Look For The Union Label

It's often said that organized labor is a key Democrat constituency.

That Big Labor and the Big Government Democrats are linked at the hip.

Especially if they carry their wallets in their hip pockets.

Take, for example, contributions to the candidates in the last Presidential elections.

Since 1990, labor unions have contributed over $667 million in election campaigns in the United States, of which $614 million or 92 percent went to support Democratic candidates.

In 2008, unions spent $74.5 million in campaign contributions, with $68.3 million going to the Democratic Party.

Already, unions have contributed $6.5 million to the 2010 elections, and $6 million has gone to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, D.C.


Union bosses, who make these decisions, aren't stupid.

And they don't make "gifts"... they make investments.

Investments that benefit themselves, and indirectly, their union agenda.

When they spend over $68 million with the O-man, they damned well expect something back in return... in this case, passage of "card check", the illegal and unconstitutional scheme which would force all workers to “join” a union.

Although Card Check has failed, the reason for its necessity has not changed.

Union membership is shrinking, and with that contraction, union dues are falling sharply.

That cuts the money available for use by the union leadership, for things like their salaries, their cars, their perks.

And, since 92% of all union campaign contributions go only to Democrats, having unemployed union workers not paying dues, which eventually turn into Democrat war chest cash, can not be tolerated.

And, there's another problem facing the union leadership, one that is becoming critical.

According to Labor Department filings, the average union pension has been so raided by union bosses that only enough money is on hand to cover 62 percent of the benefits it has promised to union members.

Pension plans with 80 percent funding are considered "endangered" by federal auditors, while those with less than 65 percent funding are put on the "critical" list by federal auditors, and require additional revenue input to remain federally approved.


So, the O-man is faced with either mandating card check (and facing a long Constitutional fight with the Supreme Court), or finding another way to pay his debt to the unions.

Hence, Executive Order 13502, signed by the O-man in late February, with no fanfare, no press coverage, none of the vaunted "transparency" this administration has touted.

So what's in this secret Executive Order number 13502?

Here's what it says, in part (with The Oldtimer's comments in yellow): "USE OF PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS FOR FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS :
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, 40 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and in order to promote the efficient administration and completion of Federal construction projects, it is hereby ordered that:


Section 1. Policy. (a) Large-scale construction projects pose special challenges to efficient and timely procurement by the Federal Government. ( It seems everything is difficult for the government.) Construction employers typically do not have a permanent workforce, which makes it difficult for them to predict labor costs when bidding on contracts and to ensure a steady supply of labor on contracts being performed. (That's what private industry does, keeps people on the payroll only as long as they have work for them, unlike the government.) Challenges also arise due to the fact that construction projects typically involve multiple employers at a single location. (That's what general contractors and project managers solve in the private sector.) A labor dispute involving one employer can delay the entire project. (Interestingly, labor disputes generally arise from labor unions.) A lack of coordination among various employers, or uncertainty about the terms and conditions of employment of various groups of workers, can create frictions and disputes in the absence of an agreed-upon resolution mechanism. These problems threaten the efficient and timely completion of construction projects undertaken by Federal contractors. On larger projects, which are generally more complex and of longer duration, these problems tend to be more pronounced. (And this has only now become a problem?)

(b) The use of a project labor agreement (PLA) may prevent these problems from developing by providing structure and stability to large-scale construction projects, thereby promoting the efficient and expeditious completion of Federal construction contracts. (There is absolutely no eveidence of this being true, especially since most work stoppages in the US come from union grievances.) Accordingly, it is the policy of the Federal Government to encourage executive agencies to consider requiring the use of project labor agreements in connection with large-scale construction projects in order to promote economy and efficiency in Federal procurement.

Sec. 3. (a) In awarding any contract in connection with a large-scale construction project, or obligating funds pursuant to such a contract, executive agencies may, on a project-by-project basis, require the use of a project labor agreement by a contractor where use of such an agreement will (i) advance the Federal Government's interest in achieving economy and efficiency in Federal procurement, producing labor-management stability, and ensuring compliance with laws and regulations governing safety and health, equal employment opportunity, labor and employment standards, and other matters, and (ii) be consistent with law. (If it's pnly an option, and not a requirement, then no executive order was necessary. This "option" has always been available.)


(b) If an executive agency determines under subsection (a) that the use of a project labor agreement will satisfy the criteria in clauses (i) and (ii) of that subsection, the agency may, if appropriate, require (Ah, there's the requirement! We knew it was in here somewhere!) that every contractor or subcontractor on the project agree, for that project, to negotiate or become a party to a project labor agreement with one or more appropriate labor organizations. (In otherwords, if you want to work on a federal contrac, you're going to agree to become unionized, like it or not.)


Sec. 4. Any project labor agreement reached pursuant to this order shall:
(a) bind all contractors and subcontractors on the construction project through the inclusion of appropriate specifications in all relevant solicitation provisions and contract documents; (If you bid, you have to agree to becoming unionized if you get the job.)
(b) allow all contractors and subcontractors to compete for contracts and subcontracts without regard to whether they are otherwise parties to collective bargaining agreements; (But if you get the job, you can't do it unless you become unionized.)
(c) contain guarantees against strikes, lockouts, and similar job disruptions; (You have to agree to the terms and conditions set forth by the unions.)
(d) set forth effective, prompt, and mutually binding procedures for resolving labor disputes arising during the project labor agreement; (You have to agree to binding federal arbitration with the unions.)
(e) provide other mechanisms for labor-management cooperation on matters of mutual interest and concern, including productivity, quality of work, safety, and health; (in other words, adopt the union work rules and benefits package) and
(f) fully conform to all statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders. (Including this one)


Sec. 5. This order does not require an executive agency to use a project labor agreement on any construction project, nor does it preclude the use of a project labor agreement in circumstances not covered by this order, including leasehold arrangements and projects receiving Federal financial assistance. This order also does not require contractors or subcontractors to enter into a project labor agreement with any particular labor organization. (But, if you bid a job with those requirements in the specifications, and you get the job, you must comply.)

Sec. 6. Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council), to the extent permitted by law, shall take whatever action is required to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation to implement the provisions of this order. (We're not going to require you to be union as stated in provision 5, but we're going to make sure the requirement is implemeted.)


Sec. 7. The Director of OMB, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor and with other officials as appropriate, shall provide the President within 180 days of this order, recommendations about whether broader use of project labor agreements, with respect to both construction projects undertaken under Federal contracts and construction projects receiving Federal financial assistance, would help to promote the economical, efficient, and timely completion of such projects. (Not only aren't we going to require you to conform, but we're going to expand that to insure compliance!)

So what does this order really mean?

Executive Order 13502 requires federal agencies to accept only union shop bids for construction projects over $25 million.

Since only 15% of construction workers are unionized this virtually guarantees: every union construction worker a job and that nonunion workers will be banging down the doors of union halls.

The “$25 million” threshold will provide work for just enough non-union workers to give credibility to the lie that “Oh no we don’t hire ONLY union workers, why take a look at our books.”

In this economy, paying union workers higher than competitive wages merely because they are union workers makes no sense.

The average weekly salary for a unionized construction worker is $908.00, but the average non-union worker earns just $710.00 or 22% less.

Add in the additional payments to union pension funds, and it gets worse.

Unions under PLAs typically exact agreements that include requiring contractors to make payments to union pension funds.

Obama’s sellout will cost us more for each federal project because it is a true double edge sword.

It means federal projects can only be completed with union work that always costs more, and actual free market costs have been obliterated as jobs will be regularly over bid.

And, it means unemployed non-union workers, who are willing to do the same job for less, will remain unemployed, even though they could significantly reduce the amount of tax dollars spent on each project.

And so, the O-man gives back to the unions even more than they wanted.

They get their coveted PLA requirements on all Federal projects, and, they get a back door "card check" operation as well.

When it comes to federal purchasing by the O-man's administration, you can be assured they'll look for the union label.

Regardless of the cost.


“Anything that suggests the possibility of favoritism really begins to work against the public confidence.” ----  Burt Greenwald

“Hell is the highest reward that the devil can offer you for being a servant of his.” ---- Billy Sunday quotes

PORK OF THE DAY:
$32,950,000 for 17 projects by Senate CJS Appropriations Subcommittee member Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), including: $7,100,000 for NOAA for the conservation and recovery of endangered Hawaiian sea turtle populations; $2,600,000 for NOAA for the conservation and recovery of the critically endangered monk seal population and conservation of Pacific crustaceans; $2,000,000 for the Imiloa Astronomy Center of Hawaii for the promotion of astronomy in Hawaii; $1,750,000 for the International Pacific Research Center at the University of Hawaii to conduct systematic and reliable climatographic research of the Pacific region; $1,500,000 for NOAA to create and implement an integrated system-wide ocean science education program piloted in Hawaii’s schools; $1,250,000 for the Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research at the University of Hawaii to conduct research on open ocean fisheries in the Pacific Ocean; and $700,000 for NOAA for the Hawaii Coral Reef Initiative at the University of Hawaii to support monitoring and research activities on Hawaii’s coral reefs. One would think we could probably lop 50% of these costs off and not miss anything.