Big Labor Joe Manchin Dances to Forced-Unionism's Tune

Big Labor Joe Manchin Dances to Forced-Unionism's Tune

Sen. Joe Manchin is often seen as one of the more conservative Democrats in the Senate but when it comes to the rights of workers, Manchin still dances to the tune of the union bosses.  The Huntington News in West Virginia takes him to task for his ongoing relationship: Sad news [last] week for Big Labor and its D.C. allies like President Obama and U.S. Senator Joe Manchin. When no one is looking, Senator Manchin reverts to form and backs the President and his NLRB in a transparent Big Labor power grab. Monday, Federal Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia struck down a new rule "passed" by two members of the National Labor Relations Board. Interestingly, Judge Boasberg is an Obama appointee. Ironically, this rule designed to circumvent proper procedure was cancelled because the court found that the NLRB itself did not use proper procedure in promulgating the new rule. Simply put, the court found that no quorum was present as those backing the new regulation tried to ram through their favor for Big Labor.
Big Labor Joe Manchin Dances to Forced-Unionism's Tune

Big Labor Joe Manchin Dances to Forced-Unionism's Tune

Sen. Joe Manchin is often seen as one of the more conservative Democrats in the Senate but when it comes to the rights of workers, Manchin still dances to the tune of the union bosses.  The Huntington News in West Virginia takes him to task for his ongoing relationship: Sad news [last] week for Big Labor and its D.C. allies like President Obama and U.S. Senator Joe Manchin. When no one is looking, Senator Manchin reverts to form and backs the President and his NLRB in a transparent Big Labor power grab. Monday, Federal Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia struck down a new rule "passed" by two members of the National Labor Relations Board. Interestingly, Judge Boasberg is an Obama appointee. Ironically, this rule designed to circumvent proper procedure was cancelled because the court found that the NLRB itself did not use proper procedure in promulgating the new rule. Simply put, the court found that no quorum was present as those backing the new regulation tried to ram through their favor for Big Labor.
Big Labor and the NY Times Hate Recall Elections (Sometimes)

Big Labor and the NY Times Hate Recall Elections (Sometimes)

If finding inconsistencies on the New York Times editorial page were a boxing match, the fight would have to be stopped especially when it comes to recall elections and big labor. Writing for The Blaze, Chris Field discovered amazing contradictions in logic by the Times when it comes to recalling governors:  The New York Times and the labor unions — led by the AFL-CIO — announced their rabid opposition to the recall of a democratically elected governor. They even went so far as to label the recall effort “an unwise move with potentially damaging ramifications” being led by “wealthy, opportunistic politicians”; a plan that could create “instability”; a “rendezvous with potential political chaos”; a “hijacking of an election”; a “tangent of mischievous politicking”; a “sorry indulgence”; and a source of “mischief” — among other descriptions. Of course, their cries of woe have nothing to do with the efforts to recall Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker, whose efforts have saved the state millions of dollars and increased the protection of personal freedoms for those who don’t want to join labor unions. Their state of outrageously outrageous outrage was over the efforts to recall unpopular and failed California Democratic Gov. Gray Davis back in 2003. The New York Times editorial board believed that the recall effort was the “Wrong Remedy in California” (as the editorial headline read): Recalling Governor Davis, however, is not the answer. It is an unwise move with potentially damaging ramifications. The California Labor Federation sent a letter on Monday to the state’s Democratic elected officials alerting them to the “unequivocal position of the labor movement” on the recall.
Obscene images, urine, punches, blockades -- Philly Unions' Persuasion

Obscene images, urine, punches, blockades -- Philly Unions' Persuasion

Union activists have littered a construction project in Philadelphia with bottles of urine because a new company had the audacity to hire non-union construction workers on a new development project. “We’re going to continue to embarrass the Pestronks [project owners] until they start doing the right thing for our community and our society, and that is pay fair wages and standards that have been established,” said Pat Gillespie, a boss in the Philadelphia Building and Trades Council. Of course, doing the "right thing" means filling the union's coffers.  And, apparently, "the right thing for our community and our society" doesn't mean revitalizing a neighborhood as the construction project will do. A statement from the Pestronks' website: "Our dispute is solely with the organized extortion being carried out by the Building Trade Unions management. They are trying to force a majority of non-local workers onto our projects, and force us to pay a huge tax to sustain the Unions’ power structure. The unmatched public defamation of our company, harassment, bullying, vandalism, racism, property damage, and physical assault all add up to EXTORTION by the Philadelphia Building Trades Unions."
Obscene images, urine, punches, blockades -- Philly Unions' Persuasion

Obscene images, urine, punches, blockades -- Philly Unions' Persuasion

Union activists have littered a construction project in Philadelphia with bottles of urine because a new company had the audacity to hire non-union construction workers on a new development project. “We’re going to continue to embarrass the Pestronks [project owners] until they start doing the right thing for our community and our society, and that is pay fair wages and standards that have been established,” said Pat Gillespie, a boss in the Philadelphia Building and Trades Council. Of course, doing the "right thing" means filling the union's coffers.  And, apparently, "the right thing for our community and our society" doesn't mean revitalizing a neighborhood as the construction project will do. A statement from the Pestronks' website: "Our dispute is solely with the organized extortion being carried out by the Building Trade Unions management. They are trying to force a majority of non-local workers onto our projects, and force us to pay a huge tax to sustain the Unions’ power structure. The unmatched public defamation of our company, harassment, bullying, vandalism, racism, property damage, and physical assault all add up to EXTORTION by the Philadelphia Building Trades Unions."
Big Labor continues to demand more from you taxpayers

Big Labor continues to demand more from you taxpayers

A New York State law that determines arbitration awards for unions threatening to strike for more taxpayer money bases its outcome on the government's "ability to pay." With taxpayers footing the bill, Big Labor always seems to win greater benefits and pay -- all at the cost of taxpayers' "ability to pay" more.  From the New York Post's Nicole Gelinas: Last week, a set of arbitrators gave a union, covering Staten Island and Queens bus workers, the same generous contract that a different arbitration panel awarded to the Transport Workers Union three years ago. It’s a bad sign for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) future — including its near future, because the TWU contract is up again. At the heart of the problem is a gaping flaw in the state’s supposedly tough Taylor Law — namely, the way it forces the MTA into binding arbitration. New Yorkers don’t hear much about the 45-year-old Taylor Law unless transit workers are threatening to strike. But the law does much more than prohibit public workers from striking or threatening to strike, more even than imposing penalties for illegal strikes. It also orders that, when public unions and their employers can’t agree on contracts, “disputes over wages and other contract clauses shall be submitted to [so-called] impartial recommendations so that government workers will not be shortchanged by administrators chronically lacking funds.”  Basically, unelected bureaucrats give other bureaucrats raises.] A state panel, the Public Employment Relations Board, makes those recommendations. And, for the MTA, the law directs that these “recommendations” are binding — so, even if arbitrators devise a horrible deal, taxpayers are stuck.
Calfornia Reaping What Jerry Brown Planted in the 1970s

Calfornia Reaping What Jerry Brown Planted in the 1970s

It's not often that a politician has to deal with a problem he created nearly twenty-five years ago. Most politicians sacrifice the short-term political benefit and leave the political headache to future generations of taxpayers and politicians. That's why it is ironic that while Jerry Brown wrestles with a spending and debt crisis in California he is forced to deal with a problem of his own making. In 1976, during Brown's first term as governor, he approved collective bargaining rights for government workers. Since that decision, the government workers unions power and influence have grown California's government spending through the roof as they bargained against the taxpayers for greater salary and benefits that many of their private sector counterparts. One thing you can say about Jerry Brown is that politics runs through his veins. Since 1976, Brown has been defeated for re-election, run for the presidency, elected mayor of a large city and won the governorship again forcing him to deal with a $16 billion deficits and a powerful opposition for reform from government union bosses -- union bosses empowered by his 1976 decision. Brown's solution to this problem shows that while he may have extraordinary staying power he has underwhelming temerity. While he talks about taking on the special interests and making drastic cuts to the state's budget, he is offering large tax increases and minor reforms to the power of the unions. Should the state defeat his tax increase initiative this November, he will be forced to take on the monster of his own making. Don't count on Jerry Brown asking that California become a Right to Work state but it would be a sign that he was serious in addressing the problem of his own making. Chriss Street at Breitbart looks at this problem in greater detail:
Right to Work States Enjoy 'Growth Advantage'

Right to Work States Enjoy 'Growth Advantage'

Compulsory Unionism Negatively Correlated With Compensation Growth (source: National Right To Work Committee April 2012 Newsletter) By prohibiting compulsory union dues, state Right to Work laws spur the growth of private-sector employee compensation in the form of wages, salaries, benefits and bonuses, as well as employment growth. Last month, the U.S. Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) issued its estimates for 2011 state personal income. The BEA also issued estimates for an array of specific kinds of income, including employee compensation, at the state level. The 2011 BEA income data in general, and the compensation data especially, show once again that there is a strong negative correlation between compulsory unionism and economic growth. Overall, private-sector employee compensation (including wages, salaries, benefits and bonuses) grew by 6.4% nationwide over the past decade, after adjusting for inflation. Historically speaking, this was slow growth. However, states that protect employees from being fired for refusal to pay dues or fees to an unwanted union typically fared far better than the rest. (From 2001 to 2011, 22 states had Right to Work laws prohibiting forced union dues on the books. Last month Indiana became the 23rd Right to Work state.) A review of how compensation and jobs grew (or failed to grow) in each state suggests the U.S. Congress could dramatically improve America's economic prospects for the next decade by repealing forced union dues and fees nationwide. Current federal law authorizes and promotes the payment of compulsory union dues and fees as condition of getting or keeping a job. Right to Work States' 2001-2011 Compensation Increase Nearly Double the National Average
Right to Work States Enjoy 'Growth Advantage'

Right to Work States Enjoy 'Growth Advantage'

Compulsory Unionism Negatively Correlated With Compensation Growth (source: National Right To Work Committee April 2012 Newsletter) By prohibiting compulsory union dues, state Right to Work laws spur the growth of private-sector employee compensation in the form of wages, salaries, benefits and bonuses, as well as employment growth. Last month, the U.S. Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) issued its estimates for 2011 state personal income. The BEA also issued estimates for an array of specific kinds of income, including employee compensation, at the state level. The 2011 BEA income data in general, and the compensation data especially, show once again that there is a strong negative correlation between compulsory unionism and economic growth. Overall, private-sector employee compensation (including wages, salaries, benefits and bonuses) grew by 6.4% nationwide over the past decade, after adjusting for inflation. Historically speaking, this was slow growth. However, states that protect employees from being fired for refusal to pay dues or fees to an unwanted union typically fared far better than the rest. (From 2001 to 2011, 22 states had Right to Work laws prohibiting forced union dues on the books. Last month Indiana became the 23rd Right to Work state.) A review of how compensation and jobs grew (or failed to grow) in each state suggests the U.S. Congress could dramatically improve America's economic prospects for the next decade by repealing forced union dues and fees nationwide. Current federal law authorizes and promotes the payment of compulsory union dues and fees as condition of getting or keeping a job. Right to Work States' 2001-2011 Compensation Increase Nearly Double the National Average