Skip to comments.Vote Buying with Big Labor
Posted on 09/10/2011 9:58:39 AM PDT by Kaslin
Rebates on social security taxes will not create any jobs, let alone the 1.5 million to 2 million that is projected. To create jobs in private business we need structural reforms that will permanently make businesses more competitive such as health care reform and scrapping numerous union work rules.
When it comes to public work projects, assuming the projects are needed, the goal should be to get the most work done as possible for the least cost. For example, it would be far better to hire two or three workers for $13 an hour than 1 person for $39 an hour, assuming equal skills.
Given so many skilled laborers are out of work, even $10 an hour would find many takers.
Government spending adds to GDP regardless of what is produced or how much, so fixing 1 bridge or 3 adds the same GDP. If you waste enough money you can have a positive GDP, whether anything is really produced or not.
Most of the first stimulus was squandered and should Obama win approval for his $447 billion plan, most of that will be squandered as well. Tax cuts will help corporate profits but do little for permanent hiring, and prevailing wage laws and union work rules ensure we will massively overpay for infrastructure projects.
Unless and until we fix structural issues, we can expect no job creation, no matter how much money Keynesian clowns want to throw around.
Devil at my Doorstep
Obama's proposals are 180 degrees wrong. Obama wants to drive up labor costs, not because it makes economic sense, but because it is the only way he can possibly be reelected.
What follows is a post written by David A. Bego, President and CEO of EMS, an industry leader in the field of environmental workplace maintenance, employing nearly 5000 workers in thirty-three states.
Bego is also the author of The Devil at My Doorstep, a book based on his experiences fighting back against one of the most powerful unions in existence today.
As a guest, post, by permission from Bego, I will dispense with my normal style of blockquotes. Bego's article was written September 5th, ahead of Obama's speech, originally appeared on Union Watch.
Unprecedented NLRB Rulings to Aid Unions by Dave Bego
President Obama will unveil his jobs bill this Thursday on national television. With unemployment hovering around 9 % for the last two years it begs the question, Mr. President, what has taken you so long? The reality is that the President does not need a jobs bill nor does he want true recovery. If he was sincere he would get out of the way and rescind the overburdening regulatory state he has created (see blog, Rule by Fiat). Unfortunately, he has no intention of doing so, as this would interfere with political paybacks to big labor, thereby hindering his 2012 re-election chances, as well as his desire to press his socialistic agenda.
Last week the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) took its first major step in making a reality the prediction of recess appointee and former SEIU attorney, Craig Becker. Mr. Becker has previously written that the goals of card check could be obtained through the passage of regulatory action. The NLRB issued a Final Rule requiring most employers to post an 11 by 17? notice advising employees of their right to organize under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) (see Labor Relations Board Rule Would Require Businesses to Alert Workers to Union Rights).
Employers will also be required to post the notice on company intranet or internet sites if such sites are normally used for posting company personnel policies. The Final Rule is scheduled to be posted in the Federal Register on August 30, 2011 and take effect 75 days later on November 14, 2011. As described in my previous blog, A Death Penalty for Employees and Employers, this is just the first of many proposed regulations/rulings the NLRB intends to enact to achieve big labors agenda. The objective as mentioned in Card Check through Regulation vs. Legislation is to provide big labor the tools it needs to exercise corporate campaigns against employers (see EFCA Through the Backdoor. and Corporate Campaigns: Vehicle to Forced Unionism and Political Payback).
Despite the fact that Obama publicly proclaims himself as pro-business and seems sincere with his favorable announcement this week rescinding the The Latest Job Killer From the EPA, it is yet another smokescreen to protect his big labor buddies cover up of the most damaging regulations in history quietly being thrust on employers and employees behind the scenes (see Obama Urges Independent Agencies To Shed Burdensome Rules and Obama Asks EPA to Pull . Ozone Rule).
In fact, NLRB president Wilma Liebmans last two weeks in office were quite troublesome as the board overturned the Dana ruling allowing employees to petition for an election within 45 days after they were force-unionized through a Neutrality Agreement, and also overturned the UNICCO ruling concerning successor ship, which protects unions when companies are sold, and the Specialty Healthcare ruling which will allow unions to gerrymander employers by organizing only certain employees in a business.
The Department of Labor (DOL), proposed a rule New Rule Proposed On Employers Use Of Union Consultants exempting big labor and its consultants/attorneys from the definition of employer so they are not required to report actions or contributions (see Union Bailout Update). These dont even include a Plan to Ease Way for Unions through shortened elections and a proposal that Union Bosses Go After Property Holders, Businesses & Girl Scouts, which are still on the NLRB docket. If the President is sincere about easing government regulation on business, why not have his NLRB cronies rescind these regulations now?
The fact is that Obama faces an uphill battle to win a second term in 2012, which certainly is not possible without the support of big labor, hence the urgency for the NLRB to enact the plethora of rule/regulation changes it has promulgated since Becker was appointed. It is very simple; Obama needs big labors money and foot soldiers. The only way he can provide the Gasping Dinosaurs with the ammo to help him win in 2012 is to provide big labor the means to force-unionize employees rapidly. The ammo is union friendly NLRB rule/regulation changes that allow big labor to effectively and quickly prosecute corporate campaigns against employers to force them to capitulate and sign the coveted Neutrality Agreement, which enacts the card check scenario.
Through the filing of multiple claims of unfair labor practices (ULPs) during corporate campaigns big labor can quickly wear down the target financially and psychologically, thereby forcing it to sign the Neutrality Agreement. Obviously, if the NLRB imposes more regulations, it provides big labor more areas to probe and file ULPs against the target employer. As chronicled in The Devil at My Doorstep it is simply the proverbial game of throwing a multitude of spitballs against the wall knowing some will stick and the target will give up. Obama and big labor understand that most businesses cannot afford the heavy legal burden of defending themselves and that most cannot stand the perceived public embarrassment.
Now we have a perfect storm where the President is in jeopardy of not being elected for a second term and desperately needs the support of big labor to have any chance in 2012. The NLRB is determined to be Obamas white knight and ride to the rescue to make sure that big labor has the tools it needs to achieve mass forced unionism of companies of all sizes so big labor has the money from dues available to re-elect its beloved President. Wake up Americans: Beware of Rogue NLRB.
You would think a President would care more about the future of his country than his own political aspirations and philosophical agendas. Please do the right thing, Mr. President, and dismiss the NLRB regulations as you did the EPA regulations this past week. Show America you care more about our future and American jobs and freedoms than your re-election. Unfortunately, President Obama will do none of this and instead will play the worn out blame game and poor me cards.Bego's excellent article and actual experiences go hand in hand with labor reforms I think are mandatory if the goal is really to get America working again as opposed to getting politicians elected again.
My 12 structural reforms, many of which involve labor, would create far more hobs than $1 trillion in stimulus without reforms. Please see Dissecting the Lies in Obama's $447 Billion "Shock-and-Awe" Reelection Ploy; Dead-on-Arrival in Congress? Alternative Proposal Will Not Cost a Dime for a discussion.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
“it would be far better to hire two or three workers for $13 an hour than 1 person for $39 an...”
Class warfare...in reverse...
Hell..why not just hire illegals...
U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee
June 25, 1997
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson
Four Million 'Harry Becks' Voted In 1996
In 1988, the Supreme Court determined that 79 percent of telephone lineman Harry Beck's compulsory union dues were spent on political and other activities unrelated to collective bargaining or union organizing. His union, the Communications Workers of America (CWA), was required to return that portion of Mr. Beck's dues. Despite the Beck decision, however, millions of union employees are still forced to pay dues as a condition of employment while their union bosses continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on politicians and political causes that their rank and file members do not support.
According to Department of Labor statistics, 80 percent (8.2 million employees) of all private sector workers covered by a union contract are required under that contract to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Like Harry Beck, nearly 4 million of these workers are forced to devote a portion of their paychecks to political activities they may not support:
F.C. "Duke" Zeller, who for 14 years served as director of communications at Teamsters headquarters in Washington, D.C., estimates that unions spent about $400 million in the 1992 election cycle. Moreover, in his book, Devil's Pact: Inside the World of the Teamsters Union, Mr. Zeller quotes former Teamsters vice president Gene Giacumbo who states that he was present at an executive board meeting in which union president Ron Carey boasted of spending $56 million in Teamster funds to help Bill Clinton get reelected. If Mr. Giacumbo's recollection is correct, that figure represents more than 20 times the $2.4 million in PAC contributions the Teamsters reported to the FEC for the 1992 election.
Rutgers Economist Also Puts Price Tag at $300 to $500 Million in 1992
In March of 1996, during testimony before the Committee on House Oversight, Rutgers University economist Leo Troy also estimated that unions spent between $300 million and $500 million during the 1992 election cycle. This amount includes both cash contributions from union PACs and "in-kind" or "soft" money contributions consisting of such activities as voter registration drives, telephone banks, transportation to polls, and campaign "volunteers."
In a letter to the committee chairman, Professor Troy stated, "According to figures reported by the FEC (reproduced in the Statistical Abstract of the U.S. of 1995), in 1991-2, union political action committees spent just under $95 million. I estimate that "in-kind" expenditures could reasonably be a multiple of 3 to 5 times that amount."
Nothing "Soft" About Big Labor Money
By their own admission, union leaders place a high premium on in-kind political expenditures, making it easy to understand why soft money greatly exceeds PAC money. The following are excerpts from union newsletters and press accounts of soft money in action:
Paul Patton for Governor Campaign (Kentucky 1995)
Ron Wyden for Senate (Oregon 1996)
Class warfare...in reverse...
This is designed to raise the "employment" numbers. In this example, 3:1, to help him "solve" the unemployment problem before Nov. '12, if he ever runs.
Mind you, liberals "criticized" Perry for his high employment numbers of "poorly paid jobs!"
What's good for the liberal goose is never good for the Conservative gander!
>>Hell..why not just hire illegals...
Or Plant La Raza ACORNS that can be eaten Countrywide?