Tag Archives: jobs

No Fair

Posted on by
Reply

The United Auto Workers lost another attempt to “organize” Volkswagen’s Chattanooga, TN, factory; its latest move was voted down last Friday 833-776.  Tennessee is a right-to-work State, and those factory workers rudely exercised their right to work free of union interference.

Naturally, the UAW has its collective panties in a collective twist.  The loss is unfair, you see, because it’s always unfair when a union (or any faction of the Left, come to that) loses a contest. Brian Rothenberg, a UAW spokesman, made this nonsense plain:

Our labor laws are broken[.]

Well, they must be—they don’t guarantee a union victory.

Rothenberg went on:

Workers should not have to endure threats and intimidation in order to obtain the right to collectively bargain[.]

Certainly.  And they are, for the most part, free of threats and intimidation in Tennessee, as they are in every right-to-work State.  Workers also, though, should not have to endure threats and intimidation in order to maintain their right not to have a union “represent” them.

These workers have spoken, quite clearly, twice on this matter, now, and similarly situated workers throughout right-to-work States have been loud and clear with the same message to unions trying to interfere with their work environment: “Go away, and leave us alone.  Quit bothering us.”

Will the unions listen to the workers?  Do they ever?

Lies of Progressive-Democrats

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s another example.  Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris (D, CA) claims President Donald Trump is holding our nation’s infrastructure rebuild/expansion hostage against the Progressive-Democratic Party’s “investigations” being ended.

So he’s gonna hold America’s infrastructure hostage, right, over the issue of investigations[.]

What’s being held hostage, exactly?  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), just minutes before a scheduled meeting in which Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY), and Republican leadership were to negotiate infrastructure projects, Pelosi, with Schumer’s prior agreement and support, accused Trump of impeachable behavior.  The only plausible reason for the timing of Pelosi’s accusation was to blow up those negotiations.  Progressive-Democrats didn’t want those negotiations to go forward; they didn’t want Trump to look good against the backdrop of election season and their efforts to make him look bad during this season with their faux investigations.

What’s being held hostage, exactly?  What infrastructure-related legislation do the House Progressive-Democrats have on the floor to vote up and pass to the Senate?  What infrastructure-related legislation do the House Progressive-Democrats have in committee being worked up?  What infrastructure-related legislation do the House Progressive-Democrats have under discussion in outline form to be brought forward to committee consideration?

What’s being held hostage, exactly?  Infrastructure-related legislation isn’t revenue legislation; it can originate in the Senate.  What infrastructure-related legislation do the Senate Progressive-Democrats have under discussion with their Republican colleagues?  Infrastructure has, after all, strong bipartisan support.  Or so the Progressive-Democrats claim.

There’s this, too: Progressive-Democrats in Congress insist that they can walk and chew gum at the same time, but their metaphor seems limited: they’re showing themselves incapable of “investigating” and legislating at the same time.

Infrastructure, Investigations, and Agendas

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump has said that he’ll do infrastructure negotiations and legislation after the Progressive-Democrats end their investigations of his administration, not before. Pointing out House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D, CA) bad faith approach (my term, not Trump’s) to any such negotiations, he said that

he had watched House Speaker Nancy Pelosi…accuse him of a “coverup” in remarks to reporters shortly before their scheduled infrastructure meeting at the White House.

Never mind that Trump has completely cooperated with the Mueller investigation throughout the 2+ years of that effort, and that Mueller found that there was no collusion between Trump’s administration or his campaign and the Russian effort to interfere in our elections.  Never mind that Mueller also found no obstruction (in the expanded portion of his authorized investigation), only embarrassing instances of loud venting of his frustration.

When Pelosi and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) arrived for that meeting following their press op, a meeting at which Republican leadership also was present, Trump advised them

I want to do infrastructure. I want to do it more than you want to do it. But you know what, you can’t do it under these circumstances.

Indeed. The Progressive-Democrats are so intent on their several inquisitions that they have no time for serious matters, no energy left for serving their employing constituencies.

Which brings me to a strange remark by the WSJ piece’s authors.

The president’s declaration raises questions about how he would pass any of his legislative agenda in the remaining year and a half of his first term.

There are no questions here.  The Progressive-Democratic caucus in the House has been intent on blocking his agenda since they took office last January.  The Progressive-Democrat caucus in the Senate has been intent on using their filibuster powers to try to block all of Trump’s agenda, with considerable success (and a couple of notable failures) on legislative matters, since Trump’s term began two and a half years ago.

Union “Dues”

Posted on by
Reply

Now the taxpayer looks to be on the hook.  At least in New York.

[O]n May 1, New York’s state Senate voted to let strikers get benefits one week after walking off the job—essentially putting them on equal footing with those who are laid off.
If Governor Andrew Cuomo signs this bill, he’ll effectively be using New York’s unemployment-insurance program to subsidize union strikes, upending the balance of power between workers and management.

Union strikes are little indistinguishable from extortion, except that they’re legal. They’re used to threaten a company’s ability to function—to survive—unless they surrender to union demands.  “Nice little business you got here. Be too bad if something was to happen to it.”

In a way, though, Cuomo’s pandering makes sense. Since unions can’t commandeer pieces of the paychecks of non-union workers anymore, they have to make up the money loss from somewhere.

Enter the victim-taxpayer.

A Foolish Proposal

Posted on by
Reply

Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris has one.  She’s

proposing that large employers pay women on an equal basis with their male counterparts or face government fines, seeking a sweeping shift in the way the nation addresses pay inequity.

She wants to impose a 1% tax on “large” companies’ profit for every 1% disparity in pay.  The size of the disparity is an open question, though.  The favorite number of the Progressive-Democrats is that women are paid in the neighborhood of 70-75 cents for each dollar a man is paid for the same work; although the number Harris bandied was 80 cents.  That would make the Harris Payroll Tax run 20% or 25%-30% of profit.  The more valid, empirically derived number, though, puts that disparity between 0 and 7 cents less for the woman than the man, with a heavy lean toward the 7.  This more accurate number actually presumes to correct for time in the workforce, experience level on the job in question, and so on.

Beyond that, the Harris Payroll Tax is just plain bad finance.  Companies—small as well as large—pay Social Security and Medicare taxes on the wage they pay, and those same companies tie perks like health coverage, paid time off, bonuses, etc to the wage they pay.  An increase in wage would carry with it those added payroll costs.

It’d be cheaper for the companies to pay the Harris Payroll Tax than it would to raise the wage paid the woman.

Further, Harris would

put the burden on companies to demonstrate that they are not engaging in pay discrimination.

Because, typical of today’s Progressive-Democrats, we’re all guilty until proven innocent.  Especially when it’s difficult even to define the crime.