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.

Union Bosses Hate Gov. Walker For His Success

Union Bosses Hate Gov. Walker For His Success

The Investors Business Daily nails it -- the union bosses hate and fear Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker because his plan is working and is a model for other states seeking to balance their budgets: Backed by a massive, well-financed Big Labor machine, the Democratic Party is determined to reverse the democratic election of Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker. His crime? Fixing his state's economy. Democrats and their powerful [forced-dues funded] union allies got the more than half a million signatures needed to hold a recall ballot intended to remove Walker, a Republican elected in November 2010. The vote will be in just over two months. Or did they? "Adolf Hitler" and "Mick E. Mous" were successfully weeded out — plus tens of thousands of other invalid entries. But ABC-TV's Milwaukee affiliate was told by a man on the street that "I think I signed about 80 times" over two weeks. How many others like him were there? There have been two successful recall movements in American history. California Gov. Gray Davis, responsible for California's unprecedented electricity crisis, was replaced by movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2003. And 1921 saw the grass-roots ousting of North Dakota Gov. Lynn Frazier, whose state takeover of farm-related industries rendered the state bank insolvent. [Unlike those recalls] The Wisconsin recall would undo the election not of someone who has been resoundingly successful, not who wrecked his state's economy. [Forced-dues] muscle, not popular discontent, is driving this movement. On taking office, Walker made it clear he meant business and dared to squash the unholy trinity of Big Labor, politicians and money, which poses such a danger to the entire nation. He had the guts to say, "Collective bargaining isn't a right; it is an expensive entitlement." Acting on that principle, Walker balanced a $3.6 billion budget deficit without raising taxes, reduced the tax burden on entrepreneurs, reformed regulation and instituted what he calls "the most aggressive tort reform in the country" against frivolous lawsuits targeting businesses. Is it a coincidence that Wisconsin unemployment is its lowest since 2008? Did Walker devastate state government? Quite the contrary. His clampdown on collective bargaining ended seniority and tenure for public school teachers, replacing them with hiring and firing — and pay — based on performance. He gave each of the 300,000 Wisconsin state workers the right to choose on union membership — and financing Big Labor's political activities through dues. Speaking before the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington in February, Walker emphasized why he is being targeted: "The big government union bosses are worried that workers may actually choose to keep the money for themselves." This explains the tens of millions of dollars they spent last summer on six Wisconsin state Senate recall elections.

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.

Union's Keep Pushing Taxes Higher in California

Who can forget the Chicago Teachers Union Activist above, but that attitude does not seem to be exclusive to Illinois.  California Gov. Jerry Brown is pushing a new scheme to force tax increases on the taxpayers in the Golden State and not surprisingly, it is the teacher's union pushing the plan behind the curtain?  From the OCRegister: Gov. Jerry Brown says the odds improved last week that voters will approve tax increases in November because he and the California Federation of Teachers merged their separate tax-raising schemes into one. This was not a compromise. Mr. Brown caved in to union pressure. Public employee unions were major financial backers of the governor's 2010 election campaign. In seeking huge tax increases to pay for government spending, he is doing unions' bidding. By merging initiatives, Mr. Brown agreed to reduce the increase he sought in the sales tax from a half cent to a quarter cent. But he agreed to seek a larger income-tax increase tax on more-affluent taxpayers. The new initiative would raise the top tax rate by 1 percent for those earning $250,000, 2 percent for incomes exceeding $300,000 and 3 percent on $500,000 and more. The state's top rate already is 10.3 percent, for those earning $1 million a year. The combined initiative is projected to raise $9 billion compared with the $7 billion the governor previously proposed. The tax increases would last seven years, rather than the previous five years.

Union's Keep Pushing Taxes Higher in California

Who can forget the Chicago Teachers Union Activist above, but that attitude does not seem to be exclusive to Illinois.  California Gov. Jerry Brown is pushing a new scheme to force tax increases on the taxpayers in the Golden State and not surprisingly, it is the teacher's union pushing the plan behind the curtain?  From the OCRegister: Gov. Jerry Brown says the odds improved last week that voters will approve tax increases in November because he and the California Federation of Teachers merged their separate tax-raising schemes into one. This was not a compromise. Mr. Brown caved in to union pressure. Public employee unions were major financial backers of the governor's 2010 election campaign. In seeking huge tax increases to pay for government spending, he is doing unions' bidding. By merging initiatives, Mr. Brown agreed to reduce the increase he sought in the sales tax from a half cent to a quarter cent. But he agreed to seek a larger income-tax increase tax on more-affluent taxpayers. The new initiative would raise the top tax rate by 1 percent for those earning $250,000, 2 percent for incomes exceeding $300,000 and 3 percent on $500,000 and more. The state's top rate already is 10.3 percent, for those earning $1 million a year. The combined initiative is projected to raise $9 billion compared with the $7 billion the governor previously proposed. The tax increases would last seven years, rather than the previous five years.

Wisconsin Reality vs. Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn's "Reality Rendezvous"

Wisconsin Reality vs. Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn's "Reality Rendezvous"

Imagine what would happen in Wisconsin if they gave private sector employees the same freedoms. "Our rendezvous with reality has arrived."  That is what Illinois Governor Pat Quinn said this week as he unveiled his state budget.  Their economic slap in the face comes nearly one year after we took steps to get our fiscal house in order. As we were passing legislation requiring state employees and teachers to make modest contributions to their health insurance and pensions to help offset necessary cuts, Quinn and Democrats in Illinois passed massive tax increases. I told you then that our path, although a more difficult one, was the correct path to take.  Now, it couldn't be more clear that we were right.  We closed a massive $3.6 billion budget deficit without raising taxes and without massive layoffs. Illinois, meanwhile, is in even more economic peril because of  tax increases that clobbered their families and businesses.  To try to fix the mess he created, Governor Quinn is out with a budget that proposes the closing of numerous prisons, 60 state offices, laying off 1,100 state employees and cutting Medicaid by $2.7 billion. It's so bad that $8 billion in bills would still go unpaid and state worker pensions costs will rise by more than $1 billion.  Even faced with that, Quinn and Illinois democrats are refusing to tackle the issue, instead calling on "task forces" to be created to look into ways to reign in skyrocketing health care and pension costs.