Featured Posts

The Latest

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.
'70s Radical Mark Dayton Gets Court Smackdown for his Big Labor Scheme

'70s Radical Mark Dayton Gets Court Smackdown for his Big Labor Scheme

Minnesota Judge Dale Lindman ruled that Gov. Mark Dayton's Executive Order (EO) calling for the unionization of child care providers is unconstitutional.  Judge Lindman, an appointee of Gov. Arne Carlson, said that Gov. Dayton's EO is "an unconstitutional usurpation of the Legislature's right to create or amend laws", which "is a violation of the Separation of Powers principle." The Examiner called it s "stinging defeat for Gov. Dayton, AFSCME and the SEIU."   Judge Lindman said that the BMS doesn't have statutory authority through Chapter 179 to get involved in this dispute, adding that they only have the authority to mediate in employer-employee disputes. HotAir.com weighs in on the news: Dayton attempted to bypass the state legislature in this effort by declaring through executive order that day-care centers that indirectly receive state aid through their clients are in effect public-sector workplaces — a definition not found in law or in legislative intent.  In fact, as Gary Gross points out, it arguably contravenes state law.  That way, Dayton could order an election that would allow his union allies to force their way into day-care workplaces, including many independent operations, and start extracting dues on a massive basis. I use the word extreme for a couple of reasons.  First, it fits; had Dayton succeeded in his imposition of public-worker status, the precedent established would have been so broad as to threaten the very notion of a private-sector workforce altogether.
'70s Radical Mark Dayton Gets Court Smackdown for his Big Labor Scheme

'70s Radical Mark Dayton Gets Court Smackdown for his Big Labor Scheme

Minnesota Judge Dale Lindman ruled that Gov. Mark Dayton's Executive Order (EO) calling for the unionization of child care providers is unconstitutional.  Judge Lindman, an appointee of Gov. Arne Carlson, said that Gov. Dayton's EO is "an unconstitutional usurpation of the Legislature's right to create or amend laws", which "is a violation of the Separation of Powers principle." The Examiner called it s "stinging defeat for Gov. Dayton, AFSCME and the SEIU."   Judge Lindman said that the BMS doesn't have statutory authority through Chapter 179 to get involved in this dispute, adding that they only have the authority to mediate in employer-employee disputes. HotAir.com weighs in on the news: Dayton attempted to bypass the state legislature in this effort by declaring through executive order that day-care centers that indirectly receive state aid through their clients are in effect public-sector workplaces — a definition not found in law or in legislative intent.  In fact, as Gary Gross points out, it arguably contravenes state law.  That way, Dayton could order an election that would allow his union allies to force their way into day-care workplaces, including many independent operations, and start extracting dues on a massive basis. I use the word extreme for a couple of reasons.  First, it fits; had Dayton succeeded in his imposition of public-worker status, the precedent established would have been so broad as to threaten the very notion of a private-sector workforce altogether.