labor unions

DISCLOSE Act attacks freedom of speech | Washington Examiner

Democrats promised to get around the Citizens United ruling. (That’s a telling statement about the current Congress and administration, that they consider the Constitution something to “get around.”)

Their answer is the DISCLOSE Act, which is every bit as much an attempt to silence free speech as BCRA. Among other things, it requires that every group seeking to run political ads must show pictures and carry audio approvals from the organization’s head, the head of their largest contributor, and the names of the organization’s five top donors, whether or not they contributed to the message in question.

The end result of these onerous requirements is that of a 30-second TV or radio spot, perhaps 15 seconds will be consumed with these tedious, eye-glazing disclosures.

And by the way, labor unions are exempt from this law. Team Obama says, “We need disclosure!” Yet Team Obama’s storm troopers don’t need to disclose their activities, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

via Ken Klukowski: DISCLOSE Act attacks freedom of speech | Washington Examiner.

Obama, Dems cut deal to exempt union health care from taxes | Washington Examiner

The White House has agreed to concessions in its health care legislation aimed at sparing union workers the bulk of a new tax.

We have seen tremendous progress over the last couple of days,” said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, signaling an easier path for the legislation in the union-friendly House.

read the rest here… Obama, Dems cut deal to exempt union health care from taxes | Washington Examiner.

Investors.com – Skewed Priorities

Service Employees International Union boss Andy Stern, who told the Wall Street Journal that if the power of persuasion didn’t work, then the persuasion of power would have to do. The records show Stern had 22 meetings, many face-to-face with the president, more than anyone else known so far. Stern might as well borrow a White House bedroom.

And that may be why the president has been so solicitous of union demands at the expense of the economy. As the jobless rate hits 9.8%, unions have managed to persuade the president to impose tire tariffs, violate the NAFTA treaty with Mexican truck restrictions, place protectionist “Buy American” limitations on federal contracts, and ice Colombian, Panamanian and Korean free trade treaties. Stern’s union has also harassed banks that took bailouts, making one wonder if a sort of Cuban or Venezuelan revolutionary mob activity against business has the White House imprimatur.

While Stern gets what he wants from the White House, the released visitors list shows no record of huddling with U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, whose trade pacts could create 600,000 jobs if ratified, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

read the rest here… Investors.com – Skewed Priorities.

Post Office + unions = millions for idleness OneNewsNow.com

Many Americans may be outraged to find out that while the United States Postal Service is facing a $7 billion deficit this year and receiving a $4 billion bailout from Congress, the government agency is spending more than a million dollars each week to pay thousands of employees to sit in empty rooms and do nothing.

The Federal Times reports the Postal Service is paying out 45,000 hours of “standby time” every week — the equivalent of having 1,125 full-time employees sitting idle, at a cost of more than $50 million a year. Postal union officials estimate that 15,000 employees have spent time this year holed up in so-called “resource rooms” where they read books, do word puzzles, or sleep — and get paid for it.

Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst at the Cato Institute, says the Postal Service is experiencing serious financial woes in large part because 80 percent of its cost is tied up in labor.

“The Postal Service labor force is heavily unionized,” he points out, “and the fact that they can’t set aside these people or fire people, or reduce wages or time, or furlough [them] or anything, is all a function of the union contracts that they operate under.”

via Post Office + unions = millions for idleness OneNewsNow.com.

Obama’s Swing-State Blues – WSJ.com

Polls show the president’s popularity has dropped to nearly 40% in the state. By August, Mr. McDonnell had so successfully lashed Mr. Deeds to the White House that the Democrat was down by 15 points.

If there is a saving grace for Mr. Deeds—and there may yet be—it is also a teaching moment for Republicans. Mr. McDonnell’s early strength seemed to suggest the GOP had learned its lesson and was determined to stop alienating voters. The Republican, a social conservative, let his record on those questions speak for itself, and instead ran a disciplined campaign focused on bread-and-butter economic concerns. Mr. Deeds kept trying to paint his opponent as too conservative for the state, but most Virginians saw a man offering solutions to their top worries.

via Kim Strassel: Obama’s Swing-State Blues – WSJ.com.

Europe Thumps U.S., Again – WSJ.com

On present trends, most of Europe will soon have lower income tax rates than most of America. And now the European Union is stealing another competitive march on Washington, this time on a free trade deal with the world’s 13th largest economy, fast-growing South Korea.

Last week Brussels and Seoul finished the outline of a new trade agreement, and the two sides will now write up the technical language to codify it. As for the pending U.S.-Korea trade agreement, Congress has done . . . nothing.

via Europe Thumps U.S., Again – WSJ.com.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce vs. Democrats

I think the chamber of Commerce knows a thing or two about how economies are built and destroyed. They clearly see a danger in letting the Democrats run away with the government. From the WSJ…

The nation’s largest business lobby, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has raised ire among Democratic leaders for pouring millions of dollars into an advertising push to prevent the party from winning dominance in the Senate next year…

The Chamber says it has raised enough money this year from corporations to spend about $35 million on the election, double its budget for House and Senate races in the 2006 election. The group is supporting pro-business candidates, almost exclusively Republicans in contested Senate races.

Business executives fear that Democrats, bouyed by heavy spending from organized labor, could gain enough muscle in the Senate to spark policies favoring increased unionization, higher taxes, more restrictions on trade and more regulation on the financial-services and housing sectors

The Chamber has spent $10 million on advertising on behalf of pro-business candidates in tight races since the end of August. No other single organization has spent more on Senate races, according to data collected by the Federal Election Commission. The Chamber says it will spend millions more in the final weeks of the campaign.

The Washington-based Chamber represents three million U.S. business and most of the thousands of local chambers of commerce from around the country. The lobbying federation says it doesn’t favor either party, but backs “pro-business candidates” from both. It has no legal obligation to be nonpartisan.

Overall, U.S. businesses tend to contribute similar amounts to Democrats and Republicans in their direct giving to candidates and political parties. Through Sept. 30, companies and their political action committees donated $129.6 million to Democrats and $132.6 million to Republicans.

The Chamber of Commerce is attempting to counteract another major font of funding and influence — the $300 million that organized labor will spend on campaigns during this election cycle, most of it aimed at persuading unionized workers to vote Democratic. Much of that money has gone directly to campaigns: Through Sept. 30, labor unions and their political action committees have given $52.3 million to Democrats and $4.8 million to Republicans, according to data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Yet another in a very long line of singularly decisionable proofs that Obama and the Democrats are wrong for America. Combine them and I’m shocked that Obama has any but the far-Left sideshow vote.

American fence-sitters are letting temporary emotion and hot-air speech-writing rule the election cycle, rather than substance, experience, and sound policy to our very painful downfall if Obama and and Democrat candidates win.

Labor Unions Prolonged the Depression

WSJ Excerpt…

By the mid-1930s, the U.S. economy appeared to be climbing out of the Great Depression. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA), which had bottomed out at 41 in 1932, was advancing. It increased 73% from the beginning of 1935 through the end of 1936, when it hit 180. The number of unemployed, 13 million in 1933, dropped to 9.5 million in 1935 and 7.6 million in 1936.

Then, in 1937, the DJIA plunged 33% in what is often called “a depression within a depression.” Joblessness skyrocketed.

A principal factor in the meltdown that year was the U.S. Supreme Court’s surprise 5-4 decision in early April to uphold the constitutionality of the Wagner Act, which had passed two years earlier. This measure, which is still the basis of our labor relations regime, authorized union officials to seek and obtain the power to act as the “exclusive” (that is, the monopoly) bargaining agent over all the front-line employees, including union nonmembers as well as members, in a unionized workplace.

As Amity Shlaes observed in her recent history of the Great Depression, “The Forgotten Man,” within a few months after the Wagner Act was upheld, industrial production began to plummet and “the jobs started to disappear, with unemployment moving back to 1931 levels,” even as the number of workers under union control was “growing astoundingly.”

Given the reality of unions in the workplace, the law meant that efficiency and profitability were compromised, by forcing employers to equally reward their most productive and least productive employees. Therefore subsequent wage increases for some workers led to widespread job losses.

Pre-Depression-era growth and prosperity did not return to the private sector until the early 1950s, when the spread of state right-to-work laws prohibiting forced union membership and dues greatly reduced the detrimental effects of the Wagner Act.

The U.S. has just experienced another stock market crash, and Barack Obama, the candidate now favored to be the next president, is in favor of what amounts to a new Wagner Act.

“I owe those unions,” Mr. Obama explained in his 2006 political memoir, “The Audacity of Hope.” “When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I don’t consider this corrupting in any way . . .”

John McCain voted against card-check legislation in 2007, and has pledged to veto such legislation as president. He also supports a national right-to-work law that would repeal all current federal labor law provisions authorizing forced union dues and fees. Unfortunately, his campaign has done little to alert the nation to the dangers of the card-check bill.

Before they cast their votes, the American people ought to be aware of Mr. Obama’s commitment to the passage of a new Wagner Act, and of what the economic consequences of such a law are almost certain to be.

Very much worth a read, READ IT HERE