Pro - Living Wage Group ACORN Criticized

NEW YORK (AP) -- Opponents of a leading advocacy group for ``living wage'' laws are calling attention to the group's recent reprimand for laying off three of its own employees because of their unionizing efforts.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, was reprimanded March 27 by federal labor officials who determined the group unfairly retaliated against employees at its Dallas office.

The National Labor Relations Board ordered ACORN, which is closely allied with labor unions, to reinstate the workers.

The case is highlighted in a report Thursday by the Employment Policies Institute, a business-backed research group that is a vocal critic of ACORN and its efforts to raise wages for low-paid workers.

In its ruling, the NLRB found that the manager of ACORN's Dallas office engaged in unfair labor practices by questioning employees about their interest in forming a union, and warned that other workers had been fired because of their union efforts. The supervisor also acted unfairly in targeting the three workers, the board found.

ACORN has led campaigns in cities including Boston, New Orleans, Minneapolis and Santa Monica, Calif., pushing local governments to adopt measures mandating pay above the minimum wage. The group and other advocates say such ``living wages'' are essential to guarantee that the lowest-paid workers can support their families.

Critics, including EPI, argue such measures drive up costs to businesses, leading them to cut the jobs of the people such measures are designed to help.

The recent ruling, along with past situations involving ACORN and its own employees, show the organization is hypocritical, the Employment Policies Institute says.

``ACORN is selling snakeoil in this whole campaign and their actions acknowledge it,'' said John Doyle, an EPI spokesman.

A spokesman for ACORN disputed that contention. The Dallas employees were laid off because the office was running short of money, not because of their union activity, said the spokesman, David Swanson, in an e-mail responding to questions.

Anti-union comments made the supervisor were ``contrary to official ACORN policy,'' he said.

``ACORN, unlike many who criticize us, firmly supports the National Labor Relations Act and right of all employees to form unions,'' Swanson said.

You'll love this:

February 1996

Increasing the Minimum Wage

The latest in a long running series of efforts to thwart the hopes and ambitions of the young and poor sped to success on January 23, when the Vermont House passed and sent to the Senate a bill once again increasing Vermont's minimum wage.
Under it, the present state minimum wage would increase from the present $4.75 an hour to $5.00 in 1997 and $5.25 in 1998. That will put the Vermont minimum wage 23% above the Federal minimum, which despite the best efforts of the labor unions and Labor Secretary Robert Reich, Congress is highly unlikely to raise any time soon.
The battle lines on this issue have long been sharply defined, and there are three, not two, opposing views on the subject.
The proponents of an ever higher minimum wage, largely Democrats and labor union activists, argue that "a family can't live on $4.75 an hour. The state should thus mandate that all covered employers must pay all of their employees at least $X an hour."
The major group of opponents, made up mostly of pro-business Republicans and employers of low skill employees, object on the grounds that a higher minimum wage simply drives up labor costs and makes those businesses less competitive. It may not matter much for local fast food outlets, but where customers have the options of cross-border, mail order, telephone and now Internet shopping, the labor cost differential sends patronage away from the high-wage retail and service businesses.
Since the legislators who identify with this second group see higher minimum wages as a burden on businesses, they have an unfortunate tendency to yield to political pressure, vote to raise the wage, and then find some way to make it up to injured businesses by tinkering with the tax code or workmen's compensation rules.
The third group views the minimum wage (a wage fixed above the free market level by a government mandate) as a crime against low-skilled working people, particularly young people just starting out. The most eloquent among this group are the noted economists Thomas Sowell at Stanford University and Walter Williams at George Mason.
Sowell and Williams, both of whom grew up black and poor, know that an above-market minimum wage is the death of opportunity especially for young blacks emerging with low skills from pathetic inner city public high schools. Sowell calls minimum wage increases "economic insanity and social callousness masquerading as compassion." Williams, in his remarkable book "The State Against Blacks", shows in detail how the minimum wage was deliberately designed by labor unions in the Thirties (and in apartheid South Africa) to tilt the scales against black workers competing for "white" jobs.
Even the liberal New York Times finds itself in this third group, editorializing that" legislators are right to search for ways to help the working poor, but wrong to think that raising the minimum wage is one of them." President Clinton himself took that position until pressure from the labor unions critical to his reelection forced him to come out for a minimum wage increase.
Sadly, this small and unorganized third group has virtually no influence on minimum wage debates. There is, alas, no powerful lobby of poor people who are fighting for opportunity to work their way into the middle class in a growing economy. In Vermont what passes for the "poor lobby", the Vermont Low Income Advocacy Council, is pretty much a mouthpiece for the anti-poverty bureaucracies, the unions, the redistributionists, and assorted indemnity-seekers.
The Council's counterpart in California, however, is made of better stuff. ACORN (Associations of Community Organizations for Reform Now) bills itself as "the largest low-and moderate-income membership organization in the country." Last year it filed suit in San Diego against the State of California, arguing that the state's minimum wage is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
ACORN's argument is that the State, by forcing ACORN to pay its political action workers $4.25 an hour, puts an effective limit on the number of advocates that can be hired with the group's limited funds, thus reducing the strength of its advocacy. An appeals court rejected the argument, but whether or not one buys the first amendment rationale, ACORN has figured out that minimum wages force would-be employers to cut back on their entry level workers.
Here in Vermont, the Democrats will weep over the low wage worker who needs more money. The Senate Republicans will reluctantly go along, looking meanwhile for some tax plum for business to redeem themselves for supporting increased labor costs. Nobody will speak for the young, low-skilled worker willing to start at $4.25 an hour and prove herself. And as a result, she'll be out of work, out of opportunity, and quite possibly onto welfare.
But this victim of labor price fixing will never amass the political power to fight back. It's a pity - a tragedy -that almost no one in Montpelier cares about her.

You'll love this: February 1996

Last year it filed suit in San Diego against the State of California, arguing that the state's minimum wage is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. ACORN's argument is that the State, by forcing ACORN to pay its political action workers $4.25 an hour, puts an effective limit on the number of advocates that can be hired with the group's limited funds, thus reducing the strength of its advocacy. An appeals court rejected the argument, but whether or not one buys the first amendment rationale, ACORN has figured out that minimum wages force would-be employers to cut back on their entry level workers.

When I read the current thread, my mind immediately jumped to THIS incident... and I cannot BELIEVE that it's the same group in both incidents!

Apparently no one at ACORN understands the term 'hypocrite'.

This group might be run by the absolute dumbest box of rocks ever created.

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.