Non-Union Manufacturing Creates MORE Jobs

As outlined in Is This the Obama Crime Plan?, there is strong evidence that Barack Obama is not planning to win re-election by means of honestly creating a compelling majority of Americans to vote for him.  Later this week, we will be posting the past history of Obama’s vote fraud efforts, and the speculation of a former Chicago insider (please Chicago clean up my home town) of how extensive the vote fraud effort is that is already underway.

Clearly, as in the beating of Kenneth Gladney at the St. Louis Tea Party meeting by union thugs, SEIU is a major part of this plan.  It is no coincidence that in the first two years, the HEAD of SEIU was the most frequent visitor to the White House.  And the new effort we learned about over the weekend to change rules so that Union representatives can control the NLRB is an affront to not just the purpose of the NLRB, but the intent of our Constitution.

The chart this morning (above) from LaborUnionReport.com is critical to our battle as bloggers and citizens to battle the ever encroaching effort to unionize everyone from government workers to “working” girls.  (Think I’m kidding? Google it.) 

As LUR explains, nearly the entire appeal to works of WHY unions even exist, is the myth that unions make your job more secure.  As they state:

While all manufacturing has decreased since America’s current economic recession began, from 1983 through 2006, union-free manufacturing had actually increased by 52,000 jobs.

We know that Scott Walker had success in Wisconsin using simple math to explain how completely free, unlimited benefits to teachers would LOSE jobs and enrich the few union teachers left on the rolls.  This kind of objective data could have been used effectively in the Ohio proposition that failed, and everyone needs to bookmark it.

Simply stated, in the last 17 years, unions for manufacturers lost 73% of their workers while non-union manufacturers only lost 14%.  Email it, tweet it and memorize it.

At this point we have to pray the truth will set the workers free.

Blogger Labels: Union,Obama,Barack,election,fraud,Gladney,SEIU,NLRB,LaborUnionReport,government,workers,America,Walker,Wisconsin,Ohio,teachers,manufacturers

The Union Fix - Part 2

In part one of “The Union Fix” I introduced the immediate step towards dismantling the strangle hold unions have on U.S. manufacturing.  In part two, I discuss the longer-term solution to finally break the cycle of anti-competitiveness and bring manufacturing back to our nation.

In Washington State, the IAM waged a strike on the Boeing Company in 2008 resulting in months of delays and lost production.  After reaching a contract agreement, Boeing sought assurances from the IAM that it would not strike again.  When the IAW failed to meet this demand Boeing made the decision to build a second 787 assembly line in North Carolina, a right-to-work state.  Although now embroiled in a highly publicized lawsuit against Boeing over the decision, the IAM provides a perfect example of how unions price themselves out of the manufacturing labor market and drive companies to alternative markets. 

The Boeing case also illustrates part of my proposed solution.  Twenty-two of our nation’s States are right-to-work states.  However, the liberal foothold in the remaining 28 States is unlikely to relent sufficiently to permit the adoption of right-to-work laws.  Therefore, we need a compelling compromise. 

Large corporations are forbade from controlling too much of a given market per existing anti-trust laws.  The word monopoly in the halls of the Federal Trade Commission is a springboard to action and eventual divestiture of assets from the offending firm.  However, these same principles have not been applied to unions.  Unions that represent all employees to a particular firm or industry have a monopoly on that labor market.  Therefore, we should extend anti-trust laws to unions via legal precedent or legislation.  In so doing, no single union would be able to have a monopoly on labor.

The outcome of this step would be a dismantling of the AFL-CIO, SEIU, and Change to Win Federation.  In addition, no one union could represent all the employees in a particular trade at a single company.  Therefore, more than one union would be required; in cases where no additional union is ratified, at least a portion of the employees would not be unionized.  In all cases, the unions would be forced to compete with one another for members.  Competition would tend to put downward pressure on dues and inherently limit the amount of money available for political manipulation.

This solution is effectively a compromise in that it still allows a closed shop for unions, it preserves worker’s rights to unionize, and it gives workers greater choice in representation.  Finally, from the perspective of the firms, there would be competition in the labor market giving the companies greater flexibility over the compensation packages.  In turn, this helps prevent ludicrous pension benefits, exorbitant wages for menial labor, and ultimately makes the U.S. manufacturing industry more competitive against a world of low priced alternatives. 

Read more like this at Aaron Opine

The Union Fix - Part 1

Photo by Bill Burke

Any non-imbecile can tell you that unions have exacerbated the decline in manufacturing in the United States.  Their demands made upon the threat of work stoppages have enabled them to amass pension funds that have crippled the likes of Ford, GM, and Chrysler.  Many States and municipalities are likewise stumbling under the weight of massive public employee union pension programs.  Like the foreign substance invading a festering wound, we must winnow the power of unions in our country to restore our predominance in manufacturing. There are two key steps towards stripping unions of their power and influence in order to reinstate our manufacturing base and thereby strengthen our economy (Note that addressing the unions must be done in concert with far reaching tax and regulatory reform – resolving our union problem with not be sufficient alone).  The first is immediate action to be taken by sensible persons holding unions positions; the second is longer-term and can only be accomplished at the State and Federal levels.

The first step is for all concerned union represented employees to become objectors.  When I graduated from college I went to work for a company that was infected with an agency shop union.  Initially, I chose to be a Beck Objector (see Communication Workers of America v. Beck for legal history), but still paid an “agency fee” which was nearly as much as the full union dues.  About a year later I learned that a significant portion of my agency fee was being used as campaign contributions towards democratic candidates.  Under Section 701(j) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1967, employees with bona fide religions objections cannot be coerced into supporting unions.  I wrote a letter to the union showing how every candidate supported by my fees was an abortion advocate.  I concluded by confirming that I view abortion as an unethical and abhorrent per my religious convictions.  The union agreed (as required by law) to allow me to contribute to a non-religious charity of my choice instead of paying union dues.

Although not all union represented employees are similarly inclined to depose of unions, it is quite likely that many would be put off by their union’s prolific use of union dues to support the campaigns of politicians and legislation that offends their religious sensibilities.  Therefore I encourage all union employees to investigate how their dues are spent – following the paper trail all the way to the AFL-CIO if necessary.  With the veil of faux-legitimacy lifted, I’m willing to wager many more union employees would become religious objectors.  Doing so would strip unions of the more than $400 Million they spend annually on political influence that has effectually stripped our nation of its competitiveness and propelled us closer to socio-Marxism.

For more information about becoming a Religious Objector I encourage you, or your union worker friends, to visit www.choosecharity.org and www.nrtw.org.

This step is critical and immediate.  However, it is not sufficient to curtail the influence, and therefore damage, of unions over our government.  Next week I will share step two – a longer term solutions with greater reach and impact.

READ MORE LIKE THIS AT AARON OPINE