Why Illinois is Going Broke

Why Illinois is Going Broke

The Chicago Tribune has published a remarkable editorial about the depth of coercive unionization has taken hold among government employees in the state: Across the country, union membership has plunged during the last few decades. Just 6.9 percent of the private-sector workforce is in a labor union today. Organized labor is stronger in the public sector, with unions representing 37 percent of the government workforce. And then there is Illinois. Try to find a state worker who isn't in a union. It's almost impossible. Nearly 96 percent of the state government workforce is unionized. Yes, almost everybody. Bosses, middle managers, front-line workers. Gov. Pat Quinn exacerbated the situation by cutting an election-year deal in 2010 with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The deal guaranteed union workers would not be laid off through June 2012. That meant nonunion workers got stuck with forced furlough days, layoffs and no pay raises. In some cases, they watched the union employees who worked beneath them pass them up on the pay scale. (Recall that, as the ink was drying on this agreement, AFSCME rewarded Quinn with its election endorsement. Don't you love coincidences? Those moments when like-minded people find one another?)
Michigan Renounces Day-Care Forced Unionism

Michigan Renounces Day-Care Forced Unionism

Last year, Carrie Schlaud appeared on a Fox News broadcast along with Committee President Mark Mix to discuss her and other Michigan home day-care providers' efforts to defend their Right to Work. Credit: Fox News But Union Dons May Get to Keep $4.5 Million Wrung From Providers (Source: June 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) Five years ago, bosses of two AFL-CIO unions, the United Auto Workers (UAW) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), teamed up to acquire forced-unionism control over home-based day-care providers in Michigan. The UAW/AFSCME joint-venture union, known as "Child Care Providers Together Michigan" (CCPTM), was set up with the express aim of unionizing "all home-based child [day] care providers in Michigan." Then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Big Labor Democrat, was ready from the beginning to pull as many strings as necessary for the CCPTM union. In July 2006, Granholm-appointed bureaucrats helped establish a shell corporation known as the "Michigan Home Based Child Care Council" (MHBCC). The sole genuine purpose of this venture was to act as the entity against which the CCPTM union was supposedly organizing. Many of the 40,500 day-care providers targeted by CCPTM organizers report that they never even heard of this outfit until after it had prevailed in a low-turnout "mail ballot" election. In 2008, forced union fees began being siphoned out of the reimbursement checks day-care providers receive from the government for serving needy families who are unable to pay their own way. With Right to Work Attorneys' Help, Michigan Home Day-Care Providers Fought Back
Union Czar's Famous Boast Illuminates Today's State Fiscal Crises

Union Czar's Famous Boast Illuminates Today's State Fiscal Crises

'In a Sense,' We 'Elect Our Own Boss' (Source: May 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) An October 27, 1975 New York magazine feature article by journalist Ken Auletta examined the causes of the Big Apple's financial implosion that year. Three-and-a-half decades later, the article is still remembered for a remarkable quote from government union bigwig Victor Gotbaum. The then-head of the extraordinarily powerful, Manhattan-based District Council 37 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union had "recently remarked," the story reported: "We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss." Mr. Gotbaum was alluding to the fact that, in jurisdictions like New York, where union monopoly bargaining over the pay, benefits, and working conditions of public servants is authorized by law, union bosses negotiate with government officials over such issues. At the same time, government union chiefs funnel a huge portion of the (often compulsory) dues and fees they collect from unionized workers into efforts to influence the outcomes of local and state elections. And the outcomes of those elections often determine who represents the public at the bargaining table. "In city after city and state after state, union bosses wield their privilege to force public employees to pay union dues, or be fired, to amass huge war chests, with which they support and oppose candidates for public office," explained National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix. "Big Labor thus determines who sits on one side of the bargaining table, and heavily influences who sits on the other. It is a terrible conflict of interest, which Victor Gotbaum plainly recognized, even as he bragged about it.
Union Czar's Famous Boast Illuminates Today's State Fiscal Crises

Union Czar's Famous Boast Illuminates Today's State Fiscal Crises

'In a Sense,' We 'Elect Our Own Boss' (Source: May 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) An October 27, 1975 New York magazine feature article by journalist Ken Auletta examined the causes of the Big Apple's financial implosion that year. Three-and-a-half decades later, the article is still remembered for a remarkable quote from government union bigwig Victor Gotbaum. The then-head of the extraordinarily powerful, Manhattan-based District Council 37 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union had "recently remarked," the story reported: "We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss." Mr. Gotbaum was alluding to the fact that, in jurisdictions like New York, where union monopoly bargaining over the pay, benefits, and working conditions of public servants is authorized by law, union bosses negotiate with government officials over such issues. At the same time, government union chiefs funnel a huge portion of the (often compulsory) dues and fees they collect from unionized workers into efforts to influence the outcomes of local and state elections. And the outcomes of those elections often determine who represents the public at the bargaining table. "In city after city and state after state, union bosses wield their privilege to force public employees to pay union dues, or be fired, to amass huge war chests, with which they support and oppose candidates for public office," explained National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix. "Big Labor thus determines who sits on one side of the bargaining table, and heavily influences who sits on the other. It is a terrible conflict of interest, which Victor Gotbaum plainly recognized, even as he bragged about it.
Keeping the Gravy Train Rolling

Keeping the Gravy Train Rolling

After bailouts and billions of dollars worth of taxpayer handouts, the big public employee union bosses are spending freely to keep the train rolling.  From the Wall Street Journal: The National Education Association, the largest U.S. teachers union, has independently spent more than $3.4 million that must be disclosed, including ad buys and direct-mail campaigns, for the key electioneering period from Sept. 1 to Oct. 14. The NEA spent $444,000 during the same stretch in 2006. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees has nearly matched its 2006 midterm outlays. It has spent $2.1 million on electioneering since the beginning of last month, according to FEC filings for two campaign committees associated with the union. That is just shy of the $2.2 million spent for that period in 2006. Unions that represent government workers say this year's election is crucial to them, given the uproar over public-sector budget issues. Officials elected this year will face tough choices on matters such as further fiscal assistance for the nation's cash-strapped states and local governments. The issue of campaign-related spending by public-sector unions has received more attention in recent years, as state and local governments struggle with pensions and other costs. Conservative critics and business leaders have said the unions largely seek to expand their influence at taxpayers' expense. Some states have approved restrictions on political use of union dues, for example requiring unions to obtain permission from workers before spending dues on campaigns.