Athens, Greece Meets Athens, Ohio

Writing for the Fiscal Times, Liz Peek details how big labor and their big spending were able to hijack Ohio: Governor John Kasich, elected in 2010 and bequeathed an $8 billion budget gap. Like other governors across the country, Kasich took on the public employee unions, demanding limits to collective bargaining, voluntary payment of union dues and greater worker contributions towards pensions and healthcare. Having been battered in New Jersey, Wisconsin and even labor-friendly New York, union Bigs mobilized, eliciting millions in contributions from national unions like the SEIU in New York ($1 million), the AFL-CIO in D.C. ($1.5 million) and the National Education Association in D.C. ($2 million). Spending an estimated $30 million, organized labor is expected to have defeated Governor Kasich’s reforms. This script did not have to written.Near the end of the eighteenth century, agents of the Ohio Company established a new township along the Hockhocking River. They called it Athens, to remind settlers from the young United States of their debt to Greek democracy – an homage unlikely to be repeated any time soon. Watching the ongoing destruction of the Greek economy, we marvel at the depth of the country’s financial chasm, smugly secure that it couldn’t happen here. Surely, our citizens would prevent the soaring government spending and impossible promises to public workers that lie at the root of Greece’s collapse. The union juggernaut is a tragedy -- not yet a tragedy on the scale of Greece – but a scene from the same script. At the heart of the debt problems confronting Greece and other EU countries, and challenging the governments of Ohio and many other states, is the aging of our populations combined with the generous pensions and healthcare packages awarded to public sector workers. Seeking campaign support from unions, politicians for decades have paid to play.
Union Bosses, Enemies of the 99%

Union Bosses, Enemies of the 99%

Gary Beckner argues that the union bosses and Big Labor are enemies of the 99%: Since the class-warfare message of the Occupy Wall Street protests started nearly two months ago, the two largest teachers unions, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), have taken every chance possible to stand in solidarity with the group of mostly underemployed college students and left-leaning activists. With AFT President Randi Weingarten joining in protests and state affiliates taking part and organizing protests of their own, the teachers unions are quick to point out that “public education, teachers and unions have increasingly come under attack from the one percent,” as Leo Casey, spokesman for the AFT’s New York City local put it. The union support is pouring in state after state. For example, in the union stronghold of California, California NEA affiliate President Dean Vogel called on the rich to pay more taxes. “It’s time to put Main Street before Wall Street, and for corporations to pay their fair share of taxes,” he said. Meanwhile, the union rank and file are resorting to taking the fight into the classroom with lesson plans titled “Who are the 99 percent? Ways to teach about Occupy Wall Street.” As the protests continue and the union rhetoric becomes more radical, one can’t help but find the situation ironic. While the teachers unions claim they are being persecuted by the wealthiest Americans, clearly it is the unions and union bosses themselves that have benefited from a system that takes advantage of taxpayers at the expense of our students. An examination of the staggering amount of money accumulated by the teachers unions puts the situation into perspective. The AFT collected $211 million in dues in 2010, while the even larger NEA pulled in $397 million. Taking into consideration affiliated state groups, the unions collectively take in about $1 billion, more than half of which is taken by force in states with compulsory unionism. If you take into account their vast budgets and revenue streams forcibly collected from teachers, the NEA and AFT numbers align nicely with those of the corporations they so vehemently criticize. In terms of salaries, union executives rake in nearly 10 times the average household income. AFT President Weingarten collected nearly half a million dollars in 2010, a 15 percent increase from the previous year. Are teachers or anyone in the private sector experiencing those increases in times of financial hardship? Clearly, the teachers laid off in 2010 were not made aware of  Weingarten’s impressive haul. Then again, when nearly 600 staffers at the NEA and AFT are raking in more than six figures, the interests of the rank and file seem far off.
Manufacturing Needs Right to Work

Manufacturing Needs Right to Work

If America is ever going to get back on its feet, its manufacturing base will need to lead the way and  Bill Fiala argues correctly that Right to Work laws create manufacturing jobs: The pro-job environment in right-to-work states is paying off with new automotive jobs. Tennessee is the home of Volkswagen’s new $1 billion auto assembly plant, as well as plants operated by Nissan and GM. Alabama boasts billion-dollar plants operated by Mercedes-Benz, Honda and Hyundai. Texas enjoys a large automotive manufacturing presence with Peterbilt, GM, International and Toyota. One reason for these states’ growing success in the automotive industry is their strong right-to-work laws embodying a commitment to a worker’s right to choose not to be part of a labor union. Right-to-work laws are an important factor to companies considering where to set up new operations. In the twenty-two states with right-to-work laws, workers cannot be forced to join unions, or to pay union dues if they decide not to join. In non-right-to-work states, workers must join unions or pay union dues to keep their jobs. If an employee working in a non-right-to-work state fails to join the union or pay union dues then the union forces the company to terminate the employee. What does the automotive industry’s decision to set up shop mean for these right-to-work states? It means jobs and increased tax revenues. An analysis by the University of Tennessee predicted that Volkswagen’s recent investment will raise incomes in the region by $511 million annually and will generate more than $55 million per year in new tax revenues. Other automotive manufacturers and component suppliers are spending billions in upgrades and new construction at plants in right-to-work states. Many states have not been as fortunate as Tennessee, Alabama and Texas. For example, states such as New Hampshire have problems attracting businesses and producing job growth partly because union’s have successfully thwarted lawmakers’ repeated attempts to pass right-to-work legislation. The New Hampshire legislature overwhelmingly passed right-to-work legislation earlier this year only to have the legislation vetoed by the governor. New Hampshire would have been the first state in the Northeast to have a right-to-work law. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation reports that right-to-work states “enjoy faster growth and higher real purchasing power than their forced unionism counterparts.”
U.S. Rep. Gowdy: NLRB continues to pursue an activist, politically motivated agenda thwarting economic recovery

U.S. Rep. Gowdy: NLRB continues to pursue an activist, politically motivated agenda thwarting economic recovery

From U.S. House Education & Workforce Committee press release: NLRB biasis a menaceto business When so many of our fellow citizens are looking for work and America is competing against other countries to land businesses, the National Labor Relations Board continues to pursue an activist, politically motivated agenda thwarting economic recovery and continuing to place our companies at a competitive disadvantage worldwide. Virtually everyone is familiar with the most glaring example of overreach and union pandering, which is the complaint against Boeing. Despite not a single example of job loss and despite not a single worker benefit in Washington State being lost, the NLRB sued Boeing seeking to have it close its South Carolina plant, displace the workers hired, and return the work to Washington State. That is Exhibit A in proving the NLRB has become a sycophant for Big Labor but is by no means the only piece of evidence. Currently, union elections take place on average within 31 days of the filing of an election petition. Additionally, unions are victorious more often than not when there is an election, but that is not good enough. Unions want more, so they persuaded the NLRB to propose sweeping changes to the election process, shifting the balance of power even further toward union seeking employees. By promoting "rush elections," and ruling that elections can take place in as little as 10 days, the board severely limits the opportunity for workers to hear all sides of the issue and make an informed decision. Additionally, employers would have only seven days to retain legal counsel and decipher the complex labyrinth of federal labor law before presenting their case before an NLRB hearing officer. House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline smartly introduced H.R. 3094, the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act, to level the playing field. This legislation requires no union election occur in less than 35 days, thus granting all parties the ability to present their arguments and ensuring workers have the ability to reach an informed decision.

Heritage Foundation: Right to Work Creates Jobs and Choice

James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation confirms what we have known for decades, enacting Right to Work laws create jobs and promote choice for workers: Union contracts frequently require employees to pay union dues or lose their jobs. This forces workers to support the union financially even if the union contract harms them or they oppose the union’s agenda. Several states, including New Hampshire and Indiana, are considering right-to-work laws, which protect workers from being fired for not paying union dues. Unions oppose these laws because they reduce union membership and income. However, the rest of the economy benefits from right-to-work laws. States can and should reduce unemployment by becoming right-to-work states. Right-to-Work Unions often negotiate contracts requiring all workers to pay union dues or lose their jobs, whether or not they support the union. But many workers reject unions. Some do so because union contracts reduce their pay. Others oppose unions’ political agendas: Unions almost exclusively support Democrats, despite 37 percent of their members voting Republican in the last election.[1] To prevent workers from being forced to support unions financially, 22 states have passed right-to-work laws. Such laws prevent companies from firing workers who do not pay union dues. Workers may still pay voluntarily, but unions cannot threaten their jobs if they do not join. Lawmakers in several states, including New Hampshire, Indiana, and Michigan, are considering right-to-work bills. Forced Unionization Is Not an American Value The government should not force workers to pay for unwanted union representation. In a free society, workers alone should make that choice. Right-to-work laws also make good economic sense. They reduce the incentive for union organizers to target companies that treat their workers well. Since unions hurt businesses, less aggressive union organizing attracts investment—and jobs. Lawmakers considering right-to-work proposals should ignore the union movement’s self-interested opposition. Unions could negotiate contracts that apply only to their members—they simply prefer not to. Unions should not be able to force workers to choose between financially supporting them and losing their jobs. Unions Lose Money When Workers Opt Out