Archive for November, 2008

Yay for Unions!

November 6, 2008 Leave a comment

The same groups that ruined the American auto industry may start to wreck other parts of the economy now as well. Barack Obama and other leading democrats are supporting measures that would essentially force workers to become part of unions or risk major threats from their coworkers and union leaders, through the use of card checks. As this Heritage Foundation report notes:

Even when organizers do not illegally threaten workers, card checks expose workers to organizers’ psychological manipulations and give them only one side of the story. Card checks lead many workers to make impulse decisions and expose workers who wish time to consider their decision to harassment by union organizers. Cards signed in public simply do not represent workers’ free and considered choice.

The unions, though declining in political influence over the last few decades surely helped propel the Democrats’ political sweep during the most recent election, and with this legislation would have a chance to recruit thousands of workers and further empower the liberal machine. This is coming at a time when unionization is the last thing the country needs to compete. While unions served certain necessary functions in times when workers may have in some instances been unfairly treated by management, unions have long outlasted their necessity, causing all sorts of problems by seeking tons of unnecessary benefits that have bankrupt companies. Unions also can cause increased unemployment when wages are sought by unions above the market price for labor, as companies cut back to pay for the more expensive laborers. Further, they have hurt us as a nation competitively by causing businesses to look to states or other nations without unions. If the Democrats ever wanted to find a way to push more jobs overseas, this is the way to do it. How about that for economic stimulus.

Categories: card check, unions

Fairness Doctrine…Unfair

November 6, 2008 Leave a comment

The “fairness doctrine” is a huge misnomer that poses a grave threat to one of the underpinnings of our society – free speech. The policy lauded here by the always talkative Charles Schumer purports to create fairness when it comes to radio broadcasting by requiring stations to have an equal number of voices from the right and left. So in a country in which free speech is supposed to be a protected Constitutional right, the government believes it should be able to regulate the political content of radio stations? This is utterly ridiculous. Why should a station really have to be “fair and balanced”? Why must the government take away the last bastion of conservatism in the media in the form of messing with our radio stations? Must there be a Colmes for every Hannity?

The fact of the matter is that the fairness doctrine while perhaps well-intended puts an unnecessary burden on networks to change their content and their reporters, and further is inherently unfair because it forces stations to be bipartisan. The great thing about having at least a relatively free media is that people can choose to get their information from a variety of sources. Liberals can read the Times and listen to NPR, while conservatives can read the Journal and listen to Rush. If there was such a demand for bipartisanship on the radio then there would be more bipartisan radio stations. People are self-selecting when it comes to the information they consume. It’s no business of the government to alter this information. One would think Schumer would already be pretty satisfied with how liberal 99% of the media is as we saw in the most recent election. But 99% just isn’t enough.

Categories: Fairness Doctrine