Patriot Action Network

CNSNews did a story today giving an update on Obama’s Executive Order number 13502 requiring all federal construction projects to operate under Project Labor Agreements (PLAs). Thus far the EO has been stymied by the commission that Obama set up to handle the initiative.

A PLA is a contract agreement that would force union rules, union dues, and union control of any construction project that the federal government undertakes. The PLA rules would even descend upon any non-union labor hired for the work meaning that employees would be forced to pay dues even if they do not belong to a union.

This PLA requirement is only another Obama payoff to unions and the construction industry says that PLAs will make any federal project go over budget, take longer to complete making the projects needlessly expensive.

CNSNews reports that the commission has yet to act on the EO.

However, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR), which is charged with final enactment of the rule, is still reviewing the matter. The FAR Council is made up of members from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration and NASA.

Naturally, in keeping with this Administration, one part of the EO is built entirely on an untrue premise.

“The use of a project labor agreement may prevent these problems from developing by providing structure and stability to large-scale construction projects, thereby promoting the efficient and expeditious completion of federal construction contracts. Accordingly, it is the policy of the federal government to encourage executive agencies to consider requiring the use of project labor agreements in connection with large-scale construction projects in order to promote economy and efficiency in Federal procurement.”

Brett McMahon, vice president of the Miller & Long concrete construction firm in Bethesda, Md., has made an appearance here on the blog several times in the past and CNSNews also quotes him here. McMahon says that the EO is simply not realistic.

“They say contractors don’t have their own workforces and just hire by the job,” McMahon said. “That’s not true. Most contractors, particularly those working on projects that are $25 million, overwhelmingly currently employ their own workers.”

A PLA might put a construction firm in the position of having workers that are not part of its own workforce on a job to be eligible for a federal contract. With half of the cost of a project coming from labor, it is best for a firm to be familiar with its workers, McMahon said.

The truth is this EO is simply a payoff to Obama’s union buddies. Free federal money to line their pockets to no benefit to the country or the taxpayers.

Go on over and take a look at the CNNews story. It’s a good one.

 

Why Is Chicago losing Trade Shows?

On February 11, 2010, in Unions Revealed, by Warner Todd Huston

This photo is a great example of why Chicago’s MacCormick Center is cost prohibitive for trade shows and why so many of them have pulled out of the city.

I’ve been to the auto show several times (not this year, but last) and I’ve seen these whateveryoucallthem workers that loll around the show with a plastic bag in one hand and a feather duster in the other. They lazily stroll about occasionally taking a swipe at something with their little duster but other wise just enjoying a nice leisurely stroll about the place.

This woman in this picture and all the union guys that twist in a light bulb, the union guys that plug in an extension cord, the union guys that move things, the union guys that pull the legs down on a fold-up table… each with their own unions and each forced on the exhibitors at union scale of up to $40 an hour.

It makes you realize why these trade shows are leaving Chicago like it was still on fire, fer cripes sakes!

Wouldn’t it make much more sense to have the guys manning the booth to be the ones to keep their own inventory dust free and save the stupid union costs that no one can afford anyway?

Yep, no wonder no one wants to be robbed in Chicago. Who needs Al Capone when we have Richard “King” Daley and his union thug army?

 

Yeah, I know… it’s like a broken record around here. But, here is another voice coming to our side to agree with us that public employees unions are antithetical to good government, wholly un-democratic, and, therefore, quite un-American. This time it’s the well-regarded Michael Barone echoing our mantra.

Barone is one of the best political reporters in the country and in his own inimitable way has jumped on the anti-union bandwagon (not that he never has in the past, just that this piece is particularly on par).

Before he gets to government unions, one of his points is that unions aren’t even needed in the private sector anymore because all the evils that employers perpetrated in the days of yore have now been regulated away by governments and laws. Because of an active government unions just aren’t needed to protect workers anymore, says Barone. It is a good point, after all.

Barone then goes onto government employees unions which he says are “not adversarial but collusive.”

Public-sector unions strive to elect their management, which in turn can extract money from taxpayers to increase wages and benefits — and can promise pensions that future taxpayers will have to fund.

Barone then says that this “parasitic” relationship has put the states into bankruptcy. Exactly what we’ve said a hundred times here on the blog.

Barone then notes that Obama is the union’s knight in shinning armor…

One-third of last year’s $787 billion stimulus package was aid to state and local governments — an obvious attempt to bolster public-sector unions. And it was a successful one: While the private sector has lost 7 million jobs, the number of public-sector jobs has risen. The number of federal government jobs has been increasing by 10,000 a month, and the percentage of federal employees earning over $100,000 has jumped to 19 percent during the recession.

Obama and his party are acting in collusion with unions that contributed something like $400,000,000 to Democrats in the 2008 campaign cycle. Public-sector unionism tends to be a self-perpetuating machine that extracts money from taxpayers and then puts it on a conveyor belt to the Democratic Party.

He ends his piece expressing the hope that the next Congress might be less obligatorily obsequious to unions. But I doubt it, myself. My guess is that unions won’t be crippled until a total economic collapse is seen at their hands.
____________
“The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it.”
–Samuel Johnson

Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, StoptheACLU.com, TheRealityCheck.org, RedState.com, Human Events Magazine, AmericanDailyReview.com, and the New Media Journal, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events and is currently the co-host of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Conservatism” heard on BlogTalkRadio. Warner is also the editor of the Cook County Page for RedCounty.com.

He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book “Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture” which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions : EMAIL Warner Todd Huston

Fair Use: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

 

Well, CNBC’s Media and Technology Editor, Dennis Kneale, is only the latest to jump my little “Unions are Antithetical to Good Government” bandwagon. Kneale slams Obama’s “unholy alliance” with Big Labor and proclaims it a danger to the country. He couldn’t be more right.

Here is the article: “Obama’s Unholy Union-With Unions

Here are a few choice quotes:

  • It is an unholy union. It’s bad for business, bad for the economy, bad for our country. Worse, for reasons I’ll explain in a moment, this alliance could lead to bigger government at all levels, which will require higher taxes on everyone (not just the top 5 percent of earners, those grossing $155,000 or more, who already pay 60 percent of federal income tax).
  • Let’s be blunt about it: Unions hurt profits, and that hurts stock prices. The typical union salary is 20 percent to 30 percent higher than the pay for a comparable job in a non-union shop, BLS data show.
  • The unions’ expansion into all levels of government already is having a pernicious impact. Today the average government job pays MORE than the average pay in the private sector.
  • On which side of the bargaining table does President Obama sit — with the union workers, in fat government bureaucracies and old ailing industries, who helped him get elected? Or with the Real Majority — the rest of the people he was elected to represent?
  • My fear is that the answer is all too obvious, and it isn’t the right one.

Now if only I could get them all to pinpoint me as the mastermind of this mantra! I couldda been a contender. Ha, ha.

 

NLRB Nominee Stymied

On February 9, 2010, in Card Check, Congress, Corruption, Unions Revealed, by Warner Todd Huston

Two Democrats joined newly seated Massachusetts Republican Senator Scott Brown Tuesday to uphold the Republican-led filibuster against President Obama’s nomination of Craig Becker to head the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The Democrats that joined the filibuster were Blanche Lincoln (D, Ark.) and Ben Nelson (D, Neb.). Both are thought to face losing their seats in the upcoming 2010 elections over the many left-wing votes they’ve recently cast.

The GOP is against the elevation of Becker to the NLRB Chair because his past statements show that he’ll take the position with a Big Labor agenda firmly in mind.

“Mr. Becker’s previous statements strongly indicate that he would take an aggressive personal agenda to the NLRB, and that he would pursue a personal agenda there, rather than that of the administration,” Senator Nelson said.

The final vote was 52-33, falling short of the 60 that Becker needed to sail out of committee and toward an open vote.

This is excellent news and shows how important Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts was to the conservative cause. Both Big Labor and Craig Becker have made it clear that should Becker take over the NLRB he will start a program of warping labor regulations in favor of Big Labor with a special eye toward surreptitiously putting the Democrats controversial Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) into effect even without any actions by the legislative branch.

This agenda proves that neither democrats nor Big Labor have any interest in the legislative process but intend to get their agenda in place by hook or by crook regardless of what the voters want.

 

We all know the drill, right? Unions curry favor with compliant politicians, the unions then donate campaign cash to them hoping for political favors later down the line. Yes, that’s the drill… unless you are the Montgomery County, Maryland teachers union. See, in that case candidates are expected to pay the union for its favors, not the other way ’round, apparently.

As the Washington Post says, this upside down relationship “distorts and perverts the political process.” Folks, if even the left-wing Washington Post understands that unions are bad for our democracy, you have to know things have gotten horribly out of hand.

In some unusually harsh language, the WP takes after these union thugs big time:

As far as we know, this arrangement is unique; in elections elsewhere, unions and other special interests contribute to candidates, not vice versa. But such is the overweening power of the teachers union in Montgomery that the usual rules are turned upside down. And it’s no coincidence that the union’s toxic influence in local elections is matched by its success in squeezing unaffordable concessions from the county in contract negotiations — at taxpayers’ expense.

The Post also goes on to explain why our constant refrain is the gospel truth:

Teachers are a bedrock of any community, and they deserve good salaries and benefits for doing a tough and important job. The problem in Montgomery is not its teachers. Rather, it is that the MCEA, the largest union in the county, is in effect hiring its own bosses — members of the school board, who vote on the teachers’ contract, and County Council members, who approve the overall county budget — and is getting paid for it in the bargain. This twisted system has fueled skyrocketing payroll costs — including a 23 percent pay raise for a typical teacher over the past three years, plus extraordinary health and retirement benefits — even as private-sector wages have stagnated.

Say it with me, folks: Unions are antithetical to good government!

Public employees unions need to be eliminated.