A conservative case for unions (private sector, that is)

Way back when, I expressed an opinion at odds with much of modern Republicanism, opposing the Montana GOP's stance in favor of "right to work" laws. The argument isn't a new one, and is based on the idea that if a private company chooses to negotiate a "closed shop" with a union, it should be allowed to do so.

It is a private contract between two private entities, and as long as the government is not forcing companies to make such agreements, it is nobody else's business what the two parties agree upon. If a company finds that it is in a relationship that is disadvantageous, then it can choose not to renew the agreement, close up shop and move, or whatever...

In a recent Reason article, J.D. Tuccille makes a similar argument, discussing it in the context of recent legislation passed by the Michigan legislature. Granted, given the thuggish behavior of Michigan union bosses during the past week, it is hard to find them to be particularly sympathetic figures. This is especially true given than these same union organizers would, in a heartbeat, doubtless use the same power of the state government to mandate closed union shops that was used to ban them. One wishes that the argument could be on a more elevated level, but there you have it.

And of course, public sector unions need not apply for sympathy here at Montana Headlines, since there are a number of missing factors: public entities such as cities and states can't close up shop, move to a more friendly location, declare bankruptcy and dissolve a corporation, or anything similar. Most perniciously, since public sector unions pour large amounts of money into elections for everything from the local school board to the Presidency, there is all too often the unedifying spectacle of having "negotiations" consist of folks on both "sides" of the table be actually the same side.

Those paying the bills -- namely, taxpayers -- are thus left without any representation in the negotiations and are regularly fleeced in the course of such "negotiations." Imagine a situation where in every private business or company, the employees got to choose the board of directors and the CEO, and you'd be seeing a private sector version of what we currently have in the public sector. Businesses would be run into the ground right and left, since management wouldn't be accountable to those who owned the company, but rather to the employees. And indeed, cities and states are being run into the ground financially across the country in precisely that manner.

Ironically, by passing right to work laws, the very unions that have every moral justification to exist (and which are, at least in theory, motivated not to put employers out of business and thus their members out of jobs) are hamstrung, while in those same states, public sector unions simply gain even more power, since they are the only union game in town to bankroll Democratic candidates.

Billings company moves into the Canadian oil sands market

It has been three years since Ed Kemmick wrote his fantastic series of pieces for the Billings Gazette on the explosion of activity in the Alberta oil sands.

At the time, he noted that there was a downturn in what had been an expected jump in activity in Billings to service that particular oil boom. Now, however, signs point to a resurgence of business here.

In a recent Gazette article, Tom Howard reports that "a Texas company involved in a high-stakes plan to provide equipment used in developing the Canadian oil sands is counting on its Billings manufacturing plant to get the work done on time and under budget." The project's international dimension adds to its exotic panache, going beyond the obvious benefits of its 200 Billings employees (with a predicted 50 more to follow shortly.)

Indicative of the kinds of long-term vision and risk involved in such a venture, in 2008 Bay Ltd. purchased a former Holland loader manufacturing facility in Billings, converting it to make large and complex "modules" that are used in extracting oil from the Canadian sands. We realize that they "didn't build that," but for the moment, lets humor the company by pretending that it did have something to do with it.

But Bay Ltd.’s Billings venture doesn’t come without risk. The company is awaiting approval from the Montana Department of Transportation to transport the big loads along Montana highways to the Canadian border. The modules are 24 feet wide, up to 25 feet tall, up to 120 feet long and weigh up to 156 metric tons.

Luhan said Bay Ltd. is working with 10 power companies to arrange moving power lines to accommodate the large loads as they head north. More than 470 power lines have to be moved. Once the loads cross the international border, it will be easy transport because the Canadian government has developed a “high and wide” corridor to accommodate large loads, Bay Ltd. officials said.

And there are further flies in the ointment: the shop is non-unionized, which has local unions upset rather than happy for the blokes who have found good jobs in this economy. We suppose we can expect the unions to use their political clout to try to make approval for the above logistical issues more difficult. But such hardball would probably run the risk of backfiring in the court of public opinion, which likes it when jobs are created.

Perhaps the most important quotation in the piece was this, however:

Rick Leuthold, director of business development for Sanderson Stewart, a Billings-based engineering company, said the manufacturing processes used by Bay Ltd. could translate into new industries that serve communities involved in energy development.

This is the operative concept -- successful businesses attract and inspire more of the same. Photos in the article show Montana GOP legislators touring the facility -- one hopes that they come away with ideas for how Montana can create a healthy business climate that encourages more manufacturing concerns like this one.