If unions do so much for members, why bully?
Writing for the Orange County Register, Larry Sand, a retired teacher who taught in Los Angeles and NYC public schools for 28…
Writing for the Orange County Register, Larry Sand, a retired teacher who taught in Los Angeles and NYC public schools for 28…
A hearing worth watching. The U.S. House of Representative’s Education and Workforce hearing room was the scene of the decimation Obama’s argument for making unconstitutional National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) appointments and the complete discrediting of the…
In many cases, “official time” is no more than taxpayer-funded no-show jobs. When union officials are on official time, they are without any direction or control from the the federal government even though taxpayers are paying. Many federal employees who have official time status work all year…
In Michigan, UAW Boss Bob King admits that the overwhelmingly voter rejected Big Labor sponsored “Proposition 2” was an attempt to modify the state constitution to prevent Right to Work freedom from ever coming to Michigan. From Jack Spencer at…
"There is no legitimate purpose of labor law served by making a criminal who maliciously discloses someone's name and social security number together to intimidate that person into joining or not joining a union liable to only a wrist slap at most. Especially when a perpetrator of the same offense with any other motive faces a multi-thousand-dollar fine for every count. "The court ruling that ITPA violations by union bosses are preempted by the NLRA is, therefore, preposterous. "But ID theft need not become yet another, to borrow the words of eminent 20th Century American legal scholar Roscoe Pound, 'wrong' labor unions and their officials may 'commit to person and property . . . with impunity.' "In an essay penned back in 1958, this former Harvard School of law dean observed that labor union officials 'now stand where the king . . . stood at common law.' "Over the past five-and-a-half decades, Big Labor has acquired even more legal immunities. But Fisher could prove to be a great opportunity to begin rolling back court-created union special privileges."
After spending millions in forced workers dues money to pass ObamaCare, union bosses are growing wary of the impact of the law. Of course, they are ready to ask for a taxpayer subsidy: Labor unions enthusiastically backed the Obama administration's health-care overhaul when it was up for debate. Now that the law is rolling out, some are turning sour. To offset that, the nation's largest labor groups want their lower-paid members to be able to get federal insurance subsidies while remaining on their plans. In the law, these subsidies were designed only for low-income workers without employer coverage as a way to help them buy private insurance. In early talks, the Obama administration dismissed the idea of applying the subsidies to people in union-sponsored plans, according to officials from the trade group, the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans, that represents these insurance plans. Contacted for this article, Obama administration officials said the issue is subject to regulations still being written. Some 20 million Americans are covered by the health-care plans at issue in labor's push for subsidies. The plans are jointly managed by unions and employers and used mostly by small companies. They are popular in industries such as construction or trucking or hotels, where workers' hours fluctuate. By contrast, unionized workers at big employers such as Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. tend to have a more traditional insurance arrangement run through only one employer.
The Washington Times takes the president and the NLRB to task for ignoring a recent appeals court decision invalidating the president's appointments to the board: When the Constitution puts a limitation on executive authority, the president can’t just ignore it for the sake of convenience. That message was delivered forcefully on Friday in a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. A unanimous three-judge panel declared unlawful President Obama’s installation of three appointees to the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate was in session. The president is compounding his disregard for the Constitution by thumbing his nose at this well-reasoned decision. The nation’s founding document grants the president authority to “fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.” The appellate panel’s ruling points out the use of “the Recess” as opposed to “a recess” or “an adjournment” was not accidental. The term refers to the long break between congressional sessions in which it makes sense for the president to make an interim appointment because the Senate is not available to provide its advice and consent. In his ruling, Chief Judge David B. Sentelle refused to accept novel interpretations meant to expand the appointment authority, saying, “We will not do violence to the Constitution by ignoring the Framers’ choice of words.” Desperate to stack the National Labor Relations Board with Big Labor cronies, the White House refused to allow an old piece of parchment get in the way. On Jan. 4, 2012, Mr. Obama made the appointments even though the Senate was conducting “pro forma” business and the House of Representatives purposely chose to remain in session to thwart the potential recess appointments. Administration lawyers argued before the court that the president, not Congress, had the ultimate power to decide when the Congress was in session. Under this interpretation, Senate participation in the nomination process would be converted from a check and balance on the executive to an empty formality.
President Obama scolded Michigan Governor Rick Snyder for his efforts to make Michigan competitive again by enacting a Right to Work law. Governor Snyder told Obama, “Thanks for sharing,” MLive reported: Lots of folks scoffed in town when reports surfaced that…
Kyle Olsen looks at how taxpayers in the Big Apple are taken for a ride by the union bosses: New York City Schools Spend $6,900 Per Student - on Bus Transportation! Government schools are an expensive endeavor, especially when union labor and no-bid contracts are involved. The New York City Department of Education has been catching heat from transportation unions lately over a decision to solicit bids for private transportation services in an effort to curtail runaway costs. The district has not sought “significant” bids for student transportation services in 33 years. That means it’s probably been using the same companies for years, without competitive bids to naturally control rising costs. And those costs are increased every year because the companies use high-paid union drivers. In response to the union criticism, the DOE recently issued a “School Bus Bids FAQ” which makes a staggering admission: the city spends $6,900 per student (for a total of $1.1 billion) per year for bus transportation. In a 180 day school year, that’s $38.33 per student a day. At that rate it might be more cost-effective for the school system to distribute vouchers for kids to take taxis. City officials say New York spends more than twice what Los Angeles (the nation’s second-largest city) spends on K-12 student transportation.