Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

"The union label stifles growth and jobs"

Washington Examiner:

Businesses often consider government interference when they make decisions about where to locate. One instance of such interference is the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, which established a regimen of special treatment for labor during an era when nearly one in three employees were union members. Today, unions have lost relevance for more than 93 percent of American workers in the private sector, but the distortions of this law remain with us, harming the ability of American businesses to compete. To see its results, we need only look south and west to the success of our nation’s 22 right-to-work states.

Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 allows states to pass right-to-work laws, which bar union membership from being used as a condition of employment. In practice, these laws make unions significantly less powerful and less disruptive than did the original NLRA rules, and with tremendously positive economic results for everybody concerned. A recent study by the staff of Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., pointed to some revealing data: Between 1993 and 2009, right-to-work states created jobs twice as fast as states where forced unionism is permitted, and enjoyed 10 percent faster growth in personal income. Right-to-work states account for only 40 percent of the U.S. population but hosted 60 percent of the nation’s new businesses during that same period.

Such data contrasts mightily with facts like this: Unions spent $400 million to elect President Obama and Democrats in 2008 largely because of promises to use the federal government to restore labor to its former position of strength. The centerpiece of that effort was card check, which would have abolished secret ballots in workplace representation elections, but it failed in Congress.

So now the Obama campaign to rescue dying unions is focused on the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB, which is run by Obama appointees, has filed a complaint against Boeing Aircraft Co. for expanding its manufacturing operations into DeMint’s right-to-work state. Obama is only trying to help his union campaign donors — as usual — but this effort is bound to backfire. Right-to-work states are demonstrating daily that workers, their families and taxpayers all benefit when employees have the freedom to choose whether to join a union. There are 22 such states now and odds are more are coming, which will be good economic news for them — and the country.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but if this Administration can mandate that we buy shit — and then dictate the terms of the shit we buy — I’m sure they can figure out a way to argue legally that they can dictate where companies can set up. After all, to listen to Al Franken tell it, it is your choice not to join the union.

So it’s not like you’re being pressured or anything. Just be sheep and you’ll be properly shepherded. Problem solved!

13 Replies to “"The union label stifles growth and jobs"”

  1. Squid says:

    Why do you hate working people, Jeff? Why do you want to starve their families?

    You horrible, horrible man.

  2. Bob Reed says:

    This NLRB thing is going to turn into Obama’s bridge too far.

    But at least it serves to underscore Franken’s idiocy, once again.

  3. Darleen says:

    related

    Stung by constant criticism that his administration’s policies were anti-business, in January Obama announced a government-wide review of federal regulations to restore “balance” by eliminating those “that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive.” He emphasized this again in his State of the Union Speech, referring to “rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses.”

    Either the president has little grasp of the nuances of federal regulation or he is just politicking in preparation for the 2012 election. For one thing, his directive merely reinforces an executive order President Bill Clinton signed in 1993 that has been applicable to the Obama administration since it assumed office.

    But those in the Obama administration seem to have ignored the executive order. According to economist Susan Dudley, who during the previous administration headed the Office of Management and Budget office that oversees and coordinates executive branch regulations, “Over the first two years of [Obama’s] term, the federal government issued 132 economically significant regulations (defined as having impacts of $100 million or more per year). That averages out to 66 major regulations per year, which is dramatically higher than the averages issued by President Clinton (47 per year) or President Bush (48 per year).” Moreover, she notes that the Obama administration’s future Regulatory Agenda, released in December, does not indicate any slowing. Quite the opposite, in fact. […]

    Many of these senior decision-makers adhere to a hyper-regulatory, damn-the-science philosophy. It resembles the Europeans’ innovation-busting “precautionary principle,” the view that until a product or activity has been definitively proven safe, it should be banned or at least smothered with regulation. Policy by policy, decision by decision, Obama’s appointees are damaging the nation’s competitiveness, ability to innovate, and capacity to create wealth.

  4. cranky-d says:

    Stung by constant criticism that his administration’s policies were anti-business, in January Obama announced[…]

    The truth it stings!

  5. cranky-d says:

    That needed a comma.

  6. agile_dog says:

    Well, if Al Franken says it, it must be true.

    /sarc

    Al never tried to work for UPS or other national carrier. What am I thinking? Al probably never tried to work!

  7. SDN says:

    Either The president has both little grasp of the nuances of federal regulation or and he is just politicking in preparation for the 2012 election.

    Much more accurate relationship there.

  8. Swen says:

    Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) quipped in response to Franken — that you wouldn’t have to join a union unless “you wanted a job”.

  9. John Bradley says:

    Al never tried to work for UPS or other national carrier. What am I thinking? Al probably never tried to work!

    Oh, I’m positive that the esteemed Senator Frankenberry has been a member of several actor/writer unions. You know, like the Film Actors Guild, and so on.

    For what it’s worth, I highly recommend that Adam Carolla interview of Andrew Breitbart. The first ten minutes are skippable, but when they get going on the self-destruction of California (they’re against it), the unions that Carolla is forced to be a member of (well, if he wants to work that is), the schools, building permits, etc… it’s all quite entertaining and profane.

    And righteous.

  10. Mueller says:

    On the bright side, it frees up Boeing to employ the nice folks in China,Taiwan, and S. Korea.

    A win, win for the administration!

  11. serr8d says:

    Tens of thousands” of union jobs possibly lost, thanks! to BHO’s far-left beliefs and his ideologically-controlled EPA.

  12. LTC John says:

    “But at least it serves to underscore Franken’s idiocy, once again.”

    What doesn’t do that?

    serr8d – “Some of the new source standards are below the detection limits of current monitoring and testing equipment.” Meh, just command and control some science-y people to invent new equipment, right? So much for the miners and electrical workers…

Comments are closed.