The popular 19th century English nobleman, Lord Acton, is perhaps best remembered for the statement: “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” History is littered with public figures that are appropriately described by those words. Considering some of the shenanigans going on with the health care legislation in Washington, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can certainly be added to the list.
There is no doubt that Reid is in a tough spot. President Obama has stacked up a huge pile of political poker chips, betting on a winning hand on health care reform. He will be harmed politically if he loses, and his fellow Democrats in Congress will feel the collateral damage. But it is not easy to muster the votes necessary to make significant changes to one-sixth of the U.S. economy—as Harry Reid has learned. Adding to Reid’s difficulties is the fact that he has to run for re-election next year, and polling data indicate that he is far from being a shoo-in.
The last thing Reid needs is to be a major factor in passing legislation that will push the crumbling budget of the State of Nevada further into the abyss. One of the central features of the proposed legislation could do just that. It would allow millions of individuals whose income levels currently preclude them from qualifying for Medicaid to meet eligibility requirements for the program. But there is a rub: states must put up a five percent match to help cover the additional costs.
Reid has made no bones about what he plans to do to avoid any political fallout back home. He has stated unequivocally that he will not allow a health care bill to come to the floor if it increases Medicaid costs for Nevada. He seems to be getting his way. The Senate Finance Committee bill would exempt four states—Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island, and (yes) Nevada—from the requirement to pay the five percent funding match. The alleged justification for making the exception is that those states have been the hardest hit by the recession.
The Senate should rebel against Senator Reid feathering his own nest.
Other states shouldn’t have their budgets savaged by another huge unfunded mandate coming down from Washington while watching Reid and a handful of his cronies grin like bandits counting their loot. If states are going to have to be fiscally penalized to make the numbers work for the health care reform legislation, then all states should have to bear the burden.
The health care reform debate is starting to focus attention on what happens when arrogance meets partisanship. It is almost impossible to pass legislation that will cover all of the uninsured, reduce the overall cost of health insurance, and “not add a dime” to the deficit as President Obama promised. There are going to be winners and losers—and some very big losers—if the legislation passes. The likely losers will be young Americans and healthy policy holders who will have to pay much higher costs to insure or subsidize the elderly, the uninsured, and individuals with health problems or unhealthy life styles.
The main science driving the health care debate at this juncture is political science. After watching the political class making hash out of health care legislation, voters might want to ponder another quote from Lord Acton: “It is easier to find people fit to govern themselves than people to govern others. Every man is the best, the most fit judge of his own advantage.”
Senator Reid is living proof of the wisdom in those words.
Showing posts with label Southwest Louisiana. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Southwest Louisiana. Show all posts
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Workers Should Have the Right to Vote
There is a bill in the U.S. Senate that would radically alter the process for deciding whether a union will represent you at the bargaining table with your employer. That bill’s sole purpose is to provide unions greater leverage in labor/management relations.
And while the health care issue has understandably dominated the public’s attention, you should keep an eye on this issue, too.
Lately, the debate over health care has pushed virtually everything else in Congress to the back burners. Nevertheless, unions and their allies in Congress want to force a vote on their bill. Last week, Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee chairman, Sen. Tom Harkin (D – Iowa), said that he was still hoping to bring the bill up for a vote this fall. However, the unions have to clear a significant hurdle first. They must secure 60 votes from among the country’s 100 senators to avoid a guaranteed filibuster by opponents.
All 40 Republican senators are against this bill, which means that all 60 Democratic senators are needed to invoke cloture to prevent the filibuster. While most of the Democrats would vote to do this, a number of moderate Democratic senators have not signed onto this bill, including Louisiana’s Sen. Mary Landrieu.
Her reluctance is understandable–and commendable. S. 560 was named the Employee Free Choice Act by its authors, but it is more commonly referred to as “card check” because it would essentially eliminate secret ballot elections and replace them with an open card registration procedure known as card check.
Existing law allows workers to hear both sides–as they would in an election campaign–and then to privately decide in a voting booth whether they want union representation. S. 560 seeks to change the rules for union organizing campaigns so that workers only get the union’s side of the story.
Currently, unions wanting to obtain bargaining rights hire organizers to solicit workers’ signatures on cards authorizing a union certification election. If 30 percent of the workers sign the cards, the union can petition the National Labor Relations Board to conduct an election, which it supervises to assure that neither the employer nor the union intimidates the workers.
Many workers are not interested in being represented by a union, but will sign the cards so organizers will leave them alone.
When the election is held, they then vote against unionization. That is why the standard goal of organizing campaigns is to collect signatures from 75 percent of workers. Unions will always choose card check because they already collect more than a majority of signatures anyway. So, S. 560 would effectively eliminate the secret ballot election procedure.
The inability of union leaders to secure outright support for S. 560 from Sen. Landrieu and other moderate Democratic senators like her has prompted Sen. Harkin and a handful of other supportive senators to attempt to develop an alternative approach to overcome their reluctance. Yet, the only alternative that would satisfy union leaders will be one that rigs the game and keeps workers from getting the full story before deciding to allow a union in their workplace.
The existing law is fair and protects workers from being unduly pressured by their employers or union organizers. S. 560 was not brought by a host of workers begging to have the law changed, but by union leaders who see their membership sinking as workers find unions less relevant and beneficial in today’s economy. Senator Landrieu would be wise not to support cloture on this bill or on any variation of it that the union leadership would support.
Jim Patterson, LABI’s Vice President of Governmental Relations and Employee Relations Council Director, contributed to this column.
And while the health care issue has understandably dominated the public’s attention, you should keep an eye on this issue, too.
Lately, the debate over health care has pushed virtually everything else in Congress to the back burners. Nevertheless, unions and their allies in Congress want to force a vote on their bill. Last week, Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee chairman, Sen. Tom Harkin (D – Iowa), said that he was still hoping to bring the bill up for a vote this fall. However, the unions have to clear a significant hurdle first. They must secure 60 votes from among the country’s 100 senators to avoid a guaranteed filibuster by opponents.
All 40 Republican senators are against this bill, which means that all 60 Democratic senators are needed to invoke cloture to prevent the filibuster. While most of the Democrats would vote to do this, a number of moderate Democratic senators have not signed onto this bill, including Louisiana’s Sen. Mary Landrieu.
Her reluctance is understandable–and commendable. S. 560 was named the Employee Free Choice Act by its authors, but it is more commonly referred to as “card check” because it would essentially eliminate secret ballot elections and replace them with an open card registration procedure known as card check.
Existing law allows workers to hear both sides–as they would in an election campaign–and then to privately decide in a voting booth whether they want union representation. S. 560 seeks to change the rules for union organizing campaigns so that workers only get the union’s side of the story.
Currently, unions wanting to obtain bargaining rights hire organizers to solicit workers’ signatures on cards authorizing a union certification election. If 30 percent of the workers sign the cards, the union can petition the National Labor Relations Board to conduct an election, which it supervises to assure that neither the employer nor the union intimidates the workers.
Many workers are not interested in being represented by a union, but will sign the cards so organizers will leave them alone.
When the election is held, they then vote against unionization. That is why the standard goal of organizing campaigns is to collect signatures from 75 percent of workers. Unions will always choose card check because they already collect more than a majority of signatures anyway. So, S. 560 would effectively eliminate the secret ballot election procedure.
The inability of union leaders to secure outright support for S. 560 from Sen. Landrieu and other moderate Democratic senators like her has prompted Sen. Harkin and a handful of other supportive senators to attempt to develop an alternative approach to overcome their reluctance. Yet, the only alternative that would satisfy union leaders will be one that rigs the game and keeps workers from getting the full story before deciding to allow a union in their workplace.
The existing law is fair and protects workers from being unduly pressured by their employers or union organizers. S. 560 was not brought by a host of workers begging to have the law changed, but by union leaders who see their membership sinking as workers find unions less relevant and beneficial in today’s economy. Senator Landrieu would be wise not to support cloture on this bill or on any variation of it that the union leadership would support.
Jim Patterson, LABI’s Vice President of Governmental Relations and Employee Relations Council Director, contributed to this column.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Keeping Manufacturing Alive
Some of the highest paying jobs in America are created by companies that make things. Manufacturing has been a mainstay in the U.S. economy since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Some say that manufacturing is passé, that technology is the future, and that it doesn’t matter if manufacturing dries up and blows away.
The flaw in those arguments (actually there are numerous flaws) is that one of the biggest users of technology today is manufacturers.
Modern manufacturing operations are the showcase for innovative technology. Gone are the days, for instance, when hundreds of laborers engaged in the back-breaking activity of wrestling with logs in a forest products plant. A typical worker in those facilities today is more of a technician than a log wrestler.
State-of-the-art machinery moves the logs, determines the best possible value that can be extracted from them, and turns them into profitable products. The same is true of many industries, such as steel, durable goods, petroleum refining, and chemical manufacturing. Technology is the driving force that has increased productivity in American manufacturing, which has kept us a global leader in manufacturing output.
As noted above, advancements in technology have led directly to a diminution of manufacturing employment in the U.S. Many Americans believe that most of the manufacturing job losses—and there have been millions in the last few decades—are due to plants closing in the U.S. and moving to less-developed countries.
Certainly there has been some of that phenomenon occurring, particularly with low-technology industries. But, until this point, the majority of manufacturing job losses has been due more to productivity advances through technology than out-sourcing manufacturing jobs to foreign countries.
That may change soon. Government policies can have a major impact on any industry, and manufacturing is no exception.
Several issues pending in Congress could accelerate the departure of manufacturing industries and jobs from the U.S. Enactment of “cap and trade” legislation tops the list.
If energy costs rise exponentially for manufacturers in the U.S., companies will undoubtedly look more favorably at countries that do not artificially raise their cost of doing business by raising their energy costs.
Another federal issue that will impact the future of American manufacturing is the “card check” legislation pending in Congress. Some manufacturers work with a union agreement. Others do not. Manufacturers are not generally concerned about the wages involved with a collective bargaining agreement. They already have some of the highest wage scales in the private sector.
What troubles them are the voluminous work rules that come with a union contract. These contract requirements inhibit the productivity advancements necessary for manufacturing to survive in the modern world.
The current health care debate also has the full attention of U.S. manufacturers. The vast majority of our domestic manufacturers provide quality health insurance coverage for their workers. Proposals in Congress would mandate that coverage and possibly tax manufacturers for providing it.
The manufacturing community is very wary of government-imposed mandates from past experience involving many issues. Limiting their ability to design quality, affordable insurance plans for their workers—and possibly making them pay taxes to provide it—will not make them more likely to keep or expand their operations in the U.S.
If America is to remain a world leader in making things, government officials should step lightly when considering policies that could make more of our best jobs leave our shores.
Improving the quality of education, encouraging more research and development, and maintaining job-friendly tax policies will help keep manufacturing jobs in America. Passing some of the proposals pending in Congress will definitely have the opposite effect.
The flaw in those arguments (actually there are numerous flaws) is that one of the biggest users of technology today is manufacturers.
Modern manufacturing operations are the showcase for innovative technology. Gone are the days, for instance, when hundreds of laborers engaged in the back-breaking activity of wrestling with logs in a forest products plant. A typical worker in those facilities today is more of a technician than a log wrestler.
State-of-the-art machinery moves the logs, determines the best possible value that can be extracted from them, and turns them into profitable products. The same is true of many industries, such as steel, durable goods, petroleum refining, and chemical manufacturing. Technology is the driving force that has increased productivity in American manufacturing, which has kept us a global leader in manufacturing output.
As noted above, advancements in technology have led directly to a diminution of manufacturing employment in the U.S. Many Americans believe that most of the manufacturing job losses—and there have been millions in the last few decades—are due to plants closing in the U.S. and moving to less-developed countries.
Certainly there has been some of that phenomenon occurring, particularly with low-technology industries. But, until this point, the majority of manufacturing job losses has been due more to productivity advances through technology than out-sourcing manufacturing jobs to foreign countries.
That may change soon. Government policies can have a major impact on any industry, and manufacturing is no exception.
Several issues pending in Congress could accelerate the departure of manufacturing industries and jobs from the U.S. Enactment of “cap and trade” legislation tops the list.
If energy costs rise exponentially for manufacturers in the U.S., companies will undoubtedly look more favorably at countries that do not artificially raise their cost of doing business by raising their energy costs.
Another federal issue that will impact the future of American manufacturing is the “card check” legislation pending in Congress. Some manufacturers work with a union agreement. Others do not. Manufacturers are not generally concerned about the wages involved with a collective bargaining agreement. They already have some of the highest wage scales in the private sector.
What troubles them are the voluminous work rules that come with a union contract. These contract requirements inhibit the productivity advancements necessary for manufacturing to survive in the modern world.
The current health care debate also has the full attention of U.S. manufacturers. The vast majority of our domestic manufacturers provide quality health insurance coverage for their workers. Proposals in Congress would mandate that coverage and possibly tax manufacturers for providing it.
The manufacturing community is very wary of government-imposed mandates from past experience involving many issues. Limiting their ability to design quality, affordable insurance plans for their workers—and possibly making them pay taxes to provide it—will not make them more likely to keep or expand their operations in the U.S.
If America is to remain a world leader in making things, government officials should step lightly when considering policies that could make more of our best jobs leave our shores.
Improving the quality of education, encouraging more research and development, and maintaining job-friendly tax policies will help keep manufacturing jobs in America. Passing some of the proposals pending in Congress will definitely have the opposite effect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
