Union Corruption 2012: Big Labor’s Federal Rap Sheet

Union Corruption 2012: Big Labor’s Federal Rap Sheet.

Labor unions continue to make the headlines here in the U.S., and it is not all good news for them in spite of the support they receive from our current government administration. Lachlan Markay posted this revealing article Nov.27, 2012 at “The Foundry” website operated by “The Heritage Foundation”. He reports on the federal cases involving labor union corruption in 2012 – and it is quite  a list!

America’s labor unions have amassed quite a federal rap sheet in 2012. According to the Justice Department, union officials nationwide have been arrested for or convicted of embezzlement, extortion, bribery, racketeering, money laundering, fraud, and witness tampering so far this year.

Below are summaries of criminal actions taken against union officials so far this year. Note that these are federal cases, and therefore exclude any criminal activity prosecuted at the local or state levels.

After listing case after case, which you may find in the full story at the link above, Markay has this to say:

Pervasive union corruption reinforces the case for right-to-work laws, which allow employees to choose whether or not they wish to pay dues to the unions active in their places of work. Should employees be forced to finance organizations that may acting illegally or against their interests, after all?

What’s more, explained Heritage’s James Sherk in a recent Issue Brief, under current law, “a union president can legally fire [other union] officials for virtually any reason—including reporting misconduct. Nothing in the law shields union officials from retaliation for whistle-blowing, even though they are the people most likely to uncover corruption.”

Pervasive union corruption underscores the need for just these sorts of protections. The extent of that corruption could be far greater than the 12 cases listed above, but may simply go unreported. Since union officers themselves are the ones most likely to observe wrongdoing, protections for them can be essential to rooting out criminal activity.

The above is not the only thing wrong with today’s labor unions (see some of my previous posts by doing a search on “labor unions” – or see this post), but it underscores how abusive some union leaders have become and what ungodly conduct they believe they have the “right” to do because of the power given to them. May we who are Christian businessmen and Christian workers reveal a different attitude and action – one that honors the Christ Who saved us and Whom we serve.

Unions Out to Divide and Conquer Workplaces

Unions Out to Divide and Conquer Workplaces.

You no doubt heard about the attempts of liberals and unions to remove conservative governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin in a recall election a few weeks ago. That too revealed the growing weakness of unions in this country. But “down” does not mean “out” for the unions, as this follow-up report from the Heritage Foundation reveals (posted June 12, 2012). They will always have new tactics in their heads and up their sleeves, and so they do indeed again.

As you know, on Saturday I like to post things relating to the “Christian and culture”, or “worldview” items. I also like to follow the power, principles and practices of the unions in this country, because I believe they are fundamentally opposed to the Christian world and life view as laid out by God’s Word. Living the antithesis means opposing the anti-Christian mindset and actions of the unions. Articles such as this one, though not necessarily written from a Christian perspective, nevertheless help us see why we should be opposed.

Here are some of the things found in the above-linked report; find the entire article at that link.

 

Unions suffered a resounding defeat in Wisconsin last week. They’re far from down and out, however. Unable to reverse their decline in membership under existing law, they are circumventing Congress and using the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to create an entirely new type of union. A new rule hatched by the Obama-appointed board, authorizes the creation of union cells—organizing a few employees within a company to gain a foothold—which will severely impact businesses.

Until recently, employees organized based on shared job characteristics—for example, all the hourly employees at a firm. The new practice allows micro-unions representing only a small minority of workers in a company. Instead of a grocery store’s employees having a union, the store could face separate unions for cashiers, shelf-stockers, and janitors.

The NLRB permitted this in its Specialty Healthcare decision last year, allowing organized labor to form unions by job title. A decision last month by one of the NLRB’s regional directors demonstrated just how harmful—and absurd—a policy this is. The regional director green-lit a union election at the Bergdorf Goodman department store. But most employees will not get to vote; only shoe salesmen will cast ballots. Not all shoe salesmen, however. Only those selling women’s shoes.

Teacher’s Unions Earn “F” for Wisconsin Recall Abuse

Teacher’s Unions Earn “F” for Wisconsin Recall Abuse | CNSNews.com.

In light of the smashing victory of Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin over union power this past week,  conservative journalist Michelle Malkin offered these post-recall election thoughts (June 6, 2012). In spite of the positive image unions try to portray, their real motives and tactics are revealed in a case like this. But then, what do you expect from godless organizations? Another reason why Reformed Christians may not and must not be part of such “brotherhoods”.

Here is part of Malkin’s comments; you will find the full article at the link above.

They really outdid themselves. In Wisconsin and across the nation, public school employee unions spared no kiddie human shields in their battle against GOP Gov. Scott Walker’s budget and pension reforms. Students were the first and last casualties of the ruthless Big Labor war against fiscal discipline.

To kick off the yearlong protest festivities, the Wisconsin Education Association Council led a massive “sickout” of educators and other government school personnel. The coordinated truancy action — tantamount to an illegal strike — cost taxpayers an estimated $6 million. Left-wing doctors assisted the campaign by supplying fake medical excuse notes to teachers who ditched their public school classrooms to protest Walker’s modest package of belt-tightening measures.

When they weren’t ditching their students, radical teachers steeped in the social justice ethos of National Education Association-approved community organizer Saul Alinsky were shamelessly using other people’s children as their own political junior lobbyists and pawns. A Milwaukee Fox News affiliate caught one fourth-grade teacher dragging his students on a “field trip” to demonstrate against Walker at the state Capitol building.

The pupils clapped along with a group of “solidarity singers” as they warbled: “Scott Walker will never push us out, this house was made for you and me.”

Hundreds of high school students from Madison were dragooned into marches. When asked on camera why they had skipped school, one told a reporter from the Wisconsin-based MacIver Institute: “I don’t know. I guess we’re protesting today.” Happy for the supply of warm young bodies, AFSCME Local 2412 President Gary Mitchell gloated: “The students have been so energized.”

“Energized”? How about educated, enlightened and intellectually stimulated? Silly parents. Remember: “A” isn’t for academics. It’s for “agitation” and “advocacy.” Former National Education Association official John Lloyd’s words must not be forgotten: “You cannot possibly understand NEA without understanding Saul Alinsky. If you want to understand NEA, go to the library and get ‘Rules for Radicals.'”

Unionization battle roils University of Michigan

Unionization battle roils University of Michigan | Inside Higher Ed.

For the first of our “Christian and culture watch” issues today we reference an interesting story which appeared this past Wednesday (March 21, 2012) on the website “Inside Higher Education” about a battle our new governor has had with University of Michigan graduate research students who wanted the right to unionize. Gov. Snyder signed a new bill into law denying them this “right”, arguing they were students of the University and not employees of the state. It is another significant decision limiting the powers of unions in our pro-union state, something other governors have had to do in their own states due to budget constraints (e.g., New Jersey and Wisconsin). Even though Snyder’s reasons were chiefly financial, we applaud his very unpopular (with unions!) efforts to keep unions in check and bring our great state back to financial accountability and respectability.

Here is the opening of the article, which (given its source) is quite sympathetic to the student researchers. You may find the complete story at the link above or below.

 

When some University of Michigan graduate student research assistants started a drive to unionize about two years ago, they never imagined that their campaign would result in the governor signing a bill to prevent them and other graduate research assistants from organizing at public universities in the state.

But that is what happened earlier this month, when Governor Rick Snyder signed a bill, which says that graduate research assistants at public universities in the state are students and not employees — and thus ineligible for collective bargaining. (While the National Labor Relations Board governs collective bargaining rights at private institutions, states do so for public colleges and universities.)

Tensions are growing, as campus battles get intertwined with larger political battles in the state. And just like in Wisconsin and Ohio, the issue has grown into a bigger debate about collective bargaining and who should or should not be entitled to it. Michigan arguably has the strongest history of collective bargaining in the country, and when graduate students working as teaching assistants at the University of Michigan won its first contract in 1975, their union was one of the first in the country to do so. Now, the university’s Graduate Employees Organization, which is affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers, has joined a campaign called Protect Our Jobs, which is seeking a measure on the November ballot that will guarantee collective bargaining rights in the state’s constitution to all workers.

Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/03/21/unionization-battle-roils-university-michigan#ixzz1q28Nkktn
Inside Higher Ed

Chrysler, UAW, and the Michigan Worker

How Chrysler Can Actually Help Detroit.

One of the significant issues which has risen again in the last few years is that of labor unions. Because unions had lost so much power (and jobs!) for some time, they faded out of the labor picture as a major factor. But now, with a government that favors and promotes labor unions, they are back in the picture in a major way. The tax-payer bailout of GM and Chrysler and their subsequent “success” has regenerated unions and returned them to some of the old swagger. We especially here in Michigan get to hear about and witness this union resurgence.

But, as we have noted here many times, we are opposed to labor unions, chiefly on spiritual/moral grounds (Biblical), believing labor unions are contrary to what God wills for the Christian worker in terms of attitude and activity toward his employer (If you wish to read more on this, go here).

But unions are bad for other reasons too, and the Heritage Foundation consistently shows why. This past Tuesday (Feb.28,2012) another fine article was posted under their “Morning Bell” headline, in which they explain why other car companies (non-union) choose NOT to do business in Michigan and other non “Right-to-Work” states. Arguments such as these also need to be heard, and as Christian workers, whether affected by the unions or not, we need to stay informed of what unions are doing to work and workers here in Michigan and beyond. Here is part of Rory Cooper’s article; read the rest at the link above:

 

Did you know that there are no Volkswagen manufacturing plants in the Detroit area? Or Mercedes-Benz? Or Kia? Or Hyundai? Or BMW, for that matter? The Motor City has a well-earned reputation for having the greatest auto workers in the nation, yet honorable Michiganders largely build cars for only three companies.

Apart from having their cars assembled in Michigan, it turns out that those three companies have something else in common: the United Auto Workers union (UAW). It also turns out that every other car manufacturer has something in common, too: not wanting the UAW to do to them what it did to the Big Three.

Today, President Obama will address the UAW, and he should receive a rousing welcome. After all, his terms of the auto bailout richly rewarded his union allies at the expense of non-union employees and private investors, giving them, among other prizes, a very large stake of ownership in Chrysler. And together, they stand adamantly opposed to “right-to-work” laws that would empower the nation’s unemployed to find economic security with a non-union job.

Right-to-work legislation protects employees from being fired for not paying union dues. Without that protection, workers are forced to support a union financially even if they’d rather spend their hard earned dollars at home, if the union contract harms them, or if they’re opposed to the union’s agenda. And if they don’t, they lose their jobs. Obviously, when given the freedom of choice, many workers choose not to unionize.

Twenty-three states have right-to-work laws. But in Michigan, the powerful unions are preventing this job-creating measure from succeeding. And it is costing the state’s workers dearly.

…If an enterprising auto worker in Detroit wanted to work for one of these companies that offer competitive pay, good benefits and the ability to get raises and promotions based on merit, rather than seniority, they would be out of luck. And that’s simply because the Big Three, including UAW-owned Chrysler, have colluded with the auto union to keep those jobs out of reach by opposing policies in Michigan that would encourage rival automakers to locate there.

And while unions may offer their members certain benefits that are desirable, if not unsustainable, what they don’t offer is job security. Unlike in efficient, non-unionized manufacturing operations, unionized manufacturers are often forced into rounds of layoffs. There are about as many non-union manufacturing jobs today as in the late 1970s. During that time three-quarters of unionized manufacturing jobs have disappeared.

So when Chrysler started running ads during the past two Super Bowls touting itself as a savior of Detroit, as its beacon of hope, it was perplexing.

Chrysler employs a little over 4,000 employees in the city of Detroit, with 1,100 of these jobs recently “added,” as Chrysler would say. In reality, these were previously-downsized jobs restored, and according to WXYZ in Detroit, they did it by giving their employees an additional 49 days off of work every year — an inefficient union-centric business model that creates the conditions that necessitate bailouts and layoffs.

By contrast, according to Kia, more than 10,000 jobs were created by the opening of its plant in West Point, Ga., in 2009, and it’s still expanding. The Mercedes-Benz plant in Tuscaloosa, Ala., has 4,000 line workers. Volkswagen and Hyundai both built plants in the last ten years that employ 2,000 workers. And the list goes on.

Right to Work Heads to Indiana

Right to Work Heads to Indiana.

On this second Saturday in February our first “culture”  issue concerns the passage of a pro-worker (not “anti-union”, as the media likes to report it) bill in the state of Indiana. The Heritage Foundation in one of its “Morning Bell” reports noted this significant news about Indiana’s proposed “right-to-work” law back on Jan.30, 2012. Since then we have learned Indiana has in fact become the 23rd “Right-to-Work” state. This is good news for workers and for state economies suffering under unyielding unions with their greedy desires and demands. To learn more of what this law means and how it has benefited other states, read below. The full story is at the link above.

In 22 states in the Union, workers have the freedom under “Right-to-Work” laws to decide whether or not to pay union dues, and now Indiana is poised to become the twenty-third state on that list, bringing the workers there renewed hope in an economy that has seen few glimmers of light.

Last week, Indiana’s House and Senate passed a right-to-work bill after weeks of political maneuvering by pro-union politicians hoping to stop the proposal in its tracks. Today, the legislation returns to the state’s Senate for a final vote, and Governor Mitch Daniels (R) has promised to sign the bill into law. Meanwhile, a dozen labor unions have protested the measure, with threats to “occupy” the Super Bowl to be held in Indianapolis next week. Nationally, right-to-work states have become a target, as well. Last year, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) took aim at the Boeing Corporation for its decision to locate a new factory in South Carolina, a right-to-work state. The NLRB attempted to stop Boeing from making fundamental decisions about where to do business — ultimately, it dropped the case after union negotiators reached a deal that benefited their members in a union state.

Proponents of Indiana’s measure — which protects workers from being fired for not paying union dues — say that the law will help the state attract more businesses and jobs, spurring economic growth. And there’s data that proves it. Heritage’s James Sherk writes that right-to-work states have lower unemployment rates (9.2 percent) than states without right-to-work laws (9.9 percent). And though critics say that could be a result of regional differences (right-to-work states are mostly in the South and West), research comparing counties across state lines shows that, “The share of manufacturing jobs in counties in right-to-work states is one-third higher than in adjacent counties in non–right-to-work states,” as Sherk explains.

It’s understandable that states would want the benefits that right to work brings, but it’s also understandable why unions oppose it so strongly. When Idaho and Oklahoma passed right-to-work laws, union membership fell 15 percent. Likewise, all the dues the unions collect plummeted right along with their membership. Sherk writes that in Indiana, right to work would save private-sector workers $18.4 million a year. In union-stronghold Michigan, where some are pushing for the law, workers would save $46.4 million a year. And though unions claim that right to work undermines their ability to keep wages high — truly the bread-and-butter of the union movement — most studies show that right-to-work laws have little effect on wages in either direction.

Workers, Labor Unions, and the “Right” to Work

South Carolinians Have A Right to Work.

South Carolina has been in the news much this week with the Republican presidential primary being held there today. Front and center throughout all the debates and discussions has been the issue of the economy and job creation. One of the more interesting articles written on this issue, which also involves the power of labor unions (in more ways than one, as our current president has the support of the unions – as South Carolina knows!) is this “Morning Bell” report published by the Heritage Foundation this past week (Jan.17, 2012). Here is a part of the article; read the rest at the link above.

At the center of the issue was the fact that South Carolina is one of 22 right-to-work states, meaning that workers there have the freedom to decide whether to join a union or not. Right-to-work laws block companies from firing workers for not paying union dues, thereby protecting employees’ right to work regardless of their support for unions. In the case of Boeing, the Obama Administration — by way of the NLRB — sought to prevent the company from making fundamental decisions about where to do business, all because it wanted to open a plant in a right-to-work state. (Ultimately, the NLRB dropped the case after union negotiators reached a deal that benefited their members in a union state.)

Big labor, of course, abhors right-to-work laws because they threaten unions’ ironclad grip on employees — along with the dues they are forced to pay and the resulting political buying power the unions amass. (By some estimates, unions spent some $400 million in the last presidential election.) However, right-to-work laws have positive effects for states where they are adopted — in short, they bring much-needed jobs and investment. James Sherk, senior policy analyst in labor economics at The Heritage Foundation, explains:

Businesses want to know that, if they treat their workers well, unions will leave them alone. Right-to-work makes that more likely — and businesses notice. Studies show right-to-work laws are a major factor in business location decisions. It was no accident that Boeing built its new 787 assembly line in right-to-work South Carolina. Neither was it coincidence that most new auto plants have been built in right-to-work states. More investment means more jobs.

Consider two counties that border each other across a state line, one in a right-to-work state and the other not. These counties have similar economic conditions, similar demographics, and similar climates. But the county in the right-to-work state has an average of one-third more manufacturing jobs. Right-to-work laws encourage investment and job creation.

Not surprisingly, other states are looking to follow in South Carolina’s footsteps. Indiana’s legislature is debating whether to make its state right-to-work, and legislators in Maine and Michigan have introduced right-to-work bills. They undoubtedly see the benefit of making their states more competitive and freeing employees to make decisions about whether or not to support unions.

Blocking NLRB’s Pro-Unionization Efforts

House to Vote on Blocking NLRB’s Pro-Unionization Efforts.

For the sake of my new readers (and previous ones too!), for my Saturday posts I usually find some news/stories/commentaries relating to issues involving the Christian and culture. It is good for us to be informed of what is happening in the world in which we are called to be “in it but not of it”, so that we may live antithetically (for God and against the wickedness of our age) according to the sovereign, particular grace (never “common”) given us in Christ. Sometimes these “culture” posts relate to marriage and family, sometimes to politics and the state, sometimes to work and labor, and other times to entertainment and recreation. Whatever the issue may be, we look at it through the lens of God’s Word, guided by the Spirit of our Lord, seeking to be His lights in a dark place.

For our first “culture watch” item today we take a look at this Heritage Foundation “Morning Bell” report, which carried this significant story and appeal this past Wednesday (Nov.30, 2011). It concerns the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) on-going attempts to give unions an unfair advantage when trying to organize workers into new unions. A bill from the House of Representatives protecting the rights of workers was was set to be voted on on Wednesday.

Below are the facts about the issues. You may read the full story at the link above (There is also a link to a Washington Times story in the material below). I also have previous posts on the issue of unions. Just do a search (in the search box in the right column) on “unions”.

What does it take to bring an airline to its knees? Uncompetitive union-negotiated labor contracts and a fundamental unwillingness to recognize that in a down economy, unions have a hard time raising wages without destroying jobs.

That was a lesson that unions refused to learn in the case of American Airlines, which yesterday announced that it has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, making it the last large U.S. full-fare airline to seek court protection from creditors. American was forced to take that action when the airline pilots union refused to budge on its demands for massive signing bonuses and wage increases. The airline’s competitors are flying high in profits after restructuring union contracts in their own bankruptcy proceedings.

Unions also didn’t learn any lessons after taxpayers bailed out General Motors and Chrysler, and then-White House “auto-czar” Ron Bloom gave the UAW preferential treatment in the restructuring process despite their contracts being largely at fault.

And, this is a lesson that still has not penetrated the walls of the Obama White House. The President’s appointees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) want businesses to be unionized at all costs, even if it means harming both workers and the economy. They’re trying to make it happen by ramming through measures that would help expand unionization in America.

Today, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on the Workplace Democracy and Fairness Act, introduced by Committee on Education and the Workforce Chairman John Kline (R-MN). The bill protects the right of workers to decide whether or not to unionize. That’s a right that the NLRB would like to drastically weaken.

The Truth About Public School Teacher Pay

The Truth About Public School Teacher Pay.

 

Those of us who support both public schools (through taxes) and private schools (through principle, prayer, and pocketbook), know that our Christian school teachers sacrifice greatly to teach in our private schools. We and they know they could make much more money working in the public school system. Yet they are committed to serving Christ and His children, and know that comes at a cost, literally. Which is why we thank God for our dedicated teachers – for their service to our schools and for their sacrifice for Christ’s cause, including financially. That is not to say we should not strive to pay our Christian school teachers at the best level that we are able. After all, if we value them and their work in the kingdom, we should compensate them accordingly. Just as we should do for ministers of the gospel.

 

This article by the Heritage Foundation this past week shows again why our state and federal budgets are in the mess they are, and how powerful the teachers unions are in fighting for teacher’s “rights” – to have high salaries and abundant benefit packages. Read the article, and then thank God for our own teachers, whose humble spirit (along with that of the parents) drives our schools.

 

Last winter, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R) traveled his state, holding a series of townhalls in which he touted a significant but politically unpopular plan: asking public school teachers to accept a pay freeze and begin contributing 1.5 percent of their salaries toward their health care plans, whereas before they paid nothing. It’s a battle that pitted Christie against powerful teachers unions, and it’s a fight that has brought the issue of teacher pay to the center of the public square.

That battle has played itself out across the country. Earlier this year in Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker (R) faced a $3 billion structural deficit and the fourth-highest tax burden in the country. Among the reforms he enacted were limits to collective bargaining power and reform of public employee benefit plans, which included asking public-sector employees (including teachers) to make a 5.8 percent contribution into their pension plans and pick up the tab for 12 percent of their health care benefits, whereas before they paid nothing. Walker’s actions led to unionized education employees leaving schools in protest and Democratic lawmakers fleeing the state in order to prevent the plan from passing the legislature.

Today, Governor John Kasich of Ohio (R) faces a similar fight. Earlier this year, the state legislature enacted reforms of public sector union benefits, but now the issue is up for repeal in a statewide ballot initiative.

The Employer/Employee Relation According to God

Labor Union Membership in the Light of Scripture.

 

And finally, on this Labor Day 2011, we include a link to and quote from the pamphlet of Prof.David J. Engelsma on the Protestant Reformed Churches ‘ position on labor unions, based on holy Scripture. This is an issue rarely discussed and debated any longer in Christian circles, but it is one we need to keep evaluating seriously “in the light of Scripture”, or we will lose our principles and our practice. I quote from the section treating the duties of both employer and employee according to God Himself:

 

The testimony of Scripture is that God has ordered, or structured, that basic sphere of human life known as labor in such a way that the owner of the farm or business has authority from God to govern.  He certainly has a calling from God toward the workers, a calling to give the workers “that which is just and equal,” or “fair” (Col. 4:1).  But he has authority, God’s own authority, and the duty of the worker is to submit and obey.

There are other reasons why labor union membership is sinful, and these will be mentioned presently.  But the central issue is this:  in the realm of labor, the owner, or management, has the right to rule, so that the Christian worker must submit. 

Scripture addresses the matter of the Christian’s behavior in the sphere, or ordinance, of labor.  It addresses the matter repeatedly.  Usually, it addresses this aspect of the Christian’s earthly life in connection with the other spheres of life:  marriage; family (parents and children); state, or civil government; and church.

These passages, among others, are the Word of God regulating the life of the Christian workingman in the sphere of labor:

–         Ephesians 6:5-8:  “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh.”

–         Colossians 3:22-25:  “Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh.”

–         I Timothy 6:1ff.:  “Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor.”

–         Titus 2:9ff.:  “Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters.”

–         Philemon:  the run-away slave, Onesimus, is sent back to his master, to serve him again.

–         I Peter 2:18ff.:  “Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear”; the apostle adds:  “not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.”

–         James 5:1-11, where the description of the godly conduct of the worker is, “he doth not resist you.”

In view of the fact that the Word of God orders our life in all other spheres, it would be exceedingly strange if Scripture did not command us how to live in the sphere of labor.  Indeed, it would be culpable failure on the part of the Spirit of inspiration to leave us in the dark, how to live in this vitally important sphere of earthly life.  The Spirit is guilty of no such failure.  The passages quoted above set forth the will of God for the Christian workingman clearly and fully. 

Some attempt to evade the will of God for the laborer, and thus evacuate Scripture of its instruction regarding the sphere of labor, by arguing that the New Testament passages refer to the out-dated system of slave-master and slave.  The argument fails.

First, Scripture sometimes refers to hired laborers, to workingmen who are not owned by the master, but rather work for a wage.  This is the case in I Peter 2:18ff., which speaks of “servants,” not “slaves.”  This is also the case in James 5, which speaks of the “hire of the laborers” (v. 4).

Second, although it is true that slavery was the prevalent form labor took at that time, the principles laid down by Scripture apply, not to that one specific form, but to all forms of labor in all ages. 

Third, the fact that the laborer was a slave does not detract from the calling of the free worker today, to submit, but emphasizes this calling even more strongly.  If slaves had to submit for God’s sake, how much more, workingmen today, whose circumstances are in any case far better than those of slaves.