The Benedictine monks at St. Joseph Abbey in Covington, Louisiana, saw much of their timber felled by Hurricane Katrina. To make the best of the situation, they began turning their downed trees into hand-crafted caskets. Business was brisk, prompting complaints from funeral homes and an investigation by the Louisiana State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors. In Louisiana, as in some other states, only a licensed “funeral parlor” may sell caskets or other “funeral merchandise.” Funeral caskets are high-margin items, so local funeral parlors don’t like the competition, and in-state parlors largely control the state regulatory board. The WSJ reports:
This past March, the Louisiana State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors subpoenaed two abbey officials to a hearing. If found guilty of illegal casket sales, each official would face fines of between $500 and $2,500 per violation, the board warned. The hearing, scheduled for mid-August, was cancelled due to a tropical storm.
By then, the monks had already prepared their own federal lawsuit, citing Louisiana’s “casket cartel.”
The state funeral board has nine members, eight of whom are funeral industry professionals. The board “really has it in for the abbey,” complains Jeff Rowes, senior attorney at The Institute for Justice, an Arlington, Va., libertarian public-interest law firm representing the monks. The law, he says, “is an unconstitutional invasion of the right to earn an honest living.”
There’s more on the lawsuit at the Institute for Justice website here.
David Welker says:
I hate to say it, but I have to agree with this lawsuit (as a policy matter) by those darn libertarians. (Of course, I think that lawsuits should be resolved based on law, not policy. So that doesn’t mean I think they should prevail.)
August 25, 2010, 2:51 pmneurodoc says:
Regrettable that the monks face the possibility of fines and the whole hassle of this, but how wonderful that this issue has been joined. Can only hope that with the help of competent counsel, they prevail and an end is put to this particular nonsense, which is so much about the self-interest of those in the funeral industry and not at all about the public’s interest. I don’t suppose that the result will mean the end of this state board, but it may mean their powers will be greatly curtailed, and that would certainly be a good outcome.
August 25, 2010, 2:55 pmzippypinhead says:
The state law seems to conflict with the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection’s “Funeral Rule,” which among other things requires that customers be permitted to purchase caskets directly from third parties of their choice.
I suspect the Feds may be weighing in before long, as they have done from time to time when state industry-controlled regulatory bodies have implemented blatantly anticompetitive rules to protect their members (e.g., real estate, practice of law, etc.).
August 25, 2010, 2:58 pmneurodoc says:
What exactly does it mean to say that you “have to agree with this lawsuit (as a policy matter),” then added parenthetically, “Of course, I think that lawsuits should be resolved based on law, not policy. So that doesn’t mean I think they should prevail.”
Given the facts of the matter as we know or believe them to be, you do or don’t think the plaintiffs should prevail? If you think they shouldn’t prevail, then why not?
August 25, 2010, 3:03 pmArchitectJS says:
First unlicensed barbers, now illegal casket makers!?
When will the government finally do something about these abuses of public trust?
August 25, 2010, 3:03 pmCornellian says:
“The law, he says, “is an unconstitutional invasion of the right to earn an honest living.””
Translation: “I’m suing for the publicity, not because I think my case has a snowball’s chance in Hades of succeeding.”
August 25, 2010, 3:09 pmMarcus says:
Well, is obtaining a prohibitively expensive law degree, then taking a costly bar exam (potentially VERY costly), truly needed for the successful practice of law?
August 25, 2010, 3:12 pmDavid Welker says:
I would actually have to either do (1) independent legal research or (2) read the briefs (including citations therein) to make up my mind about who should prevail. That is what it means to follow the law and not merely one’s policy preferences.
As of now, I have no opinion on whether the lawsuit should prevail or not.
August 25, 2010, 3:13 pmneurodoc says:
BTW, I know nothing about the Benedictine monks, but my bet would be that they don’t see themselves or their order as “libertarian” in outlook, or see this as a championing of a “libertarian” cause. And there is nothing in this to keep non-libertarians from siding with the Benedictine monks and their libertarian lawyers.
August 25, 2010, 3:15 pmHouston Lawyer says:
They should call the caskets works of art and sue on First Amendment grounds. Of course, you could say the same thing of the barbers.
August 25, 2010, 3:22 pmUrso says:
So I guess you have absolutely no opinion on, say, whether the health care bill is constitutional? Because you certainly haven’t read the briefs (they haven’t even been written yet) or scoured through the relevant precedent.
August 25, 2010, 3:24 pmClark says:
For what it’s worth, my mother’s family hails from the area around Covington. The abbey is located just outside of town in the piney woods of St Tammany Parish. My grandfather attended morning mass everyday that he was able to. His funeral was held there in 2003. He had several friends among the monks there, who were (and it looks like still are) absolutely lovely men. I have many kind memories of this place, and I wish them well in their (admittedly small) fight for liberty.
August 25, 2010, 3:31 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
O, the public-spiritedness of business! Is there a trade group in the world that doesn’t believe that the market is a fine thing but the public needs to be protected from the effects of cut-throat competition in their own industry?
August 25, 2010, 3:33 pmDavid Welker says:
Actually, I do have an opinion. I belief that these lawsuits are a request for judicial activism and that the individual mandate is perfectly constitutional. I think it is fairly obvious that the federal government has the power to regulate interstate insurance exchanges under the commerce clause. It is further obvious that the individual mandate is necessary and proper for these exchanges to function properly, due to the problem of adverse selection.
These lawsuits are political. That doesn’t mean they won’t prevail. Because the Supreme Court itself is often political and lawless.
August 25, 2010, 3:36 pmAlessandra says:
Of course, a neglected marketing strategy by the monks here could have been borrowed from auto dealers. Imagine the advertisement hook for potential defuncts:
Pay us a visit and take our new C1 coffin for a ride. Enhanced performance and looks throughout eternity.
It’s the next big Coffin.
August 25, 2010, 3:36 pmAdam J says:
David Welker- Frankly, if the law allows legally enforcable cartels for industries without any health, safety or any other justification for the restriction- then I hope the judge decides on policy, not some assinine law. This kind of law isn’t created because there’s a majority behind it, it’s created by corrupt interest group capture of the legisture and a public that doesn’t know and/or care enough to do anything about it. Of course, its good to see the press doing its job and shedding light on these kind of practices- maybe it will help wake up the majority so the legislature is forced to do something about it.
August 25, 2010, 3:43 pmKyle says:
This sounds like the perfect case to serve as a do-over for the Slaughterhouse Cases. It’s the same bogus infringement on economic liberty to protect an entrenched interest. And it’s even from the same state.
August 25, 2010, 3:49 pmKirk Parker says:
Well, there never was any doubt which side God was going to take in this dispute.
August 25, 2010, 3:59 pmd-berg says:
Where did they find a “right to earn an honest living”? I disagree with the stupid and corrupt Louisiana coffin sales law, but this is a policy argument, not a legal one. It would be judicial activism to overturn this law.
August 25, 2010, 4:01 pmJohn says:
I’m glad I read the comments, because I was about to post exactly what Kyle did 12 minutes ago. That said, it’s clear that we have one Supreme Court vote for the Monks.
August 25, 2010, 4:01 pmMatthew in Austin says:
I am surprised that hand-crafted caskets are that much cheaper than whatever the funeral directors were selling. If their mass-produced caskets can’t be priced competitively against the monks then that tells me people are paying way too much.
Matt Yglesias has been posting alot about similar industry problems and it always seems to get back to the same core problem. It isn’t that there should be no regulatory board. It is that the board should not be staffed by a majority of industry insiders who will naturally craft rules that favor the industry at the expense of the consumers! But when you dig deeper into the problem you see that the only people who care enough to sit on those boards are industry insiders, so the problem is self-perpetuating. Would you want to volunteer to sit on your state funeral board? I wouldn’t, so I don’t know who I expect to represent me. And this type of problem is ubiquitous on these regulatory boards. Outside of concerned parents on school boards, no one cares about these things until it is too late and they are the victim of the board’s decisions.
August 25, 2010, 4:06 pmRoger the Shrubber says:
Haven’t read the briefs or pleadings, but in general it’s tough to win antitrust claims against (awful, ludicrously unnecessary, protectionist, cartel-reinforcing) state boards.
But I’ve rarely rooted this hard for a religious organization, maybe that will count for something?
August 25, 2010, 4:27 pmmikeyes says:
Is it possible that this is a First Amendment issue? Since St. Joseph Abbey, like many similar institutions, believes that God’s work is done through work and prayer, I suppose that they could say that they are exempt from the state law (good luck with that one, though.) Part of surviving as a monastic institution is to produce a product such as cheese (Trappist monks in KY) or beer (many places) and sell it to bring in some money.
If the LA government wants to fine the abbot, I am sure that the abbot will oblige. I suspect that in about 300 years he will be able to pay the fines off. I also suspect that sending an abbot to jail in the Catholic part of LA will cause some political problems for the JP involved.
August 25, 2010, 4:35 pmAllan says:
The funeral casket thing also has something to do with captured regulatory boards. Industry should not be allowed to capture a regulatory board. This is what happens. It also happened in other businesses (like the stock exchange and, dare I write it?, state bars). The board was created to protect consumers. It is not doing its job.
August 25, 2010, 4:37 pmAdam J says:
d-berg- I think you’re confusing about just what a “right to earn a honest living” means. The monks don’t need government enforcing their “right to earn a living”- they need government staying out of it.
August 25, 2010, 4:45 pmPhil says:
IJ already won one of these casket cases at the 6th Circuit: http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=766&Itemid=165
August 25, 2010, 4:56 pmConfused says:
If the caskets are that much cheaper than the ones sold in funeral homes, why don’t they just price the fines into the cost of the caskets?
August 25, 2010, 5:04 pmConfused says:
Also, IJ’s emphasis on an “honest living” (and the invocation of the Slaughter-House Cases in the comments) should not obscure the DP/EPC rational-basis challenge that would be the likely ground for victory if indeed IJ prevails, as it did before the Sixth Circuit. (It will be interesting to see whether IJ’s briefing focuses on a sweeping but DOA Privileges and Immunities argument at the expense of the rational-basis challenge.)
August 25, 2010, 5:11 pmArthur Kirkland says:
The monks’ position on this point seems sound, but it seems strange for religious figures (who benefit from difficult-to-justify advantages ranging from special tax exemptions and free parking to privileges regarding clergy testimony and access to booze during Prohibition) complain about a system of special privilege.
August 25, 2010, 5:13 pmArkady says:
It’s over 40 years old, but Jessica Mitford’s The American Way of Death is still probably the go-to book about the American funeral industry bullshit.
August 25, 2010, 5:14 pmEdward A. Hoffman says:
The workers who mass-produce coffins have to be paid. Monks don’t. When you don’t have to pay for labor, it’s easy to undermine competitors who do.
Arguably, at least, the monks are engaging in unfair competition. This strikes me as a very reasonable argument for the casket industry to make. I don’t know whether they’re actually making it, and I don’t know whether it should succeed. But I don’t think the monks’ case is, well, open and shut.
August 25, 2010, 5:16 pmCornellian says:
“IJ already won one of these casket cases at the 6th Circuit: http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=766&Itemid=165”
The IJ pitches that case as a “right to earn an honest living” case but the court explicitly declined to recognize such a right, ruling instead on routine DP/EP/rational basis grounds.
August 25, 2010, 5:33 pmRhode Island Lawyer says:
My dad died about a year ago and luckily I had recently read the Mitford book, which was updated not that long ago. The difference between the cost of caskets at a funeral home and what the monks are providing have little to do with the relative wages paid to the monks compared to wages paid to employees of commercial casket manufacturers. In fact, the price of a casket purchased on-line from a casket manufacturer or representative is usually about one-third to one-half the price of a similar casket purchased from the funeral home. The additional cost at the funeral home is due to lack of knowledge and leverage on the part of the purchaser. Funeral home directors make new car dealers look like pikers when it comes to manipulating the buyer to maximize their profit. Everyone should read the Mitford book well in advance of the time when you will need the information.
August 25, 2010, 5:39 pmMark M says:
The problem isn’t exactly the regulatory boards. The regulatory boards exist in the first place because there is massive collusion within the funeral industry in almost every state. Prices are maintained by cartels, and there is massive consolidation within the funeral industry. Nor is the average person willing to argue that prices are unreasonable or pursue legal action in the fact of the death of a loved on. They come off sounding cheap – what, your loved one wasn’t worth it?
The regulatory boards were probably meant as a solution but subsequently captured by industry interests. The solution failed, but that doesn’t mean it was the original problem.
August 25, 2010, 5:43 pmgab says:
I think they should stick to making Benedictine. No competition, big markup, and no state board oversight…
August 25, 2010, 5:43 pmtheobromophile says:
First, who decides that it’s a good idea to sue monks!? Especially when you are living in a Catholic state?
To put it another way: small businesses owners don’t have to pay themselves for labour, so it’s unfair competition against big businesses that have to pay a higher percentage of their employees. Oh, wait….
August 25, 2010, 5:44 pmAdam J says:
Edward- I’m baffled by what you consider “unfair competition”. I’m even more baffled how you assume that the monks aren’t paid. They’re directly paid for the fruit of their labor when a customer buys their coffin. There’s nothing unfair about simply having a completely different business model from your competition.
August 25, 2010, 5:48 pmSlocum says:
Industry should not be allowed to capture a regulatory board.
But, sooner or later, they ALWAYS do. Why? Because they care more about what these boards do than anybody else does and so they are willing to go to great lengths and expense to influence these boards. And, on the other side, the politicians responsible for board appointments are very interested in new sources of revenue and people who will go to great expense (in the form of campaign contributions, jobs for friends, family members or themselves when out of office, etc) to gain their support. In fact, this is so much true that the regulatory capture often works in the reverse direction — politicians start regulating a new area of business as a ‘growth opportunity’. It provides them a new source of protection money (nice industry you got there, it’d be a shame if some unfortunate new regulation happened to it).
Here, for example, the ‘yoga industry’ didn’t set out to capture the regulators, rather the regulators came after ‘Big Yoga’:
http://reason.com/blog/2009/12/02/teaching-yoga-is-not-a-crime
August 25, 2010, 5:51 pmGaunilo says:
These numbers are way out of date–the last time I had real access to costs and selling prices of caskets was 30 years ago.
But at that time, a $6,000-7,000 casket at the funeral home cost the director in the neighborhood of $700.
The difference between the standard and the “sealer” casket was about $1,500 retail, and differed pretty much with the addition of a piece of rubber gasket glued to the bottom of the lid.
August 25, 2010, 5:53 pmVirgil says:
At the least, shouldn’t the monks Constitutionally be allowed to minister to their laity with in-house pine/ LA cedar boxes upon passing, on Freedom of religious expression grounds?
Am mightily impressed that the thread got this far without characterizing an upholding of this industry protectionist law as another nail in the coffin of free market practice.
August 25, 2010, 6:10 pmSuperSkeptic says:
d-berg,
The “right to earn a living” is one of the Supreme Court’s oldest Substantive Due Process rights, dating from the later 19th-Century. I’m not a legal historian, but my general sense is that since the closing of “the Lochner Era,” this type of Substantive Due Process right to “economic liberty” has been very rarely enforced, if ever; and I would venture a guess that it has been even rarer for these type of rights to be enforced under this same express wording and constitutional language (as they once were) than simply vindicated by finding the absence of a “rational basis” for the law restricting them. The Institute for Justice’s campaign in these cases amounts to reinvigorating this category of rights whether they be acknowledged to be “substantive due process” or not or what have you.
So, in fact, it is a legal argument in a vague sense; but also quite policy oriented as well, as you note. (Such is also the essential criticism of substantive due process, incidentally.)
August 25, 2010, 6:12 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Just a quibble, but that would be *re*-recognize.
August 25, 2010, 6:15 pmRandy says:
Personally, I think this whole funeral business is just a bunch of malarky. Why do we embalm people with chemicals that will eventually leak out in to our water supply just to make dead bodies be made up in a way that is always rather ghastly? I’ve never seen a dead body that looked remotely like the living person that used to occupy it, and it’s ghoulish to have the body on display. Close the damn casket!
Any why should a casket be so elaborate? Plain pine (painted, if you really want to go fancy), worked for thousands of years. Isn’t that the traditional way to go? Why aren’t conservatives yammering on about “traditional funerals” they way they do with marriage?
It’s all a racket, IMO. Irish funerals are the way to go — everyone gets drunk and has a great time. Then you put the body in the ground in a simple coffin and save the money for the rest of the family.
August 25, 2010, 6:17 pmArkady says:
Randy’s observation brought this back to me:
Tract
William Carlos Williams
I will teach you my townspeople
how to perform a funeral
for you have it over a troop
of artists—
unless one should scour the world—
you have the ground sense necessary.
See! the hearse leads.
I begin with a design for a hearse.
For Christ’s sake not black—
nor white either — and not polished!
Let it be whethered—like a farm wagon—
with gilt wheels (this could be
applied fresh at small expense)
or no wheels at all:
a rough dray to drag over the ground.
Knock the glass out!
My God—glass, my townspeople!
For what purpose? Is it for the dead
to look out or for us to see
the flowers or the lack of them—
or what?
To keep the rain and snow from him?
He will have a heavier rain soon:
pebbles and dirt and what not.
Let there be no glass—
and no upholstery, phew!
and no little brass rollers
and small easy wheels on the bottom—
my townspeople, what are you thinking of?
A rough plain hearse then
with gilt wheels and no top at all.
On this the coffin lies
by its own weight.
No wreathes please—
especially no hot house flowers.
Some common memento is better,
something he prized and is known by:
his old clothes—a few books perhaps—
God knows what! You realize
how we are about these things
my townspeople—
something will be found—anything
even flowers if he had come to that.
So much for the hearse.
For heaven’s sake though see to the driver!
Take off the silk hat! In fact
that’s no place at all for him—
up there unceremoniously
dragging our friend out to his own dignity!
Bring him down—bring him down!
Low and inconspicuous! I’d not have him ride
on the wagon at all—damn him!—
the undertaker’s understrapper!
Let him hold the reins
and walk at the side
and inconspicuously too!
Then briefly as to yourselves:
August 25, 2010, 6:31 pmWalk behind—as they do in France,
seventh class, or if you ride
Hell take curtains! Go with some show
of inconvenience; sit openly—
to the weather as to grief.
Or do you think you can shut grief in?
What—from us? We who have perhaps
nothing to lose? Share with us
share with us—it will be money
in your pockets.
Go now
I think you are ready.
Anderson says:
Arkady, Mitford had almost finished an update of American Way of Death when she died, and it’s been published with some tooling-up by research assistants. My wife, a new fan of the Mitfords, is reading it now.
… This post reminds me, I keep meaning to build my own coffin to save trouble later. Not sure if even that’s legal in Mississippi, tho.
August 25, 2010, 6:43 pmArkady says:
Yeah, it’s called The American Way of Death Revisited.
August 25, 2010, 6:48 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Incidentally, it’s looking like we have a nice liberaltarian alliance going here, fwiw…
August 25, 2010, 6:54 pmEdward A. Hoffman says:
Unless I’m mistaken, monks take vows of poverty and don’t receive wages. The purchase of a coffin from the monastery is analogous to a purchase from a commercial seller, but there are no payments to the monks themselves that are analogous to the commercial seller’s payroll.
Admittedly, I’m oversimplifying. The monks get benefits including room and board. Such things cost money. But the monastery must spend far less on the typical monk than a competing business pays its typical employee. And let’s not forget that the commercial sellers have to pay payroll and social security taxes that the monastery doesn’t. (I presume that the monastery has to pay income tax on its sale proceeds.)
August 25, 2010, 6:55 pmArkady says:
“The monks get benefits including room and board. Such things cost money. But the monastery must spend far less on the typical monk than a competing business pays its typical employee. And let’s not forget that the commercial sellers have to pay payroll and social security taxes that the monastery doesn’t. (I presume that the monastery has to pay income tax on its sale proceeds.)”
So where’s the bitching about offshore coffin-making?
August 25, 2010, 7:07 pmIrving says:
I’m with Virgil. What about the monks’ right to provide remunerated religious succor and humanitarian relief, in this case, “cases”, to Catholics, or maybe to any small c catholic churchgoers/ Christians, or perhaps to any monotheist, Satanist or Scientologist professing belief in an afterlife, or to the State on behalf of familyless indigents who should be given a dignified burial? IOW, to any one soul who needs a deathbox from soul specialists?
August 25, 2010, 7:11 pmEdward A. Hoffman says:
As I said originally, I don’t know if this argument should succeed. I was thinking out loud, not presenting a carefully researched essay.
But if I had a domestic competitor who could charge less than me because it was exempt from paying wages and taxes that the rest of the industry is legally required to pay, I would consider that unfair. Even the foreign competitors you cite have to pay wages and taxes, albeit at different rates. The money they save by operating offshore is at least partly offset by added shipping costs. The monastery doesn’t have to pay that either.
August 25, 2010, 7:17 pmArkady says:
Well, maybe, Edward, but I notice that it was the funeral parlor guys who brought the suit, not the coffin-makers.
August 25, 2010, 7:26 pmmike99 says:
Edward A. Hoffman – why aren’t the monks like partners in a partnership who all perform services for the parnterhsip? Or a bunch of sole propietors? None of them pay wages, but they all take profits. Presumably they have lower overhead, but why is the nature of that particular low overhead (no wages) any different from other ways to acheive low overhead (automation, economies of scale, etc.)?
I assume that the net proceeds from coffin sales are all taxed as unrelated business taxable income, so they are not competing on a non-taxable basis.
August 25, 2010, 7:28 pmEdward A. Hoffman says:
I said “commercial sellers”, not “coffin-makers”. The “funeral parlor guys” arethe commercial sellers, so your comment doesn’t contradict mine.
Because the partners and sole proprietors are still paying their employees, and are still taking out money for themselves in lieu of their wages or salaries. The monks aren’t doing either of these things. The other measures you describe — automation, economies of scale, etc. — are things all manufacturers can do. But eliminating payroll and the associated taxes isn’t.
August 25, 2010, 7:44 pmNickM says:
This regulation is necessary for the protection of the public. If you’re buried in a coffin made by unlicensed people, you may not get out of there alive. :-D
Nick
August 25, 2010, 7:46 pmmike99 says:
The monks likely are (or should be) paying taxes on their profits, much like partners in a partnership.
Partnerships may not have employees, and a sole propietor may not have employees. Paying other people to work is not the only way to do business. Does IKEA get to complain that there are indivudals who, all by themselves, produce custom cabinets and furniture? The one thing that an artisit or craftsman (and these monks) cannot do is take advantage of economies of scale and automation. Even if they have higher profit margins (with more of their gross sales price subject to taxed) they probably have smaller whole dollar profits.
August 25, 2010, 7:59 pmArkady says:
“I said “commercial sellers”, not “coffin-makers”. The “funeral parlor guys” are the commercial sellers, so your comment doesn’t contradict mine.”
Sorry, you didn’t make clear. The monks are making coffins, so I thought you comments were about competing coffin-makers. In any event, I trust everyone knows the background of all this, why the funeral parlor guys are fighting the monks: It’s the FTC funeral rule, which mandates that a funeral parlor cannot refuse burial if you supply the coffin. That’s the source of the heart burn: Their ability to gouge is being thwarted by the monks.
August 25, 2010, 8:01 pmArkady says:
Ah,just saw that zippypinhead was on this earlier.
August 25, 2010, 8:02 pmApperception says:
Um…
Must suck to have to admit your worldview is false, huh
August 25, 2010, 8:10 pmEdward A. Hoffman says:
I agree. In fact, I said so earlier.
True, but those who are in manufacturing usually do.
No, but those folks have to pay themselves enough to live on and (hopefully) save for retirement. They also have to pay social security and payroll taxes. The monastery doesn’t. My point isn’t that the monks somehow do their work differently. It’s that they are exempt from laws that burden all of their competitors. If you and I are in the same line of business, where you have to pay your people market rate but mine work for virtually nothing (and can’t go to work for you on the same terms), doesn’t that give me an unfair advantage?
August 25, 2010, 8:54 pmBama 1L says:
Why not Evelyn Waugh, The Loved One?
August 25, 2010, 9:44 pmBama 1L says:
Seriously?
I (non-monastic workforce) enjoy a great deal of flexibility because I can hire and fire my workers. If I need more workers, I increase compensation. When I evaluate a candidate, I am looking for a good coffin-maker.
You (monastic workforce) have to hope some young man feels a religious vocation and comes to your monastery. You can’t really increase compensation because entering a religious order doesn’t work that way. You have to find men with genuine religious commitments who will be incorporated into the life of the monastery: worship, service, making dinner, volleyball, etc., and his ability to make coffins is probably not something you will worry about at all. Once your monk’s there, you will almost certainly carry him on his books till he dies.
August 25, 2010, 9:54 pmBama 1L says:
By the way, monasteries in this country are normally organized as non-stock corporations or according to special statutes for Catholic religious houses. I don’t understand why you are talking about partnerships; a monastery has nothing in common with a partnership. Monasteries were foundational to the whole idea of the corporation.
August 25, 2010, 9:57 pmleo marvin says:
Who wouldn’t sympathize? The idea of monks in a wood shop making coffins is so damn cute! It makes me think of cookies.
August 25, 2010, 10:03 pmEdward A. Hoffman says:
The monastery never had to do any of these things. It chose to start making coffins with the monks it already had, presumably after discussing with them whether this was something they wanted to do and were able to do well. It thus did not have to worry about staffing. Presumably it also doesn’t intend to expand its operations dramatically, so it doesn’t need to worry about finding many additional monks. While it is true that the monks will be on the monastery’s books (scrolls?) until they die, they were already listed before it started making coffins and already had the same lifetime commitment. Any new monks who join the community will do so with the understanding that they will have to work in the business; those who don’t want to presumably won’t join. And those who do will be paid just as little as the ones who are there already.
August 25, 2010, 10:05 pmReaderY says:
It passes rational basis. If the business were completely unregulated, there could be public health issues analogous to the health issues involved in slaughterhouses. I don’t think the slaughterhouse cases are going to be overturned anytime soon.
August 25, 2010, 11:43 pmReaderY says:
The best use of the monks’ sympathetic situation might be to galvanize the public to pressure to change the laws.
August 25, 2010, 11:45 pmathEIst says:
Of course funeral directors are thieves
August 26, 2010, 12:55 ambut
they(monks) began turning their downed trees into hand-crafted caskets.
and
of course no tax had ever been paid on the land that produced those trees
Daniel J. Wojcik says:
So why don’t the funeral parlors just buy the Monks’ coffins for resale. Duh. Everyone wins. The Monks get the same money, the parlors get coffins they can mark up per usual.
August 26, 2010, 5:55 amOwen H. says:
Next thing you know, Dunkin Donuts will be suing to shut down church bake sales.
It’s a casket. You put a dead person in it and put it in the ground. What health issue could there be that isn’t there with every other wooden casket?
August 26, 2010, 7:18 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
If the coffins are not well made, the bodies can get out. Then, well, zombies. ‘Nuff said.
August 26, 2010, 7:29 amAlessandra says:
One of my first thoughts as well. And, having already noted how disadvantaged monks usually lack the benefits of catchy and expensive advertising campaigns, I would suggest borrowing from already proven slogans. For that special zombie client, nothing like their “Reach out and touch someone” line of coffins.
August 26, 2010, 7:53 amTimothy O'Sham says:
To endrun the funeralists who exact exorbitant monies from vulnerable, grieving family members made to feel they dishonor the deceased with anything less than red satin lined and gilted bordello customized caskets, the monks could offer their simple blessed burial boxes “free” as a religious service to Catholic parishioners who, in turn, could donate to the monastery, if they’d like
to get into heaven. AND get charitable donation write-offs.
Isn’t it written in the Good Book that one good cloister eff deserves another?
August 26, 2010, 8:35 amPubliusFL says:
Win.
August 26, 2010, 8:41 amfred says:
If the monks start throwing funereal pottery, would the State go after their urnings, too?
August 26, 2010, 8:44 amDebrah says:
August 26, 2010, 8:47 amSeaDrive says:
IANAL, so tell me, does it come down to the question of whether Louisiana has a right to a morally corrupt but legally appointed State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors?
August 26, 2010, 9:24 amBama 1L says:
I don’t think that turns out to be true–monasteries really are looking for monks, not industrial workers–but maybe you have talked to more vocations directors than I have. I also don’t know much about smaller monasteries; my experience has been with larger ones that have lots of different opportunities.
August 26, 2010, 10:00 amBama 1L says:
My suspicion is that the:
1. The monks don’t want to be part of the exploitive funeral industry; and,
2. The funeral directors don’t want to upset their relationships with conventional suppliers.
August 26, 2010, 10:02 amBama 1L says:
My suspicion is that the:
1. The monks don’t want to be part of the exploitive funeral industry; and,
2. The funeral directors don’t want to upset their relationships with conventional suppliers.
August 26, 2010, 10:02 amAbdul Abulbul Amir says:
But that is the very reason there should be no such boards. Their very reason for existence is anti-competition.
August 26, 2010, 10:36 amJSL says:
I live right down the road from the abbey. They cannot mass produce coffins. They physically can’t make enough of them to capture more than a tiny share of the market in Louisiana. The funeral industry is up to no good, I promise. This is Louisiana after all.
August 26, 2010, 10:43 amDennis N says:
Some of the woodworking supply catalogs, Rockler Supply comes to mind, have casket fittings and plans for that very purpose. We’ve joked about standing one up in the entryway, and using it for a coat closet.
August 26, 2010, 10:58 amJoe says:
In Louisiana, as in some other states, only a licensed “funeral parlor” may sell caskets or other “funeral merchandise.” Funeral caskets are high-margin items, so local funeral parlors don’t like the competition, and in-state parlors largely control the state regulatory board.
I realize my knowledge of the subject is largely arising from watching Six Feet Under and William & Mary (British show), but competition does not necessarily seem to me that only concern here. The funeral parlor business involves various complexities, in a sensitive area, and licensing requirements does not seem to me an outrageous idea. When some good-hearted, but unskilled, coffin maker makes one that collapses or something, perhaps we might see the logic to some regulation here.
August 26, 2010, 11:53 amAdam J says:
Joe- “When some good-hearted, but unskilled, coffin maker makes one that collapses or something, perhaps we might see the logic to some regulation here.”
You’re a bit confused here Joe- the regulation doesn’t have anything to do with coffin making, it has to do with coffin selling. Not to mention that I see absolutely no reason why regulation is necessary to make sure coffin making is done right(other then the good ol BBB perhaps). The fact that you can’t even come up with a dangerous malfunction that could occur makes this even more obvious. If someone makes bad coffins they’ll most likely go out of business through developing a bad business reputation and/or lawsuits. If you dear departed family member’s coffin collapses then you sue them- I don’t see why we don’t need any more interference in business here beyond the civil justice system.
On a general note- I’m often skeptic when libertarians start decrying regulation in any and all forms, but I think you need some kind of serious health, safety or at least financial risk to justify wholesale regulation of a profession. And none of those exist here, thus the regulation has no significant public benefit.
August 26, 2010, 12:12 pmneurodoc says:
Maybe the monks cannot produce their coffins for less money and/or don’t want to sell them for less money than they have been getting through direct sales to the public, meaning that the funeral homes can get more of a mark-up on coffins purchased from their current suppliers than they could from the monks.
August 26, 2010, 12:26 pmmojo says:
A lot of complaints from customers of free-lance casket makers, were there?
August 26, 2010, 12:38 pmJoe says:
Adam J
You’re a bit confused here Joe– the regulation doesn’t have anything to do with coffin making, it has to do with coffin selling.
If so, I’m unsure why we are being told about how the monks are making coffins. I don’t know what specific regulation is at issue, but the board being attacked here regulates various aspects of the industry. This includes what is being sold — which usually in some respect involves concern about where the product comes from in the first place, it’s production.
Not to mention that I see absolutely no reason why regulation is necessary to make sure coffin making is done right(other then the good ol BBB perhaps). The fact that you can’t even come up with a dangerous malfunction that could occur makes this even more obvious.
The possibility of a coffin collapsing from poor workmanship or materials seems of some concern. For instance, the cover can be quite heavy, and if it is poorly made, a funeral worker or person grieving can be harmed if it collapses when it is opened. Various aspects of the production, including chemicals used, can be regulated as well.
If someone makes bad coffins they’ll most likely go out of business through developing a bad business reputation and/or lawsuits. If you dear departed family member’s coffin collapses then you sue them– I don’t see why we don’t need any more interference in business here beyond the civil justice system.
If the family doesn’t have the funds for a lawsuit, including if the harm is small enough as not to make it worth their time, perhaps the locality might wish to provide an incentive all the same. Wrongful conduct also harms society, not just individual people involved in civil ligation.
On a general note– I’m often skeptic when libertarians start decrying regulation in any and all forms, but I think you need some kind of serious health, safety or at least financial risk to justify wholesale regulation of a profession. And none of those exist here, thus the regulation has no significant public benefit.
The regulation here covers not just selling coffins, but all aspects of the profession, which involves various complexities, including use of dangerous chemicals, while often being a very sensitive one that can cause some anguish to the people involved, if not hard and fast monetary harm. This includes various people who have few assets, such as poor people who also use coffins.
August 26, 2010, 12:47 pmJoe says:
“is an unconstitutional invasion of the right to earn an honest living”
Dent v. West Virginia, by libertarian Justice Field, is useful here:
It is undoubtedly the right of every citizen of the United States to follow any lawful calling, business, or profession he may choose, subject only to such restrictions as are imposed upon all persons of like age, sex, and condition. This right may in many respects be considered as a distinguishing feature of our republican institutions. Here all vocations are open to every one on like conditions. …
The power of the state to provide for the general welfare of its people authorizes it to prescribe all such regulations as in its judgment will secure or tend to secure them against the consequences of ignorance and incapacity, as well as of deception and fraud. …
The nature and extent of the qualifications required must depend primarily upon the judgment of the state as to their necessity. If they are appropriate to the calling or profession, and attainable by reasonable study or application, no objection to their validity can be raised because of their stringency or difficulty.
The implication is that this business is so benign that I guess a caveman can do it or something so this is just a cartel protection device, but the breadth of the regulations provided by the board in question alone underlines this is something of an exaggeration. The fact that “monks” are involved surely is meant to get the heartstrings going, but of course there is nothing that allows us to settle the desired result to them alone.
August 26, 2010, 12:56 pmAdam J says:
Joe-
First off, I don’t see why you continue to be confused about the distinction between making a product and selling a product. They’re two completely discrete activities. The monks both make and sell coffins- but they are not being regulated for how they make the coffins, only for the vast complexities of selling the coffin. Apparently its incredibly difficult to make sure you sell the right size box to fit a dead person.
“The possibility of a coffin collapsing from poor workmanship or materials seems of some concern. For instance, the cover can be quite heavy, and if it is poorly made, a funeral worker or person grieving can be harmed if it collapses when it is opened. Various aspects of the production, including chemicals used, can be regulated as well.”
Um… so you think the box might collapse in such a way as to hurt someone. This is certainly plausible, although its the case with any poorly made box, not merely one you put a body in and bury. If this is such a dangerous problem then we need wooden box regulators, working on it, not funeral director regulators. Also, what chemicals could you possibly be worried about being involved in the production of a wooden box… varnish and/or weatherproofing? Are you worried that the purchaser might lick or otherwise consume the box?
“If the family doesn’t have the funds for a lawsuit, including if the harm is small enough as not to make it worth their time, perhaps the locality might wish to provide an incentive all the same.”
If the family doesn’t have funds to bring a lawsuit then they certainly didn’t have enough money to pay for an overpriced casket. And we’re not talking about direct harm at the regulatory stage here, only increased potential for harm due to no them not being regulated sellers of wooden boxes. I’d like to see this quantified in a way that justifies the regulation. Could you give me an example of a harm caused by a coffin that is so small to an individual as to not make it worth their time yet so important that government needs to get involved?
“Wrongful conduct also harms society, not just individual people involved in civil ligation.”
Society is a pretty amorphous concept here, as I’m quite certain as a NYC resident that I am not harmed by how wooden boxes are sold in Louisiana. Furthermore, I’m pretty sure the wrongful conduct caused by a regulatory cartel that prevents honest competition is greater then the horrible threat of unlicensed casket seller selling a defective box (particularly since there’s no evidence that the licensed casket seller is less likely to sell a defective box).
“The regulation here covers not just selling coffins, but all aspects of the profession, which involves various complexities, including use of dangerous chemicals, while often being a very sensitive one that can cause some anguish to the people involved, if not hard and fast monetary harm.”
Uh no, the regulation involved here involves solely the sale of wooden boxes. Maybe the State Board also does some valuable regulation in embalming, but this lawsuit is regulating selling boxes, not embalming.
August 26, 2010, 1:52 pmArkady says:
Bama 1L:
Mitford’s book actually supplies facts and figures about the funeral biz., Waugh’s book satirizes Forest Lawn in LA (and only a genius like Waugh could have successfully satirized that place).
August 26, 2010, 2:10 pmFW says:
I haven’t read this, but I suspect there’s a Veblen good aspect to most coffin sales that the presence of the monks somehow avoids.
No one wants people to know they buried their loved one in a cheap coffin, but a coffin made by hand by devout monks, who happen to insist on only taking a small sum in compensation for their time would be ideal.
August 26, 2010, 3:34 pmDavis X. Machina says:
There are Trappists in Petosta, Iowa (New Melleray) who have been in the casket business for ages.
Wonder how they’ve avoided detection….
http://www.trappistcaskets.com/
August 26, 2010, 4:09 pmleo marvin says:
Beer, jam and caskets. The joke writes itself.
August 26, 2010, 6:53 pmRicardo says:
That’s a different issue. You are talking about the direct regulation of coffin manufacture by the state.
The regulation at issue here is that it is legal for you to buy a coffin from manufacturer X through a funeral home (where its profit margin may be 600% or more) but it is illegal for manufacturer X to sell exactly the same coffin to you directly, by-passing the funeral director middleman. If the monks were to cut a deal with certain funeral directors and sell their coffins to them instead, the business would magically become legal.
Laws like these are designed to protect special interests and nothing more.
August 26, 2010, 10:50 pmBill Poser says:
Muslims are buried only in a shroud, with no coffin at all. How come we don’t see more Muslim zombies? :)
August 27, 2010, 12:43 amBill Poser says:
Now that I think of it, the very low incidence of Muslim zombies is probably evidence that coffins produce zombies rather than contain them. Kind of like the rejuvenator coffin in Stargate… There may be a public health argument for banning coffins entirely. I bet the funeral directors wouldn’t like that.
August 27, 2010, 12:59 amMac says:
I believe it is a health issue to prevent disease. The Egyptians were experts at it, if you recall.
August 27, 2010, 3:07 amMac says:
Collapses and what, kills the occupant?
August 27, 2010, 3:18 ammarkm says:
Joe, they all collapse eventually. Underground, wood rots and metal corrodes. Only stone and concrete hold up indefinitely, but then you’d have to replace the pall-bearers with a forklift…
August 28, 2010, 6:49 ammarkm says:
As for “unfair competition” from the monks:
Benefits and social security taxes: Monasteries must provide for their monks’ medical treatment and retirement. If being exempt from SS and other government mandates is such an advantage, then I hope you people are agitating for the end to those government programs, so the rest of us can enjoy the same great deals.
Wages: A monastery is basically an employee-owned corporation, whose employees get much of their pay in kind. Since monks do not have families to support and live more simply than most people, this probably corresponds to a pretty low pay scale – probably around minimum wage, which should NOT be a living wage, but rather a rate appropriate for young people in their first job. But considering that monks aren’t selected for their work skills or fired for the lack of them, must spend a good deal of the time praying, and can’t be laid off when business is slow, I wouldn’t value their labor above minimum wage.
The one real advantage they appear to have is a free supply of wood. But this is just a temporary supply. Presumably after they’ve used up the fallen trees, they’ll stop making wooden boxes. And that means that it doesn’t make sense for them to make a large investment in specialized tooling – so I’m pretty sure their overall labor costs will considerably exceed those of a commercial manufacturer.
Finally, as others have pointed out, it isn’t the coffin makers that are trying to put them out of business, but the funeral directors. It’s not the manufacturers that they are undercutting, but the incredibly high profit margins of the funeral cartel that resells the coffins. The same LA laws that the cartel is enforcing against the monastery also prevents Louisianans from buying commercially produced coffins at possibly as low as 10% of the funeral home price.
So the only real question I see is whether there is a sound legal basis for overturning this bad law.
August 28, 2010, 7:18 amneurodoc says:
What do different religious traditions prescribe, if anything, by way of burials? Anyone know?
Do Hindus go with cremation? Orthodox Judaism has a number of prescriptions, including a simple shroud and a plain pine box, in keeping with “Dust Thou Art, and Unto Dust Shalt Thou Return”. Do Muslims have any prescriptions in this regard? Who (by religion, nationality, ethnicity, etc.) go for the most involved and expensive burial rituals?
August 28, 2010, 1:50 pmmarkm says:
Neurodoc, Hindus usually go with cremation. What else could you do with that population density?[1] At least they have mostly abandoned the custom of cremating the widow with her dead husband.
[1] There is another, incredibly insanitary alternative: throw the corpse in the river. I sketchily remember something about bodies given to the Ganges…
August 28, 2010, 6:16 pmAlessandra says:
Egyptians… by a long shot. Then…
Chinese
Romans
the French (always tailing behind as grandeur wannabees, even though their pride will adamantly revolt against implications of any possible inferior status)
August 29, 2010, 9:32 ampatch says:
“With all their legal woes, the monks say they have sold only 60 caskets since 2007…”
The lawsuit is for selling about 20-25 coffins a year?
“The first thing we do,” said the character in Shakespeare’s Henry VI, is “kill all the lawyers.”
August 29, 2010, 6:27 pmMac says:
Well, probably it was about Costco getting wind of it and selling their caskets in LA at a fraction of the cost of the funeral homes.
By the way, what do you suppose are among the most expensive caskets you can buy?
We found out when my father-in-law died. It was pine boxes, believe it or not. As he was in the lumber (retail) business, and had a passion for planting trees, we thought it would be cool. We were soon dissuaded from “cool” when we learned the price.
No wonder the funeral directors are having fits. Wood coffins have to be among their highest profit items!
August 29, 2010, 8:49 pmMac says:
Hadn’t thought of that. They certainly do make everyone else look like pikers, don’t they?
August 29, 2010, 8:50 pm