Conflict of Interest

The show trial that's going on in Congress over Toyota's safety engineering is a definite conflict of interest. Number one, it's unfair competition when the owner of General Motors undermines the major competition.

Number two, the relentlessness of the stories in the media indicate that Congress is catering to the UAW, not to real concerns for safety. Toyota workers have repeatedly refused to join the union which is so desperate for members that they're backing Card Check.

And then there is the sad spectacle of using questionable "experts" to denigrate Toyota. Joan Claybrook is the Carter appointee who forced automakers to install air bags despite vehement warnings that the technology was not yet developed enough. As a result, 65 deaths, mostly infants and children, occurred because of exploding air bags. Clarence Ditlow is notorious for approving the use of rocket igniters to "prove" on NBC that GM pick-ups were unsafe. These two are favorite anti-business expert witnesses. It's time the public remembered their names and protested their testimony.

On the international front, humiliating the head of the world's largest auto manufacturer on television before members of Congress is poor diplomacy. It's bad enough when the hypocritical Congressional Clowns self-righteously attack American CEO's. It's another thing altogether to do it to someone from a culture where saving face is so important that suicide is preferable to public indignity.

After this week we can hardly expect any other foreign companies to build plants in the US and give jobs to our countrymen.

Remember Kenneth Gladney? (Finished blog post)

Gladney was the 130 pound diabetic and leukemia patient who was attacked by SEIU thugs at Russ Carnahan's townhall last August. The attack occured just after Obama encouraged his followers to "punch back twice as hard." Kenneth Gladney recounts his version of the evening here.


Big Government has the police report that confirms the facts about the unprovoked attack. Now, we're all waiting with baited breath to see if there will be an indictment or if the case is dismissed just like the case against thugs who "patrolled" the Philadelphia voting booth in 2008.

Card Check!

Al Franken began his Senate career by becoming a co-sponsor of the totally misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (S. 560), better known as Card Check. That is no surprise since he received almost $300,000 from unions in his campaign to win that seat in a state where only 16% of the workforce is unionized. Membership in unions has been declining drastically in all states, so union leaders desperately want Card Check to pass so they can hold on to their power.

Americans for Tax Reform has several articles discussing the effects on our economy if Card Check passes. But the best one is an interactive game, Get Card Checked!, complete with documentation for each decision chosen during the game. I highly recommend you play it, then send it to your Congressional Clowns.

The Deadly Zero Sum Game

Sweetness and Light has posted an editorial from the 1945 Communist New International praising the United Auto Workers’ 113 day strike against General Mothers demanding a 30% raise in wages without promising a 30% increase in production or arguing that the cost of living had increased 30%, the traditional bargaining points.

Here is an excerpt with my emphasis:

. . . This capitalist theory is based upon the concept that the interests of capital and labor are complementary, that the welfare (i.e., profits) of industry meant the welfare (i.e., higher wages) of labor. The UAW proceeded from a position which had implicit within it the concept that the interests of capital and labor were antagonistic, i.e., the concept which Karl Marx established a hundred years ago and which the leaders of American labor have until now sought to deny. The UAW stated that it was the aim of labor to increase wages at the expense of profits. It took the position that if the workers continued to work at present wage rates it would only lead to super-profits for GM. The 30 per cent increase, therefore, was to be paid at the expense of GM profits.

It is too bad that the Communists and the UAW only saw the situation in a win/lose paradigm while capitalism offers profits for all who contribute, i.e. “the interests of capital and labor are complementary.” The workers could have bought stock in the company, maybe a little bit at a time, and shared the profits that way. Then they would have received the justice of honest wages for their part in production, and the “icing on the cake” of sharing the profits just like the “evil” stockholders. Instead they chose immediate gratification for themselves, but a dying company adversely affecting the lives of all their grandchildren.

Sweetness and Light believes that this was the beginning of the end for General Motors. All I can add is that throughout my grade school and high school years, there was one strike after another by the UAW, the Teamsters, the AFL-CIO, and the Longshoremen. The end result was that usually the union won the battle, or most of it, but lost the war in steadily losing membership and influence.

Obama wants to single-handily reverse union fortunes during his term of office. The only problem is that his policies thus far have narrowly pitted union wins at the expense of the rest of his country.

Coffin Nails

Barack Obama, like an earnest college sophomore during a midnight bull session, knows how to “solve” the world’s thorniest problems. However, unlike college sophomores, he has the power to make his ideas become national policy. For example, he has taken on the US automobile industry, first throwing money at it, and then firing executives while demanding a merger with his preferred foreign automaker. Now he’s invaded the engineering departments to dictate stringent emission and mileage standards to solve the “global warming (or climate change) problem,” which has never been proven to be a problem at all.

His decrees will probably put the final nails in the US auto industry coffin since he is outlawing their best selling cars during a recession, encouraging buyers to hold on to their beloved SUV’s as long as they can. These companies can’t redesign and retool without trashing designs and tools already paid for. So that’s an additional hit to their bottom line. New manufacturing costs, now estimated to be $1,600 per car, will also depress sales. With an industry that’s already reeling from legacy costs and union wages that foreign carmakers do not face, the new standards appear to be the death blow.

These standards will give new meaning to the term, “Culture of Death” since they will also put more citizens in coffins. Tiny light cars are just not as safe on the road despite seat belts and airbags as the heavier SUV’s and sedans

I Don’t Understand The Logic

When a non board member fires the CEO of a publicly traded corporation and stipulates the merger of another corporation within a certain time frame, then proclaims that he is not taking over the two companies. What’s worse, Obama’s decrees just removed most of the bargaining chips that Chrysler held in negotiations with Fiat. Also, is it saving the American automobile industry when you demand that one of the big three merge with a specific foreign company? All of this comes as icing on the government-made cake that continually demands retooling in order to meet ever changing standards imposed by politicians with no engineering or business experience. Although Obama called for “sacrifice” he did not fire or even chastise union leaders nor did he mention crippling legacy costs.

Unions Change Their Tune

In the early 20th century, unions demanded that all union votes reflect the situation in US elections and be by secret ballot. They pictured the company hierarchy as vengeful thugs who would retaliate against employees who voted for union shops, if they knew how the workers voted.

So union membership rose for awhile and then fell to the current number of somewhere around 12% of the work force, including the government employees who are unionized.

In the early 21st century, union leaders now demand that the secret ballot be eliminated and votes become public. Does that mean they have become the vengeful thugs who would retaliate against employees who vote against them?

To sweeten the publicity, the proposed legislation has been misnamed Employee Free Choice Act. It’s more popularly called Card Check which doesn’t reveal much about its contents either. However, it will force workers to vote, or sign the card, in front of one or more union leaders and few will be willing to cross them for fear of personal retaliation. It's anything but "free choice."

Lacking news of wide spread abuse of employees, there hardly seems to be a need for more unions. Numerous laws and regulations protect workers’ rights. Now we have trial lawyers who are eager to win money for plaintiffs in any semi-plausible case. If there were a need for more union representation, they would be expanding across the land without assistive legislation.

Passing the card check law, which is reputedly going up for vote next week, will raise prices on many goods made and/or sold in the US so the union officials can get their cut. Citigroup has lowered its recommendation for Walmart stock from buy to hold. Others lament it will stifle hiring by small businesses which usually provides more jobs than the larger companies. It certainly will do nothing to help the current economic problems.

So Much for Helping The Little People

In a recession, Obama has simultaneously increased the costs of all federal contracts awarded and eliminated most small businesses from consideration. He signed an executive order returning to the favorite Democrat position of limiting all federal contracts to companies with a union employees. This event has been largely ignored, but it will have a profound effect during a recession. Few small or minority businesses are union businesses, so they are immediately eliminated from consideration even though they usually underbid the larger, unionized companies with a more expensive work force.

Coincidentally, since each union worker pays approximately $400 to the union yearly, it will bring in an estimated *$2,400,000,000 for the unions who have been losing membership at a rapid rate in the last 20 years.

*Union spokesmen question this total, but I have seen nothing to disprove it.