Big Labor Choosing Profiteering over Teachers' Jobs

Big Labor Choosing Profiteering over Teachers' Jobs

In Las Vegas, the Clark County School Board is refusing to allow competitive bidding for health insurance for teachers forcing the school district to use a costly insurance program owned by the union itself.  This decision alone could lead to the firing of 1,000 school employees. As the Education Action Group notes: The CCEA is not the first teachers union to form its own insurance company and pressure local school boards into purchasing that company’s overpriced coverage. The Maine Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, established its own insurance entity, the Maine Education Association Benefits Trust, in 1993. The Benefits Trust “ facilitates” the purchase of employee health insurance for Maine’s public schools, essentially selling them coverage provided by the state’s largest carrier, Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Nearly every school district in the state has been lulled into joining this system over the years, according to officials in several Maine school districts. The Benefits Trust/Anthem scam, which discourages outside competition, has driven insurance prices through the roof for Maine schools. The Michigan Education Association owns its own insurance company, called the Michigan Education Special Services Association (MESSA). For years local union negotiators have pressedschool boards to purchase MESSA employee health insurance, despite its high cost.
Right to Work Helps Everyone

Right to Work Helps Everyone

Writing in the Fort Wayne Gazette, David Long, the president of the state Senate and worker rights champion, outlines the benefits of enacting a Right to Work law for Indiana: There is little question what the No. 1 issue is on the minds of Hoosiers today: jobs. It’s all about jobs. Getting a job if you are currently unemployed; keeping your job if you are lucky enough to have one; attracting new jobs if you are involved with economic development. Indiana has seen unprecedented changes in its economic climate the past few years. We are consistently ranked in the top 10 states for doing business as a result of our reasonable cost of living, low taxes, and strong economic incentives and opportunities. And yet, it’s not enough. A quarter of a million Hoosiers remain unemployed, with tens of thousands trapped in an underemployed situation. Our youth unemployment rate is much higher, as it is, sadly, for our returning veterans. Can anyone question that we must do everything possible to bring more high-quality, high-paying jobs to our state? This is the goal of Republican leaders in the state legislature. Last week, we announced that our top priority for the upcoming legislative session is to pass a right-to-work law. There are some very good reasons why this is being proposed. Numerous testimonials by our state’s local economic development specialists show that nearly half of all companies looking to expand or relocate will not consider a state that doesn’t have a right-to-work law. This means that Indiana is losing out on thousands of high-paying jobs and billions of dollars in capital investment. In addition, there is strong research to support the economic case for a right-to-work law. A study from the Bureau of Economic Analysis found that personal income of residents in right-to-work states is higher than in non-right-to-work states. The National Institute for Labor Research found that right-to-work states score better on several key economic indicators, including faster growth and lower unemployment. The concept behind right to work is simple: It makes it illegal for unions to collect dues from employees who choose not to join the union.
Right to Work Opponents Are Wrong

Right to Work Opponents Are Wrong

Writing for the Indianapolis Political Examiner, Abdul-Hakim Shabazz confronts Big Labor's misinformation campaign against Right to Work laws head-on: While at the Statehouse on Organization Day, I took some time to speak to some of the protesters in the hallways about potential ‘Right to Work” (RTW) legislation.  I made it a point to keep an open mind and listen to their arguments against RTW.  After speaking to about half a dozen or so, I have come to the conclusion that the arguments against RTW are not based on logic, but based on emotion; albeit the emotion is fear and it is the most powerful of emotions, but it still a pathos-driven argument. I reached the conclusion that the arguments were emotionally-based, because the “logical” arguments against RTW aren’t very logical at all.  Allow me to walk through the main points. Right to Work is really right to work for less The data shows that when adjusted for costs of living, salaries in right to work states are comparable to non-RTW states. RTW is a way to break the unions Unions still exist under RTW laws, membership just can’t be compelled.  If a union is providing quality service and responding to its members needs, it shouldn’t have to worry about members bolting and leaving their ranks. RTW allow non-union workers to “freeload” off the union. When the employees agree to form a union, they can decide whether the collective bargaining agreement applies only to members or all employees.  So if a union decides to represent people who aren’t members and aren’t paying dues then that sounds like a personal problem to me. RTW interferes with an employer’s right to contract I find this argument the most intriguing.  Primarily since it usually comes from people who have no problem imposing government regulations on business (i.e. smoking bans), but for some reason this regulation they have some concern.
NLRB's Boeing Sham

NLRB's Boeing Sham

The Wall Street Journal looks at the political decision to file a complaint against Boeing and the political decision to withdraw it: What a sham, or scam, or choose a synonym. On Wednesday, the International Association of Machinists approved a new contract with Boeing in which the company agreed to make its 737 Max jet with union labor in Washington state. Yesterday, after getting the machinist all-clear, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) dropped its lawsuit against Boeing's investment in South Carolina. Has there ever been a more blatant case of a supposedly independent agency siding with a union over management in collective bargaining? Boeing says the new contract wasn't tied directly to a settlement of the NLRB complaint, and that it always made sense to build the 737 Max in Renton, Washington because its work force has experience on the current 737 and offers natural efficiencies. But it's hard to resist the conclusion that Boeing felt obliged to make the agreement to save its more than $1 billion investment in South Carolina, where it is building 787s. Boeing might have won a legal battle in the end, but first it would have to run through an administrative law judge, then the politicized and Obama-stacked NLRB, and only then would it get to an appellate court. Meanwhile, its investment was in jeopardy and its legal bill was rising.
NLRB's Boeing Sham

NLRB's Boeing Sham

The Wall Street Journal looks at the political decision to file a complaint against Boeing and the political decision to withdraw it: What a sham, or scam, or choose a synonym. On Wednesday, the International Association of Machinists approved a new contract with Boeing in which the company agreed to make its 737 Max jet with union labor in Washington state. Yesterday, after getting the machinist all-clear, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) dropped its lawsuit against Boeing's investment in South Carolina. Has there ever been a more blatant case of a supposedly independent agency siding with a union over management in collective bargaining? Boeing says the new contract wasn't tied directly to a settlement of the NLRB complaint, and that it always made sense to build the 737 Max in Renton, Washington because its work force has experience on the current 737 and offers natural efficiencies. But it's hard to resist the conclusion that Boeing felt obliged to make the agreement to save its more than $1 billion investment in South Carolina, where it is building 787s. Boeing might have won a legal battle in the end, but first it would have to run through an administrative law judge, then the politicized and Obama-stacked NLRB, and only then would it get to an appellate court. Meanwhile, its investment was in jeopardy and its legal bill was rising.
Newt 'Leadership' Flashback

Newt 'Leadership' Flashback

Right to Work to Capitol Hill: ‘Keep Your Promises’ On January 18, 2011, By NRTW Committee Staff (Source: January 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) Former Speakers Newt Gingrich (R-Ga., left) and Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) both made campaign pledges to support roll-call votes on forced-dues repeal, but blocked action on such legislation when Congress was in session. Politicians Pledging to Back Right to Work Take Charge of House Thanks in significant part to the efforts of National Right to Work Committee members across the country, starting this month the U.S. House of Representatives will be led by a speaker and a majority leader who have pledged full support for Americans’ Right to Work without being forced to join or pay dues to a union. Now Committee members’ job is to make sure Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), and other members of Congress turn their pro-Right to Work promises into action. John Boehner, Eric Cantor Owe Leadership Posts to Worker-Freedom Advocates Mr. Boehner and Mr. Cantor enjoy their top leadership positions in the House in part due to pro-Right to Work Americans’ support for congressional candidates nationwide who had pledged to oppose compulsory unionism.
Newt 'Leadership' Flashback

Newt 'Leadership' Flashback

Right to Work to Capitol Hill: ‘Keep Your Promises’ On January 18, 2011, By NRTW Committee Staff (Source: January 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) Former Speakers Newt Gingrich (R-Ga., left) and Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) both made campaign pledges to support roll-call votes on forced-dues repeal, but blocked action on such legislation when Congress was in session. Politicians Pledging to Back Right to Work Take Charge of House Thanks in significant part to the efforts of National Right to Work Committee members across the country, starting this month the U.S. House of Representatives will be led by a speaker and a majority leader who have pledged full support for Americans’ Right to Work without being forced to join or pay dues to a union. Now Committee members’ job is to make sure Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), and other members of Congress turn their pro-Right to Work promises into action. John Boehner, Eric Cantor Owe Leadership Posts to Worker-Freedom Advocates Mr. Boehner and Mr. Cantor enjoy their top leadership positions in the House in part due to pro-Right to Work Americans’ support for congressional candidates nationwide who had pledged to oppose compulsory unionism.
NLRB: Law Breakers?

NLRB: Law Breakers?

Conn Carroll of the Washington Examiner raises an interesting question:  Did the National Labor Relations Board violate federal law? What if there were emails showing Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor coordinating with Attorney General Eric Holder and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs on how the Obama administration should fight judicial challenges to Obamacare? At a bare minimum, Justice Sotomayor would have to recuse herself from the case, she might be impeached, and Holder would face serious ethics questions as well. But such emails do not exist ... concerning Obamacare. When it comes to the National Labor Relations Board suit against Boeing, that is a different story. Cause of Action, a government accountability nonprofit, has obtained emails through a Freedom of Information Act request showing then-NLRB Chairwoman Wilma Liebman, NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon and NLRB Public Affairs Director Nancy Cleeland coordinating the board's response to its own decision to sue Boeing for opening a factory in the right to work state of South Carolina. But, since the NLRB is an independent agency, shouldn't they be allowed to coordinate about ongoing litigation? Yes and no. The NLRB is supposed to be an independent agency, capable of creating rules, enforcing them and adjudicating them. But because the NLRB has within itself all of the governing powers our Founding Fathers believed should be separated (legislative, executive and judicial), its creators also wrote rules making it illegal for board employees who perform different functions from communicating with each other under certain circumstances. Specifically, 29 C.F.R. 102.126 and 29 C.F.R. 102.127 forbid a member of the board from requesting or "knowingly caus[ing] to be made" any ex parte communications with any interested person outside the agency relevant to the proceeding. That same regulation also forbids any "interested person outside this agency" from making any ex parte communications to board members.