Featured Posts

The Latest

Unions busy subverting Right To Work

Unions busy subverting Right To Work

Nolan Finley of the Detroit News discusses Big Labor efforts in Michigan to undercut Right To Work protections for workers. Rather than convincing workers that it is worth continuing their membership in the union, the bosses are seeking subvert new rights: Unions busy subverting right to workIf you're a professor at Wayne State or Western Michigan, or a school teacher in Taylor or Berkley and are eager to exercise your right to end your forced union membership, fuggedaboutit.The mob that runs the public employee unions in Michigan has already figured out a way to keep you as an indentured servant to the unions and their financial beneficiaries in the Democratic Party. Unions at those schools are rushing to renegotiate labor contracts before the March 27 effective date of the newly passed right-to-work law.Because the law includes a grandfather clause, contracts in place before that date aren't affected by right to work until they expire.In Wayne State's case, that would be 10 years from now, if the professors union's proposal to extend the current contract is approved by a board of trustees made up nearly entirely by Democrats whose election campaigns were financed by labor unions.Similar extensions are being weighed at Western Michigan and the Taylor and Berkley public schools, and a growing list of other places. It's a warning flag that right to work alone will not be enough to break labor's stranglehold on local politics and policy making.One of the reasons public employee unions are such a target of government reformers is that Michigan's collective bargaining laws basically create the opportunity for them to negotiate contracts with themselves.All the unions need to do is put their money behind candidates who support their agenda and get them elected in school board elections that attract little interest from voters.
Mr. President, Follow the Law

Mr. President, Follow the Law

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.