Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2011 The Union Label Blog & Grassfire Nation
On Tuesday, President Obama had an op ed published in the Wall Street Journal. In it Obama insisted that our economy has been hurt by “unreasonable burdens on business” and that the regulatory sector had “gotten out of balance.” He promised that he’d make efforts to trim away regulations costly to business. While the sentiment is certainly a good one, it strains credulity to imagine that Barack Obama would be the one to make those cuts especially in light of the huge regulatory state that Obama has spent enlarging at every opportunity over the last two years.
To be sure Obama needs to gain the confidence of the business community. After all, as far s the business sector is concerned Obama has considered them his number one enemy since he began running for president back in 2006. The economy has stalled precisely because everyone is afraid of what punishment via his regulatory powers that Obama will next mete out to them.
But Obama claims he’s going to change all that and just in time for him to ramp up his 2012 reelection campaign, too. He’s signed an Executive Order, he says, in order to “strike the right balance” between regulation and business success.
This order requires that federal agencies ensure that regulations protect our safety, health and environment while promoting economic growth. And it orders a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive. It’s a review that will help bring order to regulations that have become a patchwork of overlapping rules, the result of tinkering by administrations and legislators of both parties and the influence of special interests in Washington over decades.
And if you believe that Obama is serious about this I do believe that there is a certain bridge in Brooklyn you might be able purchase.
Many assume that new Chief of Staff Bill Daley had a lot to do with this new direction, but regardless of Daley’s influence Obama has been forced to appear to be driving to the center due to the shellacking he and his party took in November. But whatever his electoral motives it is pretty clear by his actions that he simply isn’t serious about trimming regulations to help business. To get a better idea of his actual desires one has but to look at his use of his power to regulate.
Since he took office President Obama has relied heavily on his powers to create regulations to push his left-wing agenda. In fact, one of his very first actions was to sign an Executive Order that forced all federal construction projects to suffer under union rules, union pay scales, and union benefit whether the companies involved in the projects were unionized or not — the order forced called Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) on all federal contracts.
In fact, just looking over the regulatory changes and the threats to do so implemented by the Obama Dept. of Labor alone reveals quite the opposite direction that Obama claimed he’d undertake with regulations in his Wall Street journal op ed. In two short years Obama has signed orders to force PLAs (as mentioned above), put limits on what business owners can say to employees about union elections, made it harder to fire incompetent government employees belonging to unions, forced business to hand out union information to employees, nullified union financial reporting rules to allow unions to more easily hide fraudulent expenditures, and just recently has insisted that the Dept. of Labor can sue any state that makes laws protecting the right of workers to have a secret ballot in union elections.
But we don’t have to restrict ourselves to Obama’s Dept. of Labor. Obama has used his powers to regulate to rewrite financial rules, banking regulations, forced General Motors into bankruptcy then imposed pennies-on-the-dollar settlements on its creditors while giving preference to the UAW, has used the Federal Communications Commission to take over the Internet, has used his Federal Drug Administration to eliminate certain drugs, and has pushed his Environmental Protection Agency to implement extreme environmental rules to emulate the sort of Cap and Trade laws he couldn’t get Congress to pass. And this is not to mention the 150 new federal regulatory agencies he created out of whole cloth with Obamacare.
Yet, with this extremely high volume of new regulations constantly churning out of the Obama administration — something that commentator David Limbaugh has called an administrative tyranny — we are now expected to believe that he intends to cut back on them?
Of course, the idea in and of itself is a good one. For years pro-growth, business friendly advocates have been saying that our regulatory scheme is oppressive and is destroying our ability to compete internationally. Senator Mark Warner has added his voice to approval for this idea though Senator Warner insists we can go further.
“I spent 20 years in the business world, and I know that any company that does not periodically review its operations or look for ways to improve its procedures will not survive very long. Efforts to apply more common-sense to our regulatory approach can go a long way toward addressing the uncertainty that has kept the U.S. business community from participating more fully in our nation’s economic recovery,” Senator Warner said.
“The regulatory framework announced by the White House today is a promising first step to adopt a more rational approach to government oversight, but we can and should go even further. I have spoken with OMB Director Jack Lew about these proposals, and he shares my view that existing regulations must be reviewed from time-to-time to determine if they are still necessary and crafted effectively. If they are not, they should be changed or repealed.
William O’Keefe agrees and offers a first step toward progress.
As a first step, the President could direct the Department of Interior to expedite issuance of permits for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and to remove the recently issued ban on offshore drilling off of the East Coast. That action would have a big impact on unemployment in Gulf coast states and would send a signal that the U.S. plans to exercise more control over its energy future. Although the White House is a big proponent of “green” energy, it needs to acknowledge that since these fuels are a long way from being commercially viable, fossil energy will continue to provide the main source of power for our economy for decades to come.
While all agencies need to do a better job of avoiding regulatory overkill, EPA currently threatens to have the biggest impact on our economic recovery and job creation. Its proposed rules on boilers, stationary sources, and ambient air quality standards offer compelling evidence that it is out of control and pursuing an ideological agenda without regard to economic consequences. Those proposals are already having a chilling effect on investments. President Obama should direct EPA to suspend all pending actions to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, including plans to issue another set of CAFE regulations to mandate a fleet average of 45-62 miles per gallon.
These moves and others should be taken but no one should go into this deal assuming that President Obama has good intentions. It is far more likely that his only real goal is to get reelected. It is highly doubtful that Obama has any real desire to help the business sector. After all, his entire history has been as an enemy to business. From his earliest days until Monday, Barack Obama has been the antitheses of a business friendly politician.
-By Larry Sand
Before the Reformation, it was common for Europeans to pay Tribute to the Church. People across Europe would have to give something to Rome as a way of submitting to, or showing allegiance to, the church.
Tribute in another form came about in the U.S. the 1920s when organized crime carved up cities and claimed certain areas as their turf. Any legitimate person who wanted to start a business in a gang’s territory would have to pay a street or turf tax to the thugs just to do business.
While these concepts may seem alien to many of us in the West today, people here in our own country that toil away in non-right-to-work states must pay Tribute — in the form of union dues — if they want to be employed in certain professions.
Teachers in 28 states and Washington D.C. fall into this pay-to-play category. While this type of Tribute goes pretty much unchallenged, every now and then something comes up that you’d think would enrage those who are being victimized.
According to Barbara Martinez in The Wall Street Journal, “Randi Weingarten, the former head of the New York City teachers’ union, received $194,188 last year from the United Federation of Teachers for unused sick days and vacation time accrued before she left to become president of the American Federation of Teachers, boosting her total compensation to more than $600,000 for 2010.” (But then again, 80,000 teachers in New York fork over $125.6 million dollars every year with nary a complaint, so maybe an obscene payout to a union boss shouldn’t faze them.)
Also, according to the WSJ story, when Michael Mulgrew took over the UFT presidency last year, one of his first meetings “was held at the Brazilian steakhouse Churrascaria Tribeca and included 150 people. The bill was $6,400.”
That union leaders don’t think twice about living extravagantly at their members’ expense is typical of the nature of unionism in the U.S. today. It is especially hypocritical because these same union leaders love to rail against corporate greed and bemoan the plight of the underpaid teacher.
According to the New York Post, “Not many companies allow employees to cash out unused vacation days; even fewer pay out unused sick time on top of that.
“But, obviously, the world of organized labor is different.
“It’s gratifying to realize that the largesse isn’t coming directly from taxpayers for a change. But we wonder how UFT rank-and-filers feel about the boodle coming from their dues.”
Judging by their silence, the rank-and-filers don’t seem to care. To be sure, some don’t mind their forced status. But for the others, is it apathy? Ignorance? Resignation? Fear?
Whatever.
The Reformation was the beginning of the end of Tribute to Rome. The FBI did much to minimize organized crime and let people run their businesses without having to pay off the mob. But the unions and its leaders like Randi Weingarten seem to thrive — their hubris unrestrained by a compliant workforce and spineless legislators.
Barack Obama has given more payoffs, sweetheart deals, and new favorable regulations to Big Labor than any president in history. They should love him for his incredible largess. Next, in his never ending quest to harm the business community, defy the will of the voters, and give his pals in Big Labor paybacks, Obama’s National Labor Relations Board (MLRB) — a federal labor regulatory agency — is about to sue any state that dares attempt to protect the right of workers to have secret ballots in their workplace elections. The states have made the mistake of sponsoring worker’s ballot protection laws.
Recently the NLRB announced its intentions to sue Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah because those states had the gal to implement constitutional amendments to their state constitutions guaranteeing that workers have a right to a secret ballot in union elections.
With this the Obama administration is moving to deny workers their right to a secret ballot, a right that has been sacrosanct in democracies for hundreds if not thousands of years. Why does Barack Obama want to take away the right to a secret ballot? Because his union pals don’t want workers to feel safe voting against a union.
How can the Obama administration justify its efforts to eliminate the centuries old right to a secret ballot election? Why, because Obama’s regulatory agency wrote a new “rule” that says so, of course.
You see the problem as Obama sees it is that Congress has not passed the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA, also called the card check bill) that would take away by law the right to a secret ballot. The reason Congress won’t pass it is because our representatives and senators know that their voters don’t support this idea.
The failure of the EFCA to pass is the one plum that the Obama administration has not been able to give to its funders in Big Labor. So, because Congress won’t act, Obama used his power to simply write new regulations to just take away the secret ballot by presidential fiat. And now his NLRB is about to start suing states to push his anti-democratic ideas.
So what can we lovers of democracy do?
We can call our representatives and tell them to support HR 1176, the Secret Ballot Protection Act. This bill would stop Obama’s NLRB from taking way worker’s right to a secret ballot.
If you want to protect the ages old right to a secret ballot, tell your congressmen to support HR 1176. Don’t Let Obama take away worker’s rights just to give a payoff to greedy, Big Labor thugs.
A political operative tied directly to Rahm Emanuel has raised $1 million to back Emanuel friendly candidates for City Council, reports The New York Times. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is investing over $2 million also to buy candidates that favor their issues. Both are struggling to buy a City Council loyal to them in hopes of emulating outgoing Mayor Daley’s lock on power.
The Emanuel effort is being led by former Daley aide and Emanuel congressional campaign manager Greg Goldner. Goldner is grandiosely calling his fundraising effort For a Better Chicago. By “better” he means for a Chicago that will be at Rahm Emanuel’s beck and call.
Amusingly — nay perhaps insultingly — Goldner is insisting that his new effort has no connection with Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel’s campaign has also said that For a Better Chicago is not connected to his campaign.
… And I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
No, what this effort means to do is emulate the two Daleys chokehold on the Chicago City Council and build a new rubber stamp for a Mayor Emanuel. This is exactly how Richard J. and Richard M. Daley built their own rubber stamp City Council. They pumped millions into the pockets of compliant aldermen and ruled with an iron fist stuffed with cash.
It’s a good model if you don’t care about democracy or what’s really “for a better Chicago.”
Not to be outdone the SEIU is trying their hand at building a City Council that will jump to their tune, as well, by spending millions to buy its own slate of aldermanic candidates.
In 2007 the SEIU spent $2.5 million to do this very thing, but could not beat Daley’s lock on power. This year it intends to repeat that attempt assuming that it’ll have better luck now that Daley is retiring.
As I’ve written before, despite the unions slavish support of Barack Obama (Emanuel’s former boss) Emanuel is not the union’s favorite politician. So this is a fight to control the Council (with large amounts of cash) between the unions and Emanuel.
Who ever wins in this fight, the people lose…. though to be sure they’d lose worse if the unions win control.
And what is the saddest thing about this whole story? The saddest thing is that there isn’t a person in Chicago that thinks any of the aldermen are beyond being bought by the first group that comes to them with a fistful of cash. Everyone assumes that Chicago’s City Council is simply up for sale. And for the last 50 years there’s been no evidence to the contrary.
Everyone loves Girl Scout cookies, right? What could be more American? It’s a right of passage for many young girls to set up a folding table in front of a local business and sell their little cookies and what American doesn’t get a warm feeling in their heart when they see those peppy little ones chirping out, “would you like to buy some cookies?” Who could be against that? Who would want to set up a situation where Girl Scouts would be turned away from their traditional cookie-selling outposts?
Apparently the Obama administration.
At least one sector of America isn’t so fond of the ability of Girl Scouts to sell their wares unhindered, it seems. When the Obama administration’s Department of Labor and his National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) look at Girl Scouts, they don’t see cute little children taking their first steps toward adulthood, they see opportunity for a union powergrab.
Obama’s NLRB is trying to push a new rule that would force any business that allows Girl Scouts or any other local groups like baseball or football teams, school bands, charity groups etc. to sell their fundraiser items or solicit donations in front of or inside of their businesses to also allow unions into their businesses to cajole employees to organize.
Even when the purpose of many union actions are meant to drive customers away from the business in order to force the employer to accede to union demands, this rule would prevent a business owner from turning disruptive union activists away from their businesses.
A broad coalition of business owners have filed a brief with the NLRB in protest.
Today, the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW) filed an amicus brief with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on the crucial question of whether the federal government will demand that a business allow organized labor union representatives to trespass at the workplace in order to harass customers and employees and otherwise harm an employer’s business.
The case before the NLRB is Roundy’s vs. Milwaukee Building and Construction Trades (Case No. 30-CA-17185). At issue is whether the government can force any employer that allows charitable, well-meaning groups onto the premises to also allow union organizers whose purpose in many cases is to turn away customers through boycotts and similar actions. Such activity is often part of a larger strategy to pressure employers to accede to demands such as the nationally unpopular “card check” scheme that bypasses federally supervised private ballot votes.
The decision also would allow unions to go on the business owner’s property with the intent of running the company out of business – a real threat to many small businesses and entrepreneurs. Should the NLRB curtail employers’ property rights, the result could be a significant disincentive for employers to allow charities and community groups onto their premises, as well as subjecting customers and employees to harassment and labor strife. CDW’s brief argues strongly in favor of protecting customers, employees, and employers and advocates that the Board “should allow employers to refuse non-employee union access to private property, particularly where such labor organizations seek to engage in harmful boycott activities.”
Imagine. If a business allows the Girl Scouts to sell cookies, then the owner would also be forced to allow union thugs to harass employees and customers.
If this rule is passed by the NLRB the result will not be that businesses will open themselves up to union harassment. No, what will happen instead is that businesses will be forced to tell the Girl Scouts that they aren’t welcome any more. Businesses will stop allowing charities to solicit donations. Businesses will cease the practice of having schools sell candy at their doorstep.
It’s just one more example of the Obama administration giving unions a payoff. Little girls and charities hardest hit.
Resources:
As President Obama clucks his tongue at America for “pointing fingers” and “assigning blame” in our political debate, and as his friends on the far left ignore him and point their fingers and assign blame to the Republicans, Tea Partiers, and Sarah Palin, at least one union chief in Detroit is doing his part to add to the political vitriol by charging anyone that disagrees with him with being a “human rights violator.”
Oh, he’s all about sitting down at the table and talking, he claims. Yet, United Auto Workers President Bob King is ready to finger point and accuse people of a vile abuse of basic human rights if they don’t bend over and take it up the tailpipe courtesy of those greedy, profligate unions.
For Crain’s Detroit David Barkholz reports that the UAW chief is all prepared for negotiations with the Big Three auto makers this year, but his tone makes it pretty clear that his idea of negotiations is his way or the highway. His vitriol is already flowing before the first negotiation session begins.
What set King off was one of the ideas that the automakers have going forward. The Automakers want to somehow tie union pay to employee performance and King thinks this is a “human rights violation.”
King also trotted out the dead horse claim that America can’t have a “strong sustainable middle class” without his thuggish union pals. Forget that only 17 percent of the entire workforce is comprised of union members and forget that we have a strong middle class right now even though unions are a tiny fraction of that workforce… yeah, forget all that.
In any case, the absurdity of charging every employer that refuses union demands is somehow a “human rights violator” is incredible. King’s rhetoric hardly fits in with President Obama’s new found spirit of a kinder, gentler political debate. Calling anyone that disagrees with you a human rights violator is as absurd as calling everyone that disagrees with you a “racist,” or a “Nazi.”
… Oh, wait. The left does that, too.
OK, well I guess UAW President Bob King is being a normal, everyday left-winger then. Never mind. Carry on.
Eric Odom (Media Director)
Warner Todd Huston