$2.8 Billion More in Job Training, i.e. Jobs For Big Labor Training Camps

$2.8 Billion More in Job Training, i.e. Jobs For Big Labor Training Camps

In a remarkable article in the Fiscal Times, Liz Peek looks at President’s plan to direct more tax dollars to Big Labor through so-called "green energy projects." The plan will require “a ‘green’ certificate for workers in government-funded construction, renewable power and energy efficient transportation industries and for manufacturers of sustainable products.” And of course those certificates will come from “the AFL-CIO’s Center for Green Jobs.” Peek writes: Though the president has also proposed some streamlining of existing programs, he wants to expand the job training budget by $2.8 billion. While upgrading our workforce could make sense, the administration may have a secondary purpose – payback for Labor’s $400 million support of his 2008 campaign, and its expected boost to his reelection effort. Here’s how: the government funds job training programs administered by organized labor. Through such efforts, unions can expand their outreach to the unemployed and disaffected. In the process, they sign up new workers. Meanwhile, Big Labor is offering workers “green” certification through these programs. At the same time, the White House wants to funnel money into “green” industries. It is only a matter of time before such works demand “green” certification, guaranteeing union workers preferred status.
Fact: Union Members Benefit from Right To Work Laws

Fact: Union Members Benefit from Right To Work Laws

The continues Investors Business Daily its excellent job of defining and promoting Right to Work: Should workers be forced to join unions or pay them dues as a condition of employment? Indiana recently became the 23rd state to say "no," and polls show support for similar right-to-work laws in union bastions like Minnesota, Michigan and Ohio. In Michigan, unions are so fearful that they are pushing to amend the state constitution to prevent such a law. The presumption is that if such laws passed, many employees would drop out of unions or stop paying dues, weakening labor. There's just one thing: There is little evidence that right-to-work laws cause people to leave unions. In fact, what evidence there is suggests the vast majority stick with their unions. That may be in part because the laws force unions to be more attentive to members' needs. "Somebody asked me how many workers got out because of right-to-work and I said, well, we don't track that number," said Jimmy Curry, president of Oklahoma AFL-CIO, whose state adopted a right-to-work law in 2001. He claims that no more than 10% of his members even register complaints.
WP's Lane: Progressives Should Oppose Big Labor's Walker Recall

WP's Lane: Progressives Should Oppose Big Labor's Walker Recall

From the "progressive" Washington Post's Charles Lane, an exposure of public sector unionism and its unequaled influence on elected officials and the cost of government: Of course, collective bargaining in the public sector is inherently contrary to majority rule. It transfers basic public-policy decisions — namely, the pay and working conditions that taxpayers will offer those who work for them — out of the public square and behind closed doors. Progressive Wisconsin has a robust “open meetings” law covering a wide range of government gatherings except — you guessed it — collective bargaining with municipal or state employees. So much for transparency. Even worse, to the extent that unions bankroll the campaigns of the officials with whom they will be negotiating — and they often do — they sit on both sides of the table. More from Lane: The furious drive to oust Walker is the sequel to last year’s dramatic battle over his plan to limit collective bargaining by public-sector unions. Walker won that fight, despite tumultuous pro-union demonstrations in and around the state capitol and a boycott of votes on the bill by the Democratic minority in the legislature.
WP's Lane: Progressives Should Oppose Big Labor's Walker Recall

WP's Lane: Progressives Should Oppose Big Labor's Walker Recall

From the "progressive" Washington Post's Charles Lane, an exposure of public sector unionism and its unequaled influence on elected officials and the cost of government: Of course, collective bargaining in the public sector is inherently contrary to majority rule. It transfers basic public-policy decisions — namely, the pay and working conditions that taxpayers will offer those who work for them — out of the public square and behind closed doors. Progressive Wisconsin has a robust “open meetings” law covering a wide range of government gatherings except — you guessed it — collective bargaining with municipal or state employees. So much for transparency. Even worse, to the extent that unions bankroll the campaigns of the officials with whom they will be negotiating — and they often do — they sit on both sides of the table. More from Lane: The furious drive to oust Walker is the sequel to last year’s dramatic battle over his plan to limit collective bargaining by public-sector unions. Walker won that fight, despite tumultuous pro-union demonstrations in and around the state capitol and a boycott of votes on the bill by the Democratic minority in the legislature.