Featured Posts

The Latest

The National Labor Relations Board assault on state Right to Work laws is under assault itself.

 The Post and Courier of South Carolina opines that the attack could doom big labor. Here's why: Organized labor's political supporters took a beating in last year's elections at every level throughout the nation. Now the unions are fighting back -- and the "right to work" states of the South and West are rhetorical and actual targets, especially South Carolina. Consider the latest threat by the National Labor Relations Board.  Acting General Council Lafe Solomon wrote attorneys general in South Carolina, South Dakota, Arizona and Utah on April 22 that constitutional amendments requiring a secret ballot for union elections adopted by voters in all four states last year are a violation of federal law, and that he plans to sue them in federal courts to invalidate the state laws. The constitutional amendment requiring that the decision to form a union must be reached through secret ballot was approved by 86 percent of South Carolina voters last November. Voter approval rates were 79 percent in South Dakota, 61 percent in Arizona and 60 percent in Utah. The Solomon threat comes on top of a complaint by the NLRB against Boeing for opening a production line for the 787 Dreamliner in North Charleston, claiming that it was illegal retaliation against unionized workers in Washington state.
NH Gov Lynch: Compulsory Fees Are Freedom!!!

NH Gov Lynch: Compulsory Fees Are Freedom!!!

New Hampshire Governor Lynch claims that it is okay to force someone who is not party to a contract to be obligated under the private contract. For Example: Let’s say Paul is hired by Peter to work. Brutus sees Paul earning money and wants a share. Brutus meets with Peter. Peter and Brutus make a private contract of the kind Gov. Lynch endorses. Peter agrees to pay Brutus a cut from Paul’s paycheck before he pays Paul.  The agreement cost Peter no more money, it gave Brutus some of Paul's money and Paul gets less money for the same work, an amount exclusivley agreed upon by Peter and Brutus.  Gov. Lynch endorses the idea that Peter and Brutus can force Paul to pay Brutus against his will or lose his job. This is what Governor Lynch wants to defend as freedom, compelling a third party (any employee) to be part of a private contract? From National Review’s Brian Bolduc article, Work Free or Die: New Hampshire is “an island of common sense” in blizzard-blue New England, state representative D. J. Bettencourt tells National Review Online. As the Republican majority leader in the state house of representatives, Bettencourt, along with Speaker William O’Brien, hopes to fortify this bastion of liberty’s defenses by passing a right-to-work bill. Although H.B. 474 passed the Republican-controlled house by a hefty margin of 225 to 140, Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, promised to veto it. “We’re reaching out to members of the GOP caucus individually and making the case,” Bettencourt notes. He makes two points in the bill’s defense: One, “the individual-freedom component,” is that “people who don’t want to join a union shouldn’t be forced to do so.” Two, New England is awash in government, and a right-to-work law would further distinguish New Hampshire from its left-leaning neighbors Vermont and Massachusetts. “To be a right-to-work state carries the potential to be a magnet for small businesses,” Bettencourt argues. Governor Lynch retorts that the bill smacks of bureaucratic meddling in business decisions. “The governor has maintained for some time now [that] so-called right-to-work legislation has state government dictating to private businesses and their employees what should be included in a contract,” Lynch’s press secretary, Colin Manning, has said. Technically, the bill is written in such a way that it forbids private contracts from including provisions to mandate that employees join unions. [Is freedom from compulsion or mandates a bad thing?] But Speaker O’Brien is having none of it.

Washington Post Pushes Mitch Daniels for Republican Presidential Nominee, Rush Limbaugh Expresses Doubts

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, who recently caved-in to fleeing Democrat lawmakers by giving away freedom in exchange for continuing Big Labor compulsion, receives a glowing Washington Post blog post while Rush Limbaugh is dubious: RUSH: I'm just sick and tired of Democrat Party and the media picking our candidates. They picked McCain. They picked Dole. I'm tired of it. I don't care who the candidate is, I'm sick of Democrats picking them, because I know they're not gonna pick somebody that can win. That's the whole point. Headline: "Mitch Daniels: The Man Who Could Reshape the Republican Field." Okay, I think Chris Cillizza wants Obama to be reelected. I know Chris; he works at it Washington Post. Chris Cillizza is like everybody else in the main stream media: He doesn't want a conservative to be elected. So here we get a piece in the Washington Post telling us that the only chance we really have as Republicans is if Daniels is the nominee. Sorry, folks, it's the messenger here that is alerting my antennae -- and in this piece is a quasi-endorsement of Mitch Daniels from none other than Obama! What I saw Thursday night at the debate does not lead to our defeat. This story tells me it does. This story tells me that that will cause us to lose, and therefore somebody who would not have sounded that way Thursday night is the only one that can win -- and in today's case it happens to be Mitch Daniels. It's time to get serious now? Well, given the source, I read that is a giant slam. That's an insult. That is a profound insult, and I consider the source: Where is it coming from?