Posted on 01/18/2017 8:12:16 AM PST by reaganaut1
Kentucky just became the 27th state to enact a Right to Work (RTW) statute – the law that prevents workers from being fired just because they decline to pay dues to a government-certified union. In recent years, the RTW bill had been bottled up in the state House, but after the Democrats lost their majority in last November’s elections, the bill sailed through and was promptly signed by Governor Matt Bevin.
At the same time, Kentucky made another good move by repealing its “prevailing wage” statute. Such laws are meant to shield construction unions from competition by preventing bidders for state construction projects from going below the “prevailing” wage rates for construction labor, which almost always means the set union scale for work. The federal government has a prevailing wage statute called the Davis-Bacon Act (which I discussed in “Davis-Bacon: The Price-Fixing Conspiracy The Feds Mandate”) and many states also have them. But Kentucky is no longer among them.
Prevailing wage laws are special interest legislation that makes government more expensive for everyone by stifling competition in a significant element of the cost of construction. Kentucky taxpayers will no longer have to pay more than necessary for state construction projects.
An interesting factor in the success of the RTW bill was the way some counties in Kentucky had adopted their own Right to Work laws. One of them was Warren County in south-central Kentucky -- Bowling Green is the county seat.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Also being debated in New Hampshire. And being discussed behind closed doors in Ohio and Montana.
"Congress Should Follow Kentucky's Lead: Pass Right To Work, Repeal Prevailing Wage"
Patriots are reminded that the feds have only those specific powers which the states have expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
And regardless what FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wanted everybody to think about the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers, a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate INTRAstate Commerce.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
So while Mr. Leef’s heart seems to be in the right place, his suggestion for a federal right to work law would first require the states to ratify an appropriate labor amendment to the Constitution imo.
Noting that Kentucky is the 27th state to make such a law, it would take 11 more states, 38 states needed to ratify a proposed amendment.
Thou hast the right of it. Right-to-work or union shop are state issues.
Congress should simply repeal the unconstitutional federal minimum wage and STAY OUT of the free market of goods, services, jobs, and labor. All they do is screw it up. We’d all be much better off with the feds OUT of our lives and sticking to their constitutional duty of protecting us from invasion. Constitutionally, that’s all the feds are basically supposed to do.
“Prevailing wages” what an incredibly corrupt and anti-competitive concept.
That’s no different than price fixing.
Actually they are a Federal issue because the Davis Bacon Act is a Federally mandated alternate minimum wage that links any construction project that has Federal funds to pay Union Wages, usually these projects lock out alot of open shops.
The only unconstitutional part of the minimum wage is the portions that cover employees who work entirely within a single state. Employment within the boundaries of a single state should be governed by the individual state legislatures.
Congress can establish wage controls for employees that cross state lines or the national borders. However, these controls, suchy as a minimum wage, are lousy policy ideas that undercuts workers and lowers our competitiveness.
Even going back to a orginalist interpretation of the Commerce Clause will still permit much more federal regulation of the economy that what the founders intended. Technology now permits many more people to physically cross state lines and national borders. The courts would still have to decide if the sharing of information across those boundaries (email, virtual meetings, etc...) amounts to interstate commerce and the crossing of a boundary for employment purposes.
Davis-Bacon was passed and implemented by the same party that brought us the KKK and Jim Crow, and for the same reason—to keep black contractors and laborers from competing for federal contracts.
BTW...IIRC Trump has authority under the law to suspend it temporarily. This could result in a construction boom across the country as there are many public construction projects that are too expensive because of the prevailing wage law, and many states have laws that tie into the federal prevailing wage.
If Davis Bacon requires use of a Federal prevailing wage where Fed money is involved,how do the 27 states mentioned get around that?
Evidence is not on the side of what the Founders intended in your loose, pro-expansive-government interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The Founders saw the value of commerce and the free market and did not want unnecessary hindrances in the flow of goods and services between states, so they authorized Congress to step in (Art I, Sec 8, Cl 3) but only when NECESSARY and PROPER (Art I, Sec 8, Cl 18).
The feds have long since gone beyond the necessary and proper limitation of their interference with interstate commerce to the point where there is no discernible limitation in what the feds think they can regulate. In this case, for instance, minimum wage has nothing to do with the hindrance of commerce between states and is thus certainly unnecessary and improper. Minimum wage is just another unconstitutional power grab by the feds for no commercial reason, only social, and, therefore, no true justification from the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended.
Is the federal government currently right-to-work? I believe such a law at the federal level only impacts those in federally regulated industries/federal government agencies and in the District of Columbia.
I’m not expert on this issue. But I agree with you concerning such a law with respect to federal agencies and the District of Columbia.
Otherwise, I’m guessing that the only way that federally regulated industries, if there is such a thing, would have to respect federal right to work laws is if industries agreed to do so through a contract with the feds, not necessarily federal law.
Again, Supreme Court clarified that Commerce Clause does not extend to INTRAstate commerce regardless what FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wanted everybody to believe.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.