Is it time to short the Small Caps?
Oh lets just tank the USA even more. It is just going to get more instering this year.Think of the paperwork they are going to have to do now.
Lapdog Obama heels when unions whistle
By: Examiner Editorial
| 06/25/11 8:05 PM
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis issued proposed regulations Monday making it harder for small businesses to counter union organizing elections. Susan Walsh/AP Our role is not to build the power of a political party or a candidate," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told reporters on May 20 after delivering a speech at the National Press Club. Trumka's speech was widely viewed as a warning to President Obama that he was not doing enough to earn Big Labor's support for re-election in the 2012 campaign.
The White House signaled they received the message loud and clear on Monday when the Department of Labor, led by Obama appointee Hilda Solis, issued proposed regulations making it even harder for small businesses to counter union organizing elections. Claiming it wanted to increase transparency, the Labor Department would change the definition of "advice" under the 1959 Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The law requires employers to report all payments to third parties hired to influence employees during a union organizing election. At present, employers are not burdened with reporting payments to consultants who just give advice on how to deal with unions.
So how does the law currently distinguish between reportable payments for "influence" and exempt payments for "advice"? Simple. Only payments to third parties that directly communicate with workers are required to be reported. The Obama Labor Department wants to change that. The latest proposal would force employers to disclose all payments to outside parties relating in any way to unions. As an example, the Labor Department said its new rule would force small-business owners who attended a seminar on "union avoidance" to report that expenditure to the federal government. Besides discouraging owners from exercising their lawful rights, such a requirement would make it harder for small businesses to even find out what their rights and obligations are during a union-organizing campaign.
The Obama administration's justification for the rule as a transparency measure is laughably hypocritical. Soon after taking the oath of office, Obama undid union financial disclosure requirements mandated by the very same 1959 law. Before the Obama transparency rollback, unions had to fill out LM-2 forms reporting the total value of all benefits received by union officers, the names of parties involved in union asset transaction, and all union receipts. Now, thanks to Obama, unions do not have to disclose any of these financial transactions to their members.
In 2008 the president of the largest Service Employees International Union in the country, Tyrone Freeman, resigned after it was revealed he stole $1 million from the $9-an-hour home health workers he supposedly represented. Freeman's embezzlement only came to light after the Los Angeles Times delved into the SEIU's LM-2 forms.
The original Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act that governs both of these regulations was passed after extensive Senate hearings on labor union corruption. The law was designed to make it harder for Big Labor thugs like Freeman to steal from union members. But Obama would rather turn a blind eye to union corruption because he needs their votes in November. Instead he wants to punish employers with the same law Congress originally passed to protect workers. Congress should not stand for this. The Congressional Review Act is the proper tool to overturn this regulation if Obama chooses to go forward with it.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2011/06/lapdog-obama-heels-when-unions-whistle#ixzz1QXL6tCnl