UFCW gives up

After getting some real blowback by killing off a representative family in a series of cringe-inducing commercials, the State Store clerks' union, the UFCW, has decided that they no longer need to try and protect us with half-baked lies on their UFCW PA Wine and Spirits Council website. Not willing to openly admit defeat, they quietly let the sun set on their "proof" of the evils of privatization, and scuttled away into night.

So what does this mean for privatization?  Not much, since almost everything on the website had already been disproven. The UFCW still tells the clerks (I mean, surely no one else is bothering to look, right?) to "Learn more on UFCW PA's Wine and Spirits Council Website." I guess now that they can't squeeze dollars out of people who don't want to be involved with the union through "fair share," they must be trying to save their pennies like this.

Meanwhile, in another example of normal operating incompetence, the PLCBoard admitted under oath at the House Appropriations Committee hearing in February that they didn't have a clue about the costs of CRM (Customer Relationship Management) when they were pitching it to the legislature. That pretty much means that they read about it somewhere, thought it was a great idea, and never did even the minimal amount of research into it. At least this time they didn't hire some consultants to tell them it was expensive to do correctly. We'll be seeing the typical PLCB half-assed slow roll-out as they try to figure it out. Sounds like a plan....a PLCB plan to me.

Lastly, the PLCB hasn't gotten back to us about the number of industry-recognized wine specialists they have. It has only been three weeks, so we weren't expecting much...and that is exactly what we got.

Privatize.

6 Reasons to Keep The State Stores - Does it still hold up?

Marc Stier, a Philadelphia-based full-time progressive political activist, published six reasons why we should keep the State Stores five years ago. I thought I'd take a look at those reasons and how well they hold up today.

1. Poor regulation

"First, in an ideal world we could count on government regulation of private liquor stores to control the sale of alcohol. That’s important, because alcohol abuse remains a major public health hazard. But in the real world, regulation fails when it is carried out by those who hate government. And academic studies show that states that control the sale and distribution of alcohol have lower levels of problem drinking, drunk driving, and the violence and death that go along with them."

In an ideal world we could count on the government to control the sale of alcohol, Stier says, then makes the self-evident observation that the world isn't ideal. It never has been, it never will be. And what does "regulation fails when it is carried out by those who hate government" even mean? The state's liquor regulations are carried out by PLCB employees and BLCE cops: are they known for hating government? Doubtful.

So we're left with our non-ideal world, where the PLCB simply isn't very good at all at control or regulation. Pennsylvania has higher levels of DUI, underage DUI, DUI fatalities, underage DUI fatalities, binge drinking, and underage binge drinking overall than the states on our borders; the non-control states. So while academic studies (set in the ideal world, apparently) may show that states that control the sale and distribution of alcohol have lower levels of problem drinking, the reality is Pennsylvania, where the alcohol problems are in the stubborn middle, despite control.

2. Union organization

"Second, in an ideal world, the workforce in privately owned liquor stores would be able to form a union simply by securing the support of a majority of workers.
But in the real world, laws created and implemented by Republicans have made union organization in the private sector almost impossible. So I stand with currently unionized employees of the state stores."

Hung by that real world again. Stier didn't know that laws (and regulatory interpretation) would change to allow supermarkets to buy restaurant licenses and start selling beer and wine. And what happened? The majority of licenses purchased were by grocery stores which are already heavily unionized, most by the same union that the State Store workers already belong to. Guess union organization in the private sector isn't impossible after all.

3. Tax revenues

"Third, in an ideal world, businesses, including those that sell alcohol, would be taxed at reasonable rates, wouldn’t get to keep 1 percent of the sales tax to cover costs of collection they no longer have, and would pay all the taxes they owe.
In the real world, because we don’t have to worry about those problems, the wine and spirits stores generate more revenues for education, health care and other public needs than private stores would."

As we've always said, in the real world, the world we actually live in, tax collection problems are not a liquor store problem, they are a department of revenue problem. And having an average number of liquor stores for a state our size (about 2,400, compared to the 600 the PLCB manages to keep open...most days) will generate more tax revenue just due to the extra convenience. And don't forget the hundreds of millions of dollars that won't be going out of state to buy things that the bureaucrats in Harrisburg have decided we don't need or want. (BTW, if Stier thinks that in an ideal world alcohol would be taxed at reasonable rates...does he think the real world rates aren't reasonable? Because that's something we'd agree on.)

4. Wage disparity

"Fourth, in an ideal world, our governor and general assembly would be working to increase wages for working people and the middle class. But in the real world, the Republicans are attacking public sector workers and privatizing public services mainly to drive wages in the private sector down. So I stand against a proposal that is likely to make income even more unequal in our state."

In the real world, there would be LESS wage disparity. There wouldn't be the artificially large difference between a stock clerk in a grocery store and a stock clerk in a state-run monopoly liquor store (who are both represented by the same union...how's that work?). Also, I don't in any way consider the PLCB a service. It limits selection, never leads in new products, severely limits locations, and generally prevents entrepreneurs from providing the services consumers want. The PLCB stops job creation and is a drag on the economy, being well over a billion dollars in debt.

5. Discrimination protections

"Fifth, in an ideal world, the state would protect worker from discrimination by private businesses, including new private liquor stores. But in the real world, LGBTQ workers are only protected from discrimination by organized labor."

Simply not true..."in the real world." Again, Stier's pessimism (and drama) has undercut his positions, as the real world moved on and changed for the better. Workplace protections are provided by state law or regulation. Union agreements do not over-rule written law.

6. Corporate influence

"Sixth, in an ideal world, elections and public policy would be determined by the number of people on each side,  not by campaign contributions given by each side."

We strongly agree! Because by this measure, the PLCB should have been gone ages ago, since for decades the majority of people polled wanted private liquor stores. And we all know who gave more money to politicians -- those against privatization, even though it was against what the people wanted.


So what does this all mean?  In 2018 -- in the real world -- there are no reasons to keep the antiquated, anti-consumer jobs program called the PLCB.

Privatize.

Play "Who's the Dummy - PLCB supporters edition"

So much happening lately.  First you have the Governor trying to rewrite two centuries of economic theory by proclaiming that competition would raise prices. Then he told us that privatization would raise prices if taxes were raised...because we all know private stores set their own taxes.

Plenty of stupid, but wait, there's more! Not to be outdone, the brain trust at the ISSU (Independent State Store Union) came up with this gem: "Limited competition negatively impacts convenience." (They called it a "disaster," too.) I gotta ask: if limited competition has a negative impact on convenience, what does NO competition -- like with the PLCB -- do?  Don't forget, this is the union of the managers. We're not nuts about the service level at the State Stores, but you almost have to cut the workers some slack if this is what they have to deal with every day.

Proving that the ISSU doesn't have a lock on stupid, the UFCW (United Food and Commercial Workers) comes up with this gem: privatization will cause a loss of selection and higher prices...and somehow, at the same time, increase drinking. Sounds like they've fully embraced Wolfonomics. As everyone knows, the Governor thinks -- all things being equal -- increased prices result in more sales. It's a cornerstone of Wolfonomics, the corollary to Wolf's dramatic new theory that competition leads to higher prices. Forbes presented a brilliant exposition of Wolfonomics recently: "Opponents Of Private Liquor Sales Claim State Monopolies Serve Customers Better." Take a moment to read it, it's quite good. (I'm talking to you, Governor Wolf.)

While there can be no excuse for such idiocy in a government office or organizational headquarters, it does bleed down to some of the common folk.  Internet newspaper comment columns are full of people who know the PLCB made $550 million in "profit" (some think they made $1 billion in profits!), apparently believing that taxes will disappear if sales are privatized, and that other taxes will automatically go up to make up for these mysteriously disappearing booze taxes. (Tip to you: the booze taxes aren't going anywhere. Not a chance.) There are self-styled economists who don't know that revenue isn't the same as profit, and that neither of them include taxes. There are folks who think that every privately employed liquor store salesperson is or will be on welfare, and that nobody will be hired even if the amount of stores double, triple, or even quadruple.

I especially love the ones who say they don't drink, and then proceed to tell us that the PLCB can get you anything you need...and you shouldn't complain, the implication (sometimes openly stated) being that if you do complain, you're an alcoholic. Or they tell us that the State Stores have the best prices in the country, or that we are safer because of the State Stores, when in fact we are barely mediocre in that respect.

Other favorites are this one woman who didn't want privatization because there wouldn't be any Mom & Pop stores so it was better to keep the PLCB...which has no Mom & Pop stores.  Kinda makes your brain hurt, don't it? One gentleman told me that Walmart will get all the licenses, all 14,000, because it is payback for supporting Republicans. (The facts are that the only free-spending "special interests" in this fight are the unions, and they just got their 'payback' from Wolf's veto. The retailers and the producers/importers are staying out of it, because they know the PLCB will retaliate if privatization doesn't pass.) Can't forget the guy who knew there are 18 states exactly like PA for alcohol sales. I don't think he gets out much. Nothing wrong with having an educated opinion, but you gotta laugh at some of these.

Of course, the real oddballs are in the legislature, but you can read about them everywhere.

Until the next time -- keep buying out of state!

Progress

In 1933...this was what you drove:

In 1933...this was how you washed clothes:

In 1933...your phone was only as smart as the operator:

In 2015...this is still how Pennsylvania sells liquor:

1933: brought to you by Pennsylvania's Democratic legislators, assisted by The Senate Republicans of SouthEast Pennsylvania, cheered on (and funded) by the UFCW. Ain't it great to buy booze like Great-Grampa did?

What does it take to wake up the PA Senate?

Something for all the Democratic and RINO senators to think about as they prepare once again to avoid voting for what the plurality if not majority of people want: privatization and de-monopolization of the sales of spirits, wine, and beer.

Privatization does not increase underage drinking.  According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 29 percent of those ages 12-20 consumed alcohol in Pennsylvania. Compare this to states that have far less government control such as West Virginia (which is also a control state for wholesale) and the number decreases to 24 percent. In fact, the United States average is 27 percent. If government controlled liquor is effective in curbing underage drinking, why are we 2 percentage points higher than the national average and higher than almost all our neighboring states? Why is our underage DUI fatality rate higher than all but one border state?

Privatization does not cause more drunk driving, cause more alcohol related accidents or more alcohol related fatalities. Pennsylvania is once again barely average or worse. In alcohol related traffic fatalities in 2012, Pennsylvania was at the national average of 3.3 per 100,000. If the current government monopoly is better suited for curbing drunk driving, why are we not ahead of the national curve? Furthermore, MADD ranks the states in order of DUI-related accidents per capita. Pennsylvania ranked 35^th best – lower than New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Virginia, and Ohio. Obviously the median here is 25; Pennsylvania being 10 states away. In 2010 overall alcohol related deaths, Pennsylvania is also surpasses neighboring states. Pennsylvania reported 26 per 100,000 residents. Compare this to 24 in Delaware, 22 in Maryland, 20 in New Jersey, 20 in New Work, and 25 in Ohio.

In the 2 years since Washington privatized DUI fatalities have decreased at a far faster than in Pennsylvania even though they started at a lower rate. You now have a 36% less chance of being killed due to an alcohol related accident in Washington compared to Pennsylvania.

Privatization increases employment. As President Ronald Reagan used to say, “The best social program is a job.” The labor union UFCW 1776 will tell you that privatization kills jobs, but they are wrong. More than doubling or even tripling the amount of outlets for wine and spirits can only mean more jobs. It’s common sense. If anything, the UFCW saying there won’t be jobs for their members is tantamount to saying they don’t believe their members are employable in the private sector. Every locale that has privatized has seen an increase in employment. New warehouse jobs, new delivery jobs, new store jobs. Places that fully privatized tripled employment in the industry. The ability for these employees to use their previous knowledge to specialize in this new industry could actually increase their earning power.

Privatization will increase revenue. A 2010 study commissioned by the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America found that 23.6 percent of the wine purchased by consumers in Pennsylvania comes from out of state, resulting in the loss of $17.3 million in excise taxes. A more recent study conducted for the PLCB showed that 45 percent of residents in Philadelphia and its surrounding counties purchase some or all of their alcohol outside of Pennsylvania. The PLCB's own numbers showed that consumers purchased approximately a quarter of their wine and spirits in other states. This border bleed equals more than $180 million in lost sales, and more than $40 million in lost state tax revenue annually from just a handful of counties. These are lost dollars that could fund programs that are essential to our Commonwealth, but that are instead funding Delaware, Maryland, New York, and other border states with lower prices and increased selection.

Decreasing border bleed through price competition, increased convenience, one-stop shopping and increased selection will increase taxes collected. Increased sales will increase taxes collected. Business will pay taxes the current system doesn’t.  More people working will pay taxes. More people working means more sales across the Commonwealth for everything which also means more total taxes collected.

Privatization will remove the inherent conflicting interests of PLCB sales and enforcement. Quite simply, our current system is a house divided. The same entity charged with licensing vendors and enforcing liquor laws is marketing, selling, and producing alcohol...in direct competition with the private companies it regulates (with a surprising lack of consistency). Under privatization, penalties and fines could become much stricter as the PLCB’s conflicted mission would be resolved. In the new, fully privatized system, the PLCB would license, enforce, and educate; which is the appropriate role of government. The troika of party hacks who make the arbitrary and often inconsistent rulings on licensees' questions about application of the Liquor Code could be replaced by experienced regulators, lawyers who do nothing but apply the Code, full-time. The agency would then be run by a director, not a jumped-up "CEO".

Privatization can renew the people’s faith in their government. Distributing and selling liquor should not be in the hands of a state-run monopoly, which is clearly not a core function of government. There has never been a poll that has been in favor of the state run system. Historically, 40 years of polling show the citizens want a change and that change is to a free market system they see working far better in neighboring states. The lack of reform in the face of overwhelming public support leads citizens to conclude that state government is distant, unresponsive to their wishes, and captive to selfish interests. By responding to the will of citizens and consumers, lawmakers can show that Pennsylvania state government listens and responds to the will of the people they are elected to serve.

(Taken, updated and modified from an April  2013 letter sent by the PA Manufactures Association to the Senate)

You can't fix stupid

Yes, it is true: you can't fix stupid. No matter what the clerks' union comes up with, it will never get away from the image of what was quite possibly the most inane advertisement ever to be put on Pennsylvania's airwaves. It is so bad in so many ways that the entire nation is laughing at the state, and the idiots who put this together for broadcast.



That bunch of idiots would be the UFCW Local 1776 media office and an outfit called Strategic Communications (the link is provided in case you want to put this gang of ham-handed 'communicators' on your company's Do Not Call list). It is so bad that one of the union's own members said on Facebook, "I work for this system and I personally find this ad embarrassing. Their true intentions are to keep our jobs (which I do not mind), but Ads like these are utterly ridiculous." Obviously he wishes to remain anonymous.

I have not seen one positive response anywhere. I would like to read one just to get an idea of what kind of person thinks this was a good idea.  Those that don't are legion,  If you haven't seen the stories, here are a baker's dozen of them. Be sure to read the comments: they just don't get any better.

1.) http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/05/04/union-privatizing-the-sale-of-alcohol-will-kill-children-lower-tax-revenue/

2.) http://fermentationwineblog.com/2014/05/worst-alcohol-related-ad-history-world/

3.) http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/unions-panicking-possible-liquor-privatization-pennsylvania-video/#axzz30tTcJtUY

4.) https://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2014/05/state-liquor-store-union-pulls-out-the-stops-new-ad-explains-that-selling-beer-in-grocery-stores-kills-children/

5.) http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/377162/union-monopoly-protects-pennsylvania-children-drunken-slaughter-tim-cavanaugh

6.) http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/audio/1562-chris-stigall-show/the-chris-stigall-show-wendell-young/

7.) http://tinyurl.com/njtuhwc (About 7 minutes in)

8.) http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/entertainment/television/WATCH-UFCWs-hilariously-bad-anti-liquor-privatization-ad-.html

9.) http://reason.com/blog/2014/05/02/pennsylvanians-cant-buy-beer-and-wine-at

10.) http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/policyblog/detail/will-more-choice-and-convenience-really-kill-your-kids

11.) http://www.nationalmemo.com/watch-the-craziest-political-ad-of-2014/

12.) http://philly.barstoolsports.com/around-barstool/video-anti-liquor-privatization-ad-says-pa-selling-beer-at-convenience-stores-will-kill-one-child-every-week/

13,) And my own lambasting published here last week.

Enjoy, have fun and don't laugh too hard. Remember: this year privatization killed the little girl; last year, they killed her father. If this drags on one more year...that's going to be a pretty lonely ad campaign. But it's still going to be stupid, because there's just no way this line of reasoning is ever going to make sense.

When the leadership is clueless….the followers are clueless.

I can understand that there are a number of PLCB workers who may not have the time or the inclination to fully pay attention to everything that is going on with privatization and that they depend on those above them to provide information in condensed form.  However, when the leadership either doesn’t know or is flat out lying it is then that we see the re-education camps really have them brainwashed.  To wit, this is a quote from the Director of Collective Bargaining for UFCW 23 James "Bryan" Bond:

“We have the most selection, best stores, and knowledgeable sales folks in comparison to any other state on this side of the US. We are number 2 in sales out of all 50 states, and the safest state for not selling to minors. The huge profits benefit all people who live here. If that profit goes away, wait until you see your future home tax bills. Don't believe me? That's what Washington State did and they are sorry about it now.”

It seems that Mr. Bond has never been out of state and seen Moore Brothers, Total Wine, Buy-Rite, Binny’s or any number of other stores that absolutely dwarf the selection of the largest PLCB store. Even if he means what can be ordered those other stores will order things for you too so at best it might be a tie but I personally doubt it.

Best stores is a personal opinion so maybe he really believes that but as far as the knowledgeable sales folks compared to all east of the Mississippi he has to be dreaming.  There are multiple stores in New York alone that have Sommeliers on staff while the PLCB has or had one as a consultant.

Being #2 in sales out of all 50 states.  California is certainly #1 but does he honestly think that PA sells more alcohol in total than NY, Texas, Florida and Illinois? Guess what – they don’t.  Maybe he means that PA is #2 in control states which they may be. I’ll give him #2 of the 17 control states but not of all 50 states.

The safest state for selling to minors.  Since none, not a single one* of the PA state stores, are checked for underage sales his crystal ball must know something we don’t.  Other control states range from 92-95% age compliance so PA is probably somewhere in there too. That doesn’t keep PA from having a higher underage binge drinking rate and underage DUI rate than most of our border states though.

Now for those huge profits that total under 3/10ths of 1 percent of the state budget. He is saying that if that goes away your local community will raise your home tax bills which I think means property tax.  Why or how he thinks these are tied together I can’t figure out. To finish he adds that this is what Washington state did when they did no such thing.  Housing prices or property taxes didn’t change one bit because of liquor privatization.  The two aren’t related in any way shape or form.

Like any other post put on a public forum (including mine) it is subject to scrutiny and fact checking but even more so when it comes from a person in a leadership position.  In this case Mr. Bond needs to go back and be re-educated again.

(* According to Stacey Witalec, then Director of External Affairs at the PLCB: "... because our stores are not licensed establishments, BLCE does not perform compliance checks in them.")

Privatization IS Modernization.  Accept nothing less.