Unionists Hijacking Charter Schools

Unionists Hijacking Charter Schools

Terrance Scanlon finds compelling evidence that the union bosses have sent their sights on charter schools which are not required, currently, to join union collective bargaining units. The union bosses see this both as a threat and a pool of potential union dues that are not being tapped: If you can’t beat them, take them over. That seems to be the new union strategy on charter schools. Charter schools are publicly funded schools that are governed by private groups that sign a contract, or charter, with the state. The charter requires that the school meet certain standards of accountability in return for taxpayer funding, but in other areas it exempts the school from many burdensome state or local regulations. Some of the most burdensome are rules required by labor unions. Charter school teachers usually are not required to join existing union collective-bargaining units. This means charter schools can more easily promote good teachers and fire bad ones. But, of course, this has made charter schools targets for hostile union action. Unions correctly view charter schools as a threat to their stranglehold over public education and the tax dollars that come with it. Unions have denounced charter schools for “skimming” off the best students from the public schools, and they have sued school districts that introduce charter schools. Unions have tried to block or repeal charter school laws, and they’ve tried to limit the number of charter schools allowed by states. But in Minnesota, the teachers unions are moving in a new direction. State officials recently have given the Minnesota Guild of Charter Schools, an organization created by the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers (MFT), the right to authorize charter schools. The prospect of union-authorized charter schools disturbs many observers, who predict it will lead to conflict. A report sponsored in part by the Progressive Policy Institute summarized the source of the hostility between the two sides: “Unions believe in professionalism through clearly defined roles, rights and responsibilities for teachers. Charter school leaders equate this vision of professionalism with resistance to change and protection of unfit teachers. Charter leaders believe in competition and entrepreneurialism. Union leaders equate these ideas with indifference to disadvantaged students and treatment of teachers as commodities.”
Major Right to Work Victory in the Midwest

Major Right to Work Victory in the Midwest

After years of intensely lobbying their elected officials and mobilizing their fellow citizens, pro-Right to Work Hoosiers saw a measure prohibiting forced union dues and fees signed into law this month. Indiana Becomes the 23rd State to Abolish Forced Union Dues (Source: February 2012 National Right to Work Committee Newsletter) Just as this edition of the National Right to Work Newsletter went to press, Indiana became the 23rd state to adopt a Right to Work law prohibiting union officials from taking money from employees' paychecks as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In the late afternoon on January 25, a 54-44 majority in Indiana's state House of Representatives stood up to taunts and threats emanating from the hundreds of union bosses and other Big Labor militants who had been crowding the halls of the capitol for hours. Consequently, H.B.1001, a measure making it illegal to fire employees for refusal to pay dues or fees to an unwanted union, was adopted and sent to the state Senate. On February 1, the Senate, which had already passed another version of the Right to Work legislation, 28-22, approved H.B.1001 and sent it to GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels' desk. Heeding the pleas of thousands and thousands of Hoosiers who passionately oppose compulsory unionism, late last year Mr. Daniels had publicly announced he was strongly in favor of making Indiana a Right to Work state. Keeping his word, Mr. Daniels proceeded to sign the Right to Work measure into law once he got the chance. Landmark Victory Comes Only After Nearly a Decade of Intense Mobilization Efforts Right to Work's Indiana victory could never have occurred without many years of careful preparation. In 2003, Indiana citizens who were determined to free themselves and their fellow Hoosiers from the shackles of compulsory unionism launched what they knew from the start would be a sustained, and often difficult, effort to pass a Right to Work law. Subsequently, the organization these citizens put into high gear in 2003, the Indiana Right to Work Committee, mobilized an ever-loudening drum beat of support for employee freedom and built up opposition to forced unionism in the state Legislature. Over the course of the long campaign, the Indianapolis-based Right to Work group repeatedly benefited from the counsel and experience of the National Right to Work Committee. And National Committee members and supporters who live in the Hoosier State have been the bulwark of the Indiana Right to Work campaign. This campaign undertook major mobilization efforts in the last four election cycles and secured three "unsuccessful" roll-call votes in the state House prior to last month's successful one.
AFSCME & SEIU Bosses Spend Big Against Romney

AFSCME & SEIU Bosses Spend Big Against Romney

The Hill is reporting that big union bosses dipped into their forced-union dues treasuries to try to damage Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney: Unions including The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) are making ad buys to hit the Republican presidential contender. AFSCME, the country’s largest public sector union, spent $500,000 on Internet, television and radio ads to air in Ohio that target Romney before the state’s GOP presidential primary this coming Tuesday, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records. Last month, the union also spent $1 million on Internet and television ads opposing Romney in Florida before that state’s GOP presidential primary. Larry Scanlon, AFSCME's political director, told The Hill that while Romney has yet to officially sow up [sic] the nomination, the general election season has begun. "Our position is: We are in a general election now. We want voters to hear our message," Scanlon said. "We have endorsed Obama, and we're going to do what we can to get him reelected." Scanlon also said that unlike other GOP candidates, the ex-Massachusetts governor has concentrated on issues key to labor. “Romney has been talking about our issues, workers' issues, and he's on the wrong side of those issues. So that's why we're going after him,” Scanlon said.
AFSCME & SEIU Bosses Spend Big Against Romney

AFSCME & SEIU Bosses Spend Big Against Romney

The Hill is reporting that big union bosses dipped into their forced-union dues treasuries to try to damage Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney: Unions including The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) are making ad buys to hit the Republican presidential contender. AFSCME, the country’s largest public sector union, spent $500,000 on Internet, television and radio ads to air in Ohio that target Romney before the state’s GOP presidential primary this coming Tuesday, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records. Last month, the union also spent $1 million on Internet and television ads opposing Romney in Florida before that state’s GOP presidential primary. Larry Scanlon, AFSCME's political director, told The Hill that while Romney has yet to officially sow up [sic] the nomination, the general election season has begun. "Our position is: We are in a general election now. We want voters to hear our message," Scanlon said. "We have endorsed Obama, and we're going to do what we can to get him reelected." Scanlon also said that unlike other GOP candidates, the ex-Massachusetts governor has concentrated on issues key to labor. “Romney has been talking about our issues, workers' issues, and he's on the wrong side of those issues. So that's why we're going after him,” Scanlon said.
Heritage to Chrysler: Support Right To Work to Help Michigan

Heritage to Chrysler: Support Right To Work to Help Michigan

From the Heritage Foundation an endorsement of Right To Work Freedoms for Michigan: Did you know that there are no Volkswagen manufacturing plants in the Detroit area? Or Mercedes-Benz? Or Kia? Or Hyundai? Or BMW, for that matter? Apart from having their cars assembled in Michigan, it turns out that those three companies have something else in common: the United Auto Workers union (UAW). It also turns out that every other car manufacturer has something in common, too: not wanting the UAW to do to them what it did to the Big Three. Today, President Obama will address the UAW, and he should receive a rousing welcome. After all, his terms of the auto bailout richly rewarded his union allies at the expense of non-union employees and private investors, giving them, among other prizes, a very large stake of ownership in Chrysler. And together, they stand adamantly opposed to "right-to-work" laws that would empower the nation's unemployed to find economic security with a non-union job. They claim they want to protect "the American auto industry," but this is not about "American cars." The controlling interest of Chrysler is Italy-based Fiat and previously was Germany's Daimler-Benz between 1997 and 2008. This is simply about protecting union fortunes. Chrysler can hire actors in Louisiana to play the part of Detroit workers, and it can produce cinematically brilliant television ads. But wouldn't Detroiters have more pride in a job than a commercial? Chrysler and the UAW must drop its opposition to Michigan's right-to-work legislation if it wants to pretend it cares. Right-to-work legislation protects employees from being fired for not paying union dues. Without that protection, workers are forced to support a union financially even if they'd rather spend their hard earned dollars at home, if the union contract harms them, or if they're opposed to the union's agenda. And if they don't, they lose their jobs. Obviously, when given the freedom of choice, many workers choose not to unionize.