Patriot Action Network

Senator Chris Dodd (D, Conn.) wants to give unions more power in the boardrooms of our nation’s businesses. In essence, Dodd wants to force corporate boards under the thumb of unions by federal fiat.

Carefully hidden in Dodd’s new regulations are provisions that give new powers to board members, powers aimed at giving unions more say in the operations of businesses from the inside through investments of pension funds.

The Dodd bill takes away from the states the ability to make rules governing how corporate boards are established and run and for the first time reassigns that power to the federal government through the SEC. Democrats expect to use this new power to affect corporate boards to force pension fund investors to obtain more seats on those boards and that means union pension funds will suddenly have more influence on business simply because of their influence in Washington.

This will severely alter the relationship between business and labor, effectively erasing the ability of a company to operate in its own interests and will force it to serve the interests of Big Labor and Washington D.C.

This is just one more small step in the elimination of America’s private business community and the implementation of a quasi-socialist business state. One more anti-American arrow in Obama’s quiver shot over the bow of America.

 

-By Bret Jacobson

We have long known — and long documented — the heavy costs associated with the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act. These costs include the sacrifice of important principles, such as workers’ rights to choose in a free and fair election whether to join a union, and the right for employees to get a vote on their contract terms (rather than have a federal bureaucrat impose them on workers and small business).

But the costs are much more direct than that. We have long hosted the study by Dr. Anne Layne-Farrar, which found that the economic toll of EFCA would include job decreases ranging from 600,000-5 million. Now, the American Enterprise Institute has taken out its calculator and best estimates in a new study, which finds:

If the EFCA returns unionization rates to 1970s levels, it could reduce economy- wide employment and gross domestic product by close to 4 percent. This translates to about 4.5 million jobs lost and over $500 billion in lost output and income. Job loss resulting from EFCA will tend to fall disproportionately on workers with relatively low levels of education and skills. Ironically, these are the very workers the proposed legislation is intended to help.

The one thing worse than just killing jobs in this economy would be to attack the engine of job growth, which is small business. But lo and behold, AEI finds:

EFCA will be particularly costly to small businesses, which typically start out with small profit margins, face high initial failure rates, and are less likely to have specialized human resources staff to deal with labor disputes and union organization. Between 2003 and 2006, 84 percent of new union certification elections were held at companies with less than 100 employees.

The Congress has yet to officially kill EFCA and card check “compromises” are still floated routinely in the hallways and smallways of power. The longer these concepts are allowed to fester, the longer millions of jobs and small businesses are under threat.

(Originally posted at TheTruthAbouttheEFAC.com)

 

It’s Official Stern Protege Loses SEIU Race

On April 26, 2010, in Corruption, Unions Revealed, by Warner Todd Huston

Earlier this morning I said that it looked like former Service Employees International Union head Andy Stern’s handpicked replacement wasn’t going to succeed her Svengali. Looks like that was correct.

As reported by the Wall Street Journal’s John Fund, the new SEIU head is Mary Kay Henry as we discussed earlier.

Now, we wait to see if the SEIU withdraws a bit from the national scene and again begins to cast its eyes inward as many think will happen under Mz. Henry’s leadership. Time will tell.

 

[Time to break this one out again…]

We conservatives are fond of wanting to oust everyone in office and for wanting to “vote the scoundrels out.” But, I’d like to add one more level to the throw-them-out-of-government arena. Let’s fire every government worker from the smallest village receptionist or sewer worker to the staffers of the highest Senator and every menial clerk and recalcitrant paper shuffler in between. O.K., this is a little bombast, but only a little.

It’s not just pique at the famous laziness of government workers I indulge here and it’s not just the fact that the only reason they got their jobs is because they are pals with one politician or another. It’s not just that they are better paid than just about any real American in the private sector — whether they deserve it or not — and it’s not because they are impossible to fire, nor is it because they get a better pension and health care than anyone who really contributes to society… well, OK, it is because of that stuff. All that stuff and more.

But, the biggest reason I’ve about had it with government workers is reflected in an editorial once published by Investor’s Business Daily, “The New Beltway Babylon,” where it was reported that Washington D.C. has replaced Silicon Valley and even New York as the center of affluence in the U.S.A.

How can the seat of government in a capitalist society double as its seat of wealth? The late Milton Friedman, who warned about the growing mix of government in the U.S. economy, must be turning in his grave.

According to the Census Bureau, the nation’s three richest counties — and half the top 10 — are now all located near Washington, where they gorge on the tax dollars you send there.

This is no less than an affront to true American principles.

IBD pegs this rise in affluence in the are surrounding D.C. to government contracts created by defense and Homeland Security programs bringing in people to fulfill those needs. But, it is surely a larger problem than just the temporary need for Homeland security programs. The problem is more widespread than that.

Government workers make up the single biggest segment of unionized labor in the U.S. As the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports, “The union membership rate for government workers (36.2 percent) was substantially higher than for private industry workers (7.4 percent). Within the public sector, local government workers had the highest union membership rate, 41.9 percent.” The Heartland Institute finds those stats alarming. “The nation’s 16 million state and local government workers form a large, growing, and well-compensated class in society,” the report. “State and local workers earned $36 per hour in wages and benefits in 2005, on average, compared to $24 per hour for U.S. private-sector workers…”

It is disgusting that these government leeches make more on average than a private sector worker. It is also unsustainable.

Not only is it unsustainable, these workers are unaccountable. These people, regardless of how well or how badly they do their jobs, regardless of whether their jobs are even necessary, are not only too often unable to be fired due to their overweening union contracts, but tax payers are duped into paying for these people’s retirement at cushy levels that are far and away better than that of the private sector.

As USA Today reported in 2007, “Retired government workers are twice as likely to get a pension as their counterparts in the private sector, and the typical benefit is far more generous. The nation’s 6 million retired civil servants … received a median benefit of $17,640 in 2005… Eleven million private-sector retirees covered by traditional pensions got $7,692.”

Naturally, we can’t begrudge benefits to certain government workers worthy of receiving them. Teachers, Police, Firemen, and Military personnel deserve their benefits as they provide a professional, sometimes dangerous and necessary service — As with everything there are exceptions that prove the rule. But, why should a perfunctory paper pusher at the Secretary of State’s office get a better pension than anyone in the private sector? Worse, how can we stand by and allow government workers to retire at much younger ages than those in the private sector do, as reported in the USA Today story, forcing tax payers to pay their exorbitant health care benefits and cushy, undeserved pensions for many more years than private sector workers get theirs?

And how can we be so stupid as to allow government workers to become a larger force every year adding insult to injury?

Even when we vote out a member of Congress, for instance, we are not cleaning house. Staffers often stay on from one Senator or House member to another because of their so-called “expertise” in the inner working of government. This adds to government inertia. After all, what staffer is going to do much that would annoy the go-along-to-get-along workings that might upset their apple cart. It also adds to the cost of government.

So, let’s do something about this. No government worker should ever qualify for a pension or post employment health care. I include all elected members of government under that umbrella, by the way. Their unions are unconstitutional anyway, so let’s get rid of those, too.

We need to make government jobs less desirable than they now are, not the plum positions of the entire American work force. It is a crime that, in a supposedly capitalist society, working for the government is more lucrative than working for the private sector.

If it didn’t afford the opportunity for true incompetence and graft, I’d almost rather go back to the days of patronage. At least then we were able to rid ourselves of government workers as often as we did elected officials. But, Chester A. Arthur was correct at least in that we need some level of competence in government workers.

All this, though, is the result of creating the Frankenstein’s monster of a bloated, big government, nanny state. We have allowed it to grow beyond control and some efforts to curb it must be taken before it overwhelms us.

Lastly, before you get into your high dudgeon, government worker. Before you warm that computer up to write me to ask if I think it’s fair that you should have your benefits cut. Let me assure you of something. I am not just asking you to suffer a cut in your benefits… I want you to lose both your job AND your benefits. I want you out of government never to return. And I want your jobs entirely eliminated.

I hope that answers your question clearly?

 

Not long ago, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) President Andy Stern abruptly resigned from his powerful position and we still aren’t sure why. But as he headed for the exit, Stern recommended his long-time confidante and current SEIU Secretary-Treasurer, Anna Burger, to be his replacement. But shockingly it is beginning to look as if Stern’s druthers will not win the day.

Andy Stern has been one of the most powerful union leaders in America for a long time. Along with Burger, Stern was one of the most frequent visitors to Barack Obama’s White House, he’s spent years gobbling up smaller unions and placing them under the thumb of the SEIU with the result that his union has grown exponentially, and he’s succeeded in insinuating his union into the bowels of just about every state and local government office in the country. He’s wielded the power of multi-million dollar political campaign donation funds and has been involved at the highest level in U.S. labor policy. He was even named to Barack Obama’s Deficit Reduction Commission tasked with finding out ways to restructure federal budgeting.

I have my suspicions as to why he’s so suddenly stepped down (I spoke about those suspicions here) but what is beyond doubt is that Andy Stern has held in his hands an awful lot of power as the head of the SEIU. So it is a bit shocking to learn that his handpicked replacement might not be the shoo-in that might otherwise have been imagined.

Ben Smith is even reporting that Anna Burger has already lost her bid to succeed Stern as President of the SEIU. No confirmation from the union has been forthcoming, so I can’t say whether it’s true or not, but even the rumor that Burger might lose the spot is interesting to say the least.

In Burger’s place might be current Executive Vice-President of the SEIU Mary Kay Henry. Her pick is also an interesting thing in that it is widely thought that she might reverse Andy Stern’s top down style of union leadership and return more power back to the union locals thereby diluting some of the overt power that the SEIU has had in Washington. At least those are the expectations of some important inside sources according to news reports.

As to Burger, a recent story had it that should she have come to the president’s chair, reconciliation between several of the large factions currently feuding with the main office in D.C. could not occur. That is not a ringing endorsement, for sure.

Whatever the case, the very fact that the elevation of anyone other than Andy Stern’s handpicked candidate bespeaks of how quickly Sten’s power has waned. If he was as strong as he thought he was one would think that there’d be no discussion at all about who should replace him once he made his desires known.

It will be interesting to watch this play out, for sure.

 

Until recently, Andy Stern was the President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), a union that has served as one of President Obama’s biggest donors as well as filling the ranks of his ground troops. In a surprise move, Stern resigned his post this month and no one is really sure why at this point.

Andy Stern has been one of the closest union chiefs to a president in history. Along with SEIU treasurer Anna Burger, he was one of the most frequent visitors to the White House. He was even chosen by President Obama to serve on his Deficit Reduction Commission — a sort of contradiction in terms that.

Upon his resignation, it has been learned that Andy Stern’s leadership of the SEIU has not brought financial solvency. As F. Vincent Vernuccio reports in the Washington Times, Stern has left the SEIU in pretty shabby shape.

SEIU has seen its liabilities skyrocket during the past decade. The union’s liabilities totaled $7,625,832 in 2000. By 2009, they had increased almost by a factor of 16, to $120,893,259. Meanwhile, SEIU’s assets barely tripled, growing from $66,632,631 in 2000 to $187,664,763 in 2009. A significant portion of SEIU’s current assets are from IOUs from hard-up locals.

Vernuccio also notes that the SEIU’s pensions are in even worse shape being shockingly underfunded.

But is this failed financial situation why Andy Stern has suddenly left his position behind? Maybe, but one can’t escape suspicion that Stern is leaving because of what is going on in Illinois.

For those unaware former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is under federal indictment for trying to sell the Senate seat that Obama left when he won election to the White House.

The accidental release of an un-redacted motion filed by Blagojevich’s legal team has the following nugget of interest:

Blagojevich’s defense team basically alleges that Obama told a certain labor union official that he (Obama) would support Valerie Jarrett’s candidacy for the Senate seat. Jarrett, referred to as “Senate Candidate B”, is now a senior advisor to the president.

And who might that “certain labor union official” be? It’s been widely thought that this unnamed “union official” is none other than Andy Stern, then president of the SEIU and close confidant of President Obama.

It is natural to put two and two together and come up with the thought that Andy Stern is about to become a major problem for the SEIU, President Obama, and ex-Governor Blagojevich all at once if he is indicted or even subpoenaed to become a part of this Blago mess.

If Stern is put under oath and his testimony follows the allegations that he was the President’s errand boy in order to arrange the sale of a Senate seat a firestorm could be headed our way.

One cannot help but wonder if Stern has left his position with the union in order to protect the union?

See the relevant section of the un-redacted motion below:

2. Obama may have overtly recommended Valerie Jarret for his Senate seat

Blagojevich’s defense team basically alleges that Obama told a certain labor union official that he (Obama) would support Valerie Jarrett’s candidacy for the Senate seat. Jarrett, referred to as “Senate Candidate B”, is now a senior advisor to the president.

Redacted portion: Yet, despite President Obama stating that no representatives of his had any part of any deals, labor union president told the FBI and the United States Attorneys that he spoke to labor union official on November 3, 2008 who received a phone message from Obama that evening. After labor union official listened to the message labor union official told labor union president “I’m the one”. Labor union president took that to mean that labor union official was to be the one to deliver the message on behalf of Obama that Senate Candidate B was his pick. (Labor union president 302, February 2, 2009, p. 7).

Labor union official told the FBI and the United States Attorneys “Obama expressed his belief that [Senate Candidate B] would be a good Senator for the people of Illinois and would be a candidate who could win re-election. [Labor union official] advised Obama that [labor union official] would reach out to Governor Blagojevich and advocate for [Senate Candidate B].. . . [Labor union official] called [labor union president] and told [labor union president] that Obama was aware that [labor union official] would be reaching out to Blagojevich.” (Labor union official 302, February 3, 2009 p. 3).