The UAW has, at the last minute, withdrawn its appeal to the NLRB of the vote it lost in Chattanooga concerning its attempt to unionize the Volkswagen plant there. The UAW lost the vote despite having had the most favorable conditions for their side imaginable, including union representatives proselytizing in the plant during working hours while plant management was not allowed to counter-proselytize.
UAW President Bob King offered this as the rationale for the withdrawal:
The UAW is ready to put February’s tainted election in the rearview mirror and instead focus on advocating for new jobs and economic investment in Chattanooga.
Women would be disproportionately harmed: those 57% work out to a loss of 285,000 jobs for women. I suppose, though, that given this administration’s current buzz, President Barack Obama and his coterie view this as a general good.
Obama’s war is just as devastating on other groups of Americans whom his mouth holds in high favor, but his actions plainly disdain. The Employment Policies Institute has some of the sordid details.
Some of you are familiar with EEOC v Kaplan, a case in which the EEOC sued Kaplan Higher Education Corporation for the crime of using background checks to screen job applicants prior to hiring them. EEOC’s case centered on the nonsense of disparate impact: in the present case, since blacks have more bad debts than whites—for reasons wholly unrelated to the questions at issue in Kaplan—they were more often disqualified from hiring by Kaplan than were whites.
There are lots of sources for this help; I’m only going to talk about how government can help (yes, we can and should help the least among us, and yes, Conservatives, government does have a role, if limited: there are things government can do, even here, better than the private sector). The trick here is to prevent government mission creep and an ever-increasing government role—a difficulty that in itself makes a powerful, and not entirely illegitimate, argument against any government role at all.
Nearby is a post concerning the jobs impact of Obamacare costs being imposed on employers. Two other labor costs being considered for imposition by our Know Better, Progressive administration are minimumwageincreases, and now an increase in the “minimum” wage of salaried managers.
Never mind what such a thing would do to productive company cultures:
…making more people eligible for overtime pay could remove the inherent incentive for lower-level managers to hustle to earn a promotion.
The American Health Policy Institute has some data [emphasis in the original]. Although their study concerned itself primarily with the cost impact of Obamacare to large employers—those with 10,000 or more employees—the study’s outcome has implications for our economy’s jobs picture.
The cost of the ACA…is estimated to be between $4,800 to $5,900 per employee.
These large employers will see overall ACA-related cost hikes of…4.3 percent in 2016 and 8.4 percent in 2023 over and above what they would otherwise be spending.
The total cost of the ACA to all large US employers over the next ten years is estimated to be from $151 billion to $186 billion.
In light of the NLRB’s ruling that Northwestern football players can join a union, I have a number of questions and concerns.
How many other college semipro sports will unionize? Will athletic departments survive the costs of unionization? Will ticket sales?
What will the NLRB’s ruling do vis-à-vis Title IX?
How will the vast majority of college and university programs that don’t make money from their athletic departments will survive? How will those programs within athletic departments that don’t make money survive–will the “football” union be willing to subsidize them? Even were they willing, will they have the money to do so for all?
Rule by law, not rule of law. Here‘s the latest Obama installment.
The president plans to make the announcement [ordering Labor to expand overtime pay requirements to include millions more workers] on Thursday at the White House, a senior administration official confirmed to Fox News. Though the administration has claimed previous executive actions had bipartisan support, officials are acknowledging that this particular move [does not.]
These aren’t blue-collar jobs covered by “collective bargaining” agreements—union contracts—either. Now, managers and executive officers of companies will be…covered: fast-food restaurant managers, loan officers, computer technicians, and more.