In May, the number of unemployed by 787,000 to 14.5 million, and the unemployment rate rose to 9.4 percent.

So it’s obviously the right time for Congress to pass a paid leave mandate, right? From Marketplace Morning Report, “Congress talks mandating paid leave“:

Keith Smith: Additional burdensome costs, especially at a time like we’re currently undergoing where manufacturers are struggling to retain and create jobs, that is not the best time to burden manufacturers with yet another cost of government compliance.

Employers may be feeling a little overwhelmed by a flurry of bills in Congress mandating paid leave for workers — not just for vacations, but also for family emergencies and illness.

Manufacturers and NAM member companies overwhelmingly provide paid leave, but those small businesses that do not have reasons. Perhaps, maybe, they can’t afford it and one more mandate will force them to close. The more mandates, the higher the costs, the more closures.

In any case, it is strange to see members of Congress decry unemployment one moment and at the next advocate legislation that would make it more expensive to create jobs — for the private sector to create jobs, that is.

From the AFL-CIO Now blog, “House Panel OKs Paid Family Leave for Federal Workers“:

Federal workers could receive four weeks of paid family leave to care for a newborn or adopted child under a bill approved by a U.S. House subcommittee yesterday. If enacted, the bill also would allow federal workers to use up to eight weeks of accrued paid sick time or annual leave immediately following the first four weeks of parental leave.

Says AFGE President John Gage:

The time has come for the federal government to set the standard for U.S. employers on paid parental leave. The benefits to children and families of four weeks of paid parental leave are enormous and long lasting. This sets an example for private sector employers.

How does a government mandate set an example? A mandate sets a mandate.

What Gage is really saying, “This action by the House committee to require paid family and medical leave for federal workers is an example of what Congress is going to do to the private sector next.” Or so we interpret it.

The bill is H.R. 626, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009. It come out of the House Oversight and Government Reform’s Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Post Office, and the District of Columbia by a voice vote.

Human Events gives us a list, “Top 10 Things On Big Labor’s Agenda ”

1. Employee Free Choice Act
In addition to the notorious “card-check” provision that strips union members of their right to a secret ballot, this bill also provides for increased penalties for employers who commit allegedly unfair labor practices. These increased penalties include treble damages and civil penalties of up to $20,000.

2. Repeal of Section 14(b) of Taft-Hartley
Repeal of this section 14 of the Taft-Hartley Act would take from states the right to enact right-to-work laws.

3. Family Medical Leave Act expansion
Bills sponsored by Sen. Chris Dodd (D.-Conn.) in the last Congress proposed creation of an insurance system to provide for paid family medical leave and an expansion of the employers covered by the act.

4. Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
This proposal is a response to the Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. decision, in which the Supreme Court said that the 180-day statute of limitations for equal pay lawsuits begins on the date the pay was agreed to. The Lilly Ledbetter Act would re-start the statute of limitations each time that a paycheck was received.

5. Minimum Wage Hike
Barack Obama’s website promises to “raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011.”

6. Patriot Employer Act
This bill imposes tax increases on companies that have major operations outside the U.S. and tax hikes on those don’t agree to “labor neutrality,” card check, etc.

7. Government unions
Barack Obama promised during the campaign that he would fight for collective bargaining rights for Transportation Security Administration workers. Big Labor will also seek the forced unionization of police, firefighters, and EMTs by federal fiat — overturning the laws of more than two dozen states.

8. Union Financial Disclosure
Drastically revise the Office of Labor-Management Standards’ Form LM-2 that has embarrassed and caused legal problems for union bosses by forcing them to reveal their salaries and spending.

9. National Labor Relations Board
Ram through a pro-union-appointee to the NLRB and add more labor advocates to the board. Right now, of the five seats, three are vacant.

10. Overturn Bush orders
Immediate revocation of Bush executive order on Beck rights notices and Bush executive order prohibitions on use of discriminatory union-only Project Labor Agreements in federal contracting.

And don’t forget: Expand Davis-Bacon wage mandates.

(Hat tip: Jim Gray)

The Washington Post publishes today as its lead, page one story, “A Last Push to Deregulate” with a subhed, “White House to Ease Many Rules.”

The White House is working to enact a wide array of federal regulations, many of which would weaken government rules aimed at protecting consumers and the environment, before President Bush leaves office in January.

The new rules would be among the most controversial deregulatory steps of the Bush era and could be difficult for his successor to undo. Some would ease or lift constraints on private industry, including power plants, mines and farms.

Given the placement and the headline’s tone, we anticipated another bit of agenda journalism, especially since the first source cited is one of the regulatory zealots at the group, OMB Watch.

OMB Watch leads its website with activist huffing and puffing about “midnight regulations,” the nefarious practice of enacting last-minute regulations. ABC News has already bought OMB Watch’s spiel doing a segment yesterday, “The Bush Administration’s Midnight Regulations,” referring to the lead OMB spokesman and activist on the issue as an “expert.” Right. Disinterested expert.

But, kudos, the Post story is pretty balanced. It gives the Administration a place to state its case up high in the story, noting the deadlines that OMB set to allow a full examination of regulations before they’re promulgated. The reporter, R. Jeffrey Smith, describes the Clinton Administration’s undisciplined, partisan rush of last-minute regs, as well, providing some grounds for comparison: “While it remains unclear how much the administration will be able to accomplish in the coming weeks, the last-minute rush appears to involve fewer regulations than Bush’s predecessor, Bill Clinton, approved at the end of his tenure.” Including some enacted even AFTER the Clinton Administration left office.

So good job, Washington Post. Hope all the other media outlets that get lobbied into a story by OMB Watch strive for as much accuracy, balance and context. We did laugh when we encountered this paragraph, though:

As many as 90 new regulations are in the works, and at least nine of them are considered “economically significant” because they impose costs or promote societal benefits that exceed $100 million annually. They include new rules governing employees who take family- and medical-related leaves, new standards for preventing or containing oil spills, and a simplified process for settling real estate transactions.

Surely no one is going to be audacious enough to claim proposed Family and Medical Leave Act regulations are last-minute, perfidious “midnight regulations.” The Department of Labor’s Employment Standards Administration issued a request for information on the FMLA on December 1, 2006.

Working on a regulation for nearly two years really doesn’t qualify as a midnight regulation.