No bias here

From The Kansas City Star newspaper: New labor laws in Kansas and Missouri bolster the boss

The lead-off:

The balance of power between businesses and their workers shifted in Kansas and Missouri this year — in favor of the boss.

So, what are these laws? From the article:

Employees fired for being late for work without good cause will be barred from unemployment benefits if they are warned first and if the employee is notified of the employer’s attendance requirements. The new law no longer requires the warning to be in writing.

Laid-off workers can no longer collect a severance payment and unemployment simultaneously. An employee receiving a six-month severance, for instance, has to wait six months to draw unemployment.

The length of unemployment benefits could be shortened. Currently, the unemployed in Kansas can draw benefits for 26 weeks. Starting in 2014, a person will qualify for a maximum of 26 weeks of unemployment if the jobless rate is 6 percent or greater. Eligibility will drop to 20 weeks and then to 16 weeks as unemployment falls.

Guidelines have been changed for assessing workplace injuries, a move that labor supporters say will lead to reduced benefits for injured workers.

Those new laws and others that ban Wyandotte County from requiring union-scale wages on public jobs and require drug tests for unemployment benefits, critics say, add up to a bad year for labor.


A similar controversy over unemployment erupted this year in Missouri when lawmakers passed legislation making it harder for employees fired for misconduct to qualify for unemployment.

The first thing I noticed is that most of these didn’t seem to do anything to the boss. Most seem to set more restrictions on collecting unemployment.

Here are my recommended edits to the headline and lead-off: New labor laws in Kansas and Missouri bolster the boss taxpayers


The balance of power between businesses taxpayers and their workers and people collecting unemployment shifted in Kansas and Missouri this year — in favor of the boss taxpayers.

I’m amazed that the reporter found critics to these laws. Why should taxpayers reward people for misconduct on the job and drug use? Seems like we have better use of our dollars than that.

Two recommended segments from Chris Stigall

If you have 20 minutes, please take the time to listen to two recent podcasts from Chris Stigall’s 710 AM KC radio show.

1.  Go to 710 AM podcast site

2.  Listen to podcast titled “Proposition C and How the Press Covers It…”  About 10 minutes.

3.  Listen to podcast titled “Stark Townhall Blowup (Interview)” where Stigall interviews Kymberleigh Korpus, who held Congressman Pete Stark accountable to powers enumerated in the Constitution at a town hall meeting a few days ago.  Also about 10 minutes in length.

Go Kymberleigh.  If only more of us were as versed on the Constitution and could hold others accountable when they support the continual extension of the government beyond its specifically defined role.

I Voted Yes on Prop C

So did many others.    In fact, 71% of those voting agreed with me.  Enough to garner this major headline from the Drudge Report, linking to an article from

Blow to O: Mo Says No

This morning, Missouri-based conservative talk show host Chris Stigall has been criticizing media coverage of the Yes vote like this one, that editorializes Prop C “was seen as largely symbolic because federal law generally trumps state law.”

Apparently, the writers of this nonsense at one CBS affiliate didn’t have time to check with what was written by just yesterday:

On Monday, a federal judge ruled that Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has legal authority to sue the federal government over the sweeping health care reform law. The Justice Department had earlier urged the judge to dismiss the lawsuit.

If you still believe the Missouri vote is mostly symbolic, Judge Hudson, the U.S. district court judge in Virginia disagrees with you (from the Wall Street Journal editorial on the Virginia decision):

Judge Hudson notes that ObamaCare “literally forges new ground and extends Commerce Clause powers beyond its current high watermark.” The core question is “whether or not Congress has the power to regulate—and tax—a citizen’s decision not to participate in interstate commerce…

This will be interesting.