Featured Posts

The Latest

Big Labor Joe Manchin Dances to Forced-Unionism's Tune

Big Labor Joe Manchin Dances to Forced-Unionism's Tune

Sen. Joe Manchin is often seen as one of the more conservative Democrats in the Senate but when it comes to the rights of workers, Manchin still dances to the tune of the union bosses.  The Huntington News in West Virginia takes him to task for his ongoing relationship: Sad news [last] week for Big Labor and its D.C. allies like President Obama and U.S. Senator Joe Manchin. When no one is looking, Senator Manchin reverts to form and backs the President and his NLRB in a transparent Big Labor power grab. Monday, Federal Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia struck down a new rule "passed" by two members of the National Labor Relations Board. Interestingly, Judge Boasberg is an Obama appointee. Ironically, this rule designed to circumvent proper procedure was cancelled because the court found that the NLRB itself did not use proper procedure in promulgating the new rule. Simply put, the court found that no quorum was present as those backing the new regulation tried to ram through their favor for Big Labor.
Big Labor Joe Manchin Dances to Forced-Unionism's Tune

Big Labor Joe Manchin Dances to Forced-Unionism's Tune

Sen. Joe Manchin is often seen as one of the more conservative Democrats in the Senate but when it comes to the rights of workers, Manchin still dances to the tune of the union bosses.  The Huntington News in West Virginia takes him to task for his ongoing relationship: Sad news [last] week for Big Labor and its D.C. allies like President Obama and U.S. Senator Joe Manchin. When no one is looking, Senator Manchin reverts to form and backs the President and his NLRB in a transparent Big Labor power grab. Monday, Federal Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia struck down a new rule "passed" by two members of the National Labor Relations Board. Interestingly, Judge Boasberg is an Obama appointee. Ironically, this rule designed to circumvent proper procedure was cancelled because the court found that the NLRB itself did not use proper procedure in promulgating the new rule. Simply put, the court found that no quorum was present as those backing the new regulation tried to ram through their favor for Big Labor.
Big Labor and the NY Times Hate Recall Elections (Sometimes)

Big Labor and the NY Times Hate Recall Elections (Sometimes)

If finding inconsistencies on the New York Times editorial page were a boxing match, the fight would have to be stopped especially when it comes to recall elections and big labor. Writing for The Blaze, Chris Field discovered amazing contradictions in logic by the Times when it comes to recalling governors:  The New York Times and the labor unions — led by the AFL-CIO — announced their rabid opposition to the recall of a democratically elected governor. They even went so far as to label the recall effort “an unwise move with potentially damaging ramifications” being led by “wealthy, opportunistic politicians”; a plan that could create “instability”; a “rendezvous with potential political chaos”; a “hijacking of an election”; a “tangent of mischievous politicking”; a “sorry indulgence”; and a source of “mischief” — among other descriptions. Of course, their cries of woe have nothing to do with the efforts to recall Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker, whose efforts have saved the state millions of dollars and increased the protection of personal freedoms for those who don’t want to join labor unions. Their state of outrageously outrageous outrage was over the efforts to recall unpopular and failed California Democratic Gov. Gray Davis back in 2003. The New York Times editorial board believed that the recall effort was the “Wrong Remedy in California” (as the editorial headline read): Recalling Governor Davis, however, is not the answer. It is an unwise move with potentially damaging ramifications. The California Labor Federation sent a letter on Monday to the state’s Democratic elected officials alerting them to the “unequivocal position of the labor movement” on the recall.
Sen. Jim DeMint -- Pro-Freedom

Sen. Jim DeMint -- Pro-Freedom

The Senate's premiere champion of worker's rights, Sen. Jim DeMint, outlines his support for a balanced approach to labor law.  From Greenvilleonline.com: When people ask me if I’m pro-business or pro-labor, I say I’m neither: I’m pro-freedom. Freedom is the only political principle that cannot be bent to serve special interests. Remember how 7-Up used to call itself the un-cola? Well, freedom is the un-special interest. Freedom, protected by the Constitution and the rule of law, works for everyone. It allows everyone — left or right, young or old, rich or poor — to make their own choices according to their own values. Government’s job shouldn’t be to tilt the field for one team or another, but to guarantee a level playing for everyone. That’s why I’m against forcing workers to join unions, congressional earmarks for favored groups, government bailouts of Wall Street, and energy subsidies — both for oil companies and for green energy. Freedom isn’t perfect, but it is fair. And any time government hands out favors, they’ll be unfair to someone. When Washington picks winners and losers, in the end taxpayers always lose, and Ex-Im is no exception.
Greer: Economic Boom in America’s Newest Right to Work State

Greer: Economic Boom in America’s Newest Right to Work State

From Stan Greer at the National Institute for Labor Relations Research: Indiana Performing Well in Job Growth Ball State University economist Michael Hicks: "Indiana just zoomed past the rest of the country in terms of job growth" during the first full month after its Right to Work law took effect. In the U.S.as a whole, the anemic private-sector employment growth of early 2012 got even more feeble last month, as the nation’s business payrolls barely increased by an estimated 0.1%, seasonally-adjusted. (See link) However, job seekers are faring far better in some regions of the country than in others. A notable example is America’s 23rd Right to Work state, Indiana. As the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics first reported (see link) and as WIBC news radio in Indianapolis discussed early today, one out of every eight private-sector jobs created in the nation in April was “created in Indiana.” This is remarkable, because the Hoosier State is home to just 2.2% of America’s private-sector employees. Michael Hicks, an economist at Ball State University in Muncie and a frequently quoted analyst of the Indiana economy, is impressed: “We’ve seen good job growth over the last several months in Indiana but it looks like the nation as a whole was slowing down a bit. But last month Indiana just zoomed past the rest of the country in terms of job growth.” Previously, Dr. Hicks had been publicly skeptical about whether Indiana’s new Right to Work statute, which was adopted in early February and took effect in mid-March, would have much impact on job creation. He still insists its “too early to tell,” but now admits “it’s pretty difficult to say” the state’s sudden burst of private-sector payroll job growth in April, even as private-sector job creation nationwide practically ground to a halt, is not related to Indiana’s new ban on compulsory union dues and fees.
Obscene images, urine, punches, blockades -- Philly Unions' Persuasion

Obscene images, urine, punches, blockades -- Philly Unions' Persuasion

Union activists have littered a construction project in Philadelphia with bottles of urine because a new company had the audacity to hire non-union construction workers on a new development project. “We’re going to continue to embarrass the Pestronks [project owners] until they start doing the right thing for our community and our society, and that is pay fair wages and standards that have been established,” said Pat Gillespie, a boss in the Philadelphia Building and Trades Council. Of course, doing the "right thing" means filling the union's coffers.  And, apparently, "the right thing for our community and our society" doesn't mean revitalizing a neighborhood as the construction project will do. A statement from the Pestronks' website: "Our dispute is solely with the organized extortion being carried out by the Building Trade Unions management. They are trying to force a majority of non-local workers onto our projects, and force us to pay a huge tax to sustain the Unions’ power structure. The unmatched public defamation of our company, harassment, bullying, vandalism, racism, property damage, and physical assault all add up to EXTORTION by the Philadelphia Building Trades Unions."
Obscene images, urine, punches, blockades -- Philly Unions' Persuasion

Obscene images, urine, punches, blockades -- Philly Unions' Persuasion

Union activists have littered a construction project in Philadelphia with bottles of urine because a new company had the audacity to hire non-union construction workers on a new development project. “We’re going to continue to embarrass the Pestronks [project owners] until they start doing the right thing for our community and our society, and that is pay fair wages and standards that have been established,” said Pat Gillespie, a boss in the Philadelphia Building and Trades Council. Of course, doing the "right thing" means filling the union's coffers.  And, apparently, "the right thing for our community and our society" doesn't mean revitalizing a neighborhood as the construction project will do. A statement from the Pestronks' website: "Our dispute is solely with the organized extortion being carried out by the Building Trade Unions management. They are trying to force a majority of non-local workers onto our projects, and force us to pay a huge tax to sustain the Unions’ power structure. The unmatched public defamation of our company, harassment, bullying, vandalism, racism, property damage, and physical assault all add up to EXTORTION by the Philadelphia Building Trades Unions."
Big Labor continues to demand more from you taxpayers

Big Labor continues to demand more from you taxpayers

A New York State law that determines arbitration awards for unions threatening to strike for more taxpayer money bases its outcome on the government's "ability to pay." With taxpayers footing the bill, Big Labor always seems to win greater benefits and pay -- all at the cost of taxpayers' "ability to pay" more.  From the New York Post's Nicole Gelinas: Last week, a set of arbitrators gave a union, covering Staten Island and Queens bus workers, the same generous contract that a different arbitration panel awarded to the Transport Workers Union three years ago. It’s a bad sign for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) future — including its near future, because the TWU contract is up again. At the heart of the problem is a gaping flaw in the state’s supposedly tough Taylor Law — namely, the way it forces the MTA into binding arbitration. New Yorkers don’t hear much about the 45-year-old Taylor Law unless transit workers are threatening to strike. But the law does much more than prohibit public workers from striking or threatening to strike, more even than imposing penalties for illegal strikes. It also orders that, when public unions and their employers can’t agree on contracts, “disputes over wages and other contract clauses shall be submitted to [so-called] impartial recommendations so that government workers will not be shortchanged by administrators chronically lacking funds.”  Basically, unelected bureaucrats give other bureaucrats raises.] A state panel, the Public Employment Relations Board, makes those recommendations. And, for the MTA, the law directs that these “recommendations” are binding — so, even if arbitrators devise a horrible deal, taxpayers are stuck.