The ground is cursed because of you. Through hard work you will eat {food that comes} from it every day of your life. The ground will grow thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat wild plants. By the sweat of your brow, you will produce food to eat until you return to the ground, because you were taken from it. You are dust, and you will return to dust.” Genesis 3:17-19 (GW)

According to the biblical record, a result of Adam’s disobedience to God was the cursing of the land and as a result Adam and all generations since will have to engage in hard labor in order to eat.

By the sweat of our brows we will produce food until the day we die. Wow that sounds like a harsh indictment for a simple act of eating forbidden fruit.

The problem started when Adam took God’s word and provisions for granted. He was driven from the paradise in which God had placed him into a weed infested wasteland which required continuous labor to produce what God had provided to him freely and without cost. Thus began the tedious work of mankind.

Now God is not without mercy for he also provided in the laws delivered to Moses a time for rest and time for refreshment. The first official LABOR DAY ever recorded.

“For six days you will do your work, but on the seventh day you must not work. Then your ox and donkey can rest. The slaves born in your household and foreigners will also be refreshed. Exodus 23:12 (GW)

Now that is a far cry from the current ‘Labor Day” celebrated in the United States of America.

According to the United States Department of Labor the first Monday in September, is a creation of
the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of
American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions
workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country.

Notice how this definition of “Labor Day’ does not acknowledge God nor give credit to God’s provision, but rather elevates the achievement of man.

The Biblical view of labor day should be a time to reflect and thank God for his daily provisions and should be a WEEKLY occurence and not an annual one. Each day we should acknowledge our blessings from God.

In six days the Lord made heaven, earth, and the sea, along with everything in them. He didn’t work on the seventh day. That’s why the Lord blessed the day he stopped his work and set this day apart as holy. Exodus 20:11 (GW)

Since we are so far removed from the original paradise of God through Adam’s disobedience, perhaps we are unable to understand how far we have fallen from God’s original design.

Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to farm the land and to take care of it. The Lord God commanded the man. He said, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden. But you must never eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because when you eat from it, you will certainly die.” Genesis 2:15-17 (GW)

Note that although God had placed man in a garden of paradise, he was still required to farm the land and take care of it. After Adam’s disobedience the land started to fight back against Adam and his efforts making his work more laborious and toilsome. The more we ignore God’s ways and plans the more laborious and toilsome our life becomes. But back to Labor Day.

The first Labor Day holiday was celebrated on Tuesday,
September 5, 1882, in New York City, in accordance with the plans of the
Central Labor Union. The Central Labor Union held its second Labor Day holiday
just a year later, on September 5, 1883.

In 1884 the first Monday in September was selected as the
holiday, as originally proposed, and the Central Labor Union urged similar
organizations in other cities to follow the example of New York and celebrate a
“workingmen’s holiday” on that date. The idea spread with the growth of labor
organizations, and in 1885 Labor Day was celebrated in many industrial centers
of the country.

In June of 1984 Congress passed an act making the first Monday in September of
each year a legal holiday in the District of Columbia and the territories.

Since today Labor Day is associated with the labor union movement we need to take a look at labor unions and their effect on our society.

There are basically two views to economics.

Supply side economists hold that the market is the most rational
institution in economic life. There is a market for labor just as there
is a market for beans and pork. Workers get paid what the market
requires at any given time — skills are marketable objects. To
“artificially” raise wages is to distort the market and invite
unemployment.

Demand side economists argue that markets create
unemployment on their own, and generally cannot use all the skills
available to it. Therefore, unions are necessary because they protect
the rights of workers, raise pay and benefits and force employers to be
more fair. This reduces unemployment because these higher wages are
spent and create jobs.

While beneficial to members, labor unions have effects on the economy as
a whole that can be viewed as negative. The existence of a union in an
industry can result in limited choices regarding hiring new employees or
even limiting the potential for dismissal of a poorly performing
worker. Whenever choices are limited, free enterprise suffers.

Let’s take a look at an independent business owner (a vineyard) and see what labor practices he employed according to scripture

“The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at daybreak to hire workers for his vineyard.

After agreeing to pay the workers the usual day’s wages, he sent them to work in his vineyard. (note the wages were agreed upon by both parties individually)

About 9 a.m. he saw others standing in the marketplace without work. He said to them, ‘Work in my vineyard, and I’ll give you whatever is right.’ (here we see the employer acting in good faith toward perspective employees, offering whatever is right)

So they went.

“He went out again about noon and 3 p.m. and did the same thing.

About 5 p.m. he went out and found some others standing around.

He said to them, ‘Why are you standing here all day long without work?’ “‘No one has hired us,’ they answered him. “He said to them, ‘Work in my vineyard.’ (since his business was profitable and in need of workers he was in a position to offer hope to others who were not able to find work anywhere else)

“When evening came, the owner of the vineyard told the supervisor, ‘Call the workers, and give them their wages. Start with the last, and end with the first.’

“Those who started working about 5 p.m. came, and each received a day’s wages. When those who had been hired first came, they expected to receive more. But each of them received a day’s wages. (why would they expect more since they agreed up front to work for a day’s wage?)

Although they took it, they began to protest to the owner. They said, ‘These last workers have worked only one hour. Yet, you’ve treated us all the same, even though we worked hard all day under a blazing sun.’ (they wanted special treatment even though they had agreed to the day’s wage at the start of the day)

“The owner said to one of them, ‘Friend, I’m not treating you unfairly. Didn’t you agree with me on a day’s wages? Take your money and go! I want to give this last worker as much as I gave you. Can’t I do what I want with my own money? Or do you resent my generosity towards others?’ Matthew 20:1-15 (GW) (here is the crux of the issue, what one sees as generosity others may view as unfair treatment)

We can glean a great deal from this illustration and therefore it is appropriate to use for a topical discussion on “Labor Day”. Notice that each individual worker negotiated his pay with the business owner. Each individual worker could negotiate a good or bad deal but they had complete control over what they agreed to work for. They could each agree to work for a ‘day’s wages’ or simply remain standing in the unemployment line where they were found. Compare that to the ‘collective bargaining agreements’ of the unionized workers.

Individuals lose their rights to negotiate on their own behalf. The theory is that as a group you are able to negotiate a better plan then you could on your own. Perhaps this can be initially true but let us look at the same company as work progresses.

We note that the company is still in need of additional workers since there is more work than the current employees can manage so the owner of the company returns to the unemployment line and hires additional workers. This happens several times throughout this narrative as there remains still more work than workers to accomplish the task.

Would this scenario play under union shop rules? Would a company be at liberty to hire additional workers when work is plentiful?

No.

Unionizing significantly changes the workplace in addition to its
effects on wages or jobs. Employers are prohibited from negotiating
directly with unionized employees. Certified unions become employees’
exclusive collective bargaining representatives. All discussions about
pay, performance, promotions, or any other working conditions must occur
between the union and the employer. An employer may not change working
conditions–including raising salaries–without negotiations.

Would the company be free to hire anyone or must they meet certain union rule requirements? How much would the new hire make?

It depends on whether the business operates in a ‘right to work’ state or not. If there is no ‘right to work’ law then a business could not hire a non-union worker to fill-in for increased demand for labor. And perhaps a union shop may have a cap on new hires limiting the number of workers a company can hire, as a result many would remain standing in the unemployment line while there is plenty of work to do. In addition these same union shops may prohibit the removal of a non-productive employee and thus eliminating a job opportunity for someone willing and able to do the job.

The main point is that the individual selection process as well as the negotiation and acceptance process would be affected by a collective approach. Many workers may miss out on opportunities because they will not be able to negotiate a workers agreement in their own behalf and as a result remain unemployed. In addition many companies may be unable to fill jobs because of union restrictions or the costs involved with new hires makes it unprofitably to do so.

Merit pay raises are also affected in collective bargaining agreements. An individual with exceptional skills and talent will not be able to negotiate for himself a better pay rate or working conditions since he relinquished that right when he joined the collective and the company will not be allowed to offer them extra either. Therefore whether you produce more or not your pay would be the same as the person who puts in minimal effort. Thus it is possible that really productive and outstanding employees are reduced to the ‘status quo’ thus limiting exceptionalism in the workplace. Some unions members might see an overly productive individual to be a threat to the collective.

Incentives are also limited because what is given to one must be given to all in a collective. How would this effect worker moral? How would being overlooked for a job well done make a person feel? How does giving up one’s individual identity to a group affect the self-esteem and worth of the individual?

The owner of the vineyard in this example would be unable to do what he did under most union rules. Crops would remain unpicked in the fields because he would be unable to hire new workers to pick the crop. The unionized workforce might stop work if the vineyard owner hired additional employees, because they would see it as an effort to replace them with cheaper labor, and if it lasted long enough there would be no need for anyone to pick crops since they would all have rotted on the vine putting everyone out of work and the vineyard out of business.

The unionization of the vineyard takes control of the vineyards assets and redistributes them according to the wants and demands of the collective without any regard to the owners wants or needs. In essence control of the profits of the company are confiscated from the owner of the company by the union. The workers end up with the profits leaving the owner who hired them initially having to live on what the union does not take.

Granted not all businesses are run on a biblical premise but I would argue that unionizing is not supported biblically.

So this “Labor Day” let us honor God and acknowledge his provisions and his blessings granting us the ability to work and achieve success. Every week set aside one day as a “Labor Day” a day of rest and reflection.

Now that is the way I see it. What say you?

This has been A View from the Nest. The statements, comments, or opinions expressed are solely that of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of the host of this site or any affiliates thereof. Any questions or comments should be directed to myself and not to the host or hosts of this site.

FOR FURTHER READING:

Let marriage be held in honor (esteemed worthy, precious, of great price, and especially dear) in all things. And thus let the marriage bed be undefiled (kept undishonored); for God will judge and punish the unchaste [all guilty of sexual vice] and adulterous. Hebrews 13:4 (AMP)

A Southern-fried chicken sandwich on a soft white bun with a couple of
pickle slices is fast becoming the culinary symbol of one of the
country’s major social issues.

The latest uproar began this month when Dan T. Cathy, whose deeply
religious father, S. Truett Cathy, started the company in 1967, told a
Christian news organization that Chick-fil-A supported “the biblical definition of the family unit.”

Fuel was added to the fire when several democrat officials threatened a BAN on Chick-fil-a’s expansion plans into major democrat cities.

Proco “Joe” Moreno, one of 50 Windy City aldermen who make up the City Council, told the Chicago Tribune that he plans to prevent Chick-fil-A from building its second Chicago restaurant in his trendy, hipster-filled ward.

Moreno stated his position in strong terms, referring to Cathy’s
“bigoted, homophobic comments” in a proposed opinion page piece that an
aide also sent to Tribune reporters. “Because of this man’s ignorance, I
will now be denying Chick-fil-A’s permit to open a restaurant in the
1st Ward.”

The alderman has the ideological support of Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

“Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values,” the mayor said in a
statement when asked about Moreno’s decision. “They disrespect our
fellow neighbors and residents. This would be a bad investment, since it
would be empty.”

The reaction has been intense. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino told the
Boston Herald that he no longer wanted Chick-fil-A in his city.

First Boston. Then Chicago.

The next city to tell Chick-fil-A to keep out? San Francisco.

Edwin M. Lee (D),
mayor of the progressive city, tweeted Thursday night: “Very
disappointed #ChickFilA doesn’t share San Francisco’s values &
strong commitment to equality for everyone.” 

He also added a warning to his subsequent tweet: “Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.”

Even fictional TV stars get tossed into the fray

Muppet’s
creator Jim Henson Co. backed out of a partnership
with the chain to make kids meals toys.

The opposition took to the airwaves and rapidly deplored press releases firmly decrying the “intolerance” of Chick-Fil-A.

Social media was all atwitter with the controversy. Rosanne Barr infamous for her crotch grabbing, off-key rendition of the Star Spangled Banner at the 1990 Padre’s game chimed in with her usual gutter snipe wishing all patrons of Chick-Fil-A would die of cancer. Such a lady.

The FOOD FIGHT has officially commenced. On the supportive side of the aisle we first hear from former Presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum proposed a Chick-Fil-A appreciation day set for Wednesday August 1.

Now the rest of the American citizenry has been drawn into this food fight once again dragging the issue of ‘traditional marriage’ before the American people. It was time to take a vote. All in favor visit your local Chick-Fil-A and show your support with your purchases. And vote they did. Chick-Fil-A had record sales that day as lines stretched around the block in many locations as patrons waited patiently to grab a sandwich as this food fight escalates. As a result Chick-Fil-A had record sales.

This is not the first time American citizens have been asked to weigh-in on this issue. 28 states had ballot initiatives restricting marriage to one man and one woman have all passed. The only places where same-sex marriage is recognized are in states that instituted the practice by legislation or by court mandate and not via the ballot box.

Not to be outdone, proponents of same-sex unions scheduled a protest of their own for Friday Aug 3rd. There’s was a to be a “kiss day” where same-sex couples were encouraged to engage in an open display of affection at their local Chick-Fil-A store.

The results were less dramatic but it is interesting to note in the above story that many of these “hateful” Chick-Fil-A stores responded to the “kiss-in” with free food and drink perhaps in the spirit of Proverbs 25:21 all without cost. What a contrast, from Wednesday to Friday. One group came to give the other came to take. BOTH groups were met with kindness and friendly service.

Taking up the Proverbs 25:21 theme YouTube blogger Jackson Pearce had posted her own version of a Chick-Fil-A protest using this verse as a rallying cry to those who wished to make a statement. She proposed that they order a large water and cite Proverbs 25:21 as the reason for the request for free food and drink. Thus she too was tossed into the middle of this nationwide ‘food fight’.

One follower of Jackson Pearce’s marching orders actually made it very personal in his confrontation with the friendly Chick-Fil-A employee which eventually cost him his job. But at least he got a large free drink at that hate filled eatery.

Yes indeed this obviously is a hot topic. What are we to do about it? Since one side is strongly against ‘traditional marriage” and the other side is strongly in favor of ‘traditional marriage’ my guess this issue, like others before it, will find itself on the court docket of the Supreme Court; if the advocacy groups in support of ‘non-traditional marriage’ are not able to persuade enough legislators to pass legislation in favor of their position. Having a court decide the issue removes the debate from the public square (where it has been overwhelming defeated) thus eliminating the need to persuade a majority to be in favor of an issue. It is far easier to convenience 5 men and women than several million.

Where do you stand on the issue? Is there any value in redefining what a family is? Is there any purpose in changing the definition of marriage to accommodate ‘non-traditional’ couplings? And who is it to say what then will constitute a family, or for that matter a couple in the future?

Should marriage be honored for the stability it brings to civil society? Who is going to be the arbitrator to determine if two people of the same-sex are actually “homosexual” or just saying that they are in order to game the system? Are we that naive to believe that once special privileges are extended to couples of the same-sex that the idea to ‘feign’ ‘gayness’ in order to drink from the public wellspring is not going to occur?

The reason given for support of ‘non-traditional’ marriage is the legal rights afforded to married couples. One of the reason’s marriage is recognized and protected is because of the rights of progeny and inheritance. Families are the reason marriage was recognized in the first place. In order to properly trace progeny and ancestry there needs to be a cohesive, reliable body of law in regards to this. Who has the right to inherit from another? Who gets custody of children? Does biological parenthood enter into this discussion? Or is it only about two adults thinking only about what is best for them?

Traditional marriage is also the basis for the formation of new families and the transfer of Sir names. Can someone tell me whose name is used to establish a new same-sex family unit? Can a same-sex couple actual produce a new family unit? The answer to this question is no they can not naturally so therefore a ‘unnatural means’ needs to be established in order to make this happen. It becomes a construct of legalities and social engineering. Will these legal constructs and social engineering have negative effects or unforseen consequences? Most assuredly since the natural order of things is being replaced with an artificial construct. The traditional is being supplanted by non-traditional. AND for what purpose? To gain benefits otherwise reserved for the ‘traditional family unit”.

What are some of these benefits? Are there other ways to address this issue without totally abandoning the ‘traditional family construct”?

Let’s examine one case:

James Morrison and Thomas Proehl met
in college, and were in a committed relationship for nearly 25 years.

In 2008, they got married in California.

Then, Proehl died last year of a heart attack at the age of 46. And he didn’t have a will.

Under Minnesota’s Defense of
Marriage Act, or DOMA, their marriage wasn’t legally recognized in the
state. That meant about $250,000 of assets in Proehl’s name would have
gone to his parents — even though they wanted the assets to go to
Morrison.

Morrison said it’s not just his partners’ family who felt that way.

“I worked with everyone from the
federal government to state government to try to find resolution. What I
found was a great deal of sympathy and empathy, but the law just
wouldn’t allow them to resolve our estate without having to go to
court,” said Morrison.

This whole incident could have been avoided had Proehl drafted a will. Therefore since there are other remedies for this type of scenario should traditional marriage be destroyed so that someone can inherit someone else’s property? 

One other argument goes to Social Security Retirement benefits. Since Social Security is a construct of legislation and is entirely controlled by those same legislators, benefits can be granted on any basis by a simple act of congress or denied as well by that same congress. Therefore it would appear that congress could make these benefits available through a legislative act that does not require redefining marriage. However I would suspect since Social Security is on shaky financial footing it is more likely survivors benefits will either be drastically reduced or eliminated in the not to distant future. Therefore is it prudent to toss out traditional marriage on such a tenuous position?

Private retirement benefits and insurance policies can be assigned
beneficiaries and thus eliminating the confusion. Therefore arranging ones private affairs to include a domestic partner is a viable and reasonable solution to this supposed inequity. Should we completely rearrange society for the small percentage of people who may be affected by this?

Tax advantages.. simple fix eliminate the tax advantage deduction. Or amend the tax code to include domestic partners.  If two people file a JOINT return then they, regardless of marital status should be able to claim the JOINT FILING savings. Of course this too can be eliminated by an act of congress making this reason mute. Congress could enact legislation amending the tax code to recognize same-sex partners as legitimate for tax filing purposes. Again there is no need to redefine marriage just to garner tax savings.

The family medical leave act is also cited as a right denied ‘nontraditional’ couples. Can’t this be remedied again by rewriting the act to accommodate ‘same-sex couples.  Why must the entirety of marriage law and precedence be tossed out to address a small fraction of cases?

The real problems start when children are involved which is why ‘traditional marriage’ was recognized in the first place to protect the children and to establish a cohesive family structure easily identifiable and definable.

Establishment of a family unit is the biblical position and the God ordained way, which I believe
is the only reason advocates for ‘non-traditional marriage’ are raising
such a fuss. I beg to argue if there wasn’t a biblical aspect to this
issue would these same advocates be so vocal and intolerant in their
opposition? They immediately went after Dan Cathy because of his
position on traditional marriage basically because he is a Christian.
When President Obama took the same position not so long ago, before he
EVOLVED to his current position in order to garner votes, no one said a
word about it and certainly no one waged an all out assault on his faith
or beliefs. Why the double standard? Why no major uprising?  Rick
Santorum on the other hand took the same position as President Obama and he too bore the brunt of a media onslaught much like Dan Cathy. Don’t tell me
there isn’t a Christian bias to this argument.

Oh yes there needs to be a national debate on this topic. There needs to be scholarly discourse and all avenues of regress need to be considered before we toss out centuries of tradition and societal history by redefining the meaning of marriage and in the process the make-up of family. Let us insist on open and honest dialogue and not demagoguery. 

As far as Chick-Fil-A is concerned. Hey they got great chicken and the personnel is always friendly and willing to give even a cup of cold water to people who hate them. Can those of you fighting for ‘non-traditional’ marriage do the same? Are you willing to sit down and actually have a scholarly debate on this topic? Are you willing to feed your enemy? Are you willing to turn the other cheek? Are you willing to be forgiving and tolerant? 

For as a man thinks in his heart, so is he. 
Proverbs 23:7

According to a local Psychotherapy association there is a “Psychology of Going Green”.

Now granted I do not have letters behind my name so perhaps I am not smart enough to understand this “Green Psychology” but this article gave me a few chuckles on an otherwise dull Monday. The number one reason to go green according to this report was to save money.

Having shopped for “green products” I have yet to find them to be cheaper than their non-earth friendly counter-parts. Everything labeled “green” or “organic” costs far more than regular merchandise. The writer cites hybrid vehicles which are priced higher than the non-hybrid models. The new “green cars” like the Chevy Volt are very expensive and are not selling very well even with the “tax subsidies” given to entice buyers. WIth so few of these products being sold, and the higher costs of acquisition, the financial reason to purchase these items really makes no sense. Besides with so few “green products” actually being sold how much of a positive environmental impact are these “green thinkers” actually making? This is like tossing pebbles into the ocean as an attempt to lower the sea levels. Perhaps the writer of this article is actually onto something. Green thinking is a psychosis.

This reason actually makes the most sense in this entire article. The person who participates in the “green economy” feels good about their participation regardless of the actual results or effectiveness of their participation. It matters not if the “green movement” is actually effective at stemming the “environmental havoc”, it only matters that they care and they feel like they are doing something to help heal the planet.

Now I have lived long enough to remember the days before there were massive landfills in most communities. I also remember the time when “Bulk Foods” was the norm and not the exception. I remember the days before most items were sold in a “blister pack”. We used to burn our trash in the back yard in a ‘burn barrel” avoiding the flood of plastic bags to the landfill. Most of the waste products produced when I was a child could either be burnt in the burn barrel or buried the garden. We used paper and did not have plastic bags to carry home the groceries. These brown paper bags were reused around the house or carried back to the grocery store and re-filled with more groceries to be carried back home. I remember every year using many of these same brown paper bags to cover my school books each season. But one day these brown paper bags where no longer being used in grocery stores because the environMENTALISTS wanted to save the trees. Now they want to SAVE THE OCEAN from the plastic bags they wanted us to use instead of the brown paper bags we loved using. And those burn-barrels that dotted the suburbs, they have all but disappeared as well because burning paper was considered an environmental hazard. Yes I can see how this “green thinking” is a psychosis.

And here I thought over-eating was the greatest threat to our health. Who knew that non-green practices was adding to our health issues. You know the more I think about this I am becoming convinced “green thinking” is indeed a psychotic condition.

And last but not least the author of this piece offers us HOPE for the future by going “green”.

The last time I did research into the effects of a vibrant economy I noticed something strange. The greater prosperity enjoyed by a society the greater the over-all lifestyle was achieved. And the freer the society the better the society. The biggest offenders to the health of the planet were those societies who were run by dictatorial leaders and had the highest amount of human rights violations. It would appear to me that the best way to improve one’s lifestyle and promote “good earth” policies would be to promote the “Christian” values of individual freedom and individual human rights. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the only teaching I know of that brings personal HOPE and FREEDOM. It was this belief in God-given rights that has made America the cleanest, the healthiest, and the most environmentally friendly nation on earth, well at least it used to be until the environMENTALIST decided to change all that.

Now I am all for “smart” economies but I get a huge chuckle out of the whole “green earth” movement since it is mostly being promoted by those who are the biggest offenders of environmental crimes. The United States of America, I would argue, has the cleanest environment on the planet and since there are billions of people living elsewhere, no matter how much effort we make to clean up our environment unless these other “non-green” societies stop their polluting, ours is like that pebble tossed into the ocean. Granted it is a pretty huge pebble but it is still a pebble in comparison.

Now that is the way I see it. What say you?

This has been A View from the Nest. The statements, comments, or opinions expressed are solely that of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of this site or any affiliates thereof. Any questions or comments should be directed to myself and not to the host or hosts of this site.