Branco’s page is Cartoonist A.F.Branco

Unions have never been great students of economics. The fact that our current President and Senate Majority Leader pay them so much homage shows that perhaps our federal government also does not fully comprehend how a real free economy actually functions.

Next Friday, “Black Friday” as it is called, is the beginning of profitability for many retailers. Now, many union-influenced Wal-Mart employees are planning a massive walkout just as many American consumers are preparing to do the bulk of their holiday shopping.

Unions aren’t only going after toys and electronics. Twinkies, cupcakes, ho hos, ding dongs, suzy q’s, sno balls, zingers and danishes may all cease to exist once Hostess decides to close its doors. While Hostess has reached an agreement with it’s teamsters union, the baker’s union is holding the company hostage. Hostess has asked for a 4% overall pay cut to deal with the downturn in the economy and the unions have refused. As of 5pm today, the highly-specialized Twinkie bakers of hostess had not yet agreed to return to work – Hostess has said that it can no longer afford the union’s demands and will seek to close the company and sell all assets.

The Irving, Texas-based company employs about 18,300 people nationwide and filed for Chapter 11 protection in January, its second trip through bankruptcy court in less than a decade. Hostess cited increasing pension and medical costs for employees as one of the drivers behind its latest filing.

In economic downturns, many Americans have had to take less pay, fewer benefits, jobs that offer less or no job at all. Who does the baker’s union think buys Twinkies? With Hostess in its second bankruptcy, it is more likely that union demands will drive it out of business and the “bakers” will have to find work elsewhere – if they can. As Hostess employee Marty Raymond put it, ”I’m 59 years old. I’d like to get five more years, and I’ve been working with all these workers all these years and they just don’t want to listen. They listen to the union.”

With all the talk of “shared sacrifice” from the President, the unions are looking like the most greedy of all. The economy is struggling and so are most Americans. To have a certain segment of the population decide that they deserve more while the rest of us do with less is greed – pure and simple. What’s worse is that less than 20% of the Hostess workforce is on strike – the rest will lose their jobs over union demands.

Wal-Mart employees are important because the store won’t operate without managers, stockers, cashiers and receivers. While they are free to voice their grievances  their jobs are not so highly-specialized that it will be difficult to replace them – especially in today’s job market. I am not sure that Twinkie bakers are much more specialized as the recipe is standardized, repeatable and could probably be shepherded through the automated cycle by anyone that prefers a paycheck over unemployment assistance.

The Hostess jobs are the type that could easily be moved to other countries. It requires no special education, no lengthy training, no licensing or certifications. The FDA wouldn’t care if the Ho Ho’s were made here or Mexico as long as the ingredients and methods stayed the same.

Unions are an out-moded idea. During the early 20th century they helped raise awareness and combat worker abuses. Now they just seek higher compensation than the market would otherwise dictate. Seriously, if there were a huge need for dessert cake bakers, wages would rise on their own so processed food cookeries could attract the best talent. Oddly, that’s not happening so the unions have to step in to artificially inflate wages and benefits.

If turning a blind-eye to the free market economy weren’t enough, the National Labor Relations Board – a highly-political government organization – is expected to force businesses to give personal information to unions:

The National Labor Relations Board is expected to start work on a rule that would force businesses to turn over workers’ phone numbers, emails and shift times to union organizers.

In the end, the average American family loses. Some will find Wal-Marts with long lines or closed doors on the heaviest shopping day of the year. Other’s will find their jobs ended by a few greedy union leaders bent on absolute rule over the economy.

Some customers at a Georgia Wal-Mart were stuck with hypodermic needles hidden in clothes on Black Friday. I would say it’s a bit more than disturbing.

This basic idea can be seen in the story of Upton Sinclair and his book “The Jungle.” In the popular narrative, his investigative journalism changed the meat packing industry. What is not known is that the industry itself wanted regulation. A Big Meat, as it would be called today, spokesman said as much to Congress. Government regulation behooved the major packers because the regulation pushed smaller and ironically more sanitary meat packers out of business due to the cost of the regulations, and also provided the commercial benefit of a federal seal by which to further sell their product.

Government meddling in business in fact causes corporatism. The free-market keeps business at a safe distance from the government. In other words, capitalism is what the Wall Street protesters should be begging for, not protesting against. The story of Microsoft is a modern example of this idea. For a long time Bill Gates bragged about the fact that his company, Microsoft, had no interest in government. He was being honest- Microsoft had but a single lobbyist- that is until he was attacked for being a monopolist. Now he has a veritable army on k-street. Wal-Mart is another enlightening example of this. In 2000, the company was ranked 771^st in direct contributions to Federal politicians. After being attacked by unions and politicians, Wal-Mart had developed the single largest corporate political action committee by 2004.

The only people that are helped by government intervention are large companies and politicians. Small companies and consumers take the hit: consumers in paying higher prices and small companies by being pushed out of the market. It seems that the protesters are protesting for what they claim to be against. Economics and civics are complicated and the people funding these protests rely on those who join them to be too lazy or ignorant to understand either. For now it looks like they are right.

WASHINGTON, DC – The Supreme Court ruled today on Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, in a case that considered whether roughly 1.5 million employees of Wal-Mart could file a class action lawsuit claiming discrimination. In a 9 to 0 decision, the Court ruled that the 1.5 million employees could not be considered a class and sue the nation’s larger employer.

Carrie Lukas, managing director:

This is good news for anyone concerned about our economy and joblessness. When companies spend their time defending themselves against lawsuits, they have less money to focus on hiring workers and expanding their businesses.

Discrimination is illegal, and employees who are treated unfairly should have their day in court, but companies also have to have the ability to defend themselves. Lumping together the experiences of 1.5 million employees spread throughout the country in different positions and with different bosses doesn’t advance justice.

Nicole Neily, executive director:

The plaintiff’s case relied on statistically evidence that female employees make less on average than men do, but as we’ve seen with more careful analysis, such statistics tend to be misleading. Many factors drive differences in pay. You can’t just assume that all statistical discrepancies are evidence of discrimination.

Kat Ciano, senior fellow:

While there is no legal limit on the number of plaintiffs that can band together to join a class action suit, the group of women seeking certification as a class in the Wal-Mart litigation number over 1.5 million — a group larger than the combined active duty of the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. This is an enormous group forced together despite major distinctions among its members. To qualify as a class action a group must prove that they are “similarly situated.” Simply being female does make members of this group ‘similar.’ Yet for the Supreme Court to ignore distinctions across education levels, job skills, experience, and position sought at Wal-Mart would fundamentally change the way courts understand classes of people, and open the door for a flood of new, ill-conceived class action suits.

Sabrina Schaeffer, senior fellow:

I applaud the Supreme Court for its decision. It was absurd to think that Wal-Mart systematically discriminated against millions of women, regardless of job description or store location. In the aggregate, women are outperforming men in terms of college-graduation rates, advanced degrees, purchasing power and even, in some cities, earnings. Today’s victory helps underscore the fact that the best explanation for differences in pay between men and women comes down to choices – not discrimination. Perhaps now the feminist left will begin to accept that equality under the law doesn’t necessitate gender parity across all professional arenas.

Anna Rittgers, senior fellow:

With today’s ruling, the Supreme Court has affirmed that all Americans deserve due process, whether male or female, employee or employer. The mere allegation of sex discrimination against an employer is not enough to dispense with federal court rules and procedures for bringing forth class action lawsuits.

Class action lawsuits are only proper if the plaintiff class members’ claims against the defendant are sufficiently alike. The only thing uniting these class members was that they were women who had received a paycheck from Wal-Mart.

Proof of a common, company-wide culture of discrimination against women cannot be found in a few individuals’ anecdotal accounts and statistical discrepancies between men’s and women’s pay. Wal-Mart’s company policies, like every other major corporation in America, explicitly prohibit discrimination and encourage diversity among its employees. It should not be easier to file a class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart simply because it has deep pockets.