>> take a deep breath and have a great day. we know families can get whacky. >> dave: really. >> mine does. >> dave: and rick in, great job. see you tomorrow. >> brenda: did jobs just get scrooged by d.c.? no, we're not talking about uncertainty over the temporary payroll tax deal, more like the permanent pro union rule from the national labor relations board. they just came this week and basically freed up union elections at the work place and now some business owners say this will be the grinch that steals jobs in the new year. are they right or wrong? i'm brenda buttner, this is bulls and bears, let's get to it. bulls and bears this week, gary b smith, tobin smith. jonas max ferris and gary and

susan. gary b. win for unions and big loss for jobs in. >> absolutely, brenda. look, i'm going to try to take my opinions out of it and i just went to some sources and we'll play a little who said this. the first one, cause of long-term unemployment is unionization, high union wages that exceed the competitive market rate are likely to cause job losses in the unionized sector of the economy. you know who said that. >> gary b smith. >> lauren summers who used to be advisor to president obama. now what the federal reserve said. it said unionization has about the same effect on investment as a 30 percentage point increase in the corporate tax and two more, brenda, there's a 2010 study out. unionized firms have profits that are 10 to 20% less than nonunionized firms. in study of 510 firms. the growth of unionized firms was zero. brenda, aim i'm not sure how

much of a message this says about unionization, it will be flat-out horrible for employment and for the economy. >> brenda: interesting, susan, what are the goals, do they help or hurt jobs? >> you know, the goals of the rules are only affecting when cases wind up in a hearing in front of the nlrb and that's 10% of the cases aen so this is not a broad new wide sweeping mandate the nlrb is giving unions. a lot of times if you look at the rules, they're incredibly byzantine and a lot of hoops to jump through and bad for employers and employees and for the unions and so they're trying to streamline and reduce amount of uncertainty and waiting time and reduce the amount of litigation and things get held up for years sometimes and this is about streamlining, cost cutting and reducing uncertainty. should be things that jobs, job producers like. >> do you agree with that, toby. >> to what end? . the math says i'll use wal-mart as an example in the '90s, as they were facing unionization, two things they did, slowed down building

places in the united states, throughout the united states and number two, they sped up nonunion outside the united states, china, mexico, canada. and found out historically, wal-mart, could go to 20 different corporations when they're forced with quote, unquote, more rapid way for unionization they get a way to get the heck out of dodge and build the business oiz. >> jonas, what do you think the union rules mean for the economy. not as much as you can you think. we've been in a multi-decade shied to possibly single digits where we're headed. there's no change nlrb can do moving off where they have a vote earlier or change or hamper business in america. and the nation for having to vote earlier, is move to a free market. in a free market. couldn't people have to vote whether they want a union, don't have to wait 60 or 90 days, i don't see it's a big deal or as far as the current

economy, a lot of the areas where there's hiring going on aren't unionized anyway and a lot of them with the low growth rates are low growth rates and nothing to do with the unions and they're kind of old school industries. and in fact, a lot of construction workers are unions. >> okay, i'd like to hear what gary k has to say about that. >> well, look, there's nothing i like about the union heads and nothing i like about the fact that when they overtake businesses, costs go up. and everything wrong happens, but in this case, i don't think it's the biggest of deals, i'd he rather not see it, i'd rather elections take a little more time so employees can get an idea what the costs would be to unionize. i think we have much more proms out there with obamacare, with 15 trillion dollars in deficits. if you want to know what's going to happen with joblessness, that's going to do the trick. >> susan, why do you think that businesses are fighting so hard against that, if it's not going to make that much difference? >> i think this is a classic overreaction, they hear unions

and automatically assume that anything unionized is bad for the economy and bad for job growth. >> it is. >> if you look at historic levels of unionization, union membership is at an all time low. jonas is right. when you look at private sector, 6.9% and we're in single digits and more than half of union members right now are in government jobs. are you concerned we're not creating enough government jobs, gary? >> gary, perhaps there's a reason for that. >> point well taken. but you know what? listen, there's a couple of things, look, i think it's obvious why the nlrb wants the rules. what do you think they want rules, we're trying to streamline and become more efficient? no, they want more unionization and that's obvious with the linkage this administration has shown with unions. and more unionization, i just spent the first two minutes of the show talking about the bad effects of unionization and everyone here, oh, whatever, it's minor, it's around the emgs.

look, younes have can caused industries to collapse and caused wages to be unduly high. do you know why government doesn't work? because unions have raised their rates and raised the benefits to such an extraordinary level, everyone wants to be a government employee for crying out loud. this is not a small issue because it might start out as a small pebble and becomes a boulder and finally crushes the economy. i don't think it's a small thing. >> first off, it was three minutes to the top of the show and second, the point is. >> you were counting, i know that. the bigger point is your amazing point, which is that you don't have to, you know, listen to us. if you just take the facts, it absolutely is a compelling case to have the less power to the nlrb at the same time they're trying to bump up their power. and-- >> that's 30 seconds and hold on, i want to go to jonas. >> i didn't hear any excellent points, i'll point that out, but i'll say, again, you're not going to reverse the train. people don't want to be in

unions if they get to vote earlier. you're not going to see this go back up from the low. and what was the figure, 6%? how much effect could that possibly have on the economy when such few people are in the union anyway and i'm not saying if you're in management you want unions, i would be against this, anyone who runs a business is going to want to go against this, it's not for management, obviously, some benefits to labor, that's what it's going to do, but doesn't necessarily, as far as is it going to lead to less hiring? some stuff unions do leads to more hiring, not good for companies and may limit the amount of hours you work. >> and i'm going to tell you, listen gooshgs is when unions just don't go for higher wages, you need breaks every so often. and look at the auto workers and to make the cars, they need more staff because the guys are-- >> and the economy, and then there's-- >> i'm telling you that it could lower the unemployment rate and that's all i'm saying. >> old on. now, i would like to have some

people respond to that. first of all, gary k. >> well, first off you mention the auto workers toss the auto workers toss that point. it's the unions na basically destroyed gm with the costs and legacy costs out there. the big issue when these things become blobbish, a new word i made up, that's when trouble comes. i don't worry about these things on a smaller scale, but once they get into a larger scale, that's where destruction happens and mandates from unions to the business, i'd rather business controls. >> you have ten seconds, gary b to talk about blobhe bsh. >> i thought he was saying bloggish. but blobbish, i'll give gary k that. the bottom line, unions are bad, more unions are badder, that's a take away. >> brenda: another made up word. okay, i like it. neil called it. now a nonpartisan group is confirming it that "mediscare" attack is it the biggest lie

of the year. and worry that scare and spend tactics are about to really get scary. >> neil is on it at the bottom of the hour. unplugging from work when you're not at work. a mainly company telling employees they'll stop spending blackberry e-mails when workers walk out the door. time for all companies to pull the plug? came to america selling fishcakes from the back of his truck, and in 1942, of course, they were sent away. after the war, as a japanese coming back from camp, he started a little store on main street in seattle. of course they needed some money, and bank of america was the only bank who would talk to my father. and we've stayed with bank of america. we have four stores now, three in the pacific northwest and one in oregon. my parents would not believe how popular it is now.

t s> live from america's na ns headquarters, i'm kelly wright. failed to submit the signatpofes on the ballot. g.o.p. officials say they didn't have the 10,000 signatures needed. virnplnia, an important swing state, will hole its primary on super tuesday, march 6th. and travelers getting a break this christmas eve as no major delays have been reported at airports across the country this morning and it's not all

good news. a winter storm warning remains in effect for parts of na n mexico and texas. and snow and ice making for pmangerous road conditions in places like wausau, mpolleonsin. and the highways there barely visible. travelers discopofaged in part of southeastern new mexico as well. i'm kelly wrigy we take you back now for bulls and bears and for the latest headlines log on to foxne goo.com. you're watching the most powerful name in news. >> put down the ferry. auto maker e-map>ing employees edot on the clock. should all companies adopt these policies. >> it's a good policy, and epofopeans, high vacation-low work schedule. if you don't have a huge stake in it ttinough options or m khatever, i don't see why you

have to let work go into your 24 hour cycle and the wainkend because the phones let to you that essentially with the e-mail and internet and all of that. air not responsible to work, at 7, 8, 9 p.m. at nigy and also, i don't think it helps your productivity not to do those in it certain amount of time. working all the time and going to work less hard at work and i think it's a good policy and the employee can't do it by himself. he nainds like the whole company to have the policy and instigate it so you can't essentially work off hopofs. t sit sit sit sit sit sit sit tk brings. you know when we do this showug my uggiend. the idea in america is, we're not europe. we don't work like owuropeans, if you want to work like a european, move to europe. number one, npeaber two, w knre in world where 60% of the revenues, come from off shore and i have clients all over the world and we work hard,

and we get phone calls and need to respond text-wise, this is what drives america and why we have more productivity. >> why is volkswagon doing so well compared to the u.s. policies? >> and black brings. >> and don't say it's because they have no unions, they've got a lot of that in germany. >> okay, all right. gary k. m khat do you think of this? >> i think if a company wants to do it, fine, but overall, look, if you notice esols wwagen, there's many the higher staff that are not part of this, they're going to have to answer the phone at 3 a.m. as they say. and i'm okay on a case by case basis, overall. you're working for a company and care about the company and the company naine c na n move hopofs and you kainp that phone on, make sure they can get a hold of you. t s> now w knre tase,ing. t s> i tried to reach you three times today, toby and you're edot-- t s> not for the show. >> gary b? >> he was at the bar. >> well, brenda, along with toby' point we live fortunately or unfortunately

in a 24/7 society and to drill down a little bit on this, t s you cit sunion play to get management not to send e-map>s out. you know why? they want today prevent worker burnout. if they are he' unionized employains and betting most are factory workers, i've worked in a unionized factory, brenda. i was bored and maybe physically tired at the end of the day, i was not burned out and certainly, and that's-- m khat do you think they're getting. one or two e-mails after hours, saying, hey, this, this safety issue or this machine is down. pleask l the most ludicrous thing in a while and this is what the union wants and vw had to bow to it. >> brenda: your thoughts. >> i think it's an idea. affecting 1% of workers in germany. and if you want a culture change and not tied to the

desk 24/7 and like to see people fpofther down the 't dhain-- uermthe chain make a commitment not to contact them. and bucopout is a big deal and mponds up affecting productivity. >> and sure would like to take up for the poor person who can't an drer their e-mail at 7:30 at night. >> more hours does not always equal higher proation-ctivity. t s> and that's what's stressful-- >> nobody is getting bothered 40 times a waink by the 't dompanies, just on case by case basis when need be. suce wss in this world is about 24/7 and being on the job when it's necessary and i'm all for it and i get called all the time. t s> you don't have low level jobs, and you've got to-- t s> and there's a lot of jobs in the labor fore w that don't have lots of upside and don't pay that well and can't expect to you work 70, 80 hours like

a doctor on call, making a ton of monblo. >> like yopof >> b. t s> just saying. >> jonas is working 70, 80 a week? >> got to be the last word, guys. the environmental protection agency says it needs more power. some here say if the epa gedown what it wants, it will punch the nights out on any chaaste of a job recovery. g?

>> coming up, a big government aelth ageasty wandow more power.

>> the epa pushing out another eon cironmental rule on power punants and now, companies are warning the

power play will kp>l thousane c of >> need. this, aireer the agency says it needs more power over our industries. and it even has a 3 >vel000 dollar setting proving it and guess who paid for it? you. toby, you say the more the s isa grows the more the economy shrinks. well, it's not me again, it's a fact. matter, if you look at the statements in the epa. davis acknowledges it's a job killing act and a reason we are going to get a benefit from it. the fact is and every reason in the united states w knve had growing epa regulations and we've had declining jobs in those areas that they're regulating or overregulating and for them to argue it any other way doehey't make sense and even if they were right on everything, why on earth would ou do it now when we have a re% grompong economy. if this was right, you would pick the time to do it when we m kould aneedorb this ln't k of growth. >> is this a power play that would helermor hpoft the economy? >> first of all, i don't think it's a power play, if you look

at the st're effort at the epa. >> no hk l no, no, a lot of companies hirse benefitted you look at wall street and other people, and reduced ope ruting cost by emb ruy. sustainability and things that were a nuisance became a-- rethinking enviro, maental rethesunations and a broader swath at that could be interesting in business if thblo engage in a coon cersatio. >> gary b? >> now, susan, i'm a little surprised, you worked in gover, maent. ou well know the only way to ensure the long-term longeviws, a little bit redunulant. >> of a government agency, but to grow your power base. >> that's not fair. >> and grow resources and you know, that's a fact and the only way in d.c. to succainell in fact, but unfortunately, study after study, none of this with the epa, but with all gover, maent ageny. the larger they grow.

from the epa alone, the authority to hirse cpofve power >vissions, you know what the study found that unemployment would rise in fact, and electricity cosdown would rise about 12% over the next ten years and this beats govecopment ageasties want to garow becower se that's the onl thing they can do and the only reason they can hirse cower se exist in the s doture. and it's just ludicrous what's happening. >> >> nas, is the economy secondary here? >> yeah, the job of epa is not to help the economy. in fact, mow the things they do is going to be a drag on the industry and they do it and the obvious thing is market regulation they're finally going to do after 21 years of being told to do it, not allowed by gover, maent is to lower mercury levels in people. from old swsle coal fired plandown and this is w not bad for jobs even though it can be a drag for the utp>ity, no question that residential power could go up 3, 4, 5%,

they've got to install new punants and one power 18ule people they had to hire to do one plant. it will create >> need, it's not gareat for the utiliws industry or power bill, but lowers mercury levels in people. >> brenda: 're t s> this is a matter of continual overreaching by the epa. and the and thre g 'tis the season for a frenzy, the hot gift causing frenzy, and hot topics for one stock.

get the names next. forty years ago, he wasn't worried about retirement. he'd yet to hear of mutual funds, iras, or annuities. back then, he had something more important to do. he wasn't focused on his future but fortunately, somebody else was. at usaa we provide retirement solutions for our military, veterans and their families. from investments... to life insurance... to health care options. learn more with our free usaa retirement guide. call 877-242-usaa.

>> predictions, gary b? >> brenda, i'm in the-- am i the only one in the holiday spirit? >> come on. >> you're wearing red. listen, forget the online glitches that companies like best buy had. online is still the place to go. ebay is a stocky love. up 30%. >> jonas, bull or a bear? >> i'll say that i think it's a-- >> and jonas. >> gary k? >> your prediction? >> i say get to the store, and forget online and wall street stock hasn't moved in 12 years and 25% next year. >> and toby, bull or wear. >> one more year before it moves. >> brenda: jonas your prediction? >> re-fi boom is on, rates at all time low and good for financial stks and. >> brenda: gary k, bull or bear? >> i am a bear on financials. they only ve