This story takes place in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is not a right to work state, which means you can be forced to join a union in order to get and keep a job in the Keystone State. The largest union in the town of Allentown is one of the most radical; the Service Employees International Union. This is the union arm of ACORN and the official union of the Obama Administration.

Now .. here's your story: Over the summer, Allentown had to lay off 39 SEIU members because of the economy. Union bosses don't like this ... especially in a town reeking of the union mentality. Just not supposed to happen ... union members are losing their jobs. People get their tires slashed over stuff like this ... or worse.

Then along comes Kevin Anderson. He's 17 years old. Kevin is finishing his final community service project to get his Eagle Scout badge. For over 200 hours, weeks on end, Kevin worked to clear a walking path in a park. Uh oh. It was a city park; a park owned by the city of Allentown ... you know, the city that fired 39 union members?

Eagle Scout or not ... this just cannot be allowed to happen. The president of the local SEIU, Nick Balzano (name ends in a vowel) says that he is considering filing a grievance against the city. Why? Because these evil city officials allowed this non-union kid to clear the walk and bike path in the local park. Dammit! Don't they know this is a union job? A union member could have earned bucks cleaning that footpath! Balzano says, "We'll be looking into the Cub Scout or Boy Scout who did the trails." Uh oh .. now they've done it. You scouts out there had better look out! The unions are going to "look into" you! Maybe there's a merit badge out there for repairing broken knee caps.

Delta, the non-union airline, absorbed Northwest, the union airline. It was not the other way around. It was the union airline that was in dire straits and needed rescue, not the non-union one. Usually when one company absorbs another the first task is to identify and root out toxic assets. Unions were and are Northwest's toxic assets. Delta suits didn't really believe that they would have to ingest this poison with their Northwest merger .. but now it seems that it may indeed be so.

And whom would you thank for this potential disaster? Barack Obama .. that's who. The union man! The community organizer! The same man who managed to wedge unions in ahead of secured creditors in the General Motors bankruptcy! The same man who supports the Unionization By Intimidation bill - a/k/a "Card Check." The man who virtually gave Andy Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union, the union goon arm of ACORN, a pass to the White House. That's who!

Obama, you see, had some appointments to The Mediation Board, the federal outfit that handles union relations with airlines and railroads. As you would expect, The champion of the SEIU appointed a strong union supporter to this board. Now there s a shift in power on the board to the pro-union side. So ... how about a little rule change to enhance the union's chances of unionizing Delta Airlines? What change? Simple. Declare that in Delta's upcoming union election the unions only have to win a majority vote from among those Delta employees actually voting. The rule was that you had to have a majority of the Delta employees vote for the union. Even members of The Mediation Board are stating that this really gives the unions a good edge in the elections.

If the flight attendants and ground workers at Delta vote union the damage will be grave. There is no way in hell that unionization is going to help Delta ... only harm will result. But never mind ... there will be a sizeable number of Delta employees who will vote to unionize, and you can bet the larger number of Northwest employees will vote yes. They'll see it as a way to protect themselves from this giant new company that has swallowed their previous employer. As I said, they will inject the same poison into the bloodstream of Delta Airlines that they used to poison Northwest.

Want more? Here's the story from The AJC.

Ever since the bailouts began, and government began to expand its reach, the airline industry would eventually become a victim.  It seems the unions are going to ensure that this happened.  Pushed by the AFL-CIO, the Obama administration is "taking its first step toward trying to fix the ailing airline industry."  You know what that means .... More government!

So there is going to be some sort of forum, organized at the request of the AFL-CIO, which will be closed to the public and the media.  (How's that for transparency!)  The unions are loving their pal Obama in office.  They'll thrive ...  we'll suffer. 

This week, Nancy Pelosi and her myrmidons will work on their plans to pay for healthcare reform ... and you know they're just busting their guts to throw out some good old Democrat tax increases. Keep in mind that these are tax increases ON TOP of the increases that will come into effect when the Bush tax cuts expire.

But Nancy Pelosi has found herself trying to balance the egos of her Democrat Caucus and her union supporters. She has done this by suggesting a tax increase on "Cadillac" insurance plans. This type of tax is more popular in the Senate. In fact, the Baucus bill includes a 40% tax on insurers for plans worth more than $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families.

As of right now, none of the plans include an income surtax on the wealthy to pay the difference for these Democrat dreams and schemes. But who knows what she will propose this week. She may propose a tax on the evil, disgusting, vile rich people who dare to earn more than $500,000.

All we can be sure of is the fact that wealth envy is going to rear its ugly head again. I hope you are ready for it.

If Obama is so focused on health care reform, could someone please tell me why there are so many parts of the ObamaCare plan that benefit labor unions and promote unionization? Just another indication that this is not about health care, it's about control --- and paying off your friends.

Labor Day couldn't have come fast enough for labor unions in this country. They really have their thongs in a wad right now. Why? Because they haven't seen the payoff that they expected for getting all of these Democrats elected. What do they ultimately want? They want Democrats to pass their card check bill. Pass the card check bill and the labor unions can go on their merry way, bullying workers into a giant unionized work-force. And it seems as though the White House pandered right to them. Joe Biden himself promised yesterday that the card check bill would make it through Congress this year. Barack Obama says that "every American owes something to America's labor movement."

Well .. someone had better work on getting this message across to the American people. Polling this morning shows that labor unions are enjoying the lowest approval rating since you kicked the last slat out of your cradle. Only 48% of Americans harbor positive thoughts about labor unions. The purple-shirted thugs from the Service Employees International Union and their actions at the townhall meetings haven't helped labor's image.

The AFL-CIO has come up with a brilliant plan to reap billions of dollars ... tax evil corporation profits. The plan is to tax every stock transaction. While they call it a "small" tax (about a tenth of a percent) the tax would generate $50 billion to $100 billion a year. Policy director for the AFL-CIO, Thea Lee, says there are two reasons for imposing the new tax: raising revenue and discouraging speculative financial activity. She explains, "The big disadvantage of most taxes is that they discourage some really productive activity ... This would discourage numerous financial transactions. People flip their assets several times in an hour or a day. They make money but does it really add to the productive base of the United States?" Now, what might this money be used for? The goal would be to use the tax revenue on infrastructure projects (for unionized employees, obviously). And get this, the tax could be applied nationwide or internationally.

Question: Who should make the decision as to when to buy or sell a stock? The government? Some union hack? Hey! Here's an idea! Let the person who owns the stock decide when to sell it! And let the person with money decide when to invest! I think there's a word for that ... "freedom," I think. But then we're talking about unions, aren't we?

Government wants back in. The Democrats want the government back in. In where? To our financial institutions, that's where. Make no mistake, the looters are more than a little upset that companies like Goldman Sachs have not only repaid their loans but are now making billions in profits. That drives them wild! What in the hell are those companies and the people who invest in them doing with all of that money that we could be using to buy votes .. or that could be spent to employ union workers. Well ... since these companies and their investors have broken free and are once again thriving, let's just levy a little tax against trading in their stock.

But hold tight, my friends. You ain't seen nuttin yet. Wait until the looters propose going after your pension funds, your IRAs and your 401Ks. It just not fair that you should have a comfortable retirement when so many people are going to have to rely on the busted Social Security system.

Every year unions have to submit financial reports to the government as required by the Labor Management and Reporting Disclosure Act. But for years under the Bush administration, unions complained that Labor Secretary at the time, Elaine Chao, issued even tougher regulations for labor unions to comply with. These regulations "required union officials to disclose financial information that could aid union members' seeking information on how their union leaders are spending dues money, and to help expose 'no show jobs' that put paychecks for ghost employees into union coffers."

But now that the Obama administration is in place, new Labor Secretary Hilda Solis has said sayonara to these revised union financial disclosure requirements. Unions will no longer have to comply. A notice went out about a week ago stating the following:

"Accordingly, OLMS will refrain from initiating enforcement actions against union officers and union employees based solely on the failure to file the report required by section 202 of the Labor-Management and Reporting Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. § 432, using the 2007 form, as long as individuals meet their statutorily-required filing obligation in some manner. OLMS will accept either the old Form LM-30 or the new one for purposes of this non-enforcement policy."

In other words, just another "thank you" from the Obama administration. It would seem that now the union leaders are free to spend union dues on whatever they durned well please, and to keep those ghost union workers out there fattening union boss wallets. You would expect nothing less with Democrats in power.

The liberals have had their thongs in a wad for weeks over this column by Whole Foods CEO John Mackey. For those of you who missed it, Mackey wrote a column for the Wall Street Journal on August 11th that explained his free market plan for healthcare reform. Ever since then, liberals have been in a war against Mackey for daring to go against Barack Obama or stand against the political leanings of so many of his customers!

Well now the unions have gotten involved. The CtW Investment Group, a part of the Change to Win federation of unions that advocates on behalf of workers' investments in pension funds, is calling for Mackey's resignation. The union says that Mackey is undermining President Obama's healthcare reform.

CtW Investment Group's Executive Director Bill Patterson says, "Mr. Mackey attempted to capitalize on the brand reputation of Whole Foods to champion his personal political views, but has instead deeply offended a key segment of Whole Foods consumer base." Oh my God! NO! Tell me it's not true! Someone has been OFFENDED!

In the meantime, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union is going to be handing out information to Whole Foods shoppers about healthcare reform. Maybe they will hire some homeless people to handout the flyers ... that's always a good way to promote your cause.

(Note for Atlanta listeners: You will see around town groups of about five people holding a frame with a "Shame on" banner in it? Those people are homeless winos and bums. They're hired by local building trades unions to hold those "shame on" signs naming companies that dare to finish out an office with a non-union sheetrock contractor.)

Included in one of the House versions of the healthcare reform bill is a little gift to the unions. One provision includes $10 billion to pay off medical costs of union members and retirees. Section 164, a reinsurance program for retirees, sets aside $10 billion in order to set up a temporary reinsurance program "to provide reimbursement to participating employment-based plans for part of the cost of providing health benefits to retirees age 55-64 and their families ... Employment-based plans must apply to participate and be approved, and the health care plan would reimburse participating employment-based plans for 80 percent of the cost of benefits in excess of $15,000 and under $90,000." Pure pork for the Democrat's union pals.

Then we get this explanation from UAW President Ron Gettelfinger. He says, "We need meaningful health care reform if we are going to get our economy going again ... Decent, affordable health care should be a right of every American, not a privilege."

Now here's what Gettelfinger is saying. In order to receive health care someone has to provide you with a service. This means that someone has to expend time, property or both to provide you with your health care. Usually this health care provider is compensated for their time or property. But ... if, as this footstool Gettelfinger says ... healthcare is a "right," then that would mean that you are legally entitled to the healthcare provider's time and property .. and that you don't have to pay anything at all for the service? After all, we shouldn't have to buy what is rightfully ours, should we?

The claim that healthcare is a right is tantamount to a claim that you have a right to a portion of the life and property of another. Defend that one.

I think the amazing story of the week is the panicked reaction of the looters to the way their representatives have been treated at town hall meetings around the country. I mean, how DARE these people question the ruling class? Don't they realize they lost the election? The Democrats will remind them of that at any opportunity. The theory is that if you lose the election you are supposed to shut the hell up, sit back and let the victors do pretty much anything they want to you.

Let's draw a parallel. A man attacks a woman. She fights back like hell. Finally the man subdues her and starts pulling off her clothes. As he tries to rape her she starts fighting again. "Hold on there," the rapist yells. "I won ... you lost. Now you're supposed to let me do anything I want to you and you can't do a damned thing about it."

The Democrats - Pelosi, Boxer, et all - have been calling the people who show up at the town hall meetings to protest ObamaCare "thugs." Well, I guess they've decided it's time to thrown in some thugs of their own. Now if you're a Democrat - a looter - and you need some thugs, where are you going to go? You got it! There, that wasn't all that hard, was it? You go to the unions? What better place to find some thugs than a union hall?

And so ... what do we have now? We have violence breaking out at these town hall meetings. And trust me on this one .. the Democrats and most of the media is going to make sure that the people protesting ObamaCare take the blame for the disruptions. Certainly not the unions.

Believe this .. unions are more than a little pissed right now. When their hero was inaugurated on January 20th they thought it would just be a matter of weeks ... a few months at most ... and they would have their forced unionization bill. Yeah - the so-called "card check" bill. The thugs couldn't wait to whisper sweet nothings into the ears of workers faced with the decision of whether or not to sign that union card.

"Pssst. Buddy. No, don't look at me, just listen. That card you have? You really do need to sign it and turn it in. That's a mighty nice new car you have parked outside. New tires are expensive, you know. And it would really be a shame if your wife had any problems the next time she went to the Safeway for some groceries. You know what to do."

Well, the union's big summer didn't happen, and they're itching for some action. They know that they won't get any action on card check as long as the Democrats are tied up trying to take over our health care system. So maybe, just maybe, if the unions would help out the looters, the looters will return the favor. So if you are planning on attending a town hall meeting on healthcare any time soon, be on the lookout for union thugs. It's always nice to have something to look forward to you .. and coming soon to a town hall meeting near you, your favorite local union sweethearts! John Sweeney, the president of the AFL-CIO has issued his call to arms. He wants union members to attend healthcare town hall meetings in order to counteract the "right-wing 'Tea Party Patriots.'" These are all of you evil, well-dressed protestors who believe in smaller government or the freedom to choose your own doctors. Oh .. and just what do you think that Sweeney means by "counteract?"

Sweeney wrote a memo to his minions saying, "The principal battleground in the campaign will be town hall meetings and other gatherings with members of Congress in their home districts ... We want your help to organize major union participation to counter the right-wing 'Tea-Party Patriots' who will try to disrupt those meetings, as they've been trying to do to meetings for the last month."

Yeah .. it's the ugly "Tea Party Patriots" that are going to try to disrupt the meetings, certainly not the unions, right? Perhaps you might like to look at this item from Michelle Malkin's blog. It would appear that a St. Louis town hall meeting yesterday the union members showed up ... the union members were allowed in ... but those who weren't exactly friendly to the Democrats takeover of almost 20% of our economy were left out. My guess is that if you were to check local coverage you might see that it was all the protestor's fault. I understand that we can't know for certain just what happened in these meetings ... but based on past experience, what would you guess? Would you believe that the ObamaCare protestors caused the violence, or union members?

Here's something else for you to think about: We have one Jim Messina, the deputy chief of staff to President Obama. Talking to Democrats yesterday said "if you get hit, we will hit back twice as heard." Well, the Democrats have been taking a hit at their own hall meetings. Are they now hitting back twice as hard?

It doesn't help that the Secretary Treasurer of the AFL-CIO issued the following statement about the town hall meetings. You'll love this.

Every American has the inalienable right to participate in our democratic process. Our politics is passionate, heartfelt and often loud -- as was the founding of our nation. But that is not what the corporate-funded mobs are engaging in when they show up to disrupt town halls held by members of Congress.

Major health care reform is closer than ever to passage and it is no secret that special interests want to weaken or block it. These mobs are not there to participate. As their own strategy memo states, they have been sent by their corporate and lobbyist bankrollers to disrupt, heckle and block meaningful debate. This is a desperation move, meant to slow the momentum for change.

Mob rule is not democracy. People have a democratic right to express themselves and our elected leaders have a right to hear from their constituents -- not organized thugs whose sole purpose is to shut down the conversation and attempt to scare our leaders into inaction.

We call on the insurance companies, the lobbyists and the Republican leaders who are cheering them on to halt these 'Brooks Brothers Riot' tactics. Health care is a crucial issue and everyone - on all sides of the issue - deserves to be heard.

These are the tactics of despots. They'll pay grand lip service to the idea of free speech .. but there's always a "but" thrown in. The looters have no real answers for the people who are protesting ObamaCare, so they start making references to mob rule. We're nothing but "organized thugs" who want to shut down conversation? Are they kidding? Shut down conversation? In a few paragraphs you're going to have the opportunity to click on a link to watch a video of a recent AARP meeting. As soon as the people in the audience try to have a conversation with the meeting organizer, she packs up and leaves! Just WHO is trying to shut down conversation?

Oh ... and before we move on: Isn't it just precious to hear a union leader talking about "organized thugs?" The history of unionism in this country is a history of organized thuggery. Then he says that "mob rule is not democracy." Sorry, but that is EXACTLY what democracy is. Why do you think they call themselves Democrats? A lynch mob is mob rule. Right? Well, a lynch mob is also a prime example of democratic action. One man wants to live to see his day in court. Thirty men want him hung ... NOW. OK, let's have a vote! Wow! Imagine that! The vote was 30 to1. Get the rope! There's your democracy in action. In a democracy the rule of law means zip. That's also what it meant to Obama when he was manhandling the GM bankruptcy. Hope your memories are that long.

But it's not just the AFL-CIO. The Service Employees International Union is also summoning the troops. A spokeswoman for the unions says that it is "unleashing the purple people" in order to "challenge the radical fringe" that is disrupting these town hall meetings. The spokeswoman also says union members are not there to "talk to the crazies." We need to "reclaim our democracy!" and blah, blah, blah, blah.

I could rant on this for hours. The looters are in panic mode. The people are learning more and more about their takeover of health care. The people saw right through that attempt to change the topic from health CARE reform to health INSURANCE reform. The people in this country see the huge deficits coming. They know instinctively that Barack Obama cannot promise more and more health care to more and more people with fewer doctors and nurses and NOT resort to rationing and higher taxes. We don't like it ... and we're speaking out.

You haven't heard a lot about the union's precious "card check" bill lately. I don't think it's dead ... just dormant. Count on the unions to do everything in their considerable power to get this passed ... they're virtually licking their chops at the idea of their union organizing thugs being able to intimidate workers into signing a card saying they want to join a union. (Hey, buddy, remember: We know where you live, and we know where your children go to school.)

Here's another reason why you do not want to see the power of unions to increase in this country. You've heard of the financial problems facing California. But have you heard what the California government-employee unions are doing to help? Well ... they've voted to authorize a strike. They don't like the idea that government union workers are being furloughed to save taxpayers money.

BTW .. did you know that over the past year wages have been working twice as fast in the government sector than they have in the private? Government employee unions.

The California government employee unions think it's just fine if California looks for ways to save money --- but from now on that money has to come from somewhere other than union paychecks.

Yeah ... we really want more unions, don't we?

In case you were worried about the United Auto Workers union lately, you needn't be. It looks like they will be taken care of just fine. As for other workers in the auto industry, they may not be so lucky. Take a look at the latest from the Wall Street Journal.

It's hard to keep up, but this week the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation took over the pension liabilities of Delphi, the auto-parts spinoff of GM that has been working its way through Chapter 11 since 2005. As with the previous taxpayer rescues, this one includes a special favor for the United Auto Workers.

Under the agreement, the PBGC will assume some $6.2 billion in pension liabilities from Delphi, including both hourly and salaried employees ... As Delphi's former parent, GM had agreed to take responsibility for billions of dollars of Delphi's pension obligations to its hourly employees.

It will be months before Delphi employees know what percentage of their expected pension they'll receive, but not all pensioners are created equal in this arrangement. UAW employees will have their pensions made whole by GM, which insists it is merely fulfilling its end of a deal made with the UAW in 1999 (when it spun off Delphi) to cover any future pension shortfall ... Less fortunate are smaller unions and Delphi's salaried employees, whose pensions may see drastic reductions and who already lost their health care and life insurance plans on April 1.

There are two groups that Obama and the Democrats are sure to protect as their big-government agenda progresses: Unions and trial lawyers. You didn't happen to see any medical malpractice reform in the government health plans, did you?

This story takes place in Baltimore, Maryland. It actually involves a charter school. You see, the law in Maryland requires that charter school teachers be part of the union in their school district. That was their first mistake.

So this charter school, the KIPP Ujima Village Academy starts doing really well. Students at the school are outperforming students at the local government schools. One reason may be that the teachers at the KIPP Ujima Village Academy put in longer hours than their government school counterparts. KIPP teachers work nine hours and 15 minutes a day, as well as every other Saturday. Local government school teachers are only required to work seven hours and five minutes a day. And you can forget about weekends.

This is where the local union steps in and says "Hey, wait a minute. Teachers at this charter school are working longer hours than other unionized teachers at the government schools." The solution? The Baltimore Teachers Union says that this charter school must pay its teachers 33% more than other government school teachers. The charter school says ... screw you, we have a budget to meet (there's a concept no government hack would understand). So now, one of Baltimore's most successful schools is laying off staff and shortening its school day. They are doing this in order to please the teachers unions.

Oh wait ... you thought that teachers unions are there to enhance the education of your child? And just what planet did you say you are from?

I mentioned this one on the air last week, but it is so outrageous that it is worth repeating. When it comes to healthcare reform, the Senate is considering the idea of allowing union-negotiated benefit packages go un-taxed. Yep, as I just talked about in the Nuze item above, there is still an option on the table that would tax employee healthcare benefits. However, if that plan makes it into the bill, union-negotiated contracts would be exempt from paying these taxes.

You can thank Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus for this one. He's the one that believes that any major changes to the US healthcare system should exempt perks secured by existing collective bargaining agreements. In other words ... they would be grandfathered in. Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute makes a good point. He says that this "smacks of political favoritism ... "I can't think of any other aspect of the individual income tax that treats benefits of different people differently because of who they work for."

So this would be a way to still tax benefits, but magically exclude 12.4% of American workers who happen to be union members. In the end, who is going to have more of a say come election time?

I got on a rant about unions again after reading about these government school teachers in New York. You know the ones sitting in these "rubber rooms" doing crossword puzzles and playing grab-ass? Yeah, those are the ones. What a joke. But you continue to turn your children over to the government to be educated.

Anyway, that got me thinking about how hideous unions are for this country, and I was reminded of a recent study by the Heritage Foundation. Take a look at some of the highlights below. It's wonderful stuff.

• Studies typically find that unionized companies earn profits between 10 percent and 15 percent lower than those of comparable non-union firms.
   
• Some unions win higher wages for their members, though many do not. But with these higher wages, unions bring less investment, fewer jobs, higher prices, and smaller 401(k) plans for everyone else.
   
• Final union contracts typically give workers group identities instead of treating them as individuals. Unions do not have the resources to monitor each worker's performance and tailor the contract accordingly. Even if they could, they would not want to do so. Unions want employees to view the union--not their individual achievements--as the source of their economic gains.
   
• Consequently, union contracts compress wages: They suppress the wages of more productive workers and raise the wages of the less competent. Unions redistribute wealth between workers.
   
• A better summary of the economic research is that unions do not increase workers' wages by nearly as much as they claim and that, at a number of companies, they do not raise wages at all.
   
• In essence, unions "tax" investments that corporations make, redistributing part of the return from these investments to their members. This makes undertaking a new investment less worthwhile. Companies respond to the union tax in the same way they respond to government taxes on investment--by investing less.
   
• Research shows that unions directly cause firms to reduce their investments. In fact, investment drops sharply after unions organize a company. One study found that unionizing reduces capital investment by 30 percent--the same effect as a 33 percentage point increase in the corporate tax rate
   
• The balance of economic research shows that unions do not just happen to organize firms with more layoffs and less job growth: They cause job losses. Most studies find that jobs drop at newly organized companies, with employment falling between 5 percent and 10 percent.

Here's a little story about unions flexing their muscles. We'll back into this one. Out in California, many companies are looking to set up solar power plants. So a company called Ausra files plans to build. Immediately it is inundated for demands from a union: "before you can build, you have to study the effects this will have on endangered species like the short-nosed kangaroo rat or the ferruginous hawk!" Studies like this could take years, and they are definitely costly.

Then, another company called BrightSource Energy comes along and wants to build a solar power plant. The same union has no complaints. In fact, it wants regulators to approve the project ASAP.

So I'm sure by now you've already figured out what is going on here. The first company, Ausra, rejected demands to only use union workers to build the solar farm. The other company, BrightSource, said that it would use labor-friendly contractors.

It's not like this is anything new. This is business as usual for unions. What is new is the field that unions have planned to use the green movement to achieve their goals of union expansion. Socialist and communists figured this out 20 years ago, don't know why it took the unions so long.

Barack Obama and the Democrats have ensured that wind and solar farms will be popping up all around the country and creating all sorts of new jobs. (So they say.) So the unions want to make sure that these "new jobs" are union jobs. They are going to use this movement to "regain relevance," as it says in the New York Times. So the unions have devised a plan: use these costly environmental studies to threaten any company that doesn't agree to use union workers or labor-friendly contractors. Obama's their pal. Maybe they'll get away with it.

The President of Brazil has let the cat out of the bag. President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva says that unions and workers should be taking better advantage of the current financial crisis to form "a new world economic order." What kind of world order would that be? One based on fairness. One where the workers and the unions would dominate political policy and make sure that the evil rich corporations that provide their jobs don't make money.

He made this statement at the International Labor Organization summit, a gathering of United Nations members. He says, "This is an exceptional opportunity for all of you to think and develop proposals together with the employers and business leaders so that we can change definitely the relations between state and civil society and so that we can build our countries with much more fairness and much more solidarity."

Sadly, there are a lot of people ... including some in our own government ... that would agree with him.

We can only hope this country wakes up before Obama ruins it.

This one is delicious.

Now that King Obama has decided that it is the government's place to guide private companies to appropriate levels of compensation ... business groups want to know if Obama plans to do the same for labor union bosses.  Katie Packer, executive director of the Workforce Fairness Institute says, "Given that union bosses' job performances have yet to be scrutinized despite numerous, credible reports that they have engaged in 'creative accounting' and have mismanaged and underfunded worker pension plans, while wholly funding their own, is deplorable."

Obama limit union executive pay?  Are you kidding me?  This guy owes his job to these union executives ... they get a pass.  So, the answer to the question is a big, resounding "hell no."  Obama knows who got him elected.  Heck, just yesterday we linked to an article that explained how the labor unions are broke after paying to get Obama elected.  I have a better chance with Angelina Jolie than businesses groups have of convincing Obama to touch labor union bosses.

I don't have to go into the details of what is going on in California right now. The bottom line is that the state is broke. Part of the reason California is broke is because the wealthy, the high-producers, the larger taxpayers have fled. Can you blame them? We are still free enough to chose to escape high tax states, though that may change under the enlightened leadership of Barack Obama. At any rate, now California has to balance its budget, and it is ugly. Amusingly, it is putting a real strain on the relationship between state Democrats and the labor unions. I say amusingly because I love to see unions scream and politicians squirm.

California is going to have to cut government services --- big time. In fact, some government services may be eliminated altogether. CalGrants, for instance, provides financial aid to low-income students of union members. That program would be phased out. Also, government home healthcare services would be slashed. There's even a headline on Drudge this morning suggesting that California may end its welfare programs. It's news like this has the unions' thongs in a wad because many of them would lose their jobs or see a significant reduction in forces.

What is the solution offered up by the unions? Well .. the same solution Obama has for funding his government takeover of health care. It's really very easy. You just tax the rich! Yep, there is a union pledge being passed around to support $44 million in new or higher taxes on the wealthy, oil companies, tobacco industry and others. The California Democrats, it seems, aren't biting. The unions are "appalled" that Democrats are openly discussing the idea of cutting government programs without first considering the idea of tax increases. Union members are beginning to ask themselves: "If these Democrats are not going to stand up for us, then what good is it to have them there?"

So will these Democrats end up bending to union demands? If not, it could lead to the end of their political careers. If they do, it could lead to the financial collapse of California.

For this section of Nealz Nuze, let's focus on the Massachusetts Teachers Association. This would be the largest teachers union in the great state of Massachusetts. Now keep in mind that the goal of a teachers union is to maintain union jobs power, not to educate children. So when the teachers union comes up with ways for its teachers to develop professionally, you can guarantee that this will have little to do with student achievement.

According to this article from the Boston Herald, the Massachusetts Teachers Association offers professional development like "Lessons through Balloon Twisting" where each participant can learn to make at least two different balloon animals. Another like "Easy Tie-Dye" will "awe your friends and family" by creating a "groovy tie-dyed T-shirt." That's not all, folks ... these teachers can learn Native American Bead Weaving, silk screening, folk dancing and more.

These are the people you put in charge of educating your child. School choice is the great civil rights struggle of the era. Are you paying attention? Read this next bit to see what some Russian writer has to say about our education system.

The Heritage Foundation has a great analysis on how labor unions affect jobs and the economy.  What I've done is pulled just a few facts that you should know about these unions.  Read the linked study for more information.  This one needs to be framed and put on a wall.  Ready?  OK .. here is what labor unions do for American business:

• Studies typically find that unionized companies earn profits between 10 percent and 15 percent lower than those of comparable non-union firms.

• Some unions win higher wages for their members, though many do not. But with these higher wages, unions bring less investment, fewer jobs, higher prices, and smaller 401(k) plans for everyone else.

• Final union contracts typically give workers group identities instead of treating them as individuals. Unions do not have the resources to monitor each worker's performance and tailor the contract accordingly. Even if they could, they would not want to do so. Unions want employees to view the union--not their individual achievements--as the source of their economic gains.

• Consequently, union contracts compress wages: They suppress the wages of more productive workers and raise the wages of the less competent. Unions redistribute wealth between workers.

• A better summary of the economic research is that unions do not increase workers' wages by nearly as much as they claim and that, at a number of companies, they do not raise wages at all.

• In essence, unions "tax" investments that corporations make, redistributing part of the return from these investments to their members. This makes undertaking a new investment less worthwhile. Companies respond to the union tax in the same way they respond to government taxes on investment--by investing less.

• Research shows that unions directly cause firms to reduce their investments. In fact, investment drops sharply after unions organize a company. One study found that unionizing reduces capital investment by 30 percent--the same effect as a 33 percentage point increase in the corporate tax rate

• The balance of economic research shows that unions do not just happen to organize firms with more layoffs and less job growth: They cause job losses. Most studies find that jobs drop at newly organized companies, with employment falling between 5 percent and 10 percent.

Wonderful stuff, don't you think?  Really makes you want to go to work for a unionized company.  Not.

How do you like the idea of the Imperial Federal Government of the United States owning ALL of General Motors? Well, it could happen! Yeah, I know ... that's pure socialism. But look who's in the White House! A typical Marxist grad student is running the show. Don't act surprised.

According to Reuters:

General Motors' plan for a bankruptcy filing involves a quick sale of the company's healthy assets to a new company initially owned by the U.S. government, a source familiar with the situation said on Tuesday.

The new company is expected to honor the claims of secured lenders, possibly in full, according to the source.

The remaining assets of GM would stay in bankruptcy protection to satisfy other outstanding claims.

The government's plans include giving stakes in the new company to GM's union and bondholders, although the ownership structure of the company is still being negotiated, said the source who is familiar with the company's plans.

In addition, the government would extend a credit line to the new company and forgive the bulk of the $15.4 billion in emergency loans that the U.S. has already provided to GM, the source said.

But when it comes to the unions, UAW president Ron Gettelfinger says that he plans to sell the union's stake in Chrysler and GM in order to raise cash to cover retiree healthcare costs.

I'm looking for the part where the government is required to privatize. If you see it, let me know ... or is General Motors, along with Chrysler, going to be a ward of the state.

By the way ... Yesterday PrezBO announced his plans for a 39-mile-per-gallon corporate fuel economy average by 2016. Not going to happen. Any American automaker who tries to meet this goal is going to have to sell so many tiny and unsafe high-mileage cars that it will be virtually impossible for them to be profitable without adding thousands to the price of the models that people actually want to buy. This is what you get in a government-run economy. Products that people don't want to buy, but that please the snot out of special interest groups like the Sierra Club.

Barack Obama announced yesterday that he wants to see 5,000 failing government schools closed and reopened with new principals and teachers. A few questions immediately come to mind.

Since Obama doesn't have the authority to do this, how exactly is he going to see that local school districts follow suit? Or will he expand his role as president to make sure this happens ... wouldn't shock me. Maybe he'll just withhold federal funding. That seems to work.

What the heck are these schools going to do with these teachers and principals in the meantime? Will they get paid not to work? Will they be fired? Will they be transferred? Fired? Did I say fired? No way. There will be some other government job for them somewhere. You don't expect them to survive in the private sector, do you?

That leads to the next, giant question ...

How long will it be before the teachers unions throw a fit? Unless their jobs are guaranteed ... I would give them minutes rather than hours to blow a union gasket.

My last question would have been how much money is the going to cost the taxpayers? But I managed to find the answer ... about a million dollars per school. Yep, Obama's budget sets aside up to $5 billion to facilitate this type of school turnarounds for failing government schools.

Here's an idea, Obama ... ever heard of a voucher or a private school? Rather than spending $5 billion to build more government schools, why not use that money to give students vouchers to attend the schools of their choice. That's what you and the First Lady did? Or here's another idea .. why not allow that money to be used by private companies or individuals or churches or what-have-you to build and run private schools. Just because you build a brand-new school doesn't mean that the education is going to be any better .. especially when you are dealing with government.

Unions rule in the education world, my friends. They're doing to the government schools what they did to our auto industry. We're just going to stand by and let them get away with it.

Have you heard about the standoff between California and the Obama administration? California's governor's office says that a politically powerful union has an inappropriate influence over the Obama administration. Why is that? Because the Obama administration decided to withhold billion of dollars in federal stimulus money until California reverses a wage cut for labor group workers. Now this wage cut between the California government and the home health care worker's union was negotiated. Both sides agreed. But the Service Employees International Union didn't like the idea of any union negotiating for a lower wage ... so they went to DC and complained to the government. Obama steps in and tells California that he is going to withhold $7 billion in federal funds unless the negotiated agreement is cancelled and the home health care workers get their money.

Governments run by unions. Change you can believe in.

Barack Obama's auto task force has a difficult choice to make ... will it bend to union demands and require GM to keep more jobs in the US or will it allow GM to expand its operations in countries with cheaper labor?

After pouring billions of OUR CHILDREN'S DOLLARS into GM, the fact of the matter is that it can't survive while it is beholden to the United Auto Workers. This means moving more manufacturing (and therefore jobs) overseas. Needless to say, the unions are less than happy. They feel as they have a right to these jobs! How dare GM try and make money by paying people to do the same job for less money!

The current outline for GM would roughly double the number of cars built in Mexico, China and South Korea. This makes absolute sense. In the United States, GM pays UAW workers about $54 an hour with benefits. However in South Korea, GM would pay its workers less than half of that at $22 an hour. In Mexico, workers could earn about $10 an hour and in China that figure could be as low as $3 an hour.

A UAW official says, "My hope is that the government is like the UAW: protectors of the people." I'm sorry but GM is not in the business of protecting the people. It is in the business of making cars. As for the UAW .. it isn't in the business of protecting people either .. unless they're UAW union members.

When I'm thinking about these autoworkers one image sticks in my mind. When is the last time you saw an autoworker wearing a windbreaker or hat with just a Ford, Chevy or Chrysler logo on it? I'm sure they're out there .. but I haven't seen one. Instead they're always wearing their clothing emblazoned with the UAW logo .. UAW Local this, that and the other thing. Who are they working for? Ask them and they'll point to their union logo. Seems a lot of them forgot that the union doesn't sign their paychecks.

So what is it going to be, Obama? Are you going to let GM survive by allowing it to expand its overseas production with less costs, or are you going to bow to the labor unions and force GM to make cars in the United States?

This is a day-after-Easter edition of Nealz Nuze. In other words .. not much work done yesterday, and I didn't exactly get up early this morning. If you're a paid subscriber I'll listen to your complaints.

Paid subscribers .. now there's an idea. I'm sure this would go over well in this economy.

There's talk about bringing one of these Muslim pirates back to the US for trial! What? And afford him all of the privileges of our Constitutions? How about a summary execution? Live in a US prison would be paradise compared to his life in Somalia.

Is it any wonder Somalia is ungovernable? Any Somali capable of anything resembling leadership is already living in the United States. They were living in the Atlanta area, then a radio station in Atlanta told them that there was a town in New England where they could get monthly checks just for being there. The migration was on!

Do you know why Obama's half-brother didn't make it here to the inauguration? Seems he has a history of being a sex predator in Great Britain. And Jimmy thought Billy was embarrassing.

Last week the reports were that the Muslim pirates were "annoying" Barack Obama. Perhaps its not a good idea to annoy the president.

Israeli President Shimon Peres says that if Ahmadinejad doesn't start to come around Israel is going to attack. I guess Peres wasn't listening last week when Biden warned him not to do that.

DC's Mayor is considering taxing residents for street light usage. Across the nation local officials are looking for more ways to get into your pockets. There's a "crash response fee" in Winter Haven, Florida. Like I've said before, there is absolutely no limit whatsoever to the hunger politicians have for your money.

The unionization-through-intimidation bill is still a hot item in Washington. If the government-educated dumb masses in this country actually knew what was going on here the bill would be dead. Democrats and union goons know this. That's why they gave it this asinine "Employee Free Choice Act" title.

Do you want to join a union at your workplace? If not, you have better begin paying attention to what's happening in Washington. Soon you may be put into a position of either signing that union petition or having your car vandalized ... or worse.

Talked about this on the show today ... but I recognize that there are a lot of people who read these notes who don't hear my show. Besides ... though I don't really mind, I know that there are quite a few talk show hosts out there who use these notes as their own. No problem. If you say or write something I want to use on my show, you can bet I'll use it.

So ... here's the deal. Federal Express has a contract to purchase 30 Boeing 777s. These airplanes are a bit pricy. I'm going to guess around $180 million a shot for the cargo version. I'm told that the total price for these airplanes would be about $7 billion. Maybe more. When you're talking about 30 of these flying machines you're starting to talk some serious money.

When FedEx negotiated that purchase contract with Boeing they put a little clause in there about unions. Background: Battle between UPS and FedEx. Fedex is organized as an airline. UPS started as a trucking company. Different labor laws apply. It was easier to unionize UPS than it would be to unionize FedEx. For one thing ... Unions can unionize individual locations of UPS .. not so FedEx. The unions want this changed. They want to be able to target FedEx as easily as they did UPS. They're hoping their Democrat buddies in Washington will do this for them.

Then we have the insipid card check bill. Unions actually think that the Democrats are going to give them the right to unionize workplaces simply by intimidating workers to sign a petition. No secret ballot. Just sign the petition. Unions are experts at intimidation .. they know how to get the signatures.

So ... we have FedEx battling unions on both of these fronts ... so they made sure they were covered in the Boeing contract. FedEx knows that if the unions win their business model will suffer. Efficiency at the Memphis FedEx center will be lost as unions start to bog down the process. Business will slow. Money will be lost. Grand plans for growth will be shelved as FedEx tries to deal with a unionized workforce. Soooooo .... FedEx has a clause in the contract which gives FedEx an out .. and yesterday FedEx announced that they would do just that. If congress passes and PrezBO signs a law making it easier to unionize the FedEx workplace, the contract to purchase that $7 billion worth of new 777s will be cancelled.

Here's an email I received from a FedEx employee yesterday:

"I am in my 14th year with Fedex. Union organizers used to come around every year. Employee would throw stuff at them, scream at them telling them to have sex with themselves. Have not seen the organizers for the last 5 or 6 years. My message to them: the day I quit is the day Fedex becomes unionized."

Well said, my friend ... and way to go Federal Express! Maybe the Democrats will seize Federal Express and force them to unionize! All for the public good, you know.

Barack Obama has the teacher's union's thongs in a wad after his speech on education. He said some good things .. and he said some not-so-good things. Like the fact that he believes that spending money on laptops for teachers is going to stimulate our economy. And then there's his belief that the government should get its hands on your children at an earlier age.

But there are two ideas I support. First is merit pay for teachers. The teachers unions despise this one. Unions in general hate the idea of paying for performance. They believe that once they get a job as a teacher, their performance should not be held accountable because they are entitled to keep that job. That's what the teachers unions are there for - to make sure that government teachers remain government employees no matter what. And the idea of being paid on how well you perform goes against the very nature of unions. Unions generally deride anyone who is willing to stand out, work harder, work faster, and try to get the job done in the most efficient way possible.

The second positive? Obama spoke favorably of charter schools. While he won't support school choice, Obama says that charter schools work and they should be encouraged. This, too, is not good news for the teachers unions. They complain loudly that charter schools are competition for them. The government school teachers don't want to have to compete for students and tax dollars. They are entitled to that money! They work for the government! Government, after all, is why America is great!

Perhaps with all of the gloom-and-doom language preceding passage of the Obama/Pelosi government enrichment bill you didn't hear about this little goodie. It seems that this so-called "stimulus" bill also has a little present in it for labor unions. Under Pelosi's bill any stimulus-funded construction project will have to either hire union labor or pay whatever workers are hired union wages.

Now there's stimulus you can believe in: Paying inflated wages to construction workers on government projects is really going to propel our economy into growth mode virtually overnight.

General Motors is asking for billions more in bailout money ... and the news yesterday was that talks with auto worker's unions about contract concessions have failed. Which surprises you more?

(A) The fact that GM is back at the taxpayer teat

(B) The fact that the United Auto Workers don't want to be a part of the solution?

Get back to me when you figure that one out, would you?

One of the items that got the boot in this "compromise" Senate bill was $50 billion from new federal grants for state education aid. And the teachers unions are furious. The National Education Association is threatening to lower the scores of Collins and Nelson because of their amendment.

From the way things are sounding in the White House, it is doubtful that these cuts will actually stick. Top White House economic aide Larry Summers says that support for education and local government is key in this bill. He says, "There's no question that what we've got to do is go after support for education and there are huge problems facing state and local governments and that could lead to a vicious cycle of layoffs, falling home values, lower property values, more layoffs, and we've got to prevent that."

This money wasn't there to support education, Mr. Summers. It was there to support teacher's unions and you know that to be true. Besides ... can somebody please explain to me how spending billions of dollars on government education is going to stimulate our economy within the next 2 years? You're right ... it wouldn't.

Even with the Senate cuts, colleges and students are going to clean up big time. I should say government colleges and government students.

And can somebody please tell me what is wrong with this .. this quote comes from an Associated Press report:

"If the infrastructure spending survives, it would likely prioritize colleges with high minority enrollments, schools rebuilding from disasters like Hurricane Katrina, and energy-saving projects. It may also take steps to make sure community colleges get their fair share, and private colleges--such as Roosevelt--are hoping the final version will allocate some to their sector, too."

Clearly this is not about growing our economy .. it's about pandering to favorite Democrat special interests. Big surprise there.

Obama has issued another executive order that has received relatively little media attention, considering this massive economic spending bill. But his latest order was to mandate the government use of union labor for large-scale federal construction projects. This repeals an executive order from President Bush, and restores the old rule as per the Clinton administration.

Again .. no surprise.

Basically, any construction project that receives federal funds would be required to sign union-only project labor agreements. That means that contractors must negotiate with union officials, recognize union wages and benefits and abide by collective bargaining agreements. How's this going to work out for us?

The Associated Builders and Contractors has already come out against the executive order. The organization claims that union-only project labor agreements increase construction costs between 10% and 20%. It also says that it discriminates against the 84% of construction workers that chose not to join a labor union.

Have they forgotten who's in charge here? Remember "he" won!

Today at 2pm a Senate committee is going to vote on the nomination of Obama's labor secretary, California Democrat Rep. Hilda Solis. As of right now, her nomination is being blocked in the Senate. Any guesses as to why?

Well to start .. though this not why she is being blocked .. Hilda was a co-sponsor in 2007 of this asinine card check bill, otherwise known as the "Employee Free Choice Act." This would essentially destroy secret ballot union elections in this country. She was also the co-sponsor of another bill that would force states to allow public safety officers to form unions.

But here's where it gets interesting. At the time that Hilda was co-sponsoring all of these union bills, she was the board member of a pro-union organization called American Rights at Work. This organization had been lobbying Congress to pass these bills .. the very ones that she was responsible for co-sponsoring. And not only was Hilda a director of this organization, but we have now come to find out that she was actually the treasurer. She was in charge of all of the spending by this organization. And if that isn't bad enough, she did not reveal this information on any House financial disclosure forms.

So here we have a woman, nominated by Barack Obama to be the Secretary of Labor. She co-sponsors two union bills in the House. At the time that she is working - basically as a lobbyist -- to get these bills passed in the House, she is also the treasurer of a lobbying group that is working to gain support for her co-sponsored legislation. And then on top of it all, she kept her involvement in the lobbying firm a secret. That was until now, that she is nominated to be secretary of labor.

The Weekly Standard has more details, but here is yet another appointment by Barack Obama that isn't passing the smell test.

How long will it be before Democrats resurrect their idea of economically targeted investments? Oh, you don't know what ETIs are? Well you had to be paying attention to the early years of the Clinton Administration to remember these little goodies.

Here's your explanation. The unions wanted a bone from the Democrats for all of their help in getting Clinton elected. Someone came up with the idea of the government telling you where you could and could not invest the funds in your pension plans and 401Ks. In government-speak, the politicians would provide a list of companies in which you could invest your pension and 401K funds .. and companies that were forbidden. How were these decisions made? The approved companies had to be "union friendly." This would mean that companies like Wal-Mart would be off limits for your pension and 401K investments, as would any other company that has managed to resist unionization.

My guess is that we'll see this idea popping up in Congress again pretty soon.

We were told that we had to bailout the auto companies (aka. auto workers union) so that we could save an industry that provides a lot of jobs to American workers. In fact, that auto companies went as far as to say that our country would be sent into a depression if we didn't save their companies.

So the taxpayers gave them a bailout. And guess what? They are coming back for more. Billions more. And guess where that money is going?

GM investments in Brazil.

Yep, you read that correctly. An article from the Latin American Herald Tribune reports that GM is going to invest $1 billion in Brazil "to avoid the kind of problems the U.S. automaker is facing in its home market." And according to the president of GM in Brazil, this funding will be coming from the bailout money from the US taxpayers.

I wonder what kind of problems they're talking about avoiding? Probably union problems .. but do the GM officials have the cajones to say that?

Here's a little look at what the teachers unions are up to. This story comes from Northeast Pennsylvania. Democrat state legislatures are introducing a bill that would make religiously affiliated schools subject to state labor relations laws. It all started because the Catholic diocese would not recognize the teachers union as a collective bargaining unit.

So this bill would allow teachers and employee at religious schools the option, by a majority vote, to be represented by a union. If this were the case, the unions of religious schools would be able to bring their grievances to the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board. As of now, the Labor Relations Board does not have jurisdiction over issues in religious schools.

The union argues that by religious schools not recognizing teachers unions, this puts the teachers "at the will of their employer." Oh, the horror! If you don't want to be "at the will of an employer," get out there and create your own job!

The local Catholic diocese says that this bill would mean the end of Catholic schools in the district, which would cost local communities $73,880,400 each year to educate these students. Maybe that's the goal! The more students who are removed from parochial schools and placed into the government school system the more powerful the teacher's unions become.

Back to one of my favorite subjects - the unions. The union representing university workers in Ontario (that would be Canada) has decided that it would be a good idea to ban Israeli professors. Yep. The Canadian Union of Public Employees has decided that it wants to take a stand against the evil Israelis who are attacking innocent Hamas victims. So their solution is to use the power of the union to ban Israeli professors from Ontario universities. The president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees of Ontario says, "In response to an appeal from the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees, we are ready to say Israeli academics should not be on our campuses unless they explicitly condemn the university bombing and the assault on Gaza in general." The bombing he is referring to is that of Islamic University in Gaza.

The union apparently has nothing to say about Islamic Hamas terrorist goons stashing rockets and other armaments in the buildings on these university grounds.

This isn't the first time this union has tried to pull something like this. There have been previous attempts to boycott and goods and services from Israel. But I believe this is the first time they have tried to ban professors because they are from Israel.

Imagine if it were the other way around .. and someone tried to ban Muslim professors.

Hey ... now there's an idea ...

There is one certainty in these uncertain times .. this unionization by intimidation bill, otherwise known as the card check bill, will come up in the Congress. And it will be supported by Democrats who have to repay their union supporters for getting them elected. Knowing the inevitable, some states have decided that they are going to have to take the matter into their own hands. Five states are gearing up for state initiatives to enacting a constitutional amendment that would protect the right to a secret ballot in union elections. People are already starting to gather signatures in Arizona, Arkansas and Missouri. Utah and Nevada state legislatures are also considering the amendment.

The amendment says, "The right of individuals to vote by secret ballot is fundamental. Where state or federal law requires elections for public office or public votes on initiatives or referenda, or designations or authorizations of employee representation, the right of individuals to vote by secret ballot shall be guaranteed."

There is a new twist to this card check nonsense. It seems that many Democrats are starting to bail. They could vote for this absurdity when they were assured of a Republican filibuster or a Bush veto. Now they're concerned that it might actually become law - and the support of many of these Democrats is starting to weaken. If you want a law that would cripple American business and prolong this recession/depression or whatever it is ... pass this Unionization-by-Intimidation bill. That would do it.

I knew that the deeper we got into this Blagojevich story, eventually we would cross paths with unions. I didn't know exactly how or why or when .. but it was just a hunch that a corrupt governor like this Blagojevich character would be in it up to his chin with the unions. After all, when Blagojevich was re-elected, guess who was the largest single contributor to his campaign .. you guessed it: a union.

As we learn more about this investigation, it turns out that Blagojevich was getting ready to issue an executive order that would have allowed home healthcare workers to unionize. Meanwhile, Blagojevich's goal .. according to this criminal complaint .. was to get a high paying job from a powerful union from all of this Barack Obama senate seat nonsense.

Okay, fine. So the guy has issued executive orders like this before. It's no secret that not only does this guy love unions .. he wants to be in charge of them. He wants the power. Man, as if being the governor of a state wasn't good enough for him. But here's why I am bringing this story to you. Because you know how I feel about this unionization-by-intimidation bill. Otherwise known as the Card Check bill. But here is just a little taste of what the unions are currently doing, you can only imagine the tactics they would use once they get a law passed:

Don Moss, a Springfield lobbyist, represents private agencies that oversee workers who would have been affected by the latest executive order. He said he started receiving complaints from agencies that union representatives were contacting workers at their homes. Moss said the workers complained that union representatives were using heavy-handed tactics to try to get them to join the union.

Oh no! He's not serious, is he? How in the world could this guy ever expect us to believe that American's saintly unions would ever use heavy-handed tactics to get people to join? This is blasphemy!

Right ... This is just the beginning of it, folks. You wait until Obama is inaugurated and we've got Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as his co-pilots. There will be no stopping the unions who feel entitled to their special "thanks" for keeping these people in power.

The American Federation of Teachers, the largest teacher's union, wants your children in their classrooms at an even earlier age. The union says that children as young as three years old should be in government pre-school programs.

Now here is the deal. These teachers unions believe that government is the solution. Government is best and can do it better. And they feel like the sooner you can get your child into the government education system, the better off you are for it and the earlier they can start the "government is great" indoctrination process on your carpet crawlers.

Former Assistant Education Secretary Susan Neuman says, "The reality is that most of our children need child care, regardless ... Many parents are lucky enough to be home for the day. But more often than not they will need child care." What she means, of course, is GOVERNMENT child care. So there you go. We are admitting that this isn't about education, this is about child care. A government-sponsored, taxpayer funded baby sitting service.

After the auto bailout failed in the Senate ... true colors are starting to shine. The unions are livid at one group of people for blocking their chances at getting a bailout (for now), and that group would be senators from the South. Yup, the evil, anti-union South rears its ugly head. The evil Southern Senators are Mitch McConnell, Bob Corker and Richard Shelby. The UAW has gone as far to say that these senators are "representing the foreign brands" because their southern states are home to foreign automakers such as BMW, Honda and others. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said, "They thought perhaps they could have a twofer here maybe: Pierce the heart of organized labor while representing the foreign brands." A local UAW president at a GM factory in TN said, "What this is, is the Southern conservative senators trying to destroy the United Auto Workers, trying to destroy unions ... It's a sad day in America when the senators turn their back on Main Street." Well last Friday was a sad day as well ... a day when the UAW turned its back on the automakers.

The real deal here is that the unions are concerned that if they don't get their auto bailout, it will look really bad for the organized labor movement. More and more people are realizing that a huge part of the problem with the Big Three is their unions. What possible excuse is there for paying people not to work? Google "jobs bank" and see what I'm talking about. If the union movement is undermined, they won't get their ultimate prize they have been waiting for: The Employee Free Choice Act. Now wouldn't that be a crying shame.

Meanwhile, I want you to check out this picture: 22 Pounds of UAW Rules and Regulations. If you really want to see what is wrong with the Big Three ... just look into these contracts.

One of the problems here is that so often it looks like these auto workers don't really know or appreciate who they're working for. Visit a Big Three assembly plant just around quitting time. Do you see workers streaming out of those plants with Ford, Chevrolet or Dodge jackets and ball caps on? Hardly any. What you do see is workers heading for their cars with jackets and hats emblazoned with the UAW logo and the name of their local. The union is paramount to them. Their actual employer? The enemy.

Oh .. and let's put this idea to rest that nobody wants to buy a car right now because these automakers might go bankrupt. I did. I bought a brand new Chevy Equinox last Friday. I needed a car that I didn't mind driving in the schmutz and could load up with stuff. I'll leave the other one under a cover until the sun shines and I can put the top down. Just doing my bit to help the economy. You see, it was I who picked the winner (my Chevy dealer) last week with my money, not the government. This is as it should be.

Wow! We could have written that headline at the beginning of this mess. Unions seem to take great delight in standing in the way of reform that could possibly save their jobs. Remember when the airline pilot's unions killed Eastern Airlines?

All the unions had to do in order to get the Republicans to go for this $15 billion bailout was to promise to reduce union wages to the level paid to automakers in the Toyota and Nissan plants by the end of 2009. No way. They weren't going for it. So now GM has hired bankruptcy council.

(By the way ... in answer to the question of who would buy a car from an automaker that was going bankrupt? I would -- I did -- Just yesterday. At this place. There are some pretty amazing deals out there. Trust me.)

Did you hear about the riots? Yeah .. the riots. Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina knows that a vast majority of Americans used to be absolutely opposed to the idea .. as time has dragged on, that number has gone down slightly. But the point is that this auto bailout - which is really a union bailout - still has many of you upset. You are tired of the government picking winners and losers. You are tired of the unions dictating business practices. You are thinking about your grandchildren who are really going to bear the brunt of this massive spending spree.

DeMint, and he brought up an excellent point. GM is in a better financial situation than the government that wants to bail it out. The only difference between these two failing entities (GM and the government) is that the government can print the money. GM can't.

So where does this lead us? DeMint says that if a bailout passes we are going to see riots: "We're going to have riots. There are already people rioting because they're losing their jobs when everybody else is being bailed out. The fairness of it becomes more and more evident as we go along. The auto companies may be hurting ... but there are very few companies that aren't hurting and they're going to hurt. We don't have enough money to bail everyone out." He's absolutely right .. we don't have the money. Government politicians who are drunk with power think that they will be able to bailout the people that support their power. This auto bailout is no exception. Riots? No ... I don't really think so. Take the dubs off the market, and maybe so.

That leads us to the unions. For months, politicians have been creeping around the real source of this auto bailout: the unions. They know the UAW is the problem but they are too afraid to say it. Why? Because of exactly what I said before: power. But Jim DeMint says, "The primary driver behind this is the unions, because bankruptcy allows the auto companies to basically restructure all their contracts in a way that a bankruptcy judge says will make them sustainable ... And if they do that, then essentially the unions lose all their leverage. It's the unions that have brought them to the brink. So definitely, I think the reason they want a political solution and a car czar is because a car czar can protect the unions through this whole process at the expense of the taxpayer." Makes sense ... so why did the UAW stand in the way of this $15 billion? I'll tell you why. Because they know they can get the full deal as soon as the Democrats take over, without any strong wage concessions. They're betting that GM doesn't pull the bankruptcy lever before PEBO gets sworn in.

Now back to these riots. Do I think there will be riots? No. And that's because I don't believe that the people of this country really care all that much. They may think they do, but when was the last time they contacted their Congressman or Senator to tell him? When was the last time they turned off Entertainment Tonight and picked up a history book? Sure the phone lines on talk radio shows will ring for a while, but that will die out quickly. You have Christmas to worry about. I don't blame you. But just know that when you return from your vacation, and Barack Obama is sworn in, and the new Congress is ready to enact its agenda .. that is just the beginning, folks. There's a lot of work to be done, and I'm afraid I don't have the faith that the people are willing to fight for it.

McDonald's recently came out against this card check bill that the Democrats are eager to pass. The Democrats want to make good on all of those campaign contributions they got from union members to keep them in power. But McDonald's President Don Thompson sent a memo to 2,400 franchises to "contact your U.S. senators and representatives to oppose" the Employee Free Choice Act.

The unions are now upset. The Service Employee International Union wants its members to send letters to McDonald's in support of the bill. The union said, "McDonald's isn't lovin' free choice for its employees." Free choice?? Is that what we are calling the end of your right to a secret ballot ... free choice? Every one of these employees is still perfectly free to vote however they chose ... in secret. It's the secret part that ticks off the unions. How in the hell are they going to know who's car to key and who's family to threaten if they don't know how people voted? The AFL-CIO is weighing in as well. They say that " ... McDonald's has just announced a whopper of a campaign against their economic interests and against their hopes for an economy that works for all, not just for the CEOs." I'm sensing the wealth envy.

So I did something I rarely do, and I read some of the comments on this story. I particularly liked this one:

"This is great news! Not only will all of our cars be made by overseas manufacturers but now all of our fast food jobs will be sent off shore (to Bangladesh) as well and a $2.00 Big Mac will cost $35.00 and be ordered form MCD's.com, hopefully the shipping will be free(unless you want it overnight) then it could get costly. Our kids here in the US don't need those starter jobs anyway, lets give them to more needy career folks in other countries. 5 years from now it will be Burger King, Mac Donalds and Jack in the Box seated before Congress begging for a bail out!"

Well said, my friend.

Since Friday of last week, workers at a Chicago window and door maker factory have refused to leave. Last week, Bank of America canceled financing for Republic Windows and Doors and the workers were given three days' notice. So they decided to stay in order to ensure that they would receive their severance and accrued vacation pay.

Yesterday, Bank of American finally came through and extended credit to the Chicago factory. "A limited amount of additional loans" has been given so that the company can resolve the claims of the employees.

Now, in this case I am on the side of the workers. They earned this money, this severance, this vacation pay. The taxpayers of this country sent mucho dinero to Bank of America just so that they would continue making loans like this ... loans to businesses so that they could fulfill their commitments. What was BOA going to use this money for? Executive bonuses? This time, unless you give me a good reason not to, I'm saying the unions got one right.

You know that you are dealing with someone really intelligent when they use the word "bashing" in their first sentence. That is why I thought you would enjoy this article by Marie Cocco. You see, Marie is upset that people are criticizing her precious unions in conjunction with this auto bailout. That is because, according to Marie, "No one should be allowed to cast blame on workers who want nothing more than to maintain a middle-class life." In fact, Marie believes that unions aren't the problem ... they are actually the answer to our problems!

Go ahead and read it for yourself. Be sure to check out the bashing, corporate greed and wealth envy.

This $15 billion loan package for the automakers is just something to tide them over. Barney Frank says that he is just waiting for the Obama administration in order to get a real long-term bailout for the automakers next March. Barney says, "We don't think the $15 billion is enough to get them into March, but given the administration's insistence ... that's where we are now."

But there is one sure thing right now. No matter what, there will be some sort of "Car Czar." I've even heard reports that this person could be included in the presidential cabinet. So if we are going to have a government bureaucrat in charge of re-tooling the auto industry ... and you just know its coming ... let's make it a good one. My vote is for Mitt Romney.

Not that anyone cares, but where is it written that some bureaucrat chosen by politicians has any better of an idea how to run the auto companies than some private businessmen do?

But in the end, what we are getting from this proposal is still nothing but fluff. Like a requirement that these CEOs sell their corporate jets. Don't you think that Congress has more important things to worry about when it comes to the viability of these companies? Let's start with these horrendous union contracts.

For those of you who want to read this proposal for yourself ... have at it. [pdf]

Name: Trent
Subject: unions
Dear Mr. Boortz.Do you have an agent.If yes,why?If no I am sure you know people in the radio talk show business who do.You or they have agents to get the best pay and benefits possible.How is this any different from what unions do?Are employees supposed to trust management like investors trusted Wall Street to be honest and responsible to their employees or shareholders.I don't think so.Employees like shareholders need an advocate to make sure they are given fair compensation.Employees making $30 an hour are no more overpaid than you are.Stop being a hippocrite.

Sincerely Trent

(union represented employee, small business owner and conservative Democrat)

No, Trent. I don't have an agent. Don't want one. I'll take the responsibility myself. By the way; people usually put two spaces (and sometimes about 28 days, but that's another issue) after a period. Makes it easier to read your stuff.

If the people had it their way .. there wouldn't be a bailout. Thanks to you, Congress will probably not support the bailout ... at least not the full Monte. Although that is very disappointing to some like Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levin, Diane Feinstein. But the White House is currently working with Congress to give the Big Three up to $17 billion in emergency loans. Along with that loan would come a "car czar." Oh boy. Another czar. This would be a government bureaucrat who would be in charge of any bailout for the auto makers. There is a better person to oversee the bailout: a bankruptcy judge. At least a bankruptcy judge would allow the businesses to restructure themselves, rather than having a government appointed bureaucrat making those decisions. And I guarantee you that if we give these automakers a bailout now ... they WILL be back in a few years if not months ... maybe weeks. You just wait.

Meanwhile, Obama says that if top auto executives don't agree to drastic reforms, they should be fired. He said, "If this management team that's currently in place doesn't understand the urgency of the situation and is not willing to make the tough choices and adapt to these new circumstances then they should go." Did Obama mention the need for the UAW leaders and union members to come to the reform table? Are you nuts? Of course he didn't. Oh that's right, Obama got elected thanks to the unions and these CEOs are evil and greedy. I keep forgetting that.

The labor unions in this country are vying for more power .. and there is little to stop them from obtaining this power thanks to a Democrat-led Washington.  But here's a little taste of what the labor unions are trying to do in Australia.  Don't worry.  This kind of power could be coming to a business near you.  A lot sooner than you think, too.

The Australian government is considering something called the Fair Work Bill.  What this bill will do is give labor unions power that they have not seen in 20+ years.. maybe even more.  As you can probably imagine, there is nothing "fair" about the bill.  Just like this bill in the United States - the Free Employee Choice Act - has nothing to do with free choice.

The Wall Street Journal gives a basic explanation:

The Fair Work Bill is, by any measure, a massive boost for unions. It would make it possible for them to enter private workplaces and examine both union and non-union pay records -- trampling on individuals' right to privacy. When disputes occur, the bill gives wide powers to a third-party tribunal to arbitrate. It would effectively allow for a form of "pattern bargaining," giving unions that strike a deal with one business more leverage to wield it over other firms in the same industry.

The bill is especially damaging for small and medium-sized businesses -- the economic backbone of middle Australia. "Fair Work" would reimpose mandatory unfair dismissal laws on businesses employing fewer than 100 workers. It would strike down Mr. Howard's Australian Workplace Agreements, which allowed businesses to strike flexible contracts with individual workers. "Low-paid workers" -- a phrase that isn't clearly defined under the bill, meaning it could apply to a wide range of employees -- would be given increased bargaining powers.

And you know the worst part, folks?  The government knows what this is going to do for the economy.  In a memo about the ripple effects of this "Fair Work" bill, the government says, "If employers perceive that there is a risk of an unfair dismissal claim being made, then this could increase the cost of employing workers and may reduce the incentive of businesses to employ workers."

And yet they still want to do it.  Amazing.

It's no secret that Chicago mayor Richard Daley is in love with government and is most assuredly a union-friendly politician.  So when you wake up one morning and Chicago is covered in snow, don't go looking to government employees to plow those streets clean so that the achievers can get to work.

Nope.  In efforts to save money, Daley says that city crews would only plow streets during weekday union business hours, rather than working overtime.  That means they will end the day at 9pm and cannot resume work until the next morning at 7am.  Oh and weekends?  Forget about it. 

Ok, what's really going on here, folks?  Mayor Daley could probably save a heck of a lot more money by canceling those union contracts and employ workers that are willing to work those overtime hours at a reasonable rate.  But no.  In Chicago, the labor unions will keep their jobs and plow less.

Remember the tragic story of the worker who was trampled on Black Friday?  Well now the union advocates are trying to say that his death could have been prevented if Wal-Mart had been unionized.  Give me a break.

Wal-Mart Watch, which is supposedly a "public education campaign," has one purpose in life .. to make Wal-Mart embrace its "moral responsibility."  You see, without a unionized workforce, Wal-Mart (the evil corporation that it is) is taking advantage of its workers who are being denied their rights unionize by intimidation!

Moving right along .. David Nassar is the executive director for this bunch of clowns.  He says that Wal-Mart workers, like the man who was trampled, "have no voice and no seat at the table to determine how they are treated."  He says that workers across this nation should have their say when it comes to Black Friday operations.  So the business managers and the owners don't know what policies are best ... only the unions do.

Then he gets to the real point of all this: passing the card check bill.  He say that "Wal-Mart's stubbornness makes the Employee Free Choice Act the next best alternative ... The legislation will make it easier for workers to form unions should they choose to do so -- and more difficult for Wal-Mart to thwart the process, which it has done time and time again."  He even admits it, folks!  He says that this card check bill would make it more difficult to Wal-Mart get in the way of unionization.

Wal-Mart.  The first to go when the unionization-by-intimidation bill gets passed ... and then everybody pays more at Wal-Mart!

We got dozens of emails yesterday to Nealz Nuze saying that I must see this video about a Ford plant. Okay you are probably thinking "big deal, Boortz." But if you watch the video it explains how Ford has created a new, innovative manufacturing plant that streamlines production and makes operations much more efficient. They can make 5 different types of vehicles at this plant. It does this by allowing Ford suppliers to be integrated into the assembly line process. So the suppliers making the seats, the dashboards, the fuel systems ... they have assembly lines right inside the Ford factory. Makes sense, rather than relying on shipments of parts. No waiting. No shipment costs or delays.

Oh but there is one thing I forgot to tell you. This Ford plant is in Brazil.

Yep. And do you know why it is in Brazil? Unions. The UAW is opposed to this type of innovative manufacturing. They are opposed to innovation that would actually help their employer because they stand the risk of losing jobs. And if they lose jobs, they lose power.

I'm sure another reason, although it doesn't say it in the video, is tax rates. But that's a whole other issue.

The unions are feeling a little slighted right now. They haven't gotten the praise and thanks they deserve for getting Obama elected. Particularly after Obama announced his top economic advisors ... and none of them have any real ties to the labor unions. Also, the unions are upset that Obama has yet to appoint a secretary of labor. They see this as a suggestion that whoever is appointed secretary of labor won't be a key player in the administration and economic policy.

But no matter who is appointed as labor secretary ... the unions already know what they are going to push for. The Employee Free Choice Act. Otherwise known as the card check bill.

My God! The unions are actually going to pull this one off! Their unionization-by-intimidation bill is actually going to pass! Now just ask yourself .. what would you do if you were an employer and you felt that the Democrats were on the verge of passing the union's "card check" bill. Well .. I'll tell you what I would do. I would be looking at any automation that I could find that would reduce my workforce. I would then go with all of the offshore options I could find that would allow me to get rid of more employees. Then I would go to staffing agencies for the rest of my workforce. The people working in my place of business would not be working for me. They would be working for a staffing agency. If they want to unionize something, they can unionize the staffing agency. If the Democrats bring us "card check" along with an expansion of the Family Leave Act my guess is that there are a lot of employers out there who will do everything they can to get rid of employees.

Unions played a big part in destroying the big three automakers. Now they can play a similar role with your business. Aren't you workers glad you voted for Obama? You might have voted yourself right slap out of a job.

I've been telling you for months about a 2001 letter written by Congressional Democrats to the Mexican government. In this letter, about 11 Democrat politicians urged the Mexican government to use a secret ballot in all union elections. Now let's fast-forward to 2008. Barack Obama has been elected. The Democrats are in control of Congress. And the unions want to be rewarded for their efforts. What they want is for Congress to pass the card check bill. This bill would be crippling for American businesses because it would do-away with secret ballot union elections. The unions expect this bill to be passed within Obama's first 100 days in office. And the Democrats seem willing to comply. After all, they pandered to the union vote to get elected ... now they have to do whatever it takes to stay in power. Even if that means changing your tune on an issue like secret ballot elections.

Let's not here that when the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted to replace John Dingell with California's anti-business icon Henry Waxman in the Chairman's seat .. the vote was by secret ballot.

The Wall Street Journal has now caught wind of this letter from the Democrats back in 2001. Good read. If they had been reading the Nuze they would have known about this a month ago.

Alright so this auto bailout bill is in a holding pattern. But just remember that it doesn't mean it is dead. So here are some facts that should keep you seething ...

The Big Three currently pay 85% of union benefits to UAW members ... who aren't even working. Yep. Remember how I told you about the Job Banks for union workers? If a union worker is employed at a plant that closes, the auto makers still pay 85% of their union benefits. Rick Wagoner, CEO of General Motors, says that his company must reduce operating costs ... but his company must continue paying for union employee benefits for employees NOT to work. Does this sound like a smart business plan for you? As a business owner, this asinine agreement to pay for the benefits of people who aren't currently working should be the first to go.

I've talked about this idea of a "right" to a job where you live. It seems that the unions have already done their part to make that a reality. Let's say that you work at a plant in Detroit and it closes. Meanwhile, a new plant is opening in Missouri. You don't have to move to Missouri to keep your job. But guess what, you also won't be fired! You can opt to go on Job Banks where you can sit on your butt in Detroit, do crossword puzzles for eight hours a day, and collect 95% of pay for the rest of your life.

That business model is the one asking for your tax dollars. And you are telling me that these union contracts, these Job Banks, have nothing to do with the Big Three's current situation?

Meanwhile, the legislative director of the UAW says that the problems with the auto industry are because of a series of bad trade and healthcare policies, along with the current credit crisis.

At least someone at GM learned a lesson ... GM will be returning two of its leased corporate jets.

Short and sweet: Send these automakers into bankruptcy if for no other reason than to give them the means to bust the unions.

"If we give you this money, just how are you going to spend it?"
"Well, we're not actually sure."
"Go get in your private jet and get the hell out of here."

The bad news is that one the Execs may be back in Washington in just a few weeks. Congress says that auto execs have failed to show the American people that this bailout would be the last. But there will be another chance. They are being given time to re-group and come up with a business plan to prove that this bailout will work.

Question: Do you think they'll fly commercial when they come back to Washington for their second bite at the apple?

Here's the plan: break the UAW contracts. These unions are crippling your business and you know it. You know that you are adding thousands of dollars to the cost of your cars because of outlandish union contracts. If you really want to prove to the American people ... after all, it is our money you are asking for ... that you mean business, do what you need to do to emasculate the unions. Stop allowing them to dictate your business model. If you can't even manage to do that, then there is no reason for any American, much less Congress, to believe that you are serious about restructuring your businesses.

Congress plans to reconvene in December to tackle the issue again. There are a few things that could happen. Congressional Democrats could be relying on the American people to lose interest. By December, you will be focused on Christmas and stuffed from Thanksgiving. At that point, will you still be as adamant about this auto bailout as you are now? I sure as hell hope so. Because unless these auto execs return to Washington (on freaking commercials airlines) and say that unions will no longer be dictating their business models, then let them fail.

Perhaps you haven't heard about this one. It's an older story ...but I would like an update, especially since our U.S. Marines are still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

After the 2004 election the United Auto Workers were a bit upset about Bush's reelection. They took their angst out on our Marines. It seems that some Marine Corps reservists working at a base in Detroit were parking in the lot at the UAW Solidarity House. After the Bush reelection the UAW went into the parking lot looking for Marines driving foreign cars or cars with Bush bumper stickers. These Marines were told they were no longer welcome to park their cars on UAW property.

Now the UAW is pushing for a taxpayer-funded bailout of their employers. Marines, even Marines who drive foreign cars, are taxpayers. Has the UAW changed their tactics at Solidarity House?

At least Barney Frank is being honest about this bailout. He has admitted, it is not about the auto industry, it is about the unions. And he doesn't think that $25 billion is enough to save them. In fact, he doesn't think that number is "fair" because companies like AIG have been given more of your tax dollars in the form of a bailout. And this is "biased" towards white collar workers.

Here's Barney Frank on NPR:

"Well, AIG, which I don't think anyone would think was as important to the American economy as the auto industry ... got $40 billion just now to make it up over $100 billion. To some extent, let's not have a white-collar/blue-collar bias in our public policy. You know, those who say, hey, go bankrupt so you can cut back on what the unions have won -- the unions have already made some concessions. But, you know, we've had enough anti-union activity, and enough increase in income inequality in this country. I don't want to set a precedent that bankruptcy now is a way in which you undo what gains unions have been able to hold on to."

Wow, he really hits on all the high points here. Wealth envy. Income inequality. Anti-union activity.

Then we have Senator Carl Levin. He says that it would be "unthinkable" for Congress to let a "dispute over the source of the funds" be the reason not to bailout the auto industry. A dispute over the source of funds? Those funds don't just magically appear, Mr. Senator. Those funds are the tax dollars of your constituents. That's the issue here .. not just an ancillary dispute.

And finally, we have GOP Rep. from Michigan Joe Knollenberg. He says that the money funding the auto bailout "isn't your money." Do you hear that? It's not your money. Someone needs to remind this guy, who thankfully lost his bid for reelection, that the government is not independently wealthy but funded by the taxpayers.

Things seem to be in a headlock in Washington right now ... at least over this auto bailout bill. But this auto bailout ... more appropriately called a union bailout ... won't be the Democrats only chance to pander to the unions.

The labor movement has already declared their intentions: they want the Employee Free Choice Act (unionization by intimidation) to be passed in Obama's first 100 days in office. Some even want it attached to the next economic stimulus plan. I don't think that's going to happen ... but you never know.

The Wall Street Journal has a piece on why the labor unions shouldn't be so quick to try and pass their legislation. For those of you who aren't familiar with this Employee Free Choice Act, the WSJ sums it up:

The Employee Free Choice Act has three main components: certification of a union as the bargaining representative if a majority of employees sign authorization cards; mandatory arbitration on the terms of a contract if the parties cannot reach agreement; and stronger penalties for unfair labor practices during a union organizing campaign or while the parties are negotiating a first contract.

Over the weekend, the Denver Post came out against the union card check law. It says that Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats would essentially be silly to focus on this "unnecessary" card check bill when there are clearly more important issues to tackle at the moment. That hasn't stopped Congressional Democrats from working on a bailout for the UAW ... so in this case, I'd say the Denver Post got it half right. The union card check law would be a job killing machine. That's because employers aren't going to want to put up with this, so they'll pick up and move elsewhere or head to staffing agencies to get workers. But I think that Democrats see this as a very "necessary" bill for the first 100 days, along with healthcare reform.

Speaking of healthcare reform ...

... and 70% of the American people do not.

Democrats are insisting on bringing an auto bailout to the table, even though the Bush administration says that the $700 billion bailout was not intended for this purpose ... and even though it is going to be a very tough fight for Harry Reid in the Senate. But fight they will and this week on Capitol Hill we will hear from auto executives and the United Auto Workers.

Nancy Pelosi came up with a plan that she believes will be enticing enough to get enough Republican support. This plan includes adding certain strings to the auto bailout: new fuel-efficiency standards, development of new technology "to compete in the domestic and global market" and restructuring company finances. The Democrats also want to include limiting executive pay. In other words ... the Democrats feel that they, rather than the consumers, are the ones who know just what kind of cars the manufacturers build. All this is going to do is force the automakers to build cars that the American people have already shown that they just do not want to buy.

The Democrats also want to limit executive pay ... but what about the over-inflated pay of the workers at these auto companies, thanks to union contracts. I've told you this statistic before, but $1,600 of every GM car you buy goes toward the healthcare costs of union workers. For companies like Toyota that aren't unionized - that cost is only $200 per car. GM also spends another $1,000 per vehicle on holiday pay, work rules, plant-shutdown-pay and line-relief to UAW workers. Those are costs that auto makers such as Toyota don't have to worry about. The average Ford, GM or Chrysler union worker makes about $71.00 or more per hour. For Toyota, Nissan and the rest ... about $48.00 per year. Do you detect a small problem here?

If the Democrats are truly concerned about "restructuring company finances" they should start with union contracts. What is clear from this situation is that these companies can no longer handle the burden of unionization ... so why should the Democrats allow this practice to continue if they succeed with their bailout? It will be the taxpayers funding the system that broke these auto companies to begin with.

Of course, this is not how United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger see things. He said over the weekend that union contracts are not the problem. He says the problem is out of his control because these auto makers are suffering from the housing slump, credit crisis, etc. He says, "The focus has to be on the economy as a whole as opposed to a UAW contract ... We're here not because of what the auto industry has done ... We're here because of what has happened to the economy."

Nonsense. The bailout would only delay the inevitable.. and unless something is done right now about the union stranglehold on the auto industry the inevitable is bankruptcy. Let them go bankrupt. That doesn't mean they go out of business ... it means that union contracts can be voided unilaterally by the auto manufacturers and they can then get about restructuring their businesses based on consumer wants rather than political mandates.

By the way ... have you heard of the auto worker's "Job Banks Program?" Well, click here, read this, and then tell me how much you support a bailout.

Here's a video union supporters are using to try and take away secret ballots. I don't see where they tell people that part in the video.

Barack Obama wants Congress to approve $50 billion for the auto industry. He also wants to appoint a czar or board to "oversee the companies." This would be the person or committee in charge of restructuring the auto industry.

I can't make this any more clear: it is not the government's job to restructure the auto industry. The auto industry got itself into this mess, and it doesn't need government or the tax payers to get it out of this mess. And besides, what makes the auto makers believe that government could do a better job of restructuring their industry? Politicians aren't in the industry ... let the companies that once enjoyed such great success build on the ingenuity that made them great. The only guarantee you will have from government is mediocrity.

With Obama and Democrats it's all about government. What is he going to do, set up a Department of Automobiles? Who will he name to be the Secretary of Cars? Will there be an Undersecretary of Trucks? What's next? How about a homebuilding czar? Is it too late to appoint a steel czar? Come on my friends, get in the game here! Every industry is going to have its own czar in Washington to oversee operations! My God! Could this guy possibly love government any more?

Do you remember the words of one of Obama's transition czars? Obama will be ready to "take power and rule from day one." Rule? I guess we're beginning to see what this person meant.

If you'll notice, the Democrats are suddenly so focused and so worried about this auto industry bailout. That can be explained by two words: unions and votes. If they are the heroes of the auto industry, they can guarantee a win in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois for years to come. The line will be "we saved your job at a time when the Republicans wanted to let your employers fail."

Yesterday we talked at length about the auto industry and how it is completely drowning because of unions. Here's a small scale union story for you ...

Detroit is trying to clean up its image. In efforts to do so, the city council wants to give a $200,000 contract to a non-profit organization dedicated to the reforestation of the city. It's being called The Greening of Detroit. The group made up of volunteers would plant 2,000 saplings in neighborhoods that have been plagued by some invasive species.

Enter the local union: AFSCME Local 542. This union has now stalled the City Council from authorizing this agreement for The Greening of Detroit. Why? Because the local union sees this as competition for the city's 50 forestry workers and they believe that the city is outsourcing THEIR jobs by allowing this non-profit organization to plant trees. Instead, this union would rather the government spend the $200,000 on trees and then pay the union workers to do the labor on top of that ... rather than allowing these volunteers to plant the trees for free.

Nancy Pelosi says that she wants "immediate action" to give the auto industry additional help with taxpayer money. And as the United States gets closer to bailing out the auto industry ... here's an interesting piece of news. Australia has given a $6.2 billion industry assistance package. American owners of local Ford and Holden (a subsidiary of General Motors) plants in Australia will be "laughing at the Australian 'suckers'" who gave them a bailout package, according to former car company executives.

Veterans in Australia's auto industry say that the money will ultimately end up in Detroit, rather than bailing out their own local industry. Melbourne Business School professor Paul Kerin says that car makers "were masters at playing off naive governments around the world." Kerin says that there are two theories as to why Australia was willing to shell out so much taxpayer money to the auto industry. The first reason is that the government is naive. The second reason is that the government is pandering to the unions because the auto industry is a highly unionized sector.

"Mike Asensio, a attorney who heads the labor relations practice team at the law firm of Baker Hostetler, said there probably will be enough votes in the Senate to withstand a filibuster and get some form of the legislation passed. 'Labor has been fighting for 14 years through political contributions to have a voice ...They now have a Democrat in the White House who will sign labor reform,' he said. House Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, a California Democrat, said on Wednesday that Democrats in the next Congress 'will fight to restore workers' rights.'"

Here we go, folks. The real danger may not lie in a Barack Obama presidency. It lies in a filibuster-proof Democrat Senate and a Democrat House majority.

How long will it be before the union organizers show up at your workplace? Answer: Days after the "card check" bill is passed. I wonder how many people voted themselves out of a job this week?