► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘unions’

Regulators Gone Wild! Part II California Edition.

by Flyovercountry ( 46 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, Politics, Progressives, Regulation, Socialism, Unions, Unions at August 31st, 2011 - 8:00 pm


Navy Seal Foundation Charity… Gun Raffle Tickets!

Great prize! Great cause!



When my children were younger, my family, like many other American families faced a dilemma.  What to do with the offspring during working hours.  After the 6 week leave of absence from her job, the little Mrs. and I realized that we would not be able to just toss the bundle of joy into the bassinet for the day while we both of us left for our money earning activities.  The little bundle of joy, Deborah, required pretty consistent attention.  Feedings, changing, play time, what have you was something which was not going to go away simply because we needed to earn a living.  The dilemma was the fact that day care in a government approved facility was more expensive than the money my wife earned at her job.  Day care it seems, was in the government’s view anyhow, something which should only be available to those who earned a hell of a lot of money.  At the same time, our actual household expenses increased dramatically, and we needed the second income.  We searched for an alternative solution.

That alternative solution was the same one found by millions of American families.  We hired a private babysitter, one who did not get herself on the list of government approved day cares.  Kathleen, was good with children, ran a tight ship, and actually was well liked by our kids.  She was much more reasonable in price, and held flexible hours, something the government approved day cares did not.  Over the years, Kathleen became part of the family.  All in all, the bad government policy led to what bad government policies always lead to, harm to those the policy is intended to help, and a quasi black market.  So, in an effort to further destroy the dreams of its citizens, the state of California has a plan.

How will parents react when they find out they will be expected to provide workers’ compensation benefits, rest and meal breaks and paid vacation time for…babysitters? Dinner and a movie night may soon become much more complicated.
Assembly Bill 889 (authored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, will require these protections for all “domestic employees,” including nannies, housekeepers and caregivers.
The bill has already passed the Assembly and is quickly moving through the Senate with blanket support from the Democrat members that control both houses of the Legislature – and without the support of a single Republican member. Assuming the bill will easily clear its last couple of legislative hurdles, AB 889 will soon be on its way to the Governor’s desk.

How much more abuse will the good people of California take from their Democrat Politicians?  The bottom line for you folks living on the Left Coast is this, dream to get ahead in this life at your own peril.  The State has issued a decree that children are now something for the well to do only.  Those people you have elected to office on the laughable premise that they cared for the little guy, have just taken a giant step to destroy the little guy.  Those private babysitters were all little guy entrepreneurs, running at home businesses.  They will be effectively shut down by this.  The Democrats will no doubt tout the fact that they are protecting them by granting them perks, but those perks will only appear if people continue to hire them, which they will in no way be able to do.  The people hiring the babysitters will once again be left with children, and diminished incomes, just at a point in life when they need increased incomes.  Thank you Democrats!

Cross Posted at Musings of a Mad Conservative.



Navy Seal Foundation Charity… Gun Raffle Tickets!

Great prize! Great cause!



“AFL-CIO head: Labor to ditch Democrats” – A Split on the Left???

by coldwarrior ( 44 Comments › )
Filed under Business, Economy, government, unemployment, Unions at August 26th, 2011 - 11:30 am

We have been hearing for moths now that the Right is split and and full of rancor and dis-unity. Well, now it turns out that the Left is having the same trouble. Trumka and the AFL-CIO are ditching the Democrats and heading out on their own. his is going to put a massive hole in the Democrat Party coffers and severely limit their manpower on the street.

 

The growing rift between labor and their Democratic allies was on full display Thursday, as AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told reporters that labor groups are planning to scale back their involvement with the Democratic Party in advance of the 2012 elections.

Going forward, Trumka said, the labor movement will build up its own political structures and organizations rather than contribute to and depend on the Democratic Party’s political operation.

“We’re going to use a lot of our money to build structures that work for working people” Trumka said. “You’re going to see us give less money to build structures for others, and more of our money will be used to build our own structure.”Trumka’s remarks follow the news that the AFL-CIO will set up a so-called super PAC, allowing the nation’s largest labor federation to spend unlimited amounts of money on political activity for next year’s elections and beyond. Trumka confirmed Thursday that the union is moving forward with plans to create the PAC.

Labor has traditionally been a major contributor to Democratic candidates and causes around the country. Trumka said that their outside effort will help keep union-backed candidates more accountable for promises made on the campaign trail.

“Let’s assume we spent $100 in the last election,” he said, explaining the union’s position.

“The day after Election Day, we were no stronger than we were the day before,” said Trumka. “If we had spent that [$100] on creating a structure for working people that would be there year round, then we are stronger.”

Oh yes, it gets better!

Speaking to reporters at a breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor, Trumka also said that many in the labor movement are weighing whether to skip the party’s 2012 convention.

“There are some of our affiliates that aren’t going to participate,” said Trumka. “We’re still talking about it.”

Relations between labor and the Obama administration have cooled over outstanding issues like the failure to pass a union-backed card check bill that would ease organizing, as well as the administration’s support for free-trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea and Panama.


Well, not really. The Card Check issues is the concern of the higher up leadership. Card Check  really doesn’t matter to the rank and file. The Free Trade agreements matter to the rank and file tho. And from what i am hearing through sources, many of the unions aren’t going to the dem convention NOT because they are on board with Trumka’s new PAC, but because they despise Obama.

The carpenters and joiners, electricians, plumbers etc. are out of work…and they are blaming Obama and the dems. They are also fed up with how far LEFT the Democrat party has gone in the past 10 years.

This might be the split where the rank and file of the union officially leaves the Democrat Party. They have seen the daylight, more work than they could take on under Bush, and now the night, unemployment under Obama.

 

Trumka articulated a broader critique of the Obama administration, telling reporters that the president has allowed Republicans to set the terms of debate — focusing on what he called a manufactured debt crisis instead of a jobs agenda.


So the Communist Trumka has finally gone all Trotsky on the Democrats and decided to take the fight into his own hands. That is fine with me. Any fractures on the Left make me smile!
🙂

 

Friday with the ‘hammer – The unions are owned by the Democrats

by Mojambo ( 129 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama at June 17th, 2011 - 2:00 pm

Private sector unions are destroying jobs in this country, yet they are one of several subsidiary groups of the Democratic Party such as the NAACP and are therefore inviolate.

by Charles Krauthammer

”Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected,” observed President Obama this week, enjoying a nice chuckle about the unhappy fate of his near-$1 trillion stimulus. To be sure, Obama has also been promoting a less amusing remedy for anemic growth and high unemployment: exports. In his 2010 State of the Union address, he proclaimed a national goal of doubling exports within five years.

One obvious way to increase exports is through free-trade agreements. But unions don’t like them. No surprise then that for two years Obama has been sitting on three free-trade agreements — with Colombia, Panama and South Korea — already negotiated by his predecessor.

Under the pressure of dire economic conditions and of the consequences of stiffing three valued allies, Obama appeared ready to relent — only to put up a last-minute roadblock. He’s demanding an expansion of Trade Adjustment Assistance — taxpayer money (beyond unemployment compensation) given to workers displaced by foreign competition, something denied to Americans rendered unemployed by domestic competition. It’s an idea of dubious fairness but nicely designed to hold up ratification, while placing blame on Republican heartlessness rather than on political sabotage by Democrats beholden to unions for the millions they pour into Democratic coffers. (A deal reportedly may be near. But the years of delay have been costly. Colombia, for example, is negotiating broad trade deals with China, including a possible Chinese-built railway to bypass the Panama Canal.)

Nothing new here. In 2009, Obama pushed through a federally run, questionably legal, bankruptcy for the auto companies that robbed first-in-line creditors in order to bail out the United Auto Workers. Elsewhere, Delta Air Lines workers have voted four times to reject unionization. A federal agency, naturally, is investigating and, notes economist Irwin Stelzer, can order still another election in the hope that it yields the answer Obama’s campaign team wants.

But Democratic fealty to unions does not stop there. Boeing has just completed a production facility in South Carolina for its new 787 Dreamliner. The National Labor Relations Board, stacked with Democrats — including one former union lawyer considered so partisan that he required a recess appointment after the Senate refused to confirm him — is trying to get the plant declared illegal. Why? Because by choosing right-to-work South Carolina, Boeing is accused of retaliating against its unionized Washington state workers for previous strikes.

[…]

Read the rest: The union-owned Democrats

Obama’s NLRB Attacks South Carolina and the US Constitution

by 1389AD ( 56 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Economy, government, Liberal Fascism, Regulation, Socialism, Unions at April 22nd, 2011 - 4:30 pm

US Constitution printed on toilet paper

The Obama Administration is attacking not only Boeing, but also the State of South Carolina and the US Constitution.

Real Clear Politics: The Newest Labor War: Union, Feds Attack Boeing

(h/t: vagabond trader)

April 22, 2011
By Tom Bevan

Welcome to South Carolina, the newest front in America’s organized labor wars.

On Wednesday, the National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint against Boeing, seeking to prevent the aircraft manufacturer from opening a second production facility in Charleston, South Carolina for its new 787 Dreamliner.

The NLRB alleges that Boeing violated the law, opening the non-unionized South Carolina plant in retaliation against union workers for past strikes at its facility in Everett, Washington and also as part of an effort to discourage future strikes. The NLRB wants an administrative court to force Boeing to relocate its second production line back to a unionized plant in Washington.

Needless to say, with labor controversy still roiling some states across the country, particularly in Wisconsin, news of the story rang out like a shot at Fort Sumter.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint denounced the move as “nothing more than a political favor for the unions who are supporting President Obama’s reelection campaign.” DeMint vowed to “use every tool at my disposal to stop the president from carrying out this malicious act.”

His GOP colleague in the Senate, Lindsey Graham, called the NLRB’s complaint “one of the worst cases of unelected bureaucrats doing the bidding of special interest groups that I’ve ever seen.”

On the other side, the International Association of Machinists District 571, which filed the grievance in March of last year, predictably hailed the filing as “a victory for all American workers.”

At issue is not whether companies can retaliate against union workers – they can’t – but whether they have the right to open new facilities (or relocate old ones) where they choose based on a variety of business factors, including the consideration of potential labor strikes in the future.

The IAM has had a collective bargaining agreement with Boeing since 1975, and in that time has led five strikes in the Seattle plants, two of them in the past six years. Boeing CEO Jim MnNerney has been open about his desire for “dual sourcing” capabilities so that the company can meet its obligations with “strikes happening every three to four years in Puget Sound.”

The union contends that the opening of the new non-union facility in South Carolina amounts to intimidation, and that its workers will now be forced to either to accept employment concessions or face the prospect of seeing more and more production migrate from Everett to Charleston. Acting NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon fully embraced with the union’s novel legal theory, and stated in his Wednesday order that he will seek an order requiring Boeing to build the second 787 Dreamliner assembly line in Washington.

In response to the uproar Thursday spokeswoman Nancy Cleeland responded in an e-mail: “As Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon made clear in his statement yesterday, this is about the law. The right to strike is guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act, and employers must stay within the law in making their business decisions.”

Boeing’s lawyers slammed that claim as “legally frivolous” and said the NLRB’s effort to restrict the company’s business represents a “radical departure” from precedent. They were quick to point out two 1965 Supreme Court cases affirming employers’ right to consider potential strikes in making business decisions, and they refuted the union’s claims of intimidation by pointing out that in the eighteen months since the announcement of the South Carolina plant, Boeing has added more than 2,000 union jobs in the Puget Sound area.

The NLRB’s complaint is controversial because of its conspicuousness – labor experts can’t seem to recall any similar complaints or comparable court cases – and also because of the board’s inherently political nature. With Democrats taking control of the five-member board in 2008, the New York Times described the move against Boeing as “the strongest signal yet of the new pro-labor orientation of the National Labor Relations Board under President Obama.”
[…]
Unlike Wisconsin, however, the battle in South Carolina is unions and the federal government pitted against private business and “right to work” states. At stake is whether unions have the power to effectively veto companies’ decisions about where they choose to do business.

Also unlike Wisconsin, South Carolina is a critical – some would even argue determinative – early primary state in the Republican presidential nominating process, which is just getting under way. Some, but not all, of the prospective Republican presidential hopefuls are scheduled be in South Carolina in less than two weeks for the first televised debate of the primary season, hosted by Fox News.

The subject of the NLRB’s complaint will surely arise. This issue might even prompt candidates who hadn’t figured on attending the South Carolina debate to tinker with their schedules. And because of South Carolina and Wisconsin, the war between the federal government and unions versus states and the private sector is sure to be a defining issue of next year’s presidential race.

Tom Bevan is the co-founder and Executive Editor of RealClearPolitics. Email: tom@realclearpolitics.com

Read it all.

This shameful attempt to impose tyranny on Boeing and on the State of South Carolina is nothing more than liberal fascism combined with institutionalized union thuggery. Whether or not the NLRB ultimately succeeds, the very fact that they even attempted such an infringement will encourage our few remaining US-based manufacturers to move their entire operations overseas. Once outside of the jurisdiction of the US federal government, their companies will no longer be subjected to the malicious whims and depredations of American democracy – and yes, I do mean mob rule in every sense of that word. The US was founded as a republic, not a democracy, with the powers of the federal government strictly limited to those provided in the US Constitution. Evidently, the Constitution in general, and the Tenth Amendment in particular, has gone by the wayside.

Chile is looking better and better! (See 2.0: The Blogmocracy: Chile Says No to Collective Bargaining.) Unlike the US, the nation and people of Chile love and respect liberty.