It is rather ironic that, last week, union bosses used the anniversary Rev. Martin Luther King’s assassination to try to drum up support for the union cause. You see, even after all these years, racism and discrimination within the walls of the House of Labor is still very real. As noted by UnionFacts.com, since 2000, there have been over 4,200 complaints filed against unions for racial discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. In some cities, it is a bigger problem than in others. However, the one area where union racism seems to rear its ugly head the most often is with the construction trade unions, where African Americans are often excluded from work.

Systemic racism in the building trades has been built into the construction industry as Harry Alford, President & CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, has noted.

Due to the Jim Crow laws of the South, there were many Black southern craftsmen who would travel to perform their skills.  Many would go to places like New York, Philadelphia, Detroit, etc. and would out compete local white contractors who could not perform as well as they did and could not settle for their affordable pricing.  It was because of this, that construction unions in the North were formed to block out Black crews from coming into communities and providing a better service for a cheaper price.  Soon after the unions were formed they set in motion the Davis-Bacon Act (named for two New York congressmen).  This act set up arbitrary labor wage scales so that Black craftsmen could no longer under price their white counter parts.  They all had to pay a certain price, prevailing wage, at a minimum and competition became no more.  With the price competition out of the way, the whites moved in through political favor and blatant racism.  This would be followed with Project Labor Agreements which meant some projects would be declared “Union Only”.  With the construction unions discriminating against Blacks, PLO’s [sic] would also mean “Whites Only”.

This exclusionary racial system is still prevalent today and has been the subject of much controversy in the City of Brotherly Love, Philadelphia. (more…)

By now you’ve probably heard that the president has gotten religion on the economically damaging effects of the regulatory state. Today, I argue wait and see is still the rule with this government as there are major rolls of red tape that President Obama would need to address coming from his own administration.

Specifically, consider the cases of how regulation impacts the ability and cost of hiring people. I point to OSHA overreach, the Davis-Bacon Act, new requirements that will have Americans chopping down entire forests to print 1099 tax forms, EPA regulation of carbon dioxide, and FCC regulation of the Internet.

And as they say in infomercials, “But wait, there’s more!” There’s oh-so-much-painfully-more regulation threatening jobs and the economy. Several groups track this sort of stuff, but take for example: Associated Builders and Contractors has offered a list of regulations that threaten the beleaguered and job-shedding construction industry. Take a look; it’s an eye-opener!

(more…)

We know why new investment in auto assembly in recent decades has not gone to Michigan but to, say, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky. In short and making no effort to put too a fine point on it, this is to avoid the crushing weight of the collective bargaining agreements that killed American auto manufacturing.

We also know why the unions push “green jobs” so aggressively, despite the overwhelming evidence that the schemes harm employment (that is, reduce the overall work force): as effectively federally mandated (but certainly “federally”– that is, taxpayer) — funded) jobs, they are uniformly de facto or de jure Davis-Bacon or otherwise union jobs.

Read the following excerpt from Sen. James Inhofe’s opening statement in a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing today on that body’s version of cap-and-trade energy rationing, Kerry-Boxer:

“Let me recount a telling moment in [a recent] hearing. Sen. Sessions asked the government witnesses-and they were CBO, EPA, EIA, and CRS-whether anyone disagreed with the finding that the net effect of cap-and-trade would be a reduction in jobs. None did.”

But at least these schemes increase the union labor force. And that’s really what’s important.

(more…)