How Banking Practices Create Unemployment

According to Associated Press finance writers Eileen Aj Connelly, and Dave Carpenter of Associated Press (et. al September 30, 2011) “38.7 million people carry Bank of America debit cards. However, the recently instated $5.00 will apply to various services that are offered by Bank of America not just debit cards.” The problem with Bank of America’s new service charge is that it will adversely affect its’ disabled and elderly customers. Nearly $ 4.5 billion of unauthorized overdraft fees are taken from people who are heavily dependent on Social Security.  Debit cards are the most frequent overdraft trigger for individuals existing on fixed incomes.

Bank practices intentionally maximize overdrafts by automatically approving debit purchases, debiting the highest dollar amount first then artificially increasing the number of fees that can charge. Although Bank of America has stated that it will not charge an overdraft fee for a client those account is overdrawn by an amount less than $10.00 at the end of the business day; depending upon the number of items purchased by a customer, the taxes on 2 – 3 items purchased by a customers can collectively exceed the $10.00 limit easily without the customers knowledge. Thus; if a customer is engaged in regular shopping habits they could exceed the $10.00 limit by the end of a normal business week.

 

Since a number of individuals living on fixed incomes are either: PWAs (People living with AIDS), HIV positive or possess other disabilities that have black balled them from the job market such as RMIs (recurring mental illness, which requires medications to maintain their high level of functioning and stability), see NEI’s March 08 issue of Socio-Economic Corner with J.R. Allen; overdraft fees can eat away from 1/10 to 1/5 of their monthly income – from $100.00 – $200.00 dollars of their SSI, SSDI checks leaving them with $700.00 to $600.00 dollars per month for living expenses in a climate of rising taxes, high unemployment and credit biased employers. Overdrafts can actually affect your credit score which in turn can decrease your chances of being hired by an employer.

Thus; Bank of America’s increased service fees could actually prevent those on fixed incomes from obtaining employment due to unintentional poor banking practices. According to Elias Westnedge, eHow Contributor, “Over drafting your bank account puts your account into a delinquent status. If the overdraft is not reversed or paid off, your account will be closed and sent to collections. Although over drafting your account does not directly affect your credit score, if not quickly resolved, it can damage your credit history by showing up on your credit report as a collection account, thus lowering your credit rating significantly.” For those on fixed incomes, it one bad month can create a series of bad months in a row. In short, for an individual on a fixed income one bad month can lead to closed accounts, bad credits ratings and even greater difficulty in obtaining employment.  

How Employment Assists in Mental Health/Substance Abuse Recovery

By: Jabram Raven Allen  

Meaningful employment positively impacts individuals in recovery from mental health and substance abuse by: 1) making them too tired to engage in former drug related activities directly after work, 2) bringing them under socialized peer pressure which can be exerted upon a macro (society as a whole ranging from employers to friends) and micro level (close associations), 3) implants healthy fears about losing hard won positions of respect within society and monetary rewards, 4) assist in developing and maintaining refusal skills – the ability to say – no – to their drug of choice, past dysfunctional behaviors and life style; thus, providing those in recovery from mental illness and substance abuse who are suffering from long term unemployment with meaningful jobs actually assist in their recovery as it reduces taxes – this is because taxes are utilized to pay for drug treatment programs, incarceration, and increased police presence in communities. According to, (et. al. 2009, Mental Health and Addiction 101 Series) Harm reduction can be defined as "any program or policy aimed at reducing harm related to substance use without requiring that the substance use be stopped. The program or policy may be aimed at the individual, family, community or society." Why not just provide them with volunteer positions?

The problem with this is that today’s volunteers including those that are in recovery from mental illness and substance abuse; especially those that are over thirty may be just as qualified as those individuals working as paid employees. Individuals over thirty struggling with recovery from mental health and substance abuse issues don’t just sit around and collect welfare and SSI checks. These individuals also engage in everything from volunteer positions, internships to formal education in order to return to work; unfortunately a number of these individuals may engage in these back to work activities for years without being rewarded for their efforts; thus, encouraging them to relapse and give up any hope of leading a normal life. According to BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) 2010 online publication relating to volunteerism within the U.S: whites volunteered at a rate of (27.8 percent), blacks at (19.4 percent) and Asians (19.6 percent); while Hispanics or Latinos, 14.7... Individuals with higher levels of educational attainment which includes those that possess college degrees who age 25 and over volunteered at a rate of 42.3 percent.

Although there are laws that that offer tax incentives for hiring long term unemployed individuals, these laws may not be enough to ensure that women and minorities in recovery from MHSA issues will be rehired back into the work force due to the problem of racism, and the stigma of substance abuse/mental illness. Yet, without question, hiring long term unemployed individuals in recovery is the best way to reduce government and tax payer spending.

Ask Santana

SF Lighthouse Church Clothing Line

According to (2011 The Associated Press)," Santana said in an impromptu news conference after the ceremony. "This is about fear. Stop shucking and jiving. People are afraid we're going to steal your job. No we aren't. You're not going to change sheets and clean toilets."  These are the two things I have against Mr. Santana’s statement 1st, like most anti-immigration advocates, he never addresses the immigration laws of other countries – particularly Mexico’s, or Costa Rica’s. However, Mexican authorities are known for their brutality and their refusal to allow illegal immigrants to protest against their treatment by Mexican authorities; in fact, Mexico’s, Arizona and Atlanta’s are similar. But, their similarities end with their actions; our government allows illegal immigrants to protest against their own treatment, and does not engage in the brutality that Mexico utilizes against them when they do so.

 

These are excerpts from articles outlining both Mexico’s and Costa Rica’s treatment of immigrants both legal and illegal, the 1st excerpt taken from USA Today is of Mexico’s, which is the largest single source of illegal immigrants in the United States, treatment of illegal immigrants: From USA Today (et al, Updated 5/25/2010 7:53 PM) "There (in the United States), they'll deport you," Hector Vázquez, an illegal immigrant from Honduras, said as he rested in a makeshift camp with other migrants under a highway bridge in Tultitlán. "In Mexico they'll probably let you go, but they'll beat you up and steal everything you've got first."

2nd excerpt From KarenRealEstate.com located in Costa Rica, ”If you are a pensionado (pensioner) or a rentista (renter), you will not have to pay taxes in Costa Rica, but you will have restrictions regarding the rights you have here. You can have your own business but you cannot be employed; for this you will need a permanent residence and obtain a work permit. You will need to have a rather large amount of documents ready. Unfortunately, there is no way around this; the first three documents listed below are mandatory for all types of residency, and are valid for a period of 6 months following their issue.

These are:

•             Police Certificate of Good Conduct

•             Birth Certificate

•             Marriage Certificate

However the list continues, the most important document mentioned which relates to the heading of my column is – Income Certificate for Pensionado and Rentista:  “This is required for only the applicant, and it is valid for 6 months. Pensionados -proof of a pension of at least US$1000/month stating that it is for life, and that it will be paid on Costa Rican soil.” This in combination with being able to own your own business, but cannot be employed would be difficult for impoverished U.S. citizens to accomplish considering our own socio-economic crisis; despite the fact that we refuse to acknowledge that we are still in crisis and facing an imminent jobs recession.

I am aware that utilizing Costa Rica will bring backlash from liberal opponents to what I’ve just said, so let me further express to you in writing how Costa Ricans’ feel about having individuals legal or illegal break their no work prohibition from Christopher Howard’s blog (et al, Live in Costa Rica 13 January 2011) “immigration police will be increased and in some cases they will deport anyone who is caught working without the proper documentation. This is not a major issue but what it boils down to is that you have people who are guests in a country and who are breaking the law.” What is also expressed in Howard’s blog is a desire to be protected from “hard core fringe elements” due to being surrounded by other South American countries that Costa Ricans hope will absorb less desirable immigrants on their way to Costa Rica.

Thus; attempting to utilize Costa Rica’s stance upon immigration as a rebuttal to my article is futile. In short, illegal immigrants are not a welcomed source of immigration to any nation that truly places the wellbeing of its native born citizens above corporate profits due to their impact upon both its national job market and those citizens still dealing with both historical and institutionalized discrimination.

To further add insult to my opponents’ argument against illegal immigration laws two of the countries that are attempting to sue the U.S. along with Mexico over its immigration laws Bolivia, and Argentina also possess and enforce tough immigration laws. In fact, both countries are known for deporting illegal immigrants on a routine basis; thus, attempting to launch a suite against the U.S. over its immigration policies is nothing short of blatant hypocrisy.

What no one seems to ask is if rather or not those Latin American countries seeking to sue the U.S. over its immigration policies are doing so as an attempt to sacrifice the U.S.’s declining wellbeing in an effort to protect their own countries from being overcome by the effects of illegal immigration; while also having the world community focus on U.S. anti-illegal immigration laws as they take measure to strengthen their own anti-immigration laws. These seem to be questions that pro-immigration groups and lobbyists are either afraid, or prefer not to be asked.  

The Eco-sphere vs. BP

Why BP’s Oil Spill is a Case for Right of Eminent Domain by US Government

By: Jabrim Raven Allen

Does BP’s $2 billion fund truly amount to a “shake down” of its financial assets by the President as stated by GOP Rep. Joe Barton, or just a slap on the wrist? Isn’t it BP that should be apologizing to both Great Britain and the United States; while offering to make amends for lives lost during the initial disaster and creating the greatest man-made disaster in both US and British histories? Politically, if the US were to exercise its right of “Eminent Domain” it would lose socio-political and economic confluence with Britain; thus further endangering its relationship with Britain which could affect its military campaign in Afghanistan; yet if Britain were to acknowledge the US’s right of “Eminent Domain” over BP, it could result in a loss of international prestige for Britain and endanger her own economic recovery due to the rest of her oil companies reputations being tainted by BP’s screw-up. In order to move away from the  political implications of Gulf Coast Disaster, it would be better to look at it in terms of one corporation vs. another. 

 

“Because of the Due Process Clause, a state government can't take the property of a corporation without using due process of law and providing just compensation for its lost. See article written by NYT (New York Times) for greater details. However, this would not apply to British Petroleum who has a $140 billion market cap and $30 billion in annual cash flow during normal times.” 

The yearly output of the entire biosphere, which consists of 16 biomes, has an annual cash flow of $33 trillion per year. In separating our Gulf Coasts biome’s annual cash flow from the annual cash flow of Earth’s collective biosphere; reducing it to 1/16 of the annual cash flow for the entire biosphere, it can be concluded that BP based upon its annual cash flow would not possess enough funds to repay the Gulf Coast for damages, or lost revenue caused by BP due to Bp’s oil spill which interrupted those daily business functions that resulted in its inability to provide safe, useable goods/services to its consumers. The Gulf Coast’s loss of revenue would be estimated to be 1/64 of $33 trillion per year -- $50 billion dollars for 1 business quarter. 

Since BP’s quarterly cash flow is $7.5 billion; $42.5 billion less than what it owes the Gulf Coast biome for damages and loss of revenue, Those states affected by BP’s oil spill would not have to provide BP with “just compensation” as part of the “Due Process Clause” since BP’s lack of funding would cause it to be indebted to Gulf Coast biome for 6 times its actual worth.  

In a legal battle, BP could be held responsible for paying the Gulf Coast biome’s its estimated loss in revenue since BP’s oil spill resulted in its loss of revenue and physical damages; thus, those states within US territory directly affected by BP’s oil spill as acting managing conservators for the Gulf Coast biome would be able to sue BP for damages and loss of revenue even if those damages can only be paid through surrendering BP’s assets to the Gulf Coast biome’s consumers who are also its managing conservators – the citizens of the united states. It is this situation that sets the socio-economic, political and moral frame work for our government to exercise “Right of Eminent Domain” over BP. However, who has the right of “Eminent Domain” and how does this affect the ruling by US District Court Judge Martin Feldman. 1) only the legislative branch of government has the ability to exercise right of “Eminent Domain”; 2) only the Supreme Court can make binding legal decisions, this would mean that by turning to the legislative branch of government the Obama administration would be able to over-turn Judge Feldman’s decision in a court of law and bring about a binding legal decision concerning the BP oil spill which would directly affect the Gulf Coast for generations if both were forced to make their appeal to the Supreme Court. Many believe that Judge Feldman based his decision upon his personal financial interests.

According to Mother Jones (ed. Artl 2010) Feldman has in recent years possessed monetary interests not only in Transocean—the world's largest offshore drilling company that’s responsible for the Deepwater Horizon rig, but also other energy companies engaged in offshore oil extraction. It is believed that in 2008 Feldman invested $15,000 in Transocean and has recently purchased stock in Haliburton, Prospect Energy, Hercules Offshore, Parker Drilling Co., and ATP Oil & Gas. Feldman was appointed as District Court Judge in 1983 by former President Regan. In 2008 according to Think Progress (ed. Artl., 2010) Feldman purchased Black Rock ($12000- $36000), Ocean Energy ($1000 – $2500), NGP Capital Resources ($1000 – $2500), Quicksilver, Resources ($5000 – $15000), Hercules Offshore ($6000 – $17500); thus between $57,500 - $88,500 in stocks. Unless there are Cayman accounts involved which Judge Feldman has not confessed too; this amount is hardly worth risking his career over. The only way that Judge Feldman could benefit from this decision is politically in terms of gaining political favors or future campaign donations which would be possible due to the entrenched oil dependent mentality of the Gulf Coast. According to Chron.Com (ed. Artl.,June 2010) “Gulf Coast state law makers and its oil & gas industry have urged the Interior Department to lift its deep-water ban, claiming that it’s unnecessarily destroying tens of thousands of jobs when the Gulf Coast is already struggling with unemployment in its fishing industry, and other spill-related losses.”

However, what is not being examined is the number of vacant jobs caused by the spill which need to be filled in order to contain it. According to Jobs.Aol.Com (ed, artl.,May 2010) 11,000 jobs have already been created due to clean up efforts. Perhaps what is not being considered is that the jobs which may be replaced are those that dealt with obtaining oil as opposed to protecting environment – in short, jobs based upon short term goals, fast cash for investors and speculators, and belief in the principles of capitalism may be replaced with jobs that are based upon long term goals, responsible management of resources and environment over profit.  It is this change of socio-economic dynamics within the Gulf Coast states that may be the reason for Judge Feldman’s decision in overturning the ban on off-shore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and the very reason why the US government may be forced to exercise its right of “Eminent Domain”.  

Hotel California Condemned Till Further Notice

Despite what has been said, we do not have to utilize billions of dollars to resolve our issues in California. First, let’s consider our immigration policies; if we were to actually enforce them, it would mean creating a split within the Left and siding with the Right. Personally, I could care less about the Left and its bizarre policies of justified white guilt, paternalism and back pedaling. In Cost Rica, an individual that is not a citizen is not allowed to work for two years, and even then must receive special permission to do so. Costa Rica has created this law to protect its people from being displaced by foreigners who may possess higher levels of education or technical skills. There are other countries in South America that also possess various laws dealing with immigration, legal or illegal. Yet, the Left never speaks about these laws; it never speaks about the attempts of South Americans to protect their countries from unwanted immigration from the U.S. or any other country. Why is that; could it be because they are afraid that once U.S. citizens realize their stance on immigration that we would be less sympathetic towards illegal immigrants from South American countries.

Could it be that if we were to place the faces of illegal immigrants on various communication devices accessible to the U.S. public businesses who state that they had no idea that they had hired an illegal immigrant would find themselves excuseless, or that if we were to circulate these images throughout our social service systems it would provide social service workers with an valid reason for denying services to individuals that are totally incapable of speaking English; after all how do you spend more than 3 years in California and not speak English. Since it is, or was the dominant language of our institutions and government; in fact, don’t most U.S. citizens speak English even if they do speak another language. Oops my bad, I live in California and don’t speak Spanish, but then again, California is not Mexico or South America – it’s the U.S. and its dominant language is English. Wow, I’m an English speaker by birth

Don’t we refuse to provide U.S. criminalized citizens with aid from social services, college educations, and even black ball them from employment as punishment for breaking the law.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, “it may be true that illegal immigrants provide the cheap labor that keeps many industries afloat; however, in 2005 illegal workers displaced American workers and depressed wages at a cost of $133 billion. When tax money provided by illegal laborers is subtracted from the cost of services they utilized while present within our borders it is discovered that a net loss still occurs despite their tax contributions. Cost for illegal persons living within the US amount to: $2.5 billion in Medicaid, $2.2 billion in medical treatment, $1.9 billion in food assistance, and $1.6 billion in prison and legal, and other miscellaneous costs creating a net fiscal deficit of $10.4 billion for the federal government”. The overall costs break down to about $2,700 per illegal household per year and these losses must be covered by tax money from American citizens or by our government borrowing more money, and further increasing the national debt.

In terms of labor, construction and social service projects, don’t we have students/interns and marginalized individuals who have enrolled in various training institutions that need actual work experience in their elective field of study in order to build respectable resumes; if so, why can’t we enlist them to assist in creating: housing for homeless individuals, repair and maintain our state’s physical and administrative infrastructure; while providing various social services to legalized Californian residents (umm excuse me, those who were legalized residents without any rule bending; cough, cough amnesty). Just expand the AmeriCorp, Californian Corps and Job Corps programs into real volunteer programs open to all native born and naturalized U.S. citizens regardless of age who are taking various courses in both community and four year colleges that are preparing them to fill the types of occupations listed above; in return for service we could offer “amnesty” to those who are delinquent on their student loans, and offer to decrease or eliminate the student loans of those who are just starting college, or are recently enrolled in some form of training requiring financial aid. Oh and you wannabe flower children stop coming here the 60's is long dead; unless you got some money, we don't need you here. We're hurting like everybody else. We’ve got nothing for ya. In short, why can’t we solve our problems in California by just being real about them.

How Non-profits Help Themselves by Serving the Working Poor As Poverty Pimps

In our hatred, we’ve referred to each other in various disparaging terms to describe each other's socio-economic position within our great society. The most common of these is trailer trash. However, I perceive that in our future there will be two groups of people – those that live in mansions and those that live in trailers. Thus; the poor of all stripes will be united as a trailer trash nation!

According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC),” 40 percent of those facing eviction from foreclosure in the US are renters; yet regulations on the rental industry vary state to state with little protection for those living in rental properties.” Since 2000 of this decade a manufactured home started and remained at $35,000.00 and moved upwards above $100,000.00this is in-spite of the economy’s changing condition.  Yet, this cannot be said for traditional homes; in bad condition traditional homes may start at $45,000.00 and sky rocket upward towards the economic stratosphere where it remains out of reach of first time home buyers earning realistic incomes – incomes that are quickly vanishing from sight.

Regardless of state of purchase $35,000.00 is the average starting price for a manufactured home anywhere in the US. However, the cost of vacant land required for these homes can actually vary depending upon its condition and use requirement. Within 12 years, provided that their medical care is administered through Medicare, a person living upon SSI, SSDI paying $300.00 per month could purchase a 1 bedroom single wide home, and still possess enough money for: food, second hand clothing, personal hygiene products and limited internet/cable capabilities from a company such as COMCAST. Based upon interviewing various individuals existing upon fixed incomes; while living in MHSA (mental health and substance abuse) co-ops, the above situation is not only desirable, but actually describes their socio-economic life as consumers within their communities.

Usually in MHSA co-ops there are at least 4 individuals living in a 4 bedroom flat sharing living expenses. This particular living situation which has been created and managed by MHSA agencies is how many MHSA agencies pay for housing their service population. Other individuals existing within this type of living situation have complained that the current socio-economic situation within the country prevents them from moving out of these co-ops because it affects their ability to afford housing and acquire employment necessary to afford housing. Thus; those individuals who have recovered from their substance abuse and mental health issues remain stuck within their co-ops because the country’s current socio-economic situation prevents them from moving out of their co-ops and living on their own successfully.

This situation actually gluts our social service system transforming it into a backed-up toilet which is subject to flooding whenever individuals in need of services attempt to access them. According to Gotham Gazette’s interview with Michael Stoller executive director, Human Services Council (ed. Artl., 07/28/10) “the long-term impact, if things do not improve, is dire. Government funding will shrink radically, as will funding from philanthropic and corporate foundations and from (now less-wealthy) individuals. This will dramatically reduce the services nonprofit social service agencies can provide. At the same time, the need will be greater, as more people lose their jobs and fall through the frayed safety net.”  Perhaps the greatest fear of these individuals is that they will end up sabotaging themselves by leaving their co-ops and return to their prior conditions of substance abuse and mental illness. Due to our country’s present socio-economic situation, this fear is extremely realistic.

From activists, to social service providers, to city officials; “cities provide easy access to necessary services which marginalized populations could not obtain within rural areas” has been a persistent battle cry of most activists and social service providers since either can remember. But, is that really true? According to Talia Whyte of the Grio (ed. Artl., 04/22/10 urban Americans are faced with various environmental issues that result in debilitating biopsychosocial outcomes which affect their ability to survive and flourish as healthy productive members of society.

Based upon these 6 internet sources:

•  http://www.rjgeib.com/biography/inner-city-blues/innerblu.html,
•  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/books/review/Ford-t.html,
• http://www.helium.com/items/234614-how-to-improve-conditions-in-distressed-inner-city-neighborhoods,
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/25/rural-idyll-boots-life-expectancy,
•  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1281623/Village-dwellers-likely-live-longer-city-slickers-report-finds.html
• http://www.thegrio.com/news/the-top-ten-environmental-issues-affecting-america.php

 It could be strongly argued that cities are detrimental to the US poor due to their overcrowded conditions, and failing infrastructures such as: deteriorating roads, abandoned buildings which are becoming crack dens, unpaid overworked police/fire departments and depleted social services and lack of employment. These conditions render the argument that the poor must exist within urban areas to possess access to social services, medical care and increasingly unsafe public transportation moot.   Perhaps what should be argued is that urban areas when properly constructed are places for affluent singles and couples where as rural areas such as hamlets, villages and small towns, possessing: various amenities found in cities, social services, healthcare and public transportation are more suitable for those that subsist upon fixed incomes or are members of America’s working poor. 

Based upon Stoller’s statement and realistic fears by members of MHSA service populations that they could return to their past unwanted conditions due to the country’s poor socio-economics, perhaps cities are no longer able to provide marginalized populations such as the working poor or those dealing with recovery from substance abuse and mental illness with much needed social services or support.  So, why is there a huge push for those living upon fixed incomes to remain living in urban areas as disempowered renters? Perhaps it’s because service to marginalized groups provides:  employment, monetary rewards, public prestige and potential long term security to those that run even inefficient non-profit organizations and/or municipal departments that both handle and utilize funds to provide services to non-profit organizations and marginalized populations.

Our present government uses two kinds of grants: 1) 'discretionary' grants, grants handed out by an agency of the Federal government - for instance, grants provided by the Department of Health and Human Services to a homeless shelter; 2) Grants providing Federal money to States, cities, or counties to distribute to charities and social service providers these are referred to as 'formula' or 'block' grants. Thus; religious and grassroots organizations that provide vital Federal services to the poor on an annual basis may apply directly to the Federal government or an entity that distributes money it receives from the Federal government for hundreds of millions of dollars in grant monies. Despite whatever questions the government may ask about an organizations effectiveness and accountability, it allows organizations to list what is referred to as “indirect/administrative costs” or “overhead,” – costs  that are not easily assignable to a particular project or unit within an organization. These costs benefit the organization as a whole, but not their projects. Because it may not be possible for organizations to determine what percentage of their costs are necessary for:  heat, light, water, and rental fees should be allocated to each project – that figure can be difficult to determine, and may not be cost effective for a large organization to pin down. These indirect costs create loopholes for funds to be manipulated in ways that may not at first appear obvious such as fictitious projects or over inflated costs that can be hidden within a projects overhead. Example; building materials which normally cost $12,000.00 can be increased to $24,000.00, the cost of providing services to marginalized populations could be used to disguise over inflated salaries for positions that suffer from nepotism and are undeserving of such increases; while the blame for increased cost in services are passed onto those receiving them. 

However, the government recognizes these indirect costs as being legitimate and has established a budget category for organizations to list them. Yet, in order for an organization to request funds to cover their indirect costs, organizations must establish an “indirect cost rate” with a Federal agency. By establishing an indirect cost rate, the organization can pay a certain percentage of its indirect costs with Federal funds. Since there is no government oversight to determine if an organization’s ICR is legitimate, the federal government is capable of being fleeced by corrupt non-profit organizations which utilize marginalized populations to provide themselves with socio-economic opportunities, social prestige land political leverage; while delivering a minimum of needed services to those populations. According to the Hauser Center for Non-profit Organizations,  research into nonprofit sector fraud has been based on newspaper reports (Fremont-Smith 2004a, Fremont-Smith and Kosaras 2003, Gibelman and Gelman 2001, 2002). These articles do not get at the real extent of fraud in the non-profit sector since most fraud goes unreported (Ayers 2006). The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) estimates that all organizations lose on average %6 of their revenue to fraud every year (ACFE 2005). When this percentage is applied to the nonprofit sector, it could be suggested that non-profits lose approximately $40 billion each year through fraud (ed. Artl. Dec 2006 working paper).

This leads us to ask the question –what would happen if non-profit organizations where confronted with a limited number of marginalized individuals in need of services? A rational conclusion would be that those non-profit organizations in existence would be forced to compete for both clients and resources in order to remain in operation. However, human nature is neither innately rational nor compassionate; as organizations begin to compete with each other over available resources and clientele, those organizations incapable of obtaining or keeping clients and resources would either drop out of competition or be swallowed by their larger competitors and cease to exist. This would lead to their larger, stronger non-profit competitors scrambling for remaining available resources and service consumers to survive.  Yet, within these non-profit organizations, there would be a need to sacrifice those organizational members that would be considered inefficient in performing various job functions in order to: cut fat, increase productivity, and decrease waste to increase the organizations chances of survival. In business terms this makes perfect sense; however, what must be considered is the affect that these actions would have on individual organization members, their desire for socio-economic survival, and moral behavior. 

According to Stanford Social Innovation Review “ethical challenges involving complex relationships between individual character and cultural influences arise at all levels in: for-profit, nonprofit, and government organizations. These challenges can result in criminal violations or civil liability. Common challenges involve activities that border: fraud, conflicts of interest, misallocation of resources, inadequate accountability and transparency.

Research identifies four crucial factors that influence ethical conduct:

• Moral awareness: recognition that a situation raises ethical issues
• Moral decision making: determining what course of action is ethically sound
• Moral intent: identifying which values should take priority in the decision
• Moral action: following through on ethical decisions.

Individuals vary in their capacity to properly interpret and prioritize moral issues, determine appropriate moral behavior, cope with frustration and make good on commitments” (ed. Artl. By Deborah L. Rhode & Amanda K. Packel Summer 2009).

It is these 4 Ms that both shape and determine the socio-economic destiny and structural make-up of an organization. If organizations are composed of people – then would not organizations that cater to marginalized populations possess even unconsciously a desire to keep those populations under their control in order to prevent losing their control or access to valuable resources that support their socio-economic existence? I propose that this is why those that say they believe marginalized populations are best served by remaining in congested urban environments are actually unconsciously stating that they themselves are better served by these populations remaining within an urban environment in order to maintain their control over these populations by acting as intermediaries between marginalized populations and Federal and Municipal sources of funding. 

How Unionism Created the Coming Jobs Depression

By: Jabram Raven Allen

Jan. 27^th 2011

Due to Union opposition in creating a three tier work force consisting of : civic workers ( workers that would rely upon our current government for employment in areas of public works and service; while accepting a 1/3 salary cut in those salaries normally earned by both Union and private sector workers in exchange for job permanency, compensatory benefits, no union representation), private sector workers (those willing to compete in an open job market for lucrative business opportunities while risking frequent unemployment, lack of employee representation and bargaining power usually provided by unions), and finally Union workers that rely upon Unions to secure steady employment, healthy work conditions and benefits through collective bargaining and their ability to organize, support, and implement public protest against employers which are capable of disrupting productivity; thus preventing corporate stock holders from benefiting from their investments in various industries.

During times of socio-economic difficulty, Unions damage a state/city government’s ability to utilize revenues generated from state/city sales taxes to maintain/upgrade its infrastructure and services by insisting upon wages that employers may not be able to provide – this is because wages are directly related to the cost of goods and expenditures needed for their creation; whereas private and civic workers may be willing to work for whatever wages and benefits are offered by existing employers including the government. Due to their dependence upon State and Federal government to provide workers for various projects at cost, civic workers (which may consist of individuals that are considered unemployable by private sector employers or Unions) will work for much lower wages than Union workers that insist upon a particular set of wages or private sector workers that are willing to operate based upon a feast or feminine reality within the job market which creates a mercenary perspective within private sector workers.

Civic workers which consist of individuals that are considered unemployable within the job market are able to provide their state of origin with inexpensive labor in exchange for on job training (OJT), basic social health benefits: housing, medical care, food/clothing vouchers, etc. benefits that the state formerly provided through various programs such as SSI/SSDI, Food Stamps, or General Assistance. Private and Union workers are not willing to work under this type of arrangement; thus they may prove more expensive than their state of origin can afford. For instance, under this arrangement civic workers may cost 2/3 of what a Union or private sector worker may cost to perform the same type of labor. This decreased labor cost allows both State and Federal government to initiate and complete much needed repairs to our public infrastructure during times of serious socio-economic impairment which could not be done under the costs required to employ both private sector and Union workers.

However; there is a difference between management and labor when it comes to Public workers just as there is a difference between management and labor in the Private sector. Each sector, both public and private has come to possess an innate ruling class which is often over paid in comparison to their non-management brethren who work for much lower wages. This phenomenon of an elite class in terms of management and labor also exist amongst various occupations required to operate those parts of our city infrastructure that requires contact between city and federal employees and private citizens which   may increase or decrease based upon differences in various states -- for example a nurse in Boston may perform the same type of work as a nurse in San Francisco, but earn much less based upon the cost of living differences in both cities. However, this may not have entered the nurse’s thinking of moving from Boston to San Francisco in order to gain more substantial pay and benefits, nor the fact that she/he may be displacing another nurse who is a native of San Francisco by pushing that individual out of the job market and onto public assistance; thus increasing the strain upon the city’s social welfare system.

 

What is in the nurse’s mind is that they perceive Boston’s pay rate for nurses as being unfair when compared to San Francisco’s pay rate for nurses. It is also quite likely that this fiction of unfair pay rates between San Francisco and Boston nurses is intentionally unaddressed by Nursing Unions in Boston who willing allow the Boston nurse to persist in their belief of unfair pay differences perhaps to suit their own agenda such as getting nurses in Boston to fight for a higher unnecessary rate of pay. This is based upon the fact that Unions themselves are not monolithic entities with identical goals, visions and perspectives.

 

 According to CHARLES V. BAGLI of the New York Times in an article published December 9, 2010, as stated by  Gary LaBarbera, president of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York, a 100,000-member federation of electricians, iron workers and operating engineers “at times there will be competing interests between public- and private-sector unions.” In short, it may be in a Unions best interest to: misrepresent the work and living conditions of worker’s in another state in order to get workers behind their particular agenda; play ball with political parties whose socio-economic philosophies are out of alignment with their own even at the expense of workers in other occupations, or consider other occupations not as valuable as their own and therefore expendable. This behavior would explain why Unions may prove territorial in nature and actually fight off other Unions in order to preserve their place in the pecking order, or to even dislodge another Union. 

 

To resolve this issue and return as many U.S. citizens to work, it would be necessary to create three classes of labor in which the phenomenon of elitism amongst labor is dispersed and wages are stabilized. The means of creating these three classes would be to 1) national standardization of wages within the public sector; 2) decreasing the wage disparity between management and labor within the public sector, 3) removal of unions from the public sector; while creating a standard basic social health benefit agreement which is enforced by government agencies such as OSHA and others; 4) exclusion of Union labor from projects that require continual maintenance and possess high turnover in order to keep such maintenance from exceeding state and federal affordability cost; thus preventing much needed maintenance of state/city infrastructure from being discontinued and resulting in public health hazards and deteriorating public services.

These steps would result in creating a situation in which unions would be forced to compete in the private sector against non-unionized workers while decreasing expenses within the public sector; thus making it possible for workers that are considered unemployable to be hired within the public sector and perform labor in areas that would be undesirable to both Union and Private sector workers.