In an online board discussion, yesterday, over the economy, I made mention about how the government has a propensity for changing rules in the middle of a game and the danger that creates with investors and consumer confidence. Today, remarkably, we have yet another example courtesy of the Obama Administration which is rapidly on its way to surpassing the distortions in economic activity and policy changed by the brain trust of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration.
The current unilateral activity changes the rules for unionization of rail and airline employees as the National Mediation Board (NMB) issues it’s final rule, yesterday and changed the way workers could unionize at companies covered by the Railway Labor Act:
Under the new rule made final on Monday, if a majority of workers who cast votes said they wanted to form a union, the company would be unionized. Workers who fail to vote will not count for either side.”
From a personal perspective, I believe that a no-show should not count as a vote for either side. Our democratic Republic is structured and dependent upon individual participation in order to function properly in promoting the pursuit of happiness and individual liberty. As in any election, non-voters lose the right to snivel and whine about outcomes simply because they chose not to use their franchise.
That aside, the point of this article is to demonstrate that government, unchecked, can and often does change rules midstream and when it does so in industrial and financial markets, it creates instability and uncertainty for investors that further impedes economic recovery.
Republicans argue that the NMB lacks the authority to make the change:
He [Senator Isakson] also described the measure as an assault on employee rights, a statement that I obviously disagree with. In my view the conservative approach should be that this action is a change that signals that with rights come responsibilities and the most basic among them is the responsibility to show up and cast a vote one way or another.
However, this change in how business is conducted between business and unions based upon a ruling of a board without public hearings and Congressional or Presidential approval clearly demonstrates a major example of the level of uncertainty investors face when deciding where to park their money and assets in an attempt to grow their value over time.
We need to insist upon creating maximum transparency and consistency in adhering to precedent and established law. We need to insist that changes to precedent and established law be made only after public hearings and voting by our elected representatives – not a gaggle of appointed government bureaucrats.
Senator Isakson said he would look into using a little used law, the Congressional Review Act, to overturn the rule change. This law allows Congress to overturn regulations issued by any agent of the executive branch and cannot be filibustered by the Senate.
Even opposed to a non-vote counting as either a yes or a no, I think Congress, as an elected, representative body, should have the final say on changes in law, custom or precedent, and so, I support Senator Isakson’s effort, if not his motivation. The impact this rule can have on the economy, the strength of unions (with or without public support), and the funding of political parties makes each of us less free and infringes upon the strength of our individual vote, I think makes it imperative that Congress reviews the matter and speaks through a vote, one way or the other. What’s your view?
