Federal judge rejects Idaho anti-union laws
2011 legislation intended to weaken power of labor organizationsBOISE — A federal judge threw out Idaho’s two newest anti-union laws, saying the measures violate federal rules and would restrict the free play of economic forces. The laws, intended to weaken the power of labor organizations in the state, were passed during the 2011 legislative session and were set to go into effect last summer. However, two building and construction unions sued in U.S. District Court, and District Judge B. Lynn Winmill stopped the laws from going into effect while the lawsuit moved forward. Proponents said the measures were simply expansions of Idaho’s right-towork law. The Open Access to Work Act banned project labor agreements that require contractors to forge pacts with unionized workers as a condition of winning a government construction job. The Fairness in Contracting Act prohibited unions from using dues to subsidize member wages to help union-shop contractors submit more competitive bids and win more projects. Winmill ditched the laws in a written ruling late last month. He noted in his ruling that Congress set up the parameters under which construction employers and unions could bargain so they would be influenced only by their own economic power and the free play of economic forces. The Open Access to Work Act upsets that balance, he wrote. “The act skews those forces by robbing unions of the opportunity to even seek a project labor agreement on a public works project,” Winmill wrote. Winmill acknowledged that the state and its political subdivisions might never decide to actually use a project labor agreement on a project. Still, he said, they should be allowed to freely make that choice without the “handcuffs of the flat prohibition mandated by the Open Access to Work Act.”
Any time you see something like this in the news, shake your head. Weakening the Unions is the Rich trying to hamstring the poor in the economic arena. Good for the feds for upending this travesty.
Apologies on behalf of greediest generationWell, I see that “The White House” (that would actually be Obama) wants another increase in the debt limit. This staggering debt is going to kill this country, and yet it is relegated to the back page. If Congress caves again, and “The White House” gets its way, the debt can go over $16 trillion. Maybe it would be helpful if the press started writing that number out so folks had a better idea of how much money they owe. It would be $16,000,000,000,000.00. Of course, no one actually thinks they owe any part of this … clearly it is someone else’s problem. This is insane. There has been an expression about wasteful spending: “spending money like a drunken sailor,” but that should be replaced by “spending money like an elected government official”. It is a real sickness, and they seem to think the way to get over it is to just spend more and more. It makes about as much sense as for someone with pneumonia to decide the best cure is to sit outside on the porch during a January night. What have we gotten for all the money we spent that wasn’t even ours? Solyndra, cash for clunkers, the stimulus package, etc. .... billions of dollars down the proverbial toilet. And now “The White House” (Obama) wants another $1,200,000,000,000.00, which they assure us they will use wisely. Does anyone believe that? On behalf of what I am coming to regard as the greediest generation, I offer my apology to the children who are going to have to deal with this terrible problem. I take no pride or happiness in leaving the next generation such a mess. n Dave Banker, Caldwell
With a name like Banker, you would think this guy would have nothing to say about the fiscal responsibility of the present administration...that being said...
We have a responsibility to pay our debts. The increase is destined to do this. What would this guy do let our country declare bankruptcy? Probably. He damned sure does not understand Macro-economics. You cannot solve our problems by Cutting Back...Slash Spending. That's the problem the Cons got us into in the beginning and now it's completely out of control.
Where did the deficit come from? Cutting. And Spending when you don't have the cash to back it up. The Republicans got us into this mess by deregulation. Let's let the market control itself! My God, that's like saying Let's let the fox control the hen house.
Cutting: When you 'cut back' you do nothing for your pocket book. Cutting back means you don't pay cause you don't have the money. In Macro-econ, it means that you slash your money-making items. Here's what I mean.
- Cut back on Education/Health and Welfare and other "Social Programs." What does that really mean? It sounds good, but it's a way to kill spending and it staggers the economy. It's the trickle down economic theory..just hidden. Here's how it works by cutting spending on the poor, the rich will get more money and they will hire people who will stimulate the economy. FUZZY LOGIC! If the poor doesn't have any money to spend, the economy suffers. Even the rich don't make money. Trickle up says, give money to the poor and they will spend, spend, spend and the economy will be enhanced. That's why you spend in a depression instead of cutting back!
- If you charged the rich 15% in taxes on their money, the Trillions would be paid back in nearly no time.
This guy simply does not know what he's talking about. His grasp of economy is lacking. Every time we get a Republican in the White House the problem of the deficit gets worse. Every time a Democrat leads us, the deficit goes down. This should tell you who's economic theory works best.