Obama Loves Unions

Obama touts middle-class task force led by Biden
Obama announces creation of middle-class task force, takes executive action on labor rights

Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer
Friday January 30, 2009, 12:43 pm EST
Yahoo! Buzz Print
WASHINGTON (AP) – President Barack Obama signed a series of executive orders Friday that he said should “level the playing field” for labor unions in their struggles with management.

Obama also used the occasion at the White House to announce formally a new White House task force on the problems of middle-class Americans. He named Vice President Joe Biden as its chairman.

Union officials say the new orders by Obama will undo Bush administration policies that favored employers over workers. The orders will:

–Require federal contractors to offer jobs to current workers when contracts change.

–Reverse a Bush administration order requiring federal contractors to post notice that workers can limit financial support of unions serving as their exclusive bargaining representatives.

–Prevent federal contractors from being reimbursed for expenses meant to influence workers deciding whether to form a union and engage in collective bargaining.

“We need to level the playing field for workers and the unions that represent their interests,” Obama said during a signing ceremony in the East Room of the White House.

“I do not view the labor movement as part of the problem. To me, it’s part of the solution,” he said. “You cannot have a strong middle class without a strong labor movement.”

Signing the executive orders was Obama’s second overture to organized labor in as many days. On Thursday, he signed the first bill of his presidency, giving workers more time to sue for wage discrimination.

“It’s a new day for workers,” said James Hoffa, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, who attended the ceremony with other union leaders. “We finally have a White House that is dedicated to working with us to rebuild our middle class. Hope for the American Dream is being restored.”

Of the White House Task Force on Middle Class Working Families, Obama said, “We’re not forgetting the poor. They are going to be front and center, because they, too, share our American Dream.”

He said his administration wants to make sure low-income people “get a piece” of the American pie “if they’re willing to work for it.”

“With this task force, we have a single, highly visible group with one single goal: to raise the living standards of the people who are the backbone of this country,” Biden said.

Obama set several goals for the task force, including expanding opportunities for education and training; improving the work-family balance; restoring labor standards, including workplace safety; and protecting retirement security.

The president and vice president said the task force will include the secretaries of commerce, education, labor, and health and human services because those Cabinet departments have the most influence on the well-being of the middle class. It also will include White House advisers on the economy, the budget and domestic policy.

Biden pledged that the task force will conduct its business in the open, and announced a Web site, http://www.astrongmiddleclass.gov, for the public to get information. He also announced that the panel’s first meeting will be Feb. 27 in Philadelphia and will focus on environmental or “green jobs.”

Why do you hate the middle class? Is there something wrong with a factory worker earning enough to actually buy a home and put their kids through school? Or are these entitlements only for lawyers, hedge-fund executives, and Chainpin?

Is there something wrong with a factory worker earning enough to actually buy a home and put their kids through school?

Tough to do either of those with what that factory worker gets in unemployment when his company shuts down because it’s not competitive in the market.

Or are these entitlements only for lawyers, hedge-fund executives, and Chainpin

The fact that you refer to buying a house as an “entitlement” says it all…sadly.

Why do you hate the middle class? Is there something wrong with a factory worker earning enough to actually buy a home and put their kids through school? Or are these entitlements only for lawyers, hedge-fund executives, and Chainpin?

Entitlements? Don’t talk to me about entitlements.

My parents were factory workers, we never owned a home and my folks sure as hell didn’t think we were entitled to one–or anything else for that matter.

The wages they earned reflected the skills they possessed. And it was with those skills that they helped me become the first person in our family to go go to college. Their mill went belly up in the early 90’s. Had the company been unionized it would have closed five years sooner and I might not be where I am today because of it.

One is entitled to what one can produce, either through application of their physical abilities, or their mental abilities.

Unions = the rich get less money. oh my god, whatever shall we do! Oh wait, lets just get some bail outs and give ourselves some performance bonuses for running the country into the ground.

Besides the fact that not everyone’s abilities fall under what I believe you consider “skills”. So just because someone has a few more natural abilities then they deserve to be rich, while the people who may not be as “smart” or work in the trades should be considered a lesser class and need to be suppressed, so we make them poor by paying rediculous minimum wages.

like it or not… if you are a factory worker and your job is easily performed by some illiterate worker in a developing nation for 50 cents per hour there is not a thing in the world that Obama can do to make that a long term winning proposition for you. People who are rich (or even simply well off) in many instances where either harder working, more intelligent, perhaps lucky or a combination of those factors - get over it. And if you are a floor sweeper or waitress making minimum wage and don’t like it perhaps you should have made better decisions in your life and career.

Not commenting on the specifics of the post, but wanted to point out that the average manufacturing exec makes over 400 times what his average employee earns. I believe the second closest western industrialized nation is at 25 times.

I have mixed feelings about unions. I don’t think a guy should get paid more than I do for pushing a button every 45 seconds. At the same time, without unions, that button pusher has to work two jobs and weekends just to feed his family while the execs rip them off. The answer lies somewhere in the middle.

In this regard, unions serve as “the voice of the group” instead of many, individual voices. Obviously, the unified voice of the group speaks louder than a single voice.

While I think some unions go a little too far, most do serve their workers in terms of negotiations, ensuring due process is followed, etc.

In the instances that “go too far”, I am referring to them getting “all they can” instead of being one part of the company that ensures that the company is successful/profitable, produces a quality product/service, and that their jobs stay viable with opportunities/security for others. I think it should be fairly obvious that when any part of the company seeks more than its share, or more than the company can burden, at the detriment of the company … that the longevity of the company is at risk. In many of these instances, unions seem to take the brunt of the criticism while the white collar group gets raises, etc.

You don’t often hear of executives taking pay cuts. limiting spending in their particular area, or streamlining their prcesses … but rather, cutting blue collar jobs. IN some of these instances, I think unions are speaking from a valid perspective.

In this regard, unions serve as “the voice of the group” instead of many, individual voices. Obviously, the unified voice of the group speaks louder than a single voice.

While I think some unions go a little too far, most do serve their workers in terms of negotiations, ensuring due process is followed, etc.

In the instances that “go too far”, I am referring to them getting “all they can” instead of being one part of the company that ensures that the company is successful/profitable, produces a quality product/service, and that their jobs stay viable with opportunities/security for others. I think it should be fairly obvious that when any part of the company seeks more than its share, or more than the company can burden, at the detriment of the company … that the longevity of the company is at risk. In many of these instances, unions seem to take the brunt of the criticism while the white collar group gets raises, etc.

You don’t often hear of executives taking pay cuts. limiting spending in their particular area, or streamlining their prcesses … but rather, cutting blue collar jobs. IN some of these instances, I think unions are speaking from a valid perspective.
Amen