The hip pocket congress handed to our new President is to be as anti-business as ever. The leadership of the 111th Congress is intent on siphoning millions of dollars from business owners to benefit their trial lawyer constituency through discrimination lawsuits while silencing the voice of workers in union votes. Classic liberal tactic: enact legislation harming employees and stifling the economy while claiming to champion of the poor downtrodden worker crushed under the imaginary jackboot of business brown-shirts. Such polemics never result in good policy.

In the Paycheck Fairness Act the new congress intends to expand litigation over wage discrimination.. Currently a woman wrongly paid less than a male coworker has 180 days to file suit. The Democrats want to take this time limit away, allowing lawsuits long after the supposed events. Businesses could face charges that are years old and impossible to defend. It is already hard enough to defend against accusations of discrimination and the list of those extended special protections gets larger everyday. Now we are extending the time to file a claim, making it easier for false accusations to tie up huge amounts of money that could go to expand production or hire new employees.

Thomas Sowell, in Basic Economics, points out that most disparity between male and female workers is because more women take extended time away from their careers to care for their family. Two people, a man and a woman, entering the job force at the same time and having the same qualifications are unlikely to have identical qualifications after man years. Add to this an extended departure from the workforce by the female employee and you can get a huge disparity in qualifications. A different pay scale in this case is not discriminatory but try to prove it.

The other action being take by Congress is the Employee Free Choice Act. This sounds all warm and fuzzy and of course nothing that promotes free choice could be offensive. This act removes the secret ballot in votes for or against forming a union. This means that the employee who is currently allowed to vote his conscience without ramifications will face the scrutiny and possible harassment of those who disagree. Rather than Employee Free Choice Act it should be called the Union Protection Act. If this passes we will see a huge push to form unions nationwide and blatant acts to silence dissent in the union ranks.

Some claim the current union levels, at an all time low of 7%, demonstrates the need for this law. This is a prime example of confusing cause and effect. The secret ballot did not cause the reduction in unions. This reduction resulted from several factors. One of these is employers who take action to implement reforms unions have traditionally insisted on. When a company provides well for their employees then who needs to unionize. Another factor has been the unreasonable demands of union leadership. When people begin to realize that they have just added another level of bureaucracy to their work lives many regret joining the union. With rules being implemented left and right by meddlesome union bosses already difficult jobs can get worse. Finally there is the detachment of the union from the worker they claim to represent. When union members feel strongly about certain issues and they see their union leadership supporting the opposition the members know there is unions stand for far more than representing their people.

Perhaps another union is needed. One that should be expanded from coast to coast. A union for taxpayers. One that could call for a strike of those who will feel the pinch of the new administration and Congress.