It is no secret that the President of the United States is a supporter of Big Labor. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics only 12.4% of American Workers belong to a union.  Yet wherever he gets the opportunity, the President Gives unfair favorable treatment to the 12.4% at the expense of the 87.6%.

Like his bailout of the UAW, I mean GM and Chrysler. Remember the Chrysler “hedge fund investors” that President Obama berated on national TV? Among these people labeled as “no goodniks” by the President were organizations such as the the Indiana State Teachers’ Retirement Fund, and the Police retirement fund. The President of the United States was trying to intimidate retired teaches from exercising their rights as primary investors. That’s the politics of change,  he screwed a bunch of retired teachers out of their fair share of the automaker’s bankruptcy and gave it to secondary investors, the UAW.

Those “shovel-ready” construction jobs funded by the porkulous bill you have to be a Union Contractor to get those, even though Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 15.6 percent of America’s private construction workforce chooses to belong to a union.

If that weren’t enough, in another payoff, unions stand to gain easier unionization if the controversial Employee ‘Forced’ Choice Act is passed. The bill takes away workers’ rights to vote via secret ballot during union elections and forces workers and businesses into government mandated contracts that are binding for two years.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Lid updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Contrary to news reports, “card check” is not dead, and none of the potential “compromises” are any better. The binding arbitration provision that allows a government arbitrator to draft a contract covering all aspects of the relationship between employers and employees remains a real threat to the entire free enterprise system.

Then there are the approximately 600,000 jobs lost because of the President’s protectionist trade policy, another product of the POTUS’ favoring big labor over the needs of the rest of the country:

Lost: 600,000 Jobs

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, September 17, 2009 4:20 PM PT

It’s not enough that unions got the cream of the $80 billion in auto industry bailouts or the center cut of the $787 billion stimulus package or a smorgasbord of regulations — from union transparency laws to court-ordered supervision — rescinded by grateful Democrats in Congress and the White House.

But the biggest payoff has been in the form of protectionist measures being applied across the U.S. economy. They include “Buy American” provisos, a Mexican truck shutout, tariffs on Chinese tires and, worst of all, the halting of free trade treaties with Colombia, Korea and Panama. Up next: tariffs on steel pipe.

The aim is to preserve a few thousand jobs at most, but it’s coming at a high price. On Monday, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a comprehensive report called “Trade Action: The Cost for American Workers and Companies.” It describes how the Obama administration’s trade decisions, all of which were sought by Big Labor, have so far cost 585,000 American jobs.

It started in February 2008, with the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. It required all iron, steel and manufactured goods purchased for public works projects to be American-made, and all textiles, clothing and equipment purchased by the Department of Homeland Security to be U.S.-made.

“We estimate that any net increase in U.S. employment resulting from the new ‘Buy American’ provisions will quickly evaporate as other countries implement ‘buy national’ policies of their own,” the Chamber said. Even a 1% loss of sales would create big job losses, the Chamber said, and that doesn’t include retaliation. Job toll: 176,800.

Then there was the Teamsters’ favorite — the abrogation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a provision of which requires the U.S. to permit Mexican trucks on U.S. roads as it always had until 1982.

In March, Congress passed the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act to end funding for a pilot program that would have fulfilled the treaty’s requirements. The Chamber says Mexico retaliated with $2.3 billion in penalty duties on 89 U.S. products, creating an immediate cost of $421 million.

Consumers also pay $739 million “drayage” costs of transferring Mexican truck goods to American trucks, plus additional shipping. Net cost: 25,600 jobs.

The big disaster, however, is Congress’ failure to pass already-negotiated free trade treaties with Korea and Colombia, which have been awaiting a vote since 2006 and 2007, respectively. Big Labor opposes all free trade, and on Colombia, the AFL-CIO calls its opposition “unalterable.” But that sop to them costs the rest of us jobs.

“While the United States stalls, other major exporters, (notably the EU and Canada) are moving ahead with (free trade agreements) of their own with these countries,” the Chamber points out.

“If the EU and Canada do implement their FTAs with Korea and Colombia and the United States does not, exporters will enjoy a competitive advantage over U.S. exporters” in those markets, the Chamber warns.

Add to that the China tire tariffs imposed last week, which Rutgers trade expert Thomas Prusa reckons would cost 15,000 jobs, and the grand total is 600,000 positions — a disaster for an economy in recession and a killer of consumer confidence and voter approval.

For Democrats, this ought to be a wake-up call. For every job they save to repay unions, many more are lost in other sectors of the economy. What’s more, jobs that would be created as a result of freer markets never materialize. Either way, the price is intolerably high.