Why are unions always supporting Liberals or Socialists?

Originally Posted by cashman

Why are unions always supporting Liberals or Socialists?

A question I've asked the leadership in my Local Union and my former Union brothers and sisters (I'm now retired and considered an honorary member).
I've wondered how a party, The Democrats, who seem to work against the interests of much of Big Business are helping the Teamsters Union when it is Big Business who employs us?

We're not like the Public Sector Unions who's jobs and fortunes are not tied to the success of their labors. Public Sector Union Employees are a group who feel entitled to the money generated by others and give no quarter to any idea of adjusting their demands for increased benefits to the fluctuations of the economy.

Now I understand that there is an aspect of "socialism" in the make-up of union representation even in the private sector, but if it is balanced with strong work rules for employees and fair grievance procedures so that companies can weed out really undesirable employees, it can work to the benefit of the company. A Union employee has a sense of security and the employer has a stable workforce with little turnover. Management who know how to manage their employees and recognize and reward the efforts of desirable employees create an atmosphere of success that filters down to even some of the most jaded workers.

Read the following in the Pittsburgh paper..an opinion piece, but talks about how the President within weeks of taking office signed an executive order excouraging use of PLA's (project labor agreements) REQUIRING CONTRACTORS TO AGREE TO UNION REPRESENTATION, and in May a federal rule implemeted that order.

"The union label: Paying off Big Labor"

"This, in an industry with 27 percent unemployment. And with study after study showing PLAs hike costs 10 percent to 20 percent -- and the rule essentially ending open, competitive bidding for federal construction contracts -- taxpayers will feel plenty of pain, too."

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_682148.html

Another of the little quiet things being done in the WH !!!

As you mentioned, this is only an “opinion” piece but to me, contains erroneous implications. The EO specifically states it does NOT require an executive agency to use a project labor agreement (SEC. 5) and allow all contractors and subcontractors to compete for contracts and subcontracts without regard to whether they are otherwise parties to collective bargaining agreements (SEC 4(b)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...ctionProjects/

“…taxpayers will feel plenty of pain, too” is also a gross exaggeration, with zero mention of the Davis Bacon Act that already controls wages and benefit rates on federal construction projects that more often than not mimic the union rate in the area. Unless we expect these projects to follow the lead of our pitiful housing industry and be built by illegal aliens from south of the border it is money well spent to employ quality American craftsmen.

http://www.gpo.gov/davisbacon/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act

If this is the big union “payback” it sorely lacks substance. It (EO) is no more than an obligatory “bone” thrown at labor with little meat. It does demonstrate Obama’s support for organized labor but does little to change the status quo. In true fashion it is a lot of words that do nothing.