Tom cheers that we are in a great economic recovery but laments that wages are not up. He cites that union workers make about $200 more a week and so more people should form unions.
Of course there is no way that the ACA (Obamacare) has nothing to do with wages. Forcing employers to spend more money on employees or cut back on their hours to avoid this has absolutely nothing to do with wages. No. Not being in a union is to blame for low wages.
And yet, later in his blog post he writes:
At the same time, employers are recognizing the benefits of empowering their employees to build successful, profitable businesses founded on middle-class jobs. Across the country, we’ve seen company after company raise their minimum wage, offer sick and parental leave, and commit to fairer scheduling practices.
What is it Mr. Secretary? Do we need unions or are companies getting competitive by offering their employees more?
Let us not forget how well the unions have worked out for Chrysler and GM. Plus how unions have bankrupted cities.
But no. With all the bankruptcy that unions cause let us go ahead and promote them. There is plenty of bailout money. Maybe that extra $200 a week people will make can be used in bailouts to keep the businesses open so that they can pay an extra $200 a week.
Perez has a small distorted vision on wages and does not take into account of what the government has thrust upon businesses through regulations and laws, nor has he examined how unions have hurt businesses.
There is no economic growth unless you make the environment friendly to make a profit. The smaller a company's profits get, the smaller the salaries, hours, and size of the work force.