President’s Budget Demonstrates Commitment To Forced Unionization, Not Jobs

Katie Gage
February 22, 2011

As the nation seriously examines the role of government and the extent to which we should increase the debt as opposed to cutting spending, the President this past week submitted his financial blueprint for the nation in his budget.

Workers and small businesses have been heartened as of late by President Obama’s rhetoric concerning harmful regulations and the impact they have on job creation and economic development.

In an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal last month, the President wrote “small firms drive growth and create most new jobs in this country. We need to make sure nothing stands in their way.”

Therefore, many expected his budget to reflect this new commitment to small businesses by curtailing burdensome and onerous rules by cutting or not increasing funding to regulatory agencies like the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and National Mediation Board (NMB).

The President’s words were not matched with action. At a time when American families are tightening their belts, the White House’s budget actually increased funding to the NLRB and NMB by $4,797,000. In fact, this comes after a $21,276,000 increase last year.

These agencies are not focused on helping small businesses turn around our economy. Instead, they are committed to putting in place policies that hurt job creators and reward Big Labor bosses by eliminating worker rights.

The NLRB has spent its time attempting to enact rules that shorten the election window in union-organizing drives, implement card check, institute electronic voting and create various bargaining units in one workplace, none of which creates a single job and only serve to produce uncertainty for job providers.

And as the NLRB has been leading an assault against employees and employers, the NMB has reversed a rule in place for nearly a century that required a majority of workers to select a collective bargaining unit, and instituted a policy that allows a small minority to determine the fate of an entire workforce.

These highly provocative and damaging actions have been enacted by bureaucrats that are Big Labor’s cronies.

For instance, the NLRB’s Craig Becker is a labor radical and prior to joining the agency, he served as counsel to both the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) and Service Employee International Union (SEIU). As has been reported numerous times, both unions’ combined contributions in the 2008 presidential election in favor of President Obama totaled hundreds of millions of dollars.

The head of the NLRB, Wilma Liebman, is not much better. She previously worked for the Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen as well as the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

At the NMB, is Linda Puchala, the former president of the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) and the chair, Harry Hoglander was the executive vice president of the Air Line Pilots Association.

Any notion that these individuals would place laborers before labor leaders is long gone as their actions have been an obvious “payback” to Big Labor bosses.

The national budget debate brings all of this to the forefront as the President increases funding to these agencies, while the U.S. House attempted to de-fund the NLRB. Even though the vote failed, 176 Representatives voted in favor of it. But Congress isn’t done yet, as House Members are attempting to cut $50 million from the NLRB’s budget in order to save the taxpayer not only dollars, but essentially, their livelihoods.

This is not a time for political favors and government waste. It is, as the President said, time to make sure that “nothing stands in [the] way” of small businesses.

It is ludicrous that President Obama proposed a budget with increased funding to the NLRB and NMB when they have done nothing to help businesses, but plenty to hurt them. And now that the House is attempting to reign in this spending and provide a much needed check and balance on these agencies, it is becoming increasingly clear that neither the American worker nor the small business owner has an ally in the White House, which insists on doing the bidding of union bosses.

Featured Blog

AZ Daily Sun--Coconino Voices: PRO Act legislation would hurt local businesses

— 05.13.2021 —
By: Julie Pastrik Arizona businesses and workers have had an incredibly challenging year given the economic slowdown that followed in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. However, local businesses and industries across the state are resilient and on the road to a strong recovery that will mean more jobs for Arizona workers and increased economic development to strengthen our communities. That is, as long as Congress does not move forward with potentially devastating legislation that would hurt local employers and employees alike while impeding our state’s economic recovery. Unfortunately, some members of Congress seem determined to do just that by pushing through the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act. As harmless as the name may sound, the PRO Act would have serious repercussions for local businesses, particularly smaller ones, while undermining long-standing rights for employees and threatening the growing gig economy that has helped provide much-needed income for so many during this time. Arizona is fortunate to have leaders like Senators Mark Kelly and Kyrsten Sinema, who have both refrained from joining the vast majority of their Democratic colleagues in cosponsoring the PRO Act. In a slap in the face to Arizona workers, the PRO Act removes one of the most fundamental rights a worker has when it comes to voting in elections to determine whether to unionize: the secret ballot. Instead, workers could be forced to sign union authorization cards in front of other employees, their employer, or union organizers. This bill would also destroy workers’ right to privacy by allowing unions access to personal information, including their home address and personal phone number. If that doesn’t open the door to union intimidation and harassment, I don’t know what does. As if that was not bad enough, the PRO Act would create major new challenges for Arizona businesses, making it harder for them to create jobs, expand in their communities, and even keep their doors open. It would redefine what it means to be a “joint employer” under national labor law, greatly complicating existing relationships between franchisors and franchisees as well as between business owners, contractors, subcontractors, and vendors and suppliers. At the same time, it would interfere with attorney-client confidentiality and make it much more difficult for small businesses to secure a legal advice on labor issues. Particularly harmful during these times, the PRO Act would apply a failed policy from California to national labor law by using the “ABC” test to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or employee. This makes it much harder to qualify as an independent contractor, threatening the freedom and flexibility that tens of thousands of Arizonans find in independent contracting and gig economy work. Ultimately, the PRO Act is bad public policy that only works for union leaders to inflate their falling ranks while threatening workers’ rights, undermining small businesses, and jeopardizing a growing part of our economy. This is not a good solution for Arizona, and Senators Sinema and Kelly should stay firm and not cosponsor this misguided legislation.
Read More