The Union Label Newsletter - June 21st
Posted on June 21, 2006 at 8:31 pm by Chuck Muth
UNION SEE, UNION DO(-DOO)
It’s amazing how similar labor unions are, not only in this country, but around the world. Take Fiji’s teachers union, for example. Just like America’s teachers unions, the “professional educators” in Fiji are getting themselves involved in a whole bunch of public policy areas which have absolutely nothing to do with readin’, writin’ and ‘rithmetic. And they’re absolutely shameless in their use of overheated sky-is-falling anti-corporate rhetoric. Get a load of this…
On June 17th, the Fiji Times Online reported that “The Fiji Teachers Union is strongly opposed to any attempts by the Government to privatise water services, saying the resource should be publicly owned and managed.” Adding hysteria to its anti-privatization opposition, Fiji Teachers Union president Bal Ram told the paper: “Because of the high costs people will be forced to resort to unpurified and unclean forms of water which will cause more illness and more suffering to the very people who government intends to assist.”
That’s right. Only government can provide clean, pure drinking water. Privatizing water delivery would only make people sick. The only thing he left out was how his opposition was “for the children.”
If Mr. Ram ever tires of Fiji, there’s surely a position waiting for him here in the States at the NEA.
THE ILLEGAL ALIENS’ UNION
“SEIU (Service Employees International Union) has focused much of its energy on recruiting immigrants and advocating vociferously for their needs outside of the workplace. That’s why SEIU, with its signature purple logo, has been a prominent supporter and organizer of the recent wave of rallies and marches in Denver and elsewhere advocating for citizenship for illegal immigrants.
“…SEIU’s leadership role in Colorado immigrant advocacy has also drawn criticism. The union helped lead the drive for the recent immigrant marches despite warnings from political consultants and Hispanic community leaders that the demonstrations were causing negative public sentiment.
“Some labor experts and advocates of stricter enforcement of immigration laws say the union is encouraging illegal immigration by helping people who sneak across the border get better-paying jobs with benefits. They question how a union can effectively fight for all its members when some of them compete with the influx of illegal immigrants who will work for less and tolerate worse working conditions.
“If national union leaders like Jimmy Hoffa were still alive, ‘They would be in shock that these unions are doing what they’re doing today,’ said Waldo Benavidez, a social service center director and former union leader who is helping to lead the illegal immigrant ballot initiative. ‘They’re aiding and abetting employment of illegals in this country, which hurts the working man, which they are supposed to be representing.’
“Vernon Briggs, a labor economist at Cornell University who wrote a 2001 book called Immigration and American Unionism, said…that SEIU’s tactic of pursuing immigrant workers is a bad idea. ‘I think it’s like taking a shortcut through quicksand,’ he said. ‘As long as you’re pushing for a lax immigration policy, you’re simply undercutting the interest of American workers.’”
- Rocky Mountain News, 6/5/06
SAUCE FOR THE UNION GOOSE
“Chuck: How about union leaders not protecting their American legal workers from illegal aliens, i.e., international scabs? You may know that many illegal aliens are also members of labor unions. How about applying the same requirement that employers have for verifying the ability of employees to work in this country? Labor unions should have to run their members through the free online federal ‘Basic Pilot Program’ that employers can now use. It should be a requirement in the National Labor Relations Act!”
- Carl Olson, Chairman, State Department Watch
SCHWARZENEGGER CAVES TO SEIU
The Service Employees International Union stared the Governator in the eye, and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger blinked. As a result, SEIU Local 1000 weaseled themselves a 3.5 percent across the board pay hike - along with $1,000 cash bonuses - for some 87,000 government workers, including those paragons of customer service over at the DMV. The SEIU garnered this plum of a deal by threatening to call a strike…even though such a strike is prohibited by the union’s existing contract.
This isn’t how Ronald Reagan, a former Republican California governor, would have played it. But then again, Arnold is no Gipper.
LET THE WAGE-PAYERS VOTE, TOO
Here’s the interesting thing about this Schwarzenegger/SEIU agreement: The contract must still be ratified by the union members themselves. In other words, the union negotiators don’t get to speak for the rank-and-file who will benefit from this new contract. The ultimate decision and last word must be made by a vote of the members themselves who will benefit from the negotiated agreement.
OK, fine. But why don’t the people who will have to PAY for this agreement get a vote as well? Shouldn’t all collective bargaining agreements with government employees which are subject to a ratification vote by the members of the union ALSO be ratified by the taxpayers?
The answer, of course, is yes. And it’s time for aggressive legislation and ballot initiatives to bring some simple fairness and fiscal responsibility to these government employee contracts. The California contract with the SEIU is slated to go into effect July 1, 2006. It would have been very simple to stipulate that the contract would instead go into effect December 1st, AFTER and IF voters ratify it at the ballot box on November 7th.
Can I get an “amen”?
KEEPING GOV’T EMPLOYEES ON THE PLANTATION
“On December 2, 2005, Debbie Koepp, a 9-year veteran of the Washington state Department of Social and Health Services, received a termination letter from her department. A two-time ‘DSHS Outstanding Employee of the Year’ and recipient of the Governor’s Quality Award, Koepp was stunned.
“Washington State had recently adopted new collective bargaining agreements that required employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Debbie Koepp had refused to pay dues. ‘Being forced to give money to the union in order to retain my position is a violation of my freedom,’ she said.
“…The ratified contract was 173 pages long, but one small clause prompted massive outrage among state employees. Article 40.3 reads: ‘All employees covered by this Agreement will, as a condition of employment, either become members of the Union (Washington Federation of State Employees) and pay membership dues or, as nonmembers, pay a fee. . . If an employee fails to meet the conditions outlined below, the Union will notify the Employer and inform the employee that his or her employment will be terminated.’
“…The new collective bargaining agreement went into effect July 1, 2005. When the deadline for paying union fees arrived, hundreds still had not signed their dues authorization cards. On November 2, 2005, the WFSE delivered a list of 800 workers’ names to the state Labor Relations Office. The state then notified these employees that they would be fired just after Christmas if they did not acquiesce to the union’s demands. By mid-December, most employees relented to keep their jobs, but a few hundred stood up against the union on principle.
“…With the pro bono legal assistance of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, several state employees recently filed a class action lawsuit against the union and the state for wrongful termination. . . . Nevertheless, in one year’s time, Washington’s public sector unions effectively double their size and income with the new collective bargaining system. This $40 million windfall will provide more money for unions to invest in electing pro-labor politicians.”
- Michael Reitz, J.D., “Labor Watch,” May 2006
