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."
Rep. Darrell Issa Confronts Big Labor's Refusal to Abide by Law

Rep. Darrell Issa Confronts Big Labor's Refusal to Abide by Law

Perhaps if journalists weren't union members or weren't signing recall petitions against Gov. Scott Walker, we would see more information about Rep. Darrell Issa's report on how workers are being left in the dark about their rights not to join a union and in some cases are threatened to pay union dues.  Thankfully PJ Media has the story: PJ Media has reported on incidents of workers residing in states without “right-to-work” laws being forced to unionize in order to keep their jobs. In some instances, workers have been forced to unionize simply to care for disabled family members. An additional angle to this story: unions have been misappropriating those dues to skirt laws restricting a union’s ability to spend that money for political purposes. According to a report released by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), unions spent more than $1.1 billion in dues to finance political and lobbying activities during the 2010 election cycle. In the 27 states which do not have “right-to-work” laws — which prohibit forced unionization — workers are allowed to resign their union membership, but must then pay so-called “agency fees” so that they are not “free riding” on the union members’ collective bargaining. However, federal law prohibits the use of agency fees to support political candidates and causes to which the non-member objects, and requires that portion of their fees to be refunded upon demand. According to the report, getting that money refunded is extremely difficult: Many workers are intentionally left unaware of their rights, and in some cases are subjected to a campaign of threats and extortion. Additionally, because unions do not have to submit agency fee determinations to an independent auditor, unions can get around a worker’s Beck right by inaccurately categorizing almost all union expenditures as representational expenses.
Rep. Darrell Issa Confronts Big Labor's Refusal to Abide by Law

Rep. Darrell Issa Confronts Big Labor's Refusal to Abide by Law

Perhaps if journalists weren't union members or weren't signing recall petitions against Gov. Scott Walker, we would see more information about Rep. Darrell Issa's report on how workers are being left in the dark about their rights not to join a union and in some cases are threatened to pay union dues.  Thankfully PJ Media has the story: PJ Media has reported on incidents of workers residing in states without “right-to-work” laws being forced to unionize in order to keep their jobs. In some instances, workers have been forced to unionize simply to care for disabled family members. An additional angle to this story: unions have been misappropriating those dues to skirt laws restricting a union’s ability to spend that money for political purposes. According to a report released by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), unions spent more than $1.1 billion in dues to finance political and lobbying activities during the 2010 election cycle. In the 27 states which do not have “right-to-work” laws — which prohibit forced unionization — workers are allowed to resign their union membership, but must then pay so-called “agency fees” so that they are not “free riding” on the union members’ collective bargaining. However, federal law prohibits the use of agency fees to support political candidates and causes to which the non-member objects, and requires that portion of their fees to be refunded upon demand. According to the report, getting that money refunded is extremely difficult: Many workers are intentionally left unaware of their rights, and in some cases are subjected to a campaign of threats and extortion. Additionally, because unions do not have to submit agency fee determinations to an independent auditor, unions can get around a worker’s Beck right by inaccurately categorizing almost all union expenditures as representational expenses.
ERA would require employees to reaffirm unions every 3 years

ERA would require employees to reaffirm unions every 3 years

Most employees working under a union contract have never voted to be organized by a union.  Sen. Hatch and Rep. Scott want to fix that wit the Employee Rights Act.  From the Washington Times: In an effort to loosen labor’s grip on workers, two GOP lawmakers want legislation that would require workers to re-affirm the existence of their unions with new votes every three years. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Rep. Tim Scott of South Carolina are pushing the Employee Rights Act that also would place limits on strikes, how fast a union can organize and how membership fees may be used to support political candidates. The bill has yet to receive a committee hearing in either chamber. Few workers - less than 10 percent of union members - vote to organize. Instead, most workers join an existing union as a condition of employment. This bill, however, would give workers a chance to voice their opinions. Union officials would be up for re-election every three years. At that time, employees could decide whether to keep or eliminate their union. “My goal is to make sure that employees of a company make the decision on joining unions,” Mr. Scott said. “This just gives them an opportunity to say, ‘Yes, I want to be a part of the union.’"

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