Union only apply

so your pissed because the people doing the work will get a fair wage to work right??

I mean that's basicly what your saying

or would you rather a non-union out fit that's never done as big a job as say build a bridge , build the bridge you may have to drive accross??

So your saying non-union jobs don't pay a fair wage?  I know plenty of people that makes a fair wage in non-union companies and likes the job better then when they did working in a unionized company.  I think your over estimating the need for a union in order for a good employee to complete in the job market.

In the right to work state that I live in, the largest local construction company is non-union.  So in order for them to even bid for the contract they will have be unionized.  Even if they lose the bid, they will be forced into a union contract.  If the employees of this company whats to have a union, that is their right in this State.  In order to find a union company that can handle the job, it will need to come from another State.

What I am pissed off is that we will be hiring half as meny people for twice the cost.  This does not sound to much like a very good jobs program to me.  At this time, in these parts, people just want jobs to feed their families and get off the unemployment check that only covers a fraction of their monthly living cost.  Fewer uneployment checks mean, less cost to the State.  If you bring the unions in, the State has more people on unemployment rolls (lets not forget that in the same bill, States are to foot the bill for healthcare for the unemployed too).

All the while the Union bosses are skimming off a healthy chunk of the employees check and the abilty of the company to hire more people.  In which a large part of that chuck finds its way into the DNC coffer.

Hi Lee1776,

You make some good points! However, if I may offer a counter-argument-

In theory, you are correct. However, theory and reality often conflict. Contracts to 100% non-union companies have been just as (if not) more abused in the past. Let's look at an example.

In the reconstruction for Hurricane Katrina, the U.S government needed folks to put tarps over damaged roofs. The gov owned and supplied the tarps, all they needed was a little muscle to put them in place. The worker who was climbing up and installing the tarps ended up getting paid minimum wage (or less if he was an illegal immigrant) but yet the government was paying over 120 dollars per-few-feet of tarp laid (purely labor cost)

How did this happen? The gov contracted out to big construction company XYZ. This company then sub-contracted to someone who then sub-sub contracted and so on, with everyone in between taking their share of dough only to pass on the work down the line. End result? The government paid a ridiculously massive amount of money for a small amount of work, and the guy actually doing the work was paid peaunuts while businessmen made a big chunk of money simply for passing the contract on without doing any work.

This is one of the laws of capitalism- he who can do the job for the least amount of money is king of the hill. This applies across much of our society, and is why just about nothing is actually manufactured in America anymore...most of it has been outsourced overseas.

I suspect that if government doesn't have a provision for unionized labor.... and to be fair it doesn't have to be a requirement for unionized labor- it could also be a clause stating that the actual guy performing the work gets paid X amount, but this could be vague and difficult to enforce... then we'd see the exact same thing happening. Meaning, the first two or even three companies who get the contract all get it because they promise to provide labor (at some point down the line) that'll be cheaper than anyone else in town.... never-mind the fact that they'll take a nice big slice of the pie in exchange for making a few phone calls and sending a few e-mails.

One other point I'd like to make....

Unions seem to be getting a bad rap about being liberal backing socialists. In fact, participating in a Labor Union is actually being about as capitalistic as you can be.

Just as companies combine or expand to increase their competitiveness in the market, so too can workers increase their bargaining power for wages and benefits by bargaining collectively.

Most middle class working joes are unaware that as a wage-only-worker (meaning little to no investments or capital to your name other than the currency provided for your labor) you're actually just a giant recycling machine- money comes in, then same money goes out to provide your necessities (food, clothing, shelter, brand new F-150 on 30% interest EZ-loan... erm, scratch the last one)

So, you provide labor, which benefits your employer AND it benefits you in the wages you get in return. Then (as with most folks today) said wages get spent just covering your cost of living, with the money you spend getting cycled upwards into profits for the big boys.

Now, the system works very well when the big boys cycle that money back to you so you can maybe have a little extra left over to invest, god forbid set aside for a decent retirement.

Instead what we see is that capital is flowing to the top and staying there. Meanwhile, us working Joe's are left to scramble over smaller and smaller amounts of crumbs that fall down, while getting angry at the guys who actually want a meal!

So why not add some requirements stating that only one level of sub-contractors are allowed on the contract?  Or limit the amount of money that can be used to pay for overhead costs (ie skimming some money then passing the contract down the line).  There had to be some other way to work it other then seeming to indicate that only unionized labor was eligible to work.

You also make some good points Artysim.  But...

This is not the past and Obama's machine has done a good job closing those loop holes in his changes to the Davis-Bacon Act.  Now the companies are required to coordinate all labor with the union first.  Without the union, they can't even bid or sub-contract.  Now if the union boss makes somekind of backroom deal allowing the company to break its contract, then thats another story and the union members should be allowed to get another union.

If that is true, then why are unions the biggest monopolies in the US?  When was the last time you had heard of two unions competing?  The AFL-CIO has a lock on the auto employees.  The teamster on trucking in the NY & Chicago area.  I personnaly know that the UPS Employees a few years back did not receive the choise of changing to another union.  In the end they got a retirement fund ran by a union that provides only 2/3rd of the benifits that the company was offering (just because the union skims off the front and back end).

Those same monopolies are getting stronger with requiring unions to bid.  It has become a government ordered monopoly.  I am wondering if the new Davis-Bacon Act could be challenged in court as discrimation or forming a monopoly.

As for the class warfare that your talking about.  All companies compete for the lowest bid.  By excluding non-union companies, you narrowing the compation to just one or two companies that have the same union to jack up the price. That does not sound to capitalist to me.

In a fair market of all types of companies, the owners have to reduce their cost to compete and stay open.  My own family has suffered when a union killed the goose that layed the golden egg.

One more thing to add.

The Stimulus bill was passed under the belief that many projects where shovel ready.  Which means that the project already have been contracted out (just awaiting funds).  How many will have to be re-contracted out to union compies now that the ones who had alread been contract to non-union companies no long qualify? 

Since speed is a must, the same union in the competing company will either ring massive consetions out of the non-union company to get unionized or drag their feet past submittion dead lines.

The power of who gets contracts will now be in the hands of the Union bosses.

Hhhhmm, well seing as 87% of all workers in the U.S are non-union I struggle to see how it's a monopoly.... and as an aside, the argument that the unions are killing N. American auto is easily debunked. It's not the union workers...the people who actually make the product... it's the pension and healthcare costs for retirees that are causing so many problems.

The big 3 have been running for a long time now, enough for lots of folks (I don't have exact number, but it's at least in the hundreds of thousands or more) who have retired and now GM has to pay their pension and health care costs, and those health care costs only go up as you get older too!

Interestingly enough, all of the foreign competition that's killing the big 3, comes from countries with universal healthcare. Toyota doesn't have to worry about paying for their retirees healthcare costs as the government handles it.

But in the U.S, thanks to the fears of "socialized medicine" the big 3 are saddled with a multi-billion dollar burden which will only grow over time. Anywho, I find it funny that in the U.S the folks responsible for most of the heavy lifting are the ones getting blamed for all of the companies problems. Now if you wanna talk about REAL crooks sometime, car dealerships are a whole other ball game

But you are right about the AFL in that they are too big. I agree with you on that-

Here's a little secret about labor unions.... they only work if everyone is active. The whole point is that it's a democratic affair... IF the members of the AFL got sick and tired of their union leadership they can replace it, or even break up the AFL and go with individual bargaining units. The law protects workers rights to form unions but it doesn't protect a massive union monopoly.

Saddly, as is the same in general politics most people simply don't care to do anything about it.

Being a member of a labor union means more work and attention is required than just your job, as you have to actively get involved in who is representing you to your employer and cast your vote on the collective decisions your union makes. Contrary to popular media talking points, union workers aren't all lazy slobs who want to sleep half the day and get paid 50 dollars an hour to do it... most are proud of their work and want to see their company prosper and succeed, but at the same time they also want to be able to put a roof over their families heads and god forbid have a little job security too.

Now where things go wildly wrong is when folks in the union stop paying attention to the decisions of it's leadership. THEN you get a situation like the AFL where suddenly the leadership becomes infinitely powerful as virtually no one even knows what decisions are being made on their behalf, not out of secrecy but simple lack of participation.

I'm a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), a union that many consider to be militant or radical. And the funny thing is I didn't even know I was going into a union job until the day I started and the HR person, at the end of the orientation, pushed a card with a funny emblem on it across the table and said

"oh yeah, forgot about this last part- you just gotta sign this card because your job is in a union shop"

 I'm glad that I did get into a unionized job- it opened my eyes to many of the lies we are contstantly fed (and unfortunately some of the truths) about how unions operate. The one truth I discovered was that the most vocal complainers who also often demanded the most from management, tended to be the ones who didn't participate one little bit in any of the local meetings.

IF the members of mega-unions like the AFL and teamsters don't actively participate then you're probably right about the backroom shenanigans determining who gets the work. But, if the members actually carry out their due diligence we could see a much better result for everyone. I guess what I'm trying to say is don't throw the baby out with the bathwater- while there are certainly some crooked or poorly run unions out there, overall I think we're necessary for a middle class to exist in the first place!

Seeing as 87% of all workers in the U.S. are non-union, I struggle to see how any projects are going to get done, shovel-ready or not.

Artysim, I do believe like you that if a Union is operated right and its members are active it could be very Democratic in nature.  But that is not the case now with most major unions unfortunately.  Just as polititions become corupt, so do Unions.  The Republican Congress drunk with pork money these last four years is a good example of that  and now the Democrates.

I don't want our Goverment supporting Unions, Religion or political parties with my tax money.  At this time I see the US Government marching goose step into insuring Unions and specific Political parties’ contol over more and more of my life and money.

I do wonder how profitable it would be to start a competing union?

you people complain about every one getting health care

well before Regan came along and busted the unions most people got health care though their union jobs

so If you want to not pay national health care then support unions

after all they are suppose to be there to fight for workers right's

 and that's not a bad thing no matter what you say

O please. Most unions ( I did not say all ) are only in it for the money. Money that ends up breaking the backs of small buesnesses. Ive worked both union and non union and to be honest....non union is almost better. even if the pay is lower I know I wont get shafted because I am the low man on the senority list or whatnot, as long as I work hard i can make it as far as I need to.

They are spending most of their time conslidating their own power.  The card check Bill is a perfect example of that.

The rest of their time they are trying to line their own bloated union staff, lobyiest and Congressmen's pockets with member's dues and now tax payers money.

Not realy, most people paid their own health insurence. 

Health insurence was a perk provided by a company to attract the best employees.  Now it has somehow been warped into an entitlement program that much of the time unions select insurence companies that give as many kick backs as they can to the unions or the union request the insurence companies donate to the Democrat party coffers. 

The only reason unions keep demanding higher pay for employees is to be able to collect more dues.  Seldom now days do they think of the company or the employees anymore.  Just look how the Auto unions are more then willing to say they will work with the companies in front of the press, then refuse to cut anything but token items.  As long as the Unions know that the auto companies can keep receiving tax payers money, they are not budging one inch.  With Obama and Congress in office I do not see them changing their stance.

Freedom of choice hasn't served the labor or the trade unions well.  Their only hope of seeing better than 12% participation is force and deception.  With all the rhetoric from the unions, most workers, when given a choice, choose Union NO.

if i were a member of the uaw knowing how much auto industry top executives rake in, i wouldn't budge a mm.

despite all yall's best efforts to portray the stimulus bill as something akin to the patriot act--which, in its final form, was presented to congress virtually the night before it was to be votred upon--that argument as well as your claim that the davis-bacon provision was "hidden" have no basis in fact.

davis-bacon was no secret and i was aware of it well before this bill went to a vote and i rarely have time to read the entire first section of the la times on the two or three days each week i buy it.  

while i'd love to think i'm better informed than everyone else, i highly doubt that's the case

nixon and reagan both benefited from support by the teamsters.

one of our local shipyards--dating back to wwii--was purchased by a several brothers and their partner in the early 80s.  at the time there were two other yards--both union--who welcomed them as a third contract bidder.  at the beginning, this yard offered competitive wages and benefits.  what few people realized then was the new owners hadda plan.  they very quickly bought other yards up and down the west coast, in guam and louisiana.   turns out these guys were amazingly lucky--something i only began to appreciate as my circle of friends widened to include a number of managers and supervisors who worked there. 

first i learned the yard cooked its books.  altho required by contract to operate dedicated facilities--each completely equipped--for every vessel they they maintained, they somehow managed to schedule enough time between jobs the navy never caught on to the fact there were only 3 shops for 9 ships.

during the next several years, things began to change in our area..  first the government closed down the long beach naval shipyard. immediately thereafter, this yard announced a wage cut and new, lower hire rates   their remaning competitor was todd shipyard--a union shop where ships were still built from the hull up--until todd could no longer win bids due to higher labor costs.

mind you, the same thing was happening in san diego, san francisco and seattle.

it was only after i was told by several of their managers--independent of each other and unaware i knew about the others--how this company deducted a monthly political action contribution from their salaries and that one of the beneficiaries of these "contributions" was dana rohrbacher (one of reagan's golden boys) that i began to connect the dots.

rorhbacher was one of the leading forces behind the lbns closure. 

he's still in office (and may be one of your heroes for all i know).  the land on which the long beach naval shipyard once existed is now leased to china for container storage.  and the non-union shipyward?  navy eventually sued them but they settled...and then closed down.  that's at least 300-800 jobs gone.  it was also part of the plan from the beginning.  it's what's known as a bust out; crooks take over a business, exploit it til the wheels fall off and then walk away.

you'd prolly recognize this shipyard.  its been the location for untold films and commercials.  wouldn't surprise me if one or two of those weren't political ads advocating freedom from working for a decent wage and benefits.

hell i almost forgot about those "voluntary" contributions.  when i asked why they put up with that crap, all of em told me they needed their jobs too badly to complain.

Involvement of the federal government in a local matter?

you people keep calling health care a entitlement like some people don't deserver the right to be healthy and the right to have good doctors

In the worlds greatest country don't you think all people deserver  health care ?

after all many lesser country's have been giving health care to their people for years , and most are better off and have not gone broke over it

our problem is the cost insurance company's [ worlds biggest crooks] and doctors and hospitals charge

My concern is not so much whether or not health care is considered an entitlement as much as whether I think that government can run healthcare in an efficient manor that will actually benefit the people.  When I think about that my answer is no, government can't deliver that to the people so I would much rather see healthcare reform rather than government run healthcare.  Maybe there is some middle ground somewhere but I'm not sure.

The same folks who gave us the Department of Education, thereby driving our world academic ranking into the shitter.  The same folks who gave us the TSA, thereby saving us from airborne toiletries.  Only to mention 2 of the better examples.  These are the people asking us to trust them with our healthcare.

I just did a search on CNN, the AP, FOX, MSN, my local paper, NT Times, LA Times and a general google to find no articles on Obama's changes.  The only articles was based on bills dealing with the VA and Indian affairs that required Davis-Bacon Act complience last year.  The last article in the LA Times dates back to 2005.  I'm a news hound and did not hear of anything when Obama changed the Act by Executive order.

The Department of Labor web site that contains the information of the Bill was last Revised on the 18th of Jan 2009.  It has not even been updated yet with Obama'a changes.  Even if a Congressmen wanted to see the Bill reference, it was not avialable.

This whole link between the Davis-Bacon Act was hidden.  How many people here on this site had even known about the Davis Bacon Act, yet alone just knowing the Union only requirment in the Stimulus?

The Heritage Foundation is the only watchdog group that had spotted it.  Where is the MSM on this?

So because one union supported a Republican 25 years ago, the unions should not be called on funneling masive amounts of union dues into the DNC?

Then Dana Rohrbacher and the company needs to be investigated.  That still does not justify Congress and the President working together to make it legal for the DNC to get kick backs from Government Contracts.

Actually, we've had de facto price controls for well over a decade for hospitals & doctors.  My income for 2008 was in absolute dollars the same as my income in 1981 (that's 27 years ago, for those of you counting), which represents, in inflation-adjusted dollars, at least a 50% reduction in purchasing power (I'm a physician).  So I don't have a lot of sympathy for blaming doctors' fees for the high cost of health care.

Insurance premiums are in most cases also regulated by either the state or the feds, though with far less stringency than are physician/hospital fees.

well i can't find the specific la times article to which i referred (the paper archives stuff after 14 days and lotsa times i've been unable to find articles there even when i could remember the exact title or author).

nevertheless, it's pretty clear from this editorial that a few people at the wall street journal as well as sen demint were well aware davis-bacon was part of the stimulus bill right from the day after obama was sworn into office.  how else to explain this?

"The draft stimulus bill we've seen explicitly mentions that Davis-Bacon rules must apply. But Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) says he'll offer an amendment on the Senate floor to suspend those rules for stimulus spending."

so hidden is hardly an accurate characterization.

regarding public awareness of the act itself, it was enacted what 78 years ago??

i was definitely living better on considerably less in the late 70s too.  (i'm notta real doctor but i have played one in chat.) 

according to an article in today's la times:

In 1979, the top 1% of U.S. households earned eight times as much as the middle 20% and 23 times as much as the bottom fifth; by 2005, the Congressional Budget Office found, the upper crust touched 21 times as much as the middle class and 70 times as much as the bottom. Adjusting for inflation, the average American worker made 16% less in 2004 than in the 1970s, according to economist Benjamin M. Friedman.

i seem to remember a number of heated discussions here in maybe 2004 or so involving all kinda charts and graphs proving just the opposite--in other words, we were really all in the money but somehow refusing to accept it.   sorta like those people who put their old outta fashion gold jewelry--the stuff that's just cluttering up the joint--into gold.com's special insured envelope, toss it in the mail and are pleasantly surprised when they getta check in the mail.

Notice the language - 'middle 20%' becomes 'middle class' and 'bottom fifth' becomes 'bottom' - it would be interesting to see the source info to be sure they're talking apples & apples.  Would like to know the definition of average as well.

I'd also have to admit that while inflation-adjusted incomes went down, the inflation-adjusted cost of living dropped even more, enabling us to have a sense of greater wealth despite the income difference.  Focusing on only one side of the ledger will always give a distorted picture.

Leaving those issues aside, the suggestion that the economy is a zero-sum game and the implication that those wealthy folks got wealthy at the expense of the middle class are both bogus.