As President, Obama Acts as Shop Steward in Chief

· Monday, September 19, 2011

Barack Obama has been at pains to convince voters that he cares about jobs. It seems to be a hard sell.

But he certainly can demonstrate that he cares about certain jobs -- the 7 percent of private-sector jobs and 36 percent of public-sector jobs held by union members.

During his two years and nine months as president, he has worked time and again to increase the number of unionized jobs. As for nonunion jobs, who wants them?

Some pro-union moves have a certain ritual quality. Democratic presidents on taking office seek to strengthen federal employee unions, just as Republican presidents on taking office seek to weaken them.

Other steps are more important. Fully one-third of the $820 billion stimulus package passed almost entirely with Democratic votes in 2009 was aid to state and local governments.

This was intended to keep state and local public employee union members -- much more numerous than federal employees -- on the job and to keep taxpayer-funded union dues pouring into public employee union treasuries.

It was just last year that, for the first time in history, public employees came to account for a majority of union members. This is a vivid contrast from the peak union membership years of the 1950s, when more than one-third of private-sector workers but almost no government workers were union members.

Which is not to say that the Obama administration has not looked after the interests of private-sector unions. In arranging the Chrysler bankruptcy, the Obama White House muscled aside the secured creditors who ordinarily have priority in bankruptcy proceedings in favor of United Auto Workers members and retirees.

That's an episode that I labeled "gangster government." Former Obama economics aide Lawrence Summers protested that his White House colleague Ron Bloom had made similar arrangements before. But in those cases, Bloom was working for the unions, not for a supposedly neutral government.

The 2009 stimulus package also contained Davis-Bacon law provisions requiring that construction workers be paid "prevailing wages," which under the bureaucratic formula turn out to be union wages. That means the public pays a premium for government construction.

It also means that Labor Department bureaucrats must calculate "prevailing wage" rates for as many as 3,141 counties. That takes time, and it's one reason there were not nearly so many shovel-ready projects as presidential rhetoric led some, including the president, to think.

In the meantime, the administration has gone to great pains to promote union representation in private-sector companies even where there's no indication employees want it.

It appointed pro-union stalwarts to the board supervising airline industry unionization elections. That board changed longstanding rules on what counts as a majority in an attempt to get unions approved at mostly non-union Delta after it absorbed mostly unionized Northwest.

The problem is that the employees kept voting against unionization anyway.

Then there's the Boeing case.

Obama has called for doubling American exports over the next five years. But when America's No. 1 exporter, Boeing, built a $1 billion Dreamliner plant in South Carolina, Obama's appointee as general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board brought a case to force it to shut down.

The theory is that Boeing needs to build the airliner in pro-union Washington state rather than in South Carolina, whose right-to-work law bars requiring employees to join unions. Maximizing union membership evidently comes first, before all other goals.

The Obama White House won't comment on the Boeing case, just as Obama himself had no comment when Teamsters President Jim Hoffa, introducing him at a Labor Day rally in Detroit, said of tea party backers, "Let's take these sons of bitches out."

The president's eloquent and apparently heartfelt pleas for civility voiced after the Tucson shootings apparently don't apply to union leaders.

Obama's partiality to unions is apparently rooted in a conviction that we would be better off if every employee were represented by a union.

The marketplace says otherwise. Private-sector unionism has produced the General Motors and Chrysler bankruptcies, while states with strong public-sector unions, according to a Harvard study, have to pay higher interest rates to borrow money.

But unions do have one positive characteristic from Obama's point of view: They funnel taxpayers' or consumers' money to the Democratic Party -- $400 million in 2008. So they get one payoff after another in return.

COPYRIGHT 2011 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM


Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.


Comments

KN

Fixed your headline for you:

"As President, Obama Acts as Thug in Chief"

Posted September 19, 2011 at 11:10:51 AM


Tex Horn

Michael, I guess you and everyone else noticed that a sizable part of Barack Hussein Obama's latest "jobs" plan was to hire or rehire policemen, firemen, and teachers. All union people. With the possible exception of firemen and policemen, these are the same people, especially the teachers, coupled with the union workers in the auto industry, that are helping destroy our free enterprise economy, all in the name of "America's workers." I say unions are the antithesis of "workers." When people ask me why I don't drive an American car, my response is: unions. They produce junk. As for Obama, what else should we expect from an "organizer" and socialist?

"“We’re ready to play offense for organized labor. It’s time we had a president who didn’t choke saying the word ‘union.’ A president who strengthens our unions by letting them do what they do best: organize our workers,” Mr. Obama told the AFL-CIO in Philadelphia on April 2.

Posted September 19, 2011 at 11:46:00 AM


Dean

I have some difficulty understanding the perceived problem with unions as a whole. I have worked for union and non union businesses. The ones with unions were more stable for the company as well as the worker, and often pay a lower wage than non union places since they have such an unstable employee management labor relationship, they have to pay much higher wage to keep good people.

I also find it interesting that a group with such a grasp of the need for a triple branched government can't comprehend the need for the same for the labor/union/employer environment. The unions often limit the employee as much as the employer, a fact that you seem to ignore for some strange reason.

I have personally known of episodes where the union fined employees for breaking the contract.

I have also watched the auto unions for the last four decades while the auto makers almost fought to be the one who would get the privilege of being the target of the UAW strike for a particular contract. If the unions were so bad then why did they do that?

Could it be that the unions weren't so bad for them?

If we Americans could get it through our heads like the Japanese that the worker is a valued and needed part of the business process and learn to treat them as persons instead of disposable non assets then unions wouldn't be needed... but alas when the company is in financial trouble because of MISS MANAGEMENT the lowly worker is the first to pay the price of losing his job, and all the things he has committed to pay for on long term contracts, such as his house/ car / hospital bills / Kids college etc. All the while those who caused the problem to begin with give themselves raises because they have now messed up their own company yet again.

Sounds a lot like congress doesn't it. Don't you wish you had a union like group to help you with their stupidity? I do.

Posted September 21, 2011 at 5:40:04 AM


Tex Horn

@ Dean: A thoughtful comment good sir. Here's an issue I have with "workers', having been one myself and having been an owner of a business. Many people (workers) think that the company they work for owes them something. They do. A salary. Other than a salary for the work they do, the company owes them absolutely nothing. That's the real world, the non-union world, that the majority of American workers live in. We accept that reality, adapt to it, and move on. We don't march up and down in front of the company, trying to hassle it's employees, trying to hurt their business because we don't believe they owe us something besides a salary. I gladly accept that a business is in business to make money, money that should not be redistributed to some slacker who thinks they're owed something other than a salary...a salary, by the way, for a good day's hard work. Nothing more, nothing less.

Posted September 21, 2011 at 10:44:42 AM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund