State Rep. Terry Johnson has publicly announced that he is for the "Union Worker." And, we hear you loud and clear sir.
I would like to now, take a look at Rep. Johnson's comments in the article; "Johnson: "I'm in Favor of the Union Worker'," that was in the Portsmouth Daily Times recently.
The article can be found here on-line:
http://www.portsmouth-dailytimes.com/view/full_story/12154731/article-Johnson--%E2%80%98I%E2%80%99m-in-favor-of-the-union-worker%E2%80%99?instance=secondary_stories_left_column
Playing Dumb or Stupid - Or Both
Rep. Johnson, we all know that S.B.5 has not made it to the House of Representatives yet. Come on! The citizens of the 89th District are not as dim-witted or doltish as some would like for us to be. Rep. Johnson has received hundreds of emails asking him to vote in favor of the House Bill version of the S.B.5. To further explain to the freshman representative what this means - don't vote in favor of the unions! Just in case that you might be confused about the matter. In favor of voting to reform the state's "bargaining unit."
Idiots? Hmm!
I think it takes alot of nerve and very little brains; to call the people of Portsmouth, Ohio idiots! I mean especially, from a doctor turned politician.
Calling people who are standing up, and speaking out for what they believe is right... idiots! Because these citizens are not liking the way the local government is being run by the elected officials. They're idiots!
How about when the city council and other elected officials, department heads, and union leaders opposed every thing former Mayor Jane Murray tried to do. Blocked her and presented hurdles at every corner. Are they idiots too? What about Tom Bihl and his organizers to recall Mayor Murray - all idiots too? I certainly don't want to get into the U.S. involvements in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Maybe, the only real idiot is... a politician who makes those types of comments about the voters in his district. Then again, maybe the voters are idiots - for voting for this type of person to be their representative!
Meet with Union Apprenticeship Program
The 2nd meeting with union members or officials. The 1st meeting mentioned in this article was when Rep. Johnson traveled to Columbus to support the unions at the Senate hearings. All on taxpayer dime! Unions already costing the taxpayer money.
Many members present and past talk about learning their trade skills on the job from other tradesman... not this program! They also talk about how it takes 40 to 45 years of working to get 30 good years counted towards retirement.
By Rep. Johnson saying; "The project-labor agreement actually does bring a job in more efficiently and at a greater value to the taxpayer. Why should I be against that? On the hand, if it doesn't do that, why would you be for it?"
Well, Rep. Johnson. Let's just take a look at the other hand then! It's called the "Davis-Bacon Act." Of course, I don't have any fancy credentials hanging on the walls or nothing. Just plain 'ole common sense. It sits right there next to "Give-A-Damn." Dust it off and give it a try!
What the Davis-Bacon Act has Done
The Davis–Bacon Act (DBA) requires the government to pay construction wages that average 22 percent above market rates. This shields unions from competition on federal construction projects. It will also add $10.9 billion to the deficit in 2011.
Given that the federal government is already running historic and unsustainable deficits, federal policy should not unnecessarily inflate the cost of federal construction projects. Congress should repeal the DBA.
Unsustainable Spending
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the federal government will run a record $1.5 trillion deficit in 2011 and that the national debt will double over the next decade.[1] Higher government spending is driving these historic deficits.[2] To avoid national bankruptcy, Congress must sharply reduce federal spending and eliminate nonessential programs. Congress should begin by first eliminating special interest handouts. One such unaffordable handout is the DBA. DBA Restrictions Increase Costs
Under the DBA, contractors on all federally funded construction projects must pay their workers at least prevailing market wages. However, the Department of Labor (DOL) estimates DBA rates using a highly flawed methodology. The Inspector General has criticized the DOL for:
- Using a self-selected sample instead of a scientific random sample to estimate DBA rates;
- Allowing 100 percent error rates in audited samples of returned DBA surveys; and
- Permitting long delays in updating DBA surveys.[3]
These errors cause DBA rates to bear little relation to actual prevailing wages. Table 1 displays DBA rates and market wages estimated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for five American cities. As the table shows, DBA rates are well above market wages in most (though not all) cities.
The DBA effectively requires federal contractors to overpay their workers. Sheet metal workers on Long Island earn $31.37 an hour at market rates, while the DBA requires federal contractors to pay $48.15 hour—a 53 percent premium. Nationwide, DBA rates average 22 percent above market rates.[4] These inflated wages unnecessarily increase the cost of federal construction projects by 9.9 percent.[5] Repealing the DBA and paying market wages would have saved taxpayers $10.9 billion in 2010.[6] More Infrastructure and Jobs
Alternatively, if Congress is not willing to reduce construction spending, suspending the DBA would make each public construction dollar go 9.9 percent further. This would create more bridges and buildings at the same cost to taxpayers. It would also employ 155,000 more construction workers.[7] Unlike increasing government spending, suspending the DBA would create, on net, new jobs. These new jobs would not be offset by private-sector job losses because their funding does not come from the private sector. Instead, the government would simply be using the money it has already appropriated more efficiently. Suspending the DBA means hiring five workers at market rates instead of hiring four workers at a 22 percent premium.
Union Opposition
The government should always spend tax dollars wisely, but this is especially important in a recession. Workers on federally funded projects should not earn artificially inflated wages at the cost of keeping others unemployed. Sound public policy would not spend tax dollars to pay electricians on federal projects in Philadelphia a $12.59-per-hour premium.
The DBA remains on the books because labor unions successfully lobby for it.[8] Labor unions’ interest in preserving DBA should come as little surprise: DBA rates typically match union wage scales.[9] The requirement that federal contractors pay DBA rates prevents non-union firms from underbidding unionized companies. DBA restrictions mean less infrastructure and fewer jobs in America but more jobs and higher pay for union members. Repeal the Davis–Bacon Act
America can no longer afford such special-interest handouts. If Congress is serious about reducing spending or lowering unemployment, it should repeal the DBA. Congress should also reduce the amount it contributes to state construction projects by the amount the DBA inflates costs. This would ensure that the federal government realizes the full $10.9 billion in savings in 2011. Congress should stop requiring the federal government to hire four construction workers for the price of five.
James Sherk is Senior Policy Analyst in Labor Economics in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.
References in this report
[6]Heritage Foundation calculations were determined as follows: Census bureau data on total public (federal, state, and local) construction spending data in 2010 was used as the baseline for 2011 public construction spending. From this was subtracted stimulus construction spending, all of which is covered by the DBA. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2001 that 32 percent of public construction spending was covered by DBA restrictions (see
ibid.). The conservative assumption was made that the expansions of the DBA since then have not increased this percentage. The value of the stimulus construction spending in 2011 was added to 32 percent of non-stimulus public construction spending. That yields an estimated $120.4 billion in the total construction spending covered by DBA restrictions. Adjusting this for the DBA-induced 9.91 percent cost increase yields $109.6 billion in construction costs without the DBA. This represents cost reductions of $10.9 billion, after rounding.
[9]This happens because DBA survey participation is self-selected. Most private-sector contractors do not take the time to fill out the complex survey forms the Department of Labor sends them, and the Department does little follow-up. Union firms have staff trained in answering the DBA wage surveys and almost always return them. Consequently, the wages paid by union firms disproportionately influence final DBA rates.
Continued
So, by the facts and data provided above; anyone - even a doctor turned politician can see - that his statement concerning what is a greater value to the taxpayer; Is Wrong!
This would mean one of two things. You really just don't have a clue; or your for the unions and special interest groups. And, not for the economic welfare of the taxpayers! Not, for creating jobs! You may want to stick with the "clueless" defense. And, to think that this man is now in the business of making laws. Interesting.
Double Talking
Rep. Johnson said; "Those people that are working, they pay taxes. Those people who are not union people pay taxes. I'm for all of them. I'm looking out for your dollars."
If you come out and make a statement like Rep. Johnson did in the headline of this article; "I'm in Favor of the Union Worker." How in the world can you say you are "for all of them?" He can't be! He just stated that he is for union workers. Not "and Non-Union workers!" Not, "All Workers!" Just the union workers. In fact. He felt so compelled and strongly about it; he went to Columbus to show his support.
This means that every voting citizen in the 89th District; that is not a union worker; Rep. Johnson favors unionized workers of you! Why? Because they are a special interest group. They make large campaign contributions; they have deeper pockets than regular 'ole Joe the Plumber!
Prevailing Wage - The "Little Davis-Bacon Act"
Prevailing wage may include both wages and benefits. It encompasses the compensation for a worker given for personal labor. There are 32 states that have the state prevailing wage laws, also known as "little Davis-Bacon Acts". The rules and regulations vary from state to state. Another heavily supported and backed piece of legislation backed by unions.
I wonder if Austin Keyser will speak with Rep. Johnson about this in their "meet and greet?" Especially, if S.B. 5 passes in the House as well!
Not About Politics
Once again; Rep. Johnson want to make it clear to the voters and citizens of the 89th District - He is in favor of the union worker!
"It doesn't matter if they voted for me or not." Oh! Well, why didn't he just say that in the beginning! It doesn't matter. Plain and simple. I guess, it shouldn't matter that he is meeting with the President of the Shawnee Labor Council either. It shouldn't matter that he has went to union labor halls and spoke with them; or drove to Columbus and supported demonstrators who were primarily union members! Don't worry - Be happy! Is he trying to convince himself or the people with that statement.
The Meet & Greet - That's All
Austin Keyser will be driving to Columbus to meet and greet with Rep. Johnson on Tuesday! They plan on sitting down and talking.
Discussion of the S.B. 5 passage in the Senate probably won't even be discussed. I suppose nothing will be mentioned about the "prevailing wage" issue either! With the president of Shawnee Labor Council, unions, and special interest will not even be in the room for conversations. It will all be checked at the door!
Again, it does not take alot of sense to see things differently! The facts are that he knows they supported, and endorsed him during his campaign and now the "markers" are being called in!
Final Note
I wonder if the people who worked in Rep. Johnson's private practice were all union workers?
I can honestly say this with great pride and satisfaction. My vote did not place this man in office, and it won't in the future either!
