Job Losses Increase Pressure For Reform

Job Losses Increase Pressure For Reform

(Source: August 2010 NRTWC Newsletter) Grass-Roots Right to Work Efforts Expanding in Midwestern States Pro-forced unionism politicians like Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-Mich., shown here with former Vice President Gore and President Obama) have lost credibility due to the extraordinarily poor economic performance of forced-unionism states. Credit: Radiospike.com All across America, Right to Work states have long benefited from economic growth far superior to that of states in which millions of employees are forced to join or pay dues or fees to a labor union just to keep their jobs. But over the past decade, the contrast between Right to Work states and forced-union-dues states has been especially stark in the Midwest. Four Midwestern forced-unionism states -- Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and Indiana -- suffered absolute private-sector job declines over the past decade that were worse than those of any of the other 46 states. Midwestern forced-unionism states (the four just mentioned, plus Missouri, Wisconsin and Minnesota) lost a net total of 1.88 million private-sector jobs. Combined, these seven forced-unionism states had 8.1% fewer private-sector jobs in 2009 than they did back in 1999. Meanwhile, the five Midwestern Right to Work states (North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa and Kansas) experienced an overall private-sector job increase of 2.3%. Moreover, from 1999 to 2009, real personal income in Midwestern Right to Work states grew by 17.3% -- an increase two-and-a-half times as a great as the combined real personal income growth in Midwestern forced-unionism states. State Right to Work laws prohibit the firing of employees simply for exercising their right to refuse to join or bankroll an unwanted union. At this time, 22 states have Right to Work laws on the books. However, because of intensifying grass-roots efforts in many of the remaining 28 forced-unionism states, the number of Right to Work states could be on the rise over the course of the next few years. Recession's End Won't Suffice to Revive Big Labor-Controlled States
Big Labor Malfeasance and Gov. Ted Strickland

Big Labor Malfeasance and Gov. Ted Strickland

The Columbus Dispatch puts the blame squarely on Gov. Ted Strickland for his cronies funneling no-bid contracts to his union boss buddies at the expense of a school for the blind, home-care worker freedoms, and more: Misfeasance As executive director of the Ohio School Facilities Commission, Richard Murray was supposed to act as a good steward of the millions of dollars Ohio pours into new school buildings every day. Instead, a report by the Ohio inspector general shows, he has abused his position to push the interests of unions, including the one to which he belongs, at substantial cost to the state and local school districts. His unprofessional behavior disqualifies him for this position. Murray’s union advocacy comes as no surprise; his career before Gov. Ted Strickland appointed him included more than 12 years as Ohio director of the Laborers-Employers Cooperation and Education Trust, a union advocacy group. He is a member of Local 423 of the Laborers' International Union of North America. Strickland’s decision in September 2009 to summarily oust well-regarded former Executive Director Michael Shoemaker, a fellow Democrat, and replace him with Murray shows that the governor, too, is far more interested in doing favors for one of his primary constituencies — labor — than in working for Ohioans’ best interests. In fact, Murray says he was instructed by the Strickland administration to treat construction unions as “constituents” and to improve relations with them.

Big Labor White House Insider Flouts Financial Disclosure Rules

BigGovernment.com reports that Big Labor White House insider Patrick Gaspard (SEIU-ACORN) has failed to accurately report his financials on at least two occasions.  Administration officials continue to mock President Obama’s proclaimed high ethical standards: Has Congressman Darrell Issa’s request that White House Political Director Patrick Gaspard explain his failure to report a $37,000 payment from his previous employer SEIU Local 1199 evolved into a cover-up?    It’s beginning to smell like it!  Rep. Issa’s request refers to the same Patrick Gaspard who while working for a Soros-SEIU political committee employed convicted felons to go door-to-door.  In fact, that same Soros-SEIU committee received one of the steepest fines in Federal Election Commission history ($750,000) because its leadership, in Machiavellian fashion, chose to ignore federal laws and take the risk of paying fines if caught.  So, ignoring a few pesky public disclosure laws is not as unlikely as it may sound.  Questions: How did Gaspard work six days in January for SEIU 1199 h while simultaneously working for the “office of the President-Elect” during “January 1-16” of 2009? How did Gaspard earn, in those six days of work for SEIU 1199, “$17,238.56 [of] carried over leave & vacation,” in particular, after apparently having already been paid 2.5 to 4 months vacation pay in 2008? How did Gaspard earn a 9 week severance payout from an employer (SEIU 1199)? According to available SEIU 1199 financial reports (2000-2009), Gaspard was not paid by SEIU 1199 in years 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004. For the year 2001, SEIU 1199 paid Gaspard only $3,723.  It appears that in at least 5 of the 9 years Gaspard was not on the payroll or worked only a week or two.  An investigation by the House Oversight Committee is warranted.  Unfortunately with
Tweedle Dee Lincoln and Tweedle Dum Halter

Tweedle Dee Lincoln and Tweedle Dum Halter

(Source: June 2010 NRTWC Newsletter) Both Candidates in Arkansas Democrat Run-Off Back Forced Unionism Shortly after this month's National Right to Work Newsletter goes to press, incumbent U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln will face a run-off contest against Lt. Gov. Bill Halter as she seeks her Democratic Party's nomination for a third term. Ms. Lincoln and Mr. Halter ran neck-and-neck in Arkansas's May 18 primary, and neither received a majority of the votes. (That is why the June 8 run-off is required under Arkansas law.) Most election observers expect the run-off will also be close. But one thing is already clear in advance of the Lincoln-Halter showdown: The victor will have a track record of supporting forced-unionism power grabs and giving the back of the hand to the overwhelming majority of Arkansas citizens who support their Right to Work law and oppose tampering with it. The only substantial difference between Ms. Lincoln and Mr. Halter on the forced-unionism issue is that the senator has very recently, with an eye toward the general election this fall, tried to obscure her long history of pro-forced unionism votes. Ms. Lincoln is now suggesting to freedom-loving Arkansas employees and employers that she is an "independent" voice on labor-policy issues.