Labor Day 2002 (the perfect socialist holiday) join together for the Labor Liberation Act

Today, millions of Americans celebrate Labor Day by staying home, watching television, barbecuing, and producing almost nothing of value. It is the perfect socialist holiday -- nobody does anything and everybody pretends to be hard workers. What is so magical and wonderful about laborers? Why don't we have CEO Day? Or Entrepreneur Day? In capitalist America, we ought to be celebrating the risk takers, the innovators, and the noble heroes that have created the wealthiest nation in the history of mankind. Instead, we are paying homage to the tradition of savage union thugs.

Labor Day became a national holiday in 1894 when President Grover Cleveland caved into political pressure from socialist union boss Eugene V. Debs. Debs -- who led the American Railway Union -- organized his workers in an illegal strike because a slumping economy had caused his workers' wages to fall. Though President Cleveland deployed federal troops to break the strike, public sympathies with the union induced the Congress and the President to agree on the creation of a new national holiday to honor workers. In triumph, American Federation of Labor President Samuel Gompers stated:

"[Labor Day is the day] that the workers of our day may not only lay down their tools of labor for a holiday, but upon which they may touch shoulders in marching phalanx and feel the stronger for it."

Lay down their tools of labor? Anyone who has ever seen union employees "working" knows that these people never pick up their tools. As a wise economist once told me, "Union labor ought to be tied to the means of production...literally."

Gompers' communist vision of workers marching around together, uniting in a world struggle against capitalists became a reality in Soviet Russia for nearly 75 years. Even after witnessing decades of savage murders, endless repression, and total elimination of personal liberty in Russia, today's union bosses continue to advocate Castro-style economic policies. And each year, we pay homage to these people. When will the insanity end?

It is time for conservatives and libertarians to join together to support the Labor Liberation Act of 2002. This modest proposal, authored by me, is just a starting point for expanding liberty and freedom for America's workers. There will be three sections of this legislation:

Section I: Abolition of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the immediate repeal of all federal workplace regulations.

First, the obvious -- the Founding Fathers would have been horrified to know that the Constitution had been perversely interpreted by Leftist judges so as to allow the federal government to regulate private businesses' health and safety standards.

"What the heck are you talking about, Sabia!" you say, "How can safer and healthier work environments hurt workers?"

Simply put, these regulations limit voluntary exchanges by workers and employers. For example, say that a construction site has a lot of risks -- the possibility of falling debris, asbestos everywhere, radon oozing, etc. Why shouldn't a fully informed worker be free to choose to work in an "unsafe" environment if the wage he is offered fully compensates him for the risks he is taking? Why shouldn't the worker be free to choose where he wants to work and what wage he is willing to accept? Why should the federal government step in and paternalistically decide what is safe and what is not? The only role of the government ought to be to enforce contracts between workers and employers.

Instead of allowing voluntary exchanges, federal regulations may force the construction manager to shut down the project because it costs too much to meet workplace safety codes. Thus, even though there might have been workers who -- at a high enough wage -- would have been willing to work in an "unsafe" environment, the government prevents citizens from accruing gains from trade.

Workers in particular industries have their liberty infringed upon by compulsory union membership. This is known as a "closed shop" arrangement. For instance, in many states (such as New York), employment in supermarkets requires dues-paying membership in the United Food and Commercial Workers union. A laborer who wishes to work in this industry is compelled to join it without exception. In fact, the laborer cannot even choose to have his dues diverted from political advocacy for Leftist candidates.

Therefore, Section II of the Labor Liberation Act of 2002 will permit workers the freedom to choose whether or not they will be members of unions, rather than have the will of the majority strip away their freedom. Furthermore, union members will be free to choose to have the portion of their dues money that goes for political advocacy to go to the party or organization of their choice.

Would Section II cripple unions? You bet. But more importantly, these reforms would return freedom to individuals.

In the same spirit as Section I, workers ought to be free to choose to sell their labor at whatever price they wish. For example, if a worker agrees to work for a wage of $.50 per hour and an employer is willing to pay that wage, then both parties ought to be able to make a private voluntary arrangement and experience gains from trade. The federal government has no business interfering in these wage contracts.

Section III will particularly benefit the least productive (and therefore, poorest) workers. Under the current regime, rational employers will likely choose not to hire workers who produce less than $5.15 worth of services per hour. These individuals remain unemployed. However, the abolition of the minimum wage would permit an employer and an unproductive worker to agree on a contract that will make both parties better off.

So on this Labor Day, I urge adoption of the Labor Liberation Act of 2002. We can expand liberty, help workers, and drive Leftists completely insane. What a great Labor Day it could be!

I suppose that my employers could never give us any holidays (including Christmas), pay us the bare minimum, no paid vacation/sick leave, and have a health care plan so shitty they might as well not offer one. But, then they would have the Burger King revolving door for employees. Most of the people in my office have been there for quite a while. It may seem socialist to you, but it is actually quite capitalist. You want to keep good employees, you treat them well. The one who treats their employees best keeps the better employees.

People on both sides mistakenly believe that getting rid of minimum wage would drop wages. Not even close. Most would go up, because the race would be on to keep top people. Only a fool would believe someone would stay at his/her job for next to nothing.

Actually, it's called "sole proprietorship."

WRONG! - This is only one flavor of small business, and the least useful one at that. There are several. S corp and LLC are better. Either one gives you more protection if you have a small business rather than "sole proprietorship" You can be the CEO of a 1 person corporation. Likewise if you have a LLC. Sole p. is bad news if someone sues because your personal assets have no protection.

...it looks like the commies here won't like it.

I am a little surprised by the comments, although calling them "commies" is a bit harsh as I know at least one of them to be good people. Even so, the comments are surprising. We've apparently still got a lot of work ahead of us.

... like I said go celebrate your commie holiday.... Thanks, Comrade TLB ... I'm sure you, me, and most all the rest of the Freepers here will be celebrating "OUR" commie holiday here very well, but in a very Republican way, of course. I'm actualy off to work here, what are your plans ?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.