Indiana AFL-CIO: Worker Feedom is a "smack at organized labor" that will "gut unions"

Indiana AFL-CIO: Worker Feedom is a "smack at organized labor" that will "gut unions"

According to Jeff Harris, Indiana AFL-CIO spokesman Right To Work is a "smack at organized labor" and it will "gut unions."  Apparently, AFL-CIO bosses know that if Hoosiers aren't forced to pay union dues, then many Hoosiers will spend their own money on something else.  This may be why the AFL-CIO embraces the anti-free market Occupy America movement, because these union bosses know that 'services' are overpriced and bear no resemblance to free market pricing. So, will  Big Labor convince the Democrats to flee to Illinois again in effort to hide from their legislative responsibilities? We don't know that answer, yet.  But, we do know Big Labor is planning for a January collective hissy fit at the Indiana capitol building. From Associated Press writers Charles Wilson and Ken Kusmer: Indiana’s Republican House leader on Tuesday promised swift movement on a push to make his state the first in more than a decade to ban labor contracts that require employees to pay union fees. Speaker Brian Bosma of Indianapolis told The Associated Press he is confident he can push the “right-to-work” bill through his chamber during the 2012 session that begins Wednesday and is spending a lot “personal capital” to do so. Bosma, who has been the measure’s most ardent supporter, said he hadn’t yet taken a formal tally of supportive votes, but added he “also wouldn’t bring it forward if I wasn’t confident of success.” The proposal would bar private employee unions from seeking contracts that mandate all workers pay union fees regardless of whether they are members. Supporters say the law would help attract new business to the state. Indiana’s House Democrats successfully blocked the measure last year with a five-week walkout that denied House Republicans the numbers needed to conduct daily business. Democratic leaders have so far declined to say whether they will walk out again this session. Indiana would become the 23rd state to enact a right-to-work law, the first to do so since Oklahoma in 2001. Republicans hold wide margins in the Indiana Assembly: 60-40 in the House and 37-13 in the Senate and GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels has come out with strong support for the measure. “There’s nowhere we are we closer than we are in Indianapolis,” said Greg Mourad, vice president of the National Right to Work Committee, which pushes the measure in Statehouse’s across the country. The group has maintained a state executive director to coordinate volunteer support for the measure over the last few years and recently sent three or more new staff to shore up support in tough districts Indiana.
Indiana AFL-CIO: Worker Feedom is a

Indiana AFL-CIO: Worker Feedom is a "smack at organized labor" that will "gut unions"

According to Jeff Harris, Indiana AFL-CIO spokesman Right To Work is a "smack at organized labor" and it will "gut unions."  Apparently, AFL-CIO bosses know that if Hoosiers aren't forced to pay union dues, then many Hoosiers will spend their own money on something else.  This may be why the AFL-CIO embraces the anti-free market Occupy America movement, because these union bosses know that 'services' are overpriced and bear no resemblance to free market pricing. So, will  Big Labor convince the Democrats to flee to Illinois again in effort to hide from their legislative responsibilities? We don't know that answer, yet.  But, we do know Big Labor is planning for a January collective hissy fit at the Indiana capitol building. From Associated Press writers Charles Wilson and Ken Kusmer: Indiana’s Republican House leader on Tuesday promised swift movement on a push to make his state the first in more than a decade to ban labor contracts that require employees to pay union fees. Speaker Brian Bosma of Indianapolis told The Associated Press he is confident he can push the “right-to-work” bill through his chamber during the 2012 session that begins Wednesday and is spending a lot “personal capital” to do so. Bosma, who has been the measure’s most ardent supporter, said he hadn’t yet taken a formal tally of supportive votes, but added he “also wouldn’t bring it forward if I wasn’t confident of success.” The proposal would bar private employee unions from seeking contracts that mandate all workers pay union fees regardless of whether they are members. Supporters say the law would help attract new business to the state. Indiana’s House Democrats successfully blocked the measure last year with a five-week walkout that denied House Republicans the numbers needed to conduct daily business. Democratic leaders have so far declined to say whether they will walk out again this session. Indiana would become the 23rd state to enact a right-to-work law, the first to do so since Oklahoma in 2001. Republicans hold wide margins in the Indiana Assembly: 60-40 in the House and 37-13 in the Senate and GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels has come out with strong support for the measure. “There’s nowhere we are we closer than we are in Indianapolis,” said Greg Mourad, vice president of the National Right to Work Committee, which pushes the measure in Statehouse’s across the country. The group has maintained a state executive director to coordinate volunteer support for the measure over the last few years and recently sent three or more new staff to shore up support in tough districts Indiana.
Gov. Mark Dayton (D-Big Labor)

Gov. Mark Dayton (D-Big Labor)

Trey Kovacs looks at Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton's quest to empower union bosses by any means necessary: Minnesota State Senator Mike Parry (R-Waseca) recently caused a stir with strong accusations against Governor Mark Dayton. “It’s no secret that the labor unions helped buy the Governor’s Office for Mark Dayton… he began to return the favor, most recently by trying to help unionize some of Minnesota’s in-home, private child care providers,” said Parry in a fundraising letter. Sen. Parry’s allegations elicited a strong reaction from Dayton, who called it “inaccurate and deeply offensive.” A review of the facts, however, shows that the real reason the governor is so upset: the truth hurts. Since 2005, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) have been trying to organize child care providers Minnesota. Associated Press found that AFSCME wrote a $125,000 check to Gov. Dayton’s Recount Fund once restrictive campaign contribution limits ceased. Combined AFSCME and SEIU PACs contributed $14,000 to Dayton during his campaign. The Minnesota Family Council calculates that Big Labor stands to gain up to $3.3 million a year in dues from unionizing child care providers. On November 15, Gov. Dayton issued Executive Order 11-31, calling an election to unionize all licensed, registered, and subsidized child care providers in the state. In defense of his order, the governor claimed that holding a union election would ensure that union membership would be “voluntary” and that child care providers not eligible to vote for unionization would be unaffected. Opponents countered that union dues will be compulsory and costs will rise. For the most part, child care providers are self-employed. So how could they be unionized? Dayton and the unions have a simple solution: declare them state employees because they receive state aid to serve needy children. Under their view, anyone who receives any form of state aid qualifies as a state employee. To push back against this power grab, on November 28, a group of 11 child care providers sued to block Dayton’s executive order, arguing that it violates state and federal laws. The National Labor Relations Act and Minnesota Labor Relations Act do not allow employers to form, join, or assist labor organizations. The Minnesota Labor Relations Act indicates that a union cannot gain exclusive representation of workers, unless a majority of workers choose union representation. Dayton’s mandate blatantly violates that provision, as it excludes a majority of child care providers from the voting process. Only 4,300 government-subsidized providers will cast ballots, but a vote for unionization could also force the state’s 6,700 non-subsidized child care providers into a union. As a result of the suit, Minnesota District Court Judge Dale Lindman issued an injunction to postpone the union election. He stated that laws must be passed by the legislature and remarked that the order “strikes me as being very harmful to the parties that are involved.”

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

Union tries to fire trustee who asked to audit taxpayer funded account

Hot Air with a hot story about potential union corruption: We should send out another big tip of the hat to Mark Flatten at the Goldwater Institute for yet another piece of investigative journalism where he discovers some of the rather shocking collisions which take place at the intersection of public employee unions and taxpayer dollars. (A pause here, while I realize that it’s probably no longer shocking at this point.) This incident takes place in Phoenix, Arizona at the offices of AFSCME Local 2960, where one of their trustees – charged with monitoring the prudent spending of union funds – apparently exercised the poor judgement to ask if she should be auditing where some of that money goes, specifically in the handling of a large insurance fund. Natasha Nimer had a simple question: As a trustee in a local labor union representing City of Phoenix employees, did she have a duty to check the books of a taxpayer-funded insurance account it managed? So she asked the executive board of AFSCME Local 2960. The response was an emphatic “no.” She dropped the matter and thought it would end there. She was wrong.   In the months that followed, union officials tried to strip Nimer of her duties as a trustee and steward. They tried twice to force her out of AFSCME, only to have the international headquarters order her reinstated.
Forced-Dues Drive Pennsylvania Public Union Salaries, Outpace Private Sector's and Members' Wages

Forced-Dues Drive Pennsylvania Public Union Salaries, Outpace Private Sector's and Members' Wages

Forced-dues continue to fill the coffers of unions, as well as, union presidents'  and politicians' pockets according to this recent study by the Commonwealth Foundation: Government Unions and Forced Dues Almost half of government workers in Pennsylvania are union members, compared to 9.3 percent in the private sector. Pennsylvania is a forced union state, meaning that workers can be forced to join a union or pay a [so-called] "fair share fee" just to keep their job.  Most government units in Pennsylvania are "agency shops," with a specified union to which workers must pay a fee. When state and local governments automatically deduct dues and fair share fees from government workers' paychecks—as is the practice in Pennsylvania—employees have little or no say in how their money is used. Union Bosses Union bosses collect hefty salaries derived from member dues and fair share fees. In most cases, the salaries are several times the average union member's annual pay. While acknowledging that budgets were tight, AFSCME Council 13 President David Fillman got a 6 percent raise in 2010, making his salary higher than Gov. Tom Corbett's. Dues and fees often go towards expensive conferences, outings and junkets.  For example, in 2009-10 the Pennsylvania State Education Association—the state's largest public sector union—spent: More than $250,000 on a board of directors retreat in Gettysburg. More than $89,000 for a "political institution meeting" at the Radisson Penn Harris in Camp Hill, Pa. $20,000 for advertising in the Pittsburgh Steelers Yearbook. Almost $5,900 at Kimberton Golf Club and more than $5,100 at Concord Country Club in Chadd's Ford. Political Activity and Lobbying
Forced-Dues Drive Pennsylvania Public Union Salaries, Outpace Private Sector's and Members' Wages

Forced-Dues Drive Pennsylvania Public Union Salaries, Outpace Private Sector's and Members' Wages

Forced-dues continue to fill the coffers of unions, as well as, union presidents'  and politicians' pockets according to this recent study by the Commonwealth Foundation: Government Unions and Forced Dues Almost half of government workers in Pennsylvania are union members, compared to 9.3 percent in the private sector. Pennsylvania is a forced union state, meaning that workers can be forced to join a union or pay a [so-called] "fair share fee" just to keep their job.  Most government units in Pennsylvania are "agency shops," with a specified union to which workers must pay a fee. When state and local governments automatically deduct dues and fair share fees from government workers' paychecks—as is the practice in Pennsylvania—employees have little or no say in how their money is used. Union Bosses Union bosses collect hefty salaries derived from member dues and fair share fees. In most cases, the salaries are several times the average union member's annual pay. While acknowledging that budgets were tight, AFSCME Council 13 President David Fillman got a 6 percent raise in 2010, making his salary higher than Gov. Tom Corbett's. Dues and fees often go towards expensive conferences, outings and junkets.  For example, in 2009-10 the Pennsylvania State Education Association—the state's largest public sector union—spent: More than $250,000 on a board of directors retreat in Gettysburg. More than $89,000 for a "political institution meeting" at the Radisson Penn Harris in Camp Hill, Pa. $20,000 for advertising in the Pittsburgh Steelers Yearbook. Almost $5,900 at Kimberton Golf Club and more than $5,100 at Concord Country Club in Chadd's Ford. Political Activity and Lobbying