So let’s not make it one.
However, after seeing this union campaign to win over gun owners for Obama, what exactly were the unions afraid of in McCain? What did Obama promise them? Why was it worth them spending money on this trash?
The unions will support the Democrat candidate every single time (just as mine does) so it’s a rhetorical question.
Sorry Mike Day but you have no idea what you are talking about! Suffice it to say that this ad campaign is deceptive at best.
Buckaroo
he’s been endorsed by the American Hunters and Shooters Organization.
What a ringing endorsement!
It seems that BHO just signed an Executive Order “encouraging” the use of Union workers for Federal construction projects.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EXECUTIVEORDERUSEOFPROJECTLABORAGREEMENTSFORFEDERALCONSTRUCTIONPROJECTS/
Friday, February 6th, 2009 at 12:00 am
EXECUTIVE ORDER: USE OF PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS FOR FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
February 6, 2009
EXECUTIVE ORDER
USE OF PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS FOR FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, 40 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and in order to promote the efficient administration and completion of Federal construction projects, it is hereby ordered that:
Section 1. Policy. (a) Large-scale construction projects pose special challenges to efficient and timely procurement by the Federal Government. Construction employers typically do not have a permanent workforce, which makes it difficult for them to predict labor costs when bidding on contracts and to ensure a steady supply of labor on contracts being performed. Challenges also arise due to the fact that construction projects typically involve multiple employers at a single location. A labor dispute involving one employer can delay the entire project. A lack of coordination among various employers, or uncertainty about the terms and conditions of employment of various groups of workers, can create frictions and disputes in the absence of an agreed-upon resolution mechanism. These problems threaten the efficient and timely completion of construction projects undertaken by Federal contractors. On larger projects, which are generally more complex and of longer duration, these problems tend to be more pronounced.
(b) The use of a project labor agreement may prevent these problems from developing by providing structure and stability to large-scale construction projects, thereby promoting the efficient and expeditious completion of Federal construction contracts. Accordingly, it is the policy of the Federal Government to encourage executive agencies to consider requiring the use of project labor agreements in connection with large-scale construction projects in order to promote economy and efficiency in Federal procurement.
This is just wrong…
DOBBS: Well, many of the country’s labor unions among the largest donors to the Obama presidential campaign. Now it appears the president’s returning the favor. President Obama has signed an executive order that encourages federal construction projects be given to unions. Bill Tucker has our report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Seventeen days after being sworn into office, President Obama signed an executive order encouraging the use of union contractors and union workers on large federal construction projects. It’s not a requirement, but it does reflect the desire of the president of the United States of America. Unions could not be happier.
JACOB HAY, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA: Well project labor agreements are a tried and true way to get things done in the construction industry. They guarantee that workers who work on construction projects are paid fair wages with good benefits.
TUCKER: While the unions like to point to projects like the Hoover Dam or Disney World as examples of large-scale projects, successfully using project labor agreements, opponents like the National Right to Work Committee point to the example of Boston’s Big Dig, citing PLAs for the reason the project is years overdue with a budget that swelled from nearly $3 billion to $15 billion.
Opponents to project labor agreements object to them. Saying they effectively cut out nonunion companies from bidding and participating in the projects. Not because they forbid nonunion contractors from playing, but because of the cost they impose. They note that all workers, union or not, working under a PLA must pay union dues and 84 percent of construction workers are not union members.
And all contractors, union or not, must pay into the unions health and pension funds for the workers they have on the job. Opponents call PLAs a blatant payback to the unions from the president.
STEFAN GLEASON, NAT’L RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION: Last year, they spent – organized labor spent over $1 billion on political activities to elect mostly left-wing Democrats and President Obama and state and local officials and yeah, they want something for that money.
TUCKER: Wages are not an issue. All federal projects require that prevailing wages be paid.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: Now, project labor agreements are something of a political football. They were banned during Bush Sr.'s administration, OK’d in the Clinton administration, banned again during Bush’s years in office and now they’re back again. One construction official I spoke with today simply asked if PLAs are such a good idea, well then why aren’t they in widespread use, because they’re not. Lou.
DOBBS: Well there’s a lot of stuff that’s a good idea that isn’t in widespread use. I’m not sure I’m persuaded by that argument. But I am persuaded by [b]the fact that 84 percent of the workers are not union, but everybody has to – has to pay into the union?
TUCKER: If you’re in a project governed under a PLA, you have to pay union dues. You don’t have to join the union.
DOBBS: Right.
TUCKER: But you do have to pay the union dues and if you’re a contractor…
DOBBS: So this is a massive windfall for organized labor…
TUCKER: Exactly.
DOBBS: … at taxpayer expense. [/b]
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: Which in effect whether labor – whether union labor or not, the taxpayer is picking up the bill.
TUCKER: Right.
DOBBS: Well, this isn’t – this isn’t fiscal responsibility. Didn’t we just have a summit about that? My goodness, what’s going on? He asks, tongue in cheek. Thank you very much, Bill Tucker, appreciate it.
I think they meant to print: “Mike Day, Useful Idiot”
“The unions will support the Democrat candidate every single time (just as mine does) so it’s a rhetorical question”
This guy nailed it my union preached this guy but I never bought it the Dems allways promis the unions a lot but never come through!
Ironworkers #33
i actually left my union because of the fact they supported that guy in the white house, i think of him as a stuart, not a president, like in Lord of The Rings
READ MY WHOLE POST CLOSELY BEFORE YOU JUMP DOWN MY THROAT:D
I think this a good example though of some glaring problems with the Republican Party and gun rights organizing.
There are many people outside of the standard “always vote Republican crowd” who support gun ownership. However, they often aren’t willing to support a Republican candidate who is too polarizing on other issues they may see as slightly more important. Like stuff related to economics polices, religious matters, etc. Or maybe they believe that candidate to be less competent than other choices.
I’m NOT saying McCain was that type of candidate (although the Obama campaign did do a good job of unfairly painting him as “just like Bush”), but I definitely think Palin was.
Keep in mind people, I’m not talking about REALITY or COMMON SENSE. I’m talking about PUBLIC PERCEPTION, which is usually the basis for who wins elections.
I think you mean Steward not Stuart.
Buckaroo
You mean there’s some that agree with the candidate on man issues but he candidate’s stance is too polarizing one one or two issues? Sounds like every election I’ve seen 
Yup, same here. IATSE
So, wht does everyone think about the unions’ new close relationship with Obama and having been basically written into federal contracts?
i’m trying to hold to the spirit of the opening post and not bash unions, so i’ll be brief. as a contractor that doesn’t work with unions, seems like a load of crap and unfortunate for public works projects. unions employees are paid on seniority. my guys are paid on merit. who’s gonna do better work? who’s gonna be more efficient?
Stuart, as in the House of Stuarts that line of absolutist monarchs and pretenders to the throne in the United Kingdom during the 1600s.
The unions will attempt to do what is in THEIR best interest. They will protect their membership up to the point where the business actually collapses or folds, and then they’ll just sort of look around and walk away. This is how it works.
The rank and file deserve what they get if they insist on voting the union position on everything.
I see these craft guys at nuclear plants voting democrat every time, wearing stickers on their hardhats, carrying signs outside the gate - all pledging allegiance to the party that wants to eliminate the industry that employs them.
And on gun rights they are mostly Elmer Fudds, believing no one will ever come for their deer rifle.
It’s almost funny - almost.
It’ll be interesting to see how well it stands up to legal scrutiny. IMHO, forcing an individual to pay into an organization that they are not a part of just to ensure employment is probably not going to sit well. I’m on watch and see mode right now.
On a positive note: 1 down only 47 to go!!
That’s a good point. PA is coal country and Obama has pledged to get rid of coal one way or the other yet PA still went for Obama. It just doesn’t make sense how people literally ignore the very obvious issues right in front of them.
Now Wyoming is coal country and there’s no confusion there 