Paying Off

Joe Biden vowed on the campaign trail that carrying out the unions’ agenda would be his top priority. Sadly, for the country, he seems determined to keep his word in spades.

Less than half an hour after taking office, in fact, Biden’s first action as president was to illegally fire the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board.

The general counsel is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of unfair labor practices, as well as overseeing the field offices around the country, where union elections are conducted. And unlike most appointed positions, the general counsel at NLRB serves a full four-year term, independent of the board, regardless of a change in administration.

Biden followed up by nominating Marty Walsh, a former union organizer, to serve as Secretary of Labor.

Then in early March, the union wish list — euphemistically dubbed the PRO Act — resurfaced on the House floor, and by late March, Biden unveiled his plans for the infrastructure bill that, in reality, is little more than a Big Government payoff to his union buddies.

Although it remains to be seen what exactly the final infrastructure legislation will encompass, the outline of the $2 trillion bill has more than half going to growing government and paying off union allies while funding it through the everflawed Robin Hood logic.

In this case, however, the robbing from the rich comes in the form of jacking up corporate taxes, but the poor won’t be

Paying In return for investing millions in Joe Biden's campaign, unions are expecting a Off return of billions from bills like the PRO Act and the infrastructure package.

By RUSTY BROWN

National Outreach Coordinator the beneficiaries. Instead, it will Biden’s already-wealthy Big Labor cronies. The bill does designate $600 billion to build and rebuild actual infrastructure, where we will almost certainly see the contracts go to unionized employers. The true intentions of the plan are highlighted in the Project Labor Agreements, neutrality mandates for employers benefiting from the plan and the $400 billion earmarked to increase home healthcare for elderly and disabled Americans. The Freedom Foundation is all too

The PRO Act would override right-to-work laws in 27 states

familiar with how unions have exploited Medicaid through the Home Healthcare program, to the tune of more than $250 million per year funneled into their coffers. Of course, this is after they fulfilled the requirement of holding sham elections where they were voted in to represent hundreds of thousands of home healthcare workers. The states that opened the door for the unions were almost exclusively non-Right to Work, so prior to Harris v. Quinn in 2014, these people were forced to pay full dues or agency fees as a condition of employment.

Setting aside philosophical opinions on unionization, this program deals with individuals unlike any other unionized workforce in existence, and the problem is obvious when considering what this program actually does and is meant to do.

Home healthcare workers are, in most cases, not workers in the traditional sense. There are exceptions, but the vast majority of care providers are simply looking after a family member or close friend. The home healthcare program is meant to be a way for a mother to take care of a disabled child who will never recover or to keep an elderly relative in the comforts of home for as long as possible.

The program is paid for through Medicaid and provides all kinds of benefits for its recipients, including an assessment for how much personal care is needed on a weekly basis, for which the caregiver is paid an hourly wage.

This “wage” is certainly not going to help anyone get rich — nor was it ever intended to. The objective is make it possible for someone who would otherwise be unable to stay home and care for their loved ones.

Somehow, Big Labor thinks they deserve a piece of this money and has instructed its bought-and-paidfor politicians — like Joe Biden, for example — to make it happen.

The dues structure for homecare providers is typically a flat 3 percent of gross pay, meaning the $400 billion proposed in the Infrastructure Bill would open the door for a potential $12 billion in thank-you money for Big Labor.

Unions have always leaned left, but now they proudly stand behind the most extreme ideas possible, often contradicting the core values and principles of their members. It is no surprise that when members are properly educated on the politics of these organizations, where their money goes and what a union really can and can’t do for them, they’ll either opt out or demand changes.

This education process is what the pro-union labor world refers to as “union busting.” The banning of this education process is called “neutrality” and is another major component in both the PRO Act and infrastructure bill.

Instead of focusing on serving the members they represent, unions would rather call in a favor from political allies and have government force workers to join.

The other major provision included in the infrastructure bill is to restart the practice of encouraging project labor agreements (PLAs) on government contracts, similar to the Obama Executive Order asking government agencies to consider using them.

There is an entire website dedicated to the problems with PLAs, and the bottom line is, it kills competition and drives up costs.

Including PLAs in the infrastructure bill and having the practice instituted through state legislatures would make it law rather than a suggestion, offering little recourse for non-unionized government contractors, driving up the tax burden and, of course, slipping more money into the unions’ pockets.

Unions around the country are always organizing, and new petitions for representation elections are

filed every single day. The average American never hears about them, but the recent high-profile union election held in Alabama to organize an Amazon warehouse is a case in point.

For months, Americans listened to the media, Hollywood elites and liberal politicians talk about the abhorrent working conditions Amazon employees were forced to endure and the horrible pay they received in return. There were stories about employees having to wear diapers to work because they weren’t allowed restroom breaks during their shifts.

Yet the employees rejected the union by a 3-to-1 margin. Why?

Because none of those allegations were true. The employees were paid well and happy to be there. Over the course of the election, Joe Biden himself posted a video, encouraging the employees in Alabama to join the union and including several references to the PRO Act, which was ramrodded through the House two weeks later without so much as a committee hearing or even public testimony.

There was a growing belief among those in the labor world that taking a loss with Amazon would actually be more politically beneficial by helping to make a case for the PRO Act.

As soon as the results were announced, the union started putting out the word that the poor workers in Alabama would have the help they needed if it weren’t for the unionbusting tactics used by Amazon.

Labor unions owe their very existence to politics, and this is true now more than it has ever been because they look to the public sector for the future of their organizations.

Private-sector union membership has been in precipitous decline for over half a century. At the peak of union popularity, more than 40 percent of all private-sector American workers were unionized, but that number began to decline in the late 1950s now hovers around 10 percent.

Meanwhile, government employee unions have grown at roughly the same rate.

Public-sector unions weren’t even legal until the early 1960s, but now they’re knocking on the door of representing 40 percent of all government employees in America.

And to make matters worse, government grows every year. Political candidates who receive support or an endorsement from a labor union are overwhelmingly those who promise to grow the government in one sector or another, and this model has proven successful from the school boards all the way up to the president.

The PRO Act, and now the infrastructure bill, are just the latest examples of the union business model in action.

During the 2020 presidential election, Biden secured endorsements from almost all major labor unions, however many admitted their actions were not supported by the rank and file.

Unions constantly tell their members, “you are the union,” yet where politics are concerned, it’s a different story. Unions try to camouflage the reality that they are a business, no different from any other except in terms of the product they’re selling. Unions have employees who have families that need to be provided for, and in order to pay those employees, they must consider their own best interests, whether that be an organizing drive, contract negotiations or engaging in politics.

Unfortunately, when you have a business model based on extortion, those most skilled at manipulation are the ones who rise to the top, and that’s the lens through which they view the world.

Labor unions are the biggest contributors to the political arena and, with few exceptions, all of it goes to Democratic candidates and left-leaning causes. More than 34,000 individual unions filed financial disclosure reports with the Department of Labor in 2020. Of those, just 10 of the largest spent more than $250 million on political activities and lobbying, and another $140 million on gifts, grants and contributions. On top of this figure, there are thousands of unions that only represent public-sector employees not required to file reports with the Department of Labor. Consequently, there is no detailed public record of how they spend their money.

And sadly, it is their members who are hurt the most by this.

Labor unions’ involvement in politics doesn’t stop at money. They also serve as boots on the ground, knocking on millions upon millions of doors for various candidates around the country, encompassing all levels of government.

Although unions are a business, politics is where they set themselves apart from the rest of corporate America. American corporations do have common interests, but they tend to vary by industry and the culture of an individual corporation has a lot to do with their geographical location.

Unions, on the other hand, tend to be more cohesive. They share a common industry (labor) and they will take orders from the top down rather than from the bottom up, no matter what they tell the members.