the highly unionized Midwest, where GM was required to pay its employees whether or not they actually worked. Even closer to home is last month’s bankruptcy of Hostess Brands (maker of Twinkies), brought on by incredibly rigid rules imposed by their unionized delivery workers.
Labor unions have made important contributions to promoting safer working conditions and other employee protections, most of which have now been written into our nation’s laws. However, unions also have the effect of reducing an economy’s flexibility and undercutting its ability to adapt to the rapid changes we experience in the global economy.
Unions’ ability to raise workers’ wages are a commonly cited argument in favor of right-to-work laws. High wages are great if you have a union job, but aren’t worth much if you are unemployed in a state with slow growth or shrinking industry. High wages are also not very useful when your company relocates to another state or outsources your job to another country. Even promises of job security are of little value when your company goes into bankruptcy, like Hostess, because it can’t compete.
By not requiring workers to finance unions as a condition of employment, Georgia’s right-to-work law helps to keep Georgia competitive. This is becoming more important every day since the rest of the world is moving in Georgia’s direction. In the U.S. as a whole, union membership as a percentage of the workforce fell last year to a level not seen since the 1930s. Private sector participation in unions fell below 7 percent.
Earlier this year, Indiana, in the old industrial heartland of America, became the 23rd state to adopt a right-to-work law, and just this week, Michigan became the 24th. Only in the government sector, shielded from competition, is union membership not shrinking. However, the budgetary problems of Greece (and Illinois!) should remind us that even governments are not immune from the inability of a unionized workforce to adapt to changing conditions.
Ray Hill is senior lecturer at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
34 comments Add your comment
SAWB
December 13th, 2012
5:27 pm
While we can all probably agree that throughout the years Unions have brought about changes in the workplace that benefit all Americans. However, now that most of these changes are codified in Federal Law Unions must seek ways to justify their continued existence. This has resulted in companies being held hostage and forced to provide excessive pay and benefits packages. Yes, Unions have been beneficial, but their time has come and gone.
SCAB
December 13th, 2012
6:00 pm
A scab is part of the healing process
Brosephus
December 13th, 2012
6:04 pm
Also, there was a recently published study that showed that the differences between RTW vs non-RTW states could not be adequately quantified. While RTW states showed lower unemployment numbers and growth, workers in non-RTW states had better benefits and better pay. I guess that working hard for less pay is the new American way.
Gerald Mack
December 13th, 2012
6:24 pm
From the folks who brought you the weekend… It is always amazing to me to hear or read comments from those who see no purpose for unions. It doesn’t surprise however that Georgia, along with the rest of the South definitely see no purpose for unions after all the South is still pissed about the Civil War or as they call it the”War of Nothern agression” how is it that in the Southern states minimum wage is seen as living the high life, and the very mention of the word union can get a person harassed or fired even. One can always side with the “right to work” state or company management because as we all know companies always have their employees best interest at heart and will always do the right thing, look at Walmart. This is simply political and that is sad because America is a UNION!!!!! My great grandfather always taught me “skilled labor isn’t cheap and cheap labor isn’t skilled” God bless us union workers because America needs us.
Brosephus
December 13th, 2012
6:36 pm
Mr. Hill
You bring up Germany as an example. Care to expound on how Germany’s management and unions work together to solve their problems instead of managment explicitly trying to curtail union activities? How is it that Germany’s auto workers could build twice as many cars as US workers while making more money in 2011 when they have strong union membership over there?
Right to work laws do nothing other than what they’re designed to do, and that is starve unions of funds necessary to fight off the very people trying to destroy them. Nobody’s forced to join unions in non-RTW states. I’m quite sure you’ve heard of Beck Rules before, and by SCOTUS decision as well as NLRB rules, unions can not force membership. They can only collect fees to cover their negotiations. I think that’s what conservatives call “paying your own way”. Removing that requirement, which is what RTW laws do, encourages freeloading off the benefits negotiated by the unions.
Mary Elizabeth
December 13th, 2012
6:45 pm
No one should be fooled. The newly coordinated, and orchestrated, emphasis against unions in many states throughout the nation has strategic purpose, at this time, with rightwing ideologues in power positions. Their targeted goal is to influence coming election results through diffusing the union power base of the Democratic Party.
Unions will never be out-of-date. Until the consciousness of those in management elevates to the level that they are able to understand the value of the concept behind the “servant leader,” who knows that customers, clients, and workers contribute as much to the success of business endeavors as management, then labor has the right to organize for their mutual self-protection and benefit against a management who often perceives of workers only as commodities for profit, rather than as equal human beings who simply function in different job requirements needed to make the business enterprise successful for all.
“Right to Work” is as innocuous a slogan as is “School Choice.” There is subterfuge operative behind both slogans.
An observer
December 13th, 2012
7:18 pm
I worked in a union shop and I never saw were the union helped me or anyone else except for some slackers.
ezbdave
December 13th, 2012
8:39 pm
I agree SAWB! Unions have only proved lately that they can be disruptive and damage public property!
We can only thank them for driving manufacturing and service jobs overseas! Their time has come and gone! America needs to offer more full time jobs and less of this part time/ minimum wage job climate that is taking over the job market! If a man will work at a lesser pay to feed his family than a union member, then so be it! Get rid of unions and bring jobs back to the USA!
Dc
December 13th, 2012
9:28 pm
Oklahoma voted to become a RTW state in the early 2000s. Since then, their average wage has gone from being 76% of US ave to 84%. That seems like pretty clear evidence of the value RTW legislation can bring. Meanwhile, forced union membership states have in general been hemoraging manufacturing jobs.
Of course, facts like these are im sure proof of nothing!……in the eyes of folks who are stuck on the lib plantation
trew
December 13th, 2012
10:58 pm
I have had the displeasure of working with union crews while doing overhauls in two states in the north and northeast.
My experience with unions is that they are an employment agency for the otherwise unemployable.
JPolk
December 13th, 2012
11:49 pm
The simple fact is you cannot justify as a freedom-loving person the notion of forcing someone to join a union. It simply cannot be done. So once you embrace your anti-freedom stance for unionization you open yourself to tyranny.
Rick in Grayson
December 14th, 2012
6:49 am
I have worked with Union members (Steel Workers) and it was not a pleasant experience. They slowed down work during normal work hours to force management to put them on overtime to get the work finished. How about the auto company that had to reinstate workers that were drinking and smoking pot during their lunch time. This is not a description of all Union members, but the Union certainly protects thugs and poor workers in the work force to the detriment of all workers and the companies that employ them.
straitroad
December 14th, 2012
8:53 am
Let the workers decide. If union membership is as beneficial as the union bosses say it is then there should be no reason to force workers to join.
Whirled Peas
December 14th, 2012
9:20 am
To force a man to join an organization in order to keep his job is immoral and a threat to our very freedom. Talk about basic human rights. How about the human right to join or not join an organization and pay dues to it.
Union Raised.
December 14th, 2012
10:17 am
My father has always been a union – loading trucks in Atlanta, GA and then a letter carrier in Cleveland, OH. Because of my father’s union jobs and hard work ethic I was raised in a stable environment that included access to healthcare, transportation, a roof over my head and more. This stability growing up allowed my sister and I to flourish, both of us attended universities and were able to pursue the studies that most engaged us.
It saddens me to see such vitriol in this comment section. Union members are hard working people like my father, my next door neighbor and both of my best friend’s parents.
Working people will rise when we work together. Working people will remain in poverty when we are divided. The right wing ideologues understand this very keenly and their narrative can be seen injected in this comment section.
For all of the working families…. The mantra remains the same: we are stronger together.
Scott B
December 14th, 2012
10:24 am
That 5000. more per year that they show as improved wages goes into the union cofers to provide a wide range of benefits to the union management as well as lobbying for whatever liberal cause their leaders decide to support. Face it, unions are organizations that suck the vitality out of our national motivation to “do better” in each suceeding generation. Kinda like welfare does!
Mary Elizabeth
December 14th, 2012
10:29 am
@ Union Raised, 10:17 am
You personal testimony is well-taken and your testimony is important for others to read, especially in Georgia. Thank you for sharing it.
To repeat your closing line: “For all of the working families…. The mantra remains the same: we are stronger together.”
The Fundamental laws of economics
December 14th, 2012
12:04 pm
Unions fight for the dreams of unions – period. Higher wages mean higher dues which mean bigger salaries and bigger homes for union bosses. Minimum wage laws only serve to push overall wages higher while eliminating the competition of less skilled labor from the workforce. MLK gets cited as a champion for labor, but lets not forget that MLK was basically a socialist, and unskilled black youth currently suffer from the highest levels of unemployment of any demographic, in no small part because of union protectionism and minimum wage laws (and mandatory increases).
An employer is only able to employ someone at a wage rate that is equal to or lower than the amount of benefit they will derive from the labor employed. If someone can only deliver $5 an hour of contribution to the company, they will not be hired if the minimum wage is $6. The same applies no matter what the rate of the minimum wage or the union-mandated wage. It is assumed that an employer can just pass these additional costs on to his customers, but then we are simply socializing the costs to everyone and ultimately there is a limit. Or it is assumed that the employer will simply reduce his profits, but this impacts everyone in reduction of the tax revenues (though I advocate a complete elimination of corporate taxes) and eliminates the capital available for production improvements, etc. that profits are used for.
There is plenty wrong with our system. We do not have free market capitalism, but rather crony capitalism or corporatism in which powerful influence groups use the power, force, and guns of government to manipulate the economy to their benefit. Wall Street, the banking cartel, the military-industrial complex, the prison-industrial complex, and unions are all examples of groups who employ the government guns to their benefit and we as citizens are ALL poorer for this intervention into the economy.
I have no opposition to collective bargaining, but no government special priviledges should be afforded to anyone who chooses to engage in such a method of change with an employer. First and foremost, the business is the property of the owner, not the employees, and government (if it exists at all), should be in the business of protecting and defending property rights (even from the majority). That is what a constitutional republic was supposed to have given us. Tragically we can see what the influence of Progressives and other destructive forces have had on that ideal.
J Jackson
December 14th, 2012
12:17 pm
No one is forced to join a union. There are many many more non-union companies than union ones. If some one does not want to be part of a collective bargaining group he/she can chose not to work for a company that has one. But if someone does choose to accept the wages, benefits and representation of collective bargaining, that choice should include contributing to the system making them possible. Today companies belong to associations that seek to advance their collective interest. These organizations interfere with free market competition that would allow wages to rise naturally. Getting rid of unions now because you think they are no longer needed is like getting rid of your home security alarm because your house hasn’t been broken into.
Allan Richardson
December 14th, 2012
3:44 pm
I see several people have repeated the right-wing phrase “union BOSSES” which is the labor-bashing equivalent of the N-word (not QUITE as hateful). Don’t corporations have BOSSES also? Those bosses make their income by paying workers as little as they can to keep them from quitting (and before you talk about “competing on skills” remember that the great percentage of jobs COULD be done by anyone with the minimum required skill, so there is no reason to pay a truck driver more because he/she is a GREAT truck driver). They are, in other words, paid for keeping wages as low as possible.
By contrast, the people whom you refer to as “union BOSSES” are working members of the union, working their company jobs AND volunteering their time; and they are ELECTED by the workers in the union (know of any CEO’s elected by their employees?), and when they do receive expense money, it is usually only part of what they spend out of pocket. Why? To get higher wages and better and safer working conditions for the MEMBERS who elected them. Their only rewards are the pride of accomplishment, respect of their peers, and a higher wage on their own company day jobs. They are far from BOSSES, because their members can vote them out! Essentially, they are “politicians” within the world of their union; but they are more easily kept honest because union members are more diligent in forming their opinions than most voters are.
And as for being out for themselves only, the fact is that ONLY after unions were accepted and legally recognized (rather than being beaten up and shot TO DEATH by private soldiers) in some industries and some states, did wages and working conditions begin to improve for OTHER workers also. Weekend, vacation, overtime, worker’s compensation, unemployment insurance, etc. would not be here if not for unions, and WILL NOT be here for long if unions are destroyed.
As for the “freedom to join a union” you do realize that the benefits of union membership in an open union shop extend to non-members-by-choice also? Just as non-pledging listeners can hear all the public radio that pledging members can. So other than self-respect, why would anyone pay to get what he or she can get for free? Maybe so that the organization that makes it possible will CONTINUE to be there for them in the future! And right wing politicians use “right to work” as a means toward killing all unions, for that very reason.
Allan Richardson
December 14th, 2012
3:58 pm
For SAWB, how long would the benefits to workers REMAIN in Federal law with a right wing gerrymandered Congress supported by biased media (Faux, for example) and million dollar checks from billionaires, and the greatest source of VOLUNTEER campaign labor and contributions from NON billionaire donors to fight them killed off? These Federal laws (and some state laws) that benefit workers AND the public safety were passed because enough workers were able to join unions and get benefits that other employers had to match. Without union shops to hold up as a higher standard, we would all be working for Chinese, or Bangladeshi, wages, with no safety rules (remember the radium painting workers whose employers denied responsibility for their deaths?) to protect us.
Louis
December 14th, 2012
4:26 pm
The fact is that no business that is treating it’s workers well is likely to be unionized. Conversely, no employees of a business that is treating it’s workers badly in any way should be kept from being unionized. But in most cases, the right-to-work laws are little more than right-to-abuse laws, and most of these right wing proponents of right-to-abuse-employees-at-work are the folks that push these laws.
Simply telling employers that it is OK to abuse their employees then have the “right” to fire them when they organize and hire more employees to abuse is wrong. Particularly when the job market is supply oriented should NOT make a revolving employment door OK. When a facility goes union, everybody there should get the benefit and no current employee should be forced to join the union. But new employees coming into that benefit facility should be told up front they have to join or they have the choice to apply somewhere else.
Right-to-work laws send the message to employers that are prone to abusive practices that those practices are OK and there are no ramifications. Our country had moved away from letting employees literally get killed and maimed by their employers, but these laws are on the slippery slope back to those days. If for no other reason than that, these so called right-to-work laws are wrong.
Porter
December 14th, 2012
5:13 pm
What unions do best is negotiate for better pay and benefits. What unions do worst is seek all kinds of cumbersome work rules and job classifications that force an employer to behave in an inefficient and in some cases completely irrational manner. Whenever unionized and nonunionized companies compete against one another, such as automakers and airlines, the trend is always for the unionized companies to lose market share.
nelson
December 14th, 2012
5:41 pm
When one says that states where the unions are strong, workers get $5,000 more. That does not say they are worth $5,000 more, it is the union wages opposed to non union. I think unions are not compatible with the free enterprise system.
Let us say a custodian in a union plant makes $40,000 At rhe same time a skilled worker in a nonunion business makes $35,000, which worker deserves the hgher salary. As Booker T. Washington said, “the better man is the one that can do the best job, not the one that gets the most money”. As recent as 1933, the Supreme Court declared collective barganing unconstitutonal.
bigjimkelly
December 14th, 2012
6:10 pm
UNION: a group of workers get together to get a bigger peice of the pie;
a fairer cut of the fruit of their labors.
The people who run the unions are members, elected by members.
ie: Trumka actually shovelled coal.
If a Union Plumber only made $2.00 an hour, what would your trade pay?
Proud Teamster
December 14th, 2012
6:52 pm
For all the folks who think people being “forced” to pay dues is wrong:
A) NO ONE is forced to join a union. “Closed shop” union contracts only require that freeloaders in by paying their fair share of the costs associated with the collective bargaining relationship that they benefit from.
B) “Right to Work” (for less) is the only exception to American free enterprise that requires an organization to provide goods and services for free. If freeloaders don’t want to join the union at their workplace then they should sign away their rights to the wages and benefits negotiated for members through their collective organization and pooling of resources. The fact that unions are forced to represent freeloaders reveals the true intent of “Right to Work” (for less) , to weaken unions and drive down wages and benefits.
Do ya’ll think it is coincidence that “right to work” (for less) states have the highest rates of poverty, families lacking health benefits, and the worst educational systems in the country? C’mon folks it’s in front of your face. Quit drinking the koolaid!
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 14th, 2012
7:07 pm
If I want to join a union, I will. If not, I won’t. Right To Work makes that choice possible, and as we all know, choice is my God-given right.
Allan Richardson
December 14th, 2012
7:12 pm
“bigjimkelly” made a good point. In the past, a few very large unions had, for a time, a problem with mob control, and this has been turned into an unfair right wing stereotype of all unions. The top level officers of THOSE unions may have been able to get rich for themselves, but regulatory scrutiny and anti-gangster movements have mitigated that problem I have worked for a union shop in a RTW state (Florida) and it was a struggle to get new people to join, especially the youngsters who had not studied labor history in school, and saw the job as a “really good McJob” rather than the start of a career.
The canard about “restrictive work rules” is based upon the conflict between workers and abusive employers who reassigned workers that had not been properly trained on a specific job, in order to cut costs and avoid overtime pay for qualified union members. The truth is that unions set high standards for skilled trades, and take pride in high quality work. The union people who “worked slower” could have known more than “Rick in Grayson” about the need for metal to cool between stages of fabrication, and were more concerned than management about the quality of the steel they were producing. A bridge in Jacksonville, FL in the 1970’s was built with all union crews and came in ahead of schedule and under budget. Smart management (and union pride in quality work), not abusive management, gets results like that (and the bridge is still in excellent shape).
As “Louis” said, employers who are good to their employees either honor the unions they already have (inherited from unhappier days, perhaps?), or never have their employees ask to start one. Abusive employers try to get rid of the unions they have, or avoid allowing employees to start a union, using illegal or barely legal means.
As to whether union workers are “worth” their union wages: are companies which have monopolies, or collude together with other companies (in a “union”?) to create monopolies, “worth” their profits? How about CEO and other top-level executives who get rewarded with bonuses for causing losses, even getting “golden parachutes” if they are fired, and make up the difference by laying off thousands of low-level workers? If a CEO can work under a contract, why not a worker?
A quote from 1930’s Germany: “They came for the trade unionists, and I was not a trade unionist, so I did not object; … when they came for me, there was no one left to object.”
bigjimkelly
December 14th, 2012
10:24 pm
nice beard Richardson, you misquoted me.
Allan Richardson
December 15th, 2012
12:53 am
Sorry, bigjimkelly, I abbreviated my reference to your post. I meant to say that I know that union officers (”bosses” to the righties) are actually workers elected by their peers. However, I admitted that AT SOME TIMES in the past, SOME corrupt union officers (e.g. ALLEGEDLY, Jimmy Hoffa) acquired enough power to serve as the right wing stereotype of ALL union leaders. I then debunked that notion, although I know that no amount of debunking will persuade some anti-union (anti-worker) fanatics. I guess I depended on my readers going back to your post, rather than quoting your point in full.
Patrick Scott
December 15th, 2012
9:21 am
I live in a residential community where when I, along . with my neighbors, required to pay monthly dues for the upkeep of our community. The purpose is for the members of the community is to take part and invest in their community, which we know we are required to pay monthly dues. Our dues go to the beautification and upkeep of the community (lawn manicure, pool and maintenance, etc). This goes a long way in the preservation of the community.
For the most part, we have an active community where the majority of homeowners pay dues and participate in our community. However, we have some owners who refuse to pay one penny, however, their grass gets cut every week along with dues paying members. Should I have to pay for those who refuse to pay? Or should they pay their fair share for the services they use and agreed to pay for as a condition of home ownership? How does that impact the fabric of the community when you have able body non-payers getting the same services as those who pay? How would that affect you when you diligently pay your monthly dues and you know me, as your next door neighbor hadn’t paid a penny and my grass is cut just as nicely as yours? Equally important, it stretches the resources of our community to provide for folks who don’t pay.
So we turn to workplaces where there is union representation. Why should employees, who refuse to pay their fair share for the wage increases/pay raises, benefits, safe work conditions, representation in grievance procedures, etc, they enjoy because of union representation, be afforded those same benefits fought for by the dues paying union members in that workplace? This is clearly a ploy by RWers and the business community to disrupt the fabric of the employees in those workplaces to distrust each other.
zeke
December 15th, 2012
11:46 am
Our economy, government, citizens would be so much better off if unions are banned legally and Constitutionally!! Socialist commie groups do not belong in our great country!
Patrick Scott
December 15th, 2012
7:17 pm
so much for freedom zeke!! you are such a constitutionalist!
Allan Richardson
December 15th, 2012
7:42 pm
Zeke would probably be the first to complain about HIS wages and working conditions if that were to happen. Of course, then it would do no good to complain If American jobs pay too much for you, Zeke, how about working in China? Or take a time machine back to good OLD America in 1880 and work in the Pittsburgh Carnegie steel plant.