Tag Archives: jobs

More Big Government

Posted on by
Reply

And more interference from that Big Government.

President Barack Obama has signed is going to sign—and do his usual bragging about signing—an Executive Order requiring all government contractors to give their employees paid sick leave.

On top of that,

The White House wouldn’t specify the cost to federal contractors to implement the executive order, which Obama was to address at a major union rally and breakfast in Boston. The Labor Department said any costs would be offset by savings that contractors would see as a result of lower attrition rates and increased worker loyalty, but produced nothing to back that up.

Neither Obama nor Labor Secretary Thomas Perez produced any data to support their bald claim because they don’t have any. Their position is based solely on the arrogance of “We’re Big Government. We Know Best.”

There is, too, that Democratic Party ethos. Perez said

The Republican Party is out of step with similar conservative governments around the world.

Yeah. Someone else is doing it; therefore, it’s the right thing to do. The rightness or wrongness of the thing isn’t at all inherent in the thing. Popularity creates right. I’ll ignore the fact that Perez’ “around the world” is Europe, and that there aren’t any conservative governments in Europe.

It’s certainly true that paid sick leave has merit. However, the decision about paid sick leave is best left in the hands of the employer and his employees and prospective employees. What other countries, what other domestic companies are doing, has nothing to do with it.

It’s not at all true that every good idea must be turned into a government edict that everyone must follow. Including when the costs of this or that good idea will vary from time to time, situation to situation, company to company, industry to industry.

Especially since Americans are fully capable of acting on their own choices. We’re not as stupid as Big Government assumes us to be.

Trump and Immigration

Posted on by
Reply

Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump wants to deport all illegal aliens and sharply restrict legal immigration. I’ll leave the foolishness of the first for another post; I’m more interested in the restriction on legal immigration Trump is proposing here.

He also calls for “a pause” in all immigration, for an unspecified period.

That was buried in the WSJ op-ed at the link. I’ve not seen anything even remotely definitive on Trump’s plans for Social Security, so I have to ask: how does he plan to fund that program?

When Social Security was created, it was an income supplement program, retirees had an average lifespan in retirement of around five or six years, and there were seven workers paying into the system for every retiree taking out. Today, Social Security is an income replacement program (if not at a 100% rate), retirees have an average lifespan in retirement of around fifteen years, and there are only three workers paying into the system for every retiree taking out, and that number is falling toward two.

How does Trump plan on increasing the supply of workers paying into the system, absent increased immigration? Alternatively, how does Trump plan on funding Social Security payout per retiree at current the current level? Alternatively, how far does Trump plan on reducing the Social Security benefit payout?

There are a lot of ways to deal with Social Security; I’d like to hear Trump’s way in combination with his immigration policy.

“Gig” Economy Workers

Posted on by
Reply

These unfortunates are exploited by evil startup companies. Or so say unions, plaintiffs’ lawyers, and Democrats looking to maintain the dependency of others on them in government.

In the last year such companies as Uber, Lyft, HandyBook, Instacart, Postmates and Try Caviar have been slapped with lawsuits arguing that they have misclassified workers as “independent contractors,” which aren’t covered by most federal and state labor regulations.

Another startup, Homejoy Inc, has shut down because it couldn’t raise its next round of capital due to such suits.

The nuisance suits also demand such union froo-froo as

…backpay for overtime, workers compensation, unemployment insurance, unpaid meal breaks and business expenses. Homejoy was accused of not providing 30-minute meal breaks every five hours.

All of these things, all of the gig economy businesses, give initial or additional income to the folks doing the work. The business model also threatens the viability of unions and Democrats while representing money-making opportunities for the plaintiff’s lawyers, so it’s open season on these companies.

Never mind that the income these folks earn is more than the zero income they’ll earn after they’re priced out of jobs by unions; the startups that gave them their gigs have been closed down by plaintiffs’ lawyers looking for a fee, eliminating those gigs, and Democrats’ labor rules have made it the more difficult for startups to start.

None of that matters. All that matters is union and Democrat power and those fees.

Teachers Unions and Chris Christie

Posted on by
Reply

Jake Tapper fed Governor and Republican Presidential candidate Chris Christie the straight line:

[W]ho “at the national level deserves a punch in the face?”

Christie had the answer:

Oh, the national teachers union, who has already endorsed Hillary Clinton 16, 17 months before the election. …they’re not for education for our children. They’re for greater membership, greater benefits, greater pay for their members. And they are the single most destructive force in public education in America. I have been saying that since 2009. I’ve got the scars to show it. But I’m never going to stop saying it, because they never change their stripes.

What he said.

Change the Subject

Posted on by
Reply

At the Federal level, Republicans in Congress are attempting to take national-level steps to curb union abuses of members and nonmembers. The particular abuse is union use of dues to fund a particular party’s candidates, whether the union members support that party or candidate or not for now, at least, the Congress is ignoring union states’ practice of collecting dues from non-union members—which the employees are required to pay as a condition of keeping their jobs—and using those coerced dues also for political work rather than union activities related to work).

The Employee Rights Act, introduced Monday by Senator Orrin Hatch (R, UT) and Congressman Tom Price (R, GA), would allow union members to tell their bosses they don’t want their share of dues going to certain candidates or causes, without fear of retaliation.

The response?

…Democratic strategists are accusing Republicans of ignoring the needs of hardworking union members, and instead just trying to re-route sizable campaign contributions.

Don’t address the subject of the bill. Talk about “rerouting.” Never mind that the bill doesn’t reroute a penny of union money.

Never mind, too, that the bill takes care of the “needs of hardworking union members,” particularly those hard workers who don’t want their dues to go to political causes they don’t support.