Germans Love Socialism

Posted: 1/7/2017  Updated: 1/8/2017

Germans love socialism or so it seems if you follow the public policies emanating from this country since 1945.

Latest Example

Just read this article in one of the leading German daily newspapers: Ein neues Anrecht auf befristete Teilzeit Mehr als zehn Millionen Beschäftigte in Deutschland arbeiten in Teilzeit. Doch was ist, wenn sie auf eine volle Stelle zurückkehren wollen? Ein neuer Gesetzentwurf soll das erleichtern. (Sorry, it is in German).

Federal Labor Minister Nahles (Social Democrat party) supports a draft law to introduce an entitlement or right for every employee to reduce full time work to part time work and to revert back to their previous full time job. This requirement affects all companies with a payroll of at least 15.  This comes on top of an already existing law mandating an entitlement to unlimited part time work. German companies are by law required to offer open positions first to part time employees.

Some refer to Germany as laborers paradise! I beg to differ!

In this context it is really surprising that the German economy has been doing so well for so many decades especially in the export sector. Must be still strong German ingenuity and competitiveness; hard work and still exemplary work ethic; and fair and no nonsense business dealing.

Incomplete List Of Past Examples

There are so many past examples that this list would need to be amended. It is by far not exhaustive.

The examples are in no particular order.

1. Residential rental laws are heavily biased against owners of rental properties. German courts constantly and overwhelmingly decide in favor of tenants.
2. The German Constitution stipulates that private property must serve the common good. Whatever that means ...
3. The health care system is compulsory and heavily run and controlled by government. Almost any conceivable socialist measures have been taken, e.g. pervasive price and income controls, professional licensing requirements, exclusive or monopolistic rights of pharmacies, negative lists for medications and much more.  The government run insurance system is dominating a rather minor private insurance market (oddly enough Beamte (civil servants) are privately insured.
4. The energy sector is heavily government run and controlled. How else would chancellor Merkel be able to decide on a whim to shut down the nuclear power plants. How else would it be possible to subject Germany to a comprehensive and massive transformation to so called green energy sources?
5. All German companies must establish a labor council consisting of employees with enormous power if the company’s payroll exceeds 50. The origins of this law date even back to 1916, preceding the Russian Revolution by just one year or less. Thus Germany has soviets co governing companies for very long time.
6. Gender quotas for company board rooms were introduced in 2015
7. A gender equal pay law is in progress
8. Taxation in Germany is ridiculously high and Germans are willing to put up with it or are ignorant about it. The value added tax alone is about 19%. Social security tax is about 18%; health insurance tax about 31%; unemployment insurance about 3% (Tax rates are shared between employer and employee). And so on and so on
9. Labor law is heavily tilted in favor of employees. Overall, hiring and firing is made overly difficult. Maternity leave (also referred to as parental leave)  for either mother or father is up to two years. Employer fully paid sick leave is up to six weeks; after that statutory health insurance pays 70% of salary for another 78 weeks.

British Factory Acts Revisited

Investigating The Beginnings Of Big Government

In my quest to find the origins of why big government in Western countries has become ever so expansive and pervasive I came to the realization you have to go way back in history.

Previously, I have posted a blog post about British Chimney Sweeper Acts.

The Acts

During the 19^th century Great Britain passed about 10 such Acts to protect children, later women and to limit the number of work hours per day. The other component of the early Acts was healthier work conditions.

Between the first such Act in 1802 until the Act of 1844, these Acts provided child labor protection. Beginning with the Act of 1844 similar protections were extended to women.

The Act of 1802 mandated that (Source):

·         “mills and factories provide proper ventilation and required a minimum standard of cleanliness.  … All apprentices were to be educated in reading, writing and arithmetic for the first four years of their apprenticeship. The Act specified that this should be done every working day within usual working hours but did not state how much time should be set aside for it.”

·         “Each apprentice was to be given two sets of clothing, suitable linen, stockings, hats, and shoes, and a new set each year thereafter.”

Why does government coerce specific private businesses to pay and provide for education?

Why did government make such specific prescriptions as what clothing is to be provided to an apprentice? This is a form of partial expropriation or a form of taxation applied to certain businesses. Did other apprentices in non regulated businesses enjoy such benefits?

The Act of 1844 mandated among other things more government control over businesses by:

·         “Ages must be verified by surgeons.

·         Accidental death must be reported to a surgeon and investigated.

·         Thorough records must be kept regarding the provisions of the act.

·         Machinery was to be fenced in.” (Wikipedia)

Each work week contained 63 hours effective 1847 and was reduced to 58 hours effective 1848. In 1850, no longer could employers decide the hours of work. The workday was changed to correspond with the maximum number of hours that women and children could work. Children and Women could only work from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. in the summer and 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. in the winter. All work would end on Saturday at 2 p.m.. The work week was extended from 58 hours to 60 hours.

The Acts first covered only the textile industry, soon after other industries, later all industries.

Alternatives

Why were specific employers not prosecuted when working conditions were shown to lead to outbreaks of diseases? As happened in one of Sir Robert Peel’s factories.

Why were specific employers not prosecuted if neglect led to serious accidents in factories?

Was it really necessary to limit the workday to 10 hours uniformly? Would not have a maximum work hours per day for adults have sufficed? Why were work hours for adult women limited to certain times of the day?

Was it necessary to make very specific prescriptions as to how to enhance work place safety? Would not have best practices developed over time etc. and prosecution of offenders affected about the same result?

How many factory owners were actually ruthless to justify such sweeping legislation?

And so on …

Herbert Spencer On The Coming Slavery

To quote from the same name chapter of his book titled “The Man Versus State” (Emphasis added):

“Neither did those who in 1834 passed an Act regulating the labour of women and children in certain factories, imagine that the system they were beginning would end in the restriction and inspection of labour in all kinds of producing establishments where more than fifty people are employed; nor did they conceive that the inspection provided would grow to the extent of requiring that before a "young person" is employed in a factory, authority must be given by a certifying surgeon, who, by personal examination (to which no limit is placed) has satisfied himself that there is no incapacitating disease or bodily infirmity … The blank form of an inquiry daily made is-"We have already done this; why should we not do that  " And the regard for precedent suggested by it, is ever pushing on regulative legislation. Having had brought within their sphere of operation more and more numerous businesses, the Acts restricting hours of employment and dictating the treatment of workers are now to be made applicable to shops. From inspecting lodging-houses to limit the numbers of occupants and enforce sanitary conditions, we have passed to inspecting all houses below a certain rent in which there are members of more than one falnily, and are nowT passing to a kindred inspection of all small houses.* The buying and working of telegraphs by the State is made a reason for urging that the State should buy and work the railways. Supplying children with food for their minds by public agency is being followed ill some cases by supplying food for their bodies; and after the practice has been made gradually more general, we may anticipate that the supply,now proposed to be made gratis in the one case, will· eventually be proposed to be made gratis in the other: the argument that good bodies as well as good minds are needful to luake good citizens, being logically urged as a reason for the extension. … Failure does not destroy faith in the agencies employed, but merely suggests more stringent use of such agencies or wider ramifications of them.”

Acts To Eliminate Competition

Is it just pure coincidence that some of the most prominent advocates of these laws ran big businesses of the kind to be regulated? Follow the money trail.

Mr. “John Fielden (17 January 1784 – 29 May 1849), also known as Honest John Fielden, was a British social reformer and benefactor. … With his brothers, he expanded the family cotton business at Todmorden to become a wealthy businessman. … The Fieldens owned many mills … They spent £34,000 on the latest cotton-spinning equipment, and it created thousands of jobs. The mill consumed more raw cotton than any other firm in the country at the time.” (Wikipedia).

“On his father's death in 1811, Fielden and his brothers inherited the family cotton-spinning business at Todmorden, which became one of the greatest manufacturing concerns in Great Britain. Unlike most mill owners, Fielden soon became a supporter of legislation to protect factory labour.” (Encyclopedia Britannica).

The famous “Sir Robert Peel, who employed more children than any other cotton master in Great Britain, promoted the bill in response to his concerns regarding the children working in his mills. Peel felt that there was "gross mismanagement" in his factories, and as he could not find time to remedy this himself he proposed an Act of Parliament to address these concerns.” (Wikipedia). Because the famous Sir Peel did not have enough time to remedy mismanagement in his own mills? Give me a break!

In modern parlance this is called leveling the playing field.