The Obama administration has been a godsend for unions. The Economist has an article about unions that sheds light on the type of job creation Obama intends to inflict on the nation. Obama and his socialist union allies would like to create 4 million union jobs. Why not? More union members equals more democrat voters? Why should Americans care? Well, unions cost more, do less, and do it worse than the private sector.

His [Obama] biggest favour has been green, foldable and borrowed. For example, he encourages the use of “Project Labour Agreements” on big federal construction projects, whereby contractors must recruit through a union hiring hall. Such agreements inflate costs by 12-18%, according to David Tuerck of Suffolk University, and were banned under Mr Bush. Even where PLAs are not in force, federal contractors are obliged to pay “prevailing” wages. That actually means something close to the union rates, which is nice for the workers in question but means that taxpayers get fewer roads and schools for their money.

Do prices even matter the way Obama is spending money? Unions are certainly less influential in the U.S. than in Europe. That’s a good thing; however, more than half of union members currently work for the government. Is it really surprising that unions support the party of state control? Is it surprising that Mr. Transparency is scratching the back of the Democrat voting bloc?

Increasing the strength and numbers of unions is not a good idea. Look at the problems in Greece. Look at the how the teachers unions in the United States are damaging eduction. There’s a growing movement among the crazy anti-Walmart crowd to unionize the place. Such a move would simply bleed the company dry and another company would take its place. I guess as long as Target and IKEA aren’t effected no one will mind.