It is axiomatic—a given, if you will—that unions do not like workers to work overtime. Sure, they’ll do it, but if unions had their druthers, the work week would be limited to 40 hours—in some cases unions prefer 35 hours. The reasoning is simple, the fewer hours worked, the more employees an employer must employ and, in a workplace where unions can require dues, the union makes more money.

How serious are unions about restricting overtime? Consider this:

According to the constitution of the International Association of Machinists, “Members shall discourage the working of overtime, in order to further the opportunities for full employment, a living wage, and a 40-hour workweek [Art. K, Sec. 3].” Translated: More members equals more dues.

Here’s a simple example: Say a company has four employees and each works an average of 10 overtime hours per week and time and one half. If a union has the ability to restrict those four employees from working overtime, the employer has to hire one more employee (at 40 hours).

For the employer, rather than paying the four workers at time and one half, it may be a break even (depending on the other ‘loaded labor costs’ such as benefits and fringe benefits).

For the union, it is a win, as the union suddenly gets a new member, plus his dues and initiation fees (which can run in the hundreds or thousands of dollars).

For the employees who lose their overtime, they get to spend more time with their families…trying to figure out how to pay the bills. (more…)

A funny thing happened on the way to the voting booth: Americans discovered that most federal “stimulus” funds were being used to stimulate government, not the economy.

I was on the road recently, driving from my home in southeast Louisiana through a long stretch of Mississippi to Tuscaloosa, Ala., then to the outskirts of Birmingham and on to Auburn, Ala., and finally back to my home by way of Montgomery and Mobile. Along the way I was slowed from time to time as I passed by road and bridge repair projects marked with prominent signs indicating they were funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, President Obama’s so-called stimulus bill.

Naturally I was thrilled to see my tax dollars at work, although honesty compels me to report that not much actual work seemed to be going on at any of the sites. Most of the visible workers were just standing around. Of course, such standing around is typical of public construction projects, so I don’t suppose that what I saw was in any way owing to the stimulus funding in particular.

This huge legislative enactment provides for a great variety of increased spending and some reduction in taxes over a period of 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office computed that the net amount of money to be injected into, or not removed from, the economy as a result of the stimulus bill totals about $787 billion.

At the time the bill was being debated and discussed, a common plea in its defense had to do with funding so-called shovel-ready projects to repair or replace public roads, bridges and other structures widely taken to be in a state of decay or disrepair. This plea made an appealing talking point, since most Americans place at least some value on such infrastructure.

Alas, only a tiny proportion of the funds expended so far has been directed to this well-advertised objective.

(more…)

Six taxpayers filed a lawsuit this week to invalidate an executive order issued by Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire. The taxpayers believe—with good reason—that the governor violated the doctrine of separation of powers by snatching a failed bill out of the legislative process and issuing it in the form of an executive order. They are being represented by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, an Olympia-based government watchdog group.

Last year, after the Washington state legislature failed to pass a climate change bill championed by the governor, she took matters into her own hands by issuing an executive order directing the Departments of Ecology and Transportation to take action to reduce climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions and increase transportation and fuel-conservation options. At a press conference, Gov. Gregoire stressed that the executive order was intended to replace her failed legislation. “What we’ve done in the executive order is everything that was in that final bill—plus. Plus. There’s more in the executive order than what was in the final bill that did not pass the Legislature,” she told reporters.

It gives one pause to consider that Governor Gregoire should record herself talking for vetting purposes prior to making such admissions in public.

There are strong parallels in this case to what is happening on a national scale. President Obama’s drilling ban end-run around the law, for example, which has signaled his administration’s strategy to push through certain policies notwithstanding any legal restrictions. Or the passage of the so-called “health care reform” bill, which was rammed through in a suspect reconciliation process designed to bypass opposition. Or the arguably abusive use of signing statements by President Bush to tell agencies to ignore certain provisions of bills he disagreed with—1,200 times. President Obama intends to continue the practice, though he claims he will “act with caution and restraint, based only on interpretations of the Constitution that are well-founded.” I’m sure we’ll all sleep  better at night.

(more…)

We recently stumbled across a Stimulus construction sign in an upscale neighborhood on the North Shore of Chicago. Recovery.gov describes the project as follows:

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Highway Infrastructure Investment Grant: Urbanized Areas over 200K Population

Award Amount: $1,320,000

Reported Jobs: 4.66

We produced a short video asking the question: Does the upscale suburb of Evanston really need the hard-earned tax dollars of people from other states across the union in order to (re)build her local roads?

(more…)