Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2011 The Union Label Blog & Grassfire Nation
Stefan Karlsson tries to correct what he sees as a few misconceptions on the anti-union argument in response to what the left-wing Economic Policy Institute recently published.
His basic point:
The case against unions has never involved claims about lowering productivity as far as I know. Instead, the case against unions has centered on how excessive union wage demands will make low productivity workers unemployed.
Of course there is more to it and it involves the formulae by which economists arrive at the answer to the question. But it is worth reading his short explanation just for future reference.
Take a click on over to Karlsson’s short post on the subject.
Remember the good old days? Remember the days when union thugs were just normal, everyday, criminals, creeps, and crooks? Well, they still are, at least in some corners of uniondom.
After years of fighting criminal charges, the former head of the union that represents carpenters in New York City pleaded guilty on Wednesday to taking part in a racketeering scheme stretching back over a decade, the authorities said.
The former leader, Michael J. Forde, was accused along with nine other union officials and contractors of stealing millions of dollars from the union and its benefit funds.
The men were named last year in a 29-count indictment that charged that in exchange for bribes, Mr. Forde and the others allowed contractors to pay union members cash wages below union scale with no benefits, to hire illegal and nonunion workers, and to skip benefit contributions.
Unfortunately the quaint days of mere criminality are in the past. Now unions are in charge of government and increasingly getting the benefit of the help their brethren in politics can give them. As Mark Hemingway of the Washington Examiner reminds us:
Forde is facing up to 40 years in prison on the charges. One would think that the prevalence of corruption would make Democrats think twice about exempting unions from campaign finance laws or calling for the card check legislation, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did today. But as long as unions keep writing big campaign checks to Democrats, I don’t think that’s going to happen.
I never thought I’d long for the good old days when unions were just filled with your normal, boring kind of old-style criminals. But here we are nonetheless.
California has been ground zero in the war between over paid state employees unions and government budgetary concerns and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has leveled yet another salvo in that battle by again ordering more furloughs for state workers.
After ending the previous program to furlough 200,000 state workers the Governor has introduced a scaled back plan after the state controller reported that state accounts would be in the red by October.
Unlike the last time, Schwarzenegger’s newest attempt is open ended and will end “when lawmakers pass a 2010-11 budget.” There are other differences in this scaled back plan including thousands of new employee exemptions.
No word yet if the unions will launch another wave of lawsuits over this newest furlough plan. But if past performance is any indication they will.
This furlough idea is one of the quickest means to lower the budget for a state and many other states have followed the practice. But if union attacks against the idea are successful, that avenue for cutting the budget if only temporarily will be lost to lawmakers struggling to end the overspending.
Unions are a chief impediment to solving the various state’s budget crisis. This is another case that will have to be watched carefully.
Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, recently appeared before the Communications Workers of America (CWA) and reaffirmed that she wants to push the woefully misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), or card check, through the upcoming lame duck session of Congress.
This legislation would end the ability of employees to hold a secret ballot leaving them open to union intimidation and would also force federal arbitration on every union vote.
Of course, Pelosi is trying desperately to give big paybacks to unions that donated hundreds of millions of dollars to Democrats in the 2008 election and card check was their dream law.
The bill, however, has met with little enthusiasm in the halls of Congress and has not come to a vote due to a lack of support from all but the most left-wing, committed union supporters.
But in this lame duck session, it is expected that the Democrats will try one last, hard push for all their most unpopular policies in expectation that it’ll be even harder to get them through once the next Congressional session is begun. These Democrats know that they have no support from the voters, but they really don’t care.
Tim Carney over at The Examiner reports that unions and lobbyists are footing the bill for embattled Democrat Congressman Charlie Rangel who is fighting for his political life over allegations of ethics violations.
These sort of legal battles are extremely expensive, of course, and it appears that Charlie Rangel is getting help from his lobbyist buddies and his union supporters who have ponied up huge cash to pay Rangel’s legal bills.
But who’s ultimately paying Rangel’s legal bills? Mostly corporate and union political action committees along with individual lobbyists. Over the past six months, PACs and lobbyists have accounted for a majority of the money Rangel’s campaign has raised this year, not counting transfers from Rangel’s other fundraising operations
The money trail is quite interesting to note. As Carney mentions, anyone that donated money to Rangel’s campaign are now aware, if they weren’t previously, that their donation is likely going to go to pay his legal defense team to fight off these ethics charges.
Things have been worsening for Rangel lately, too. The news has been quite interesting.
A few days ago Michelle Malkin received an email from an outraged Service Employees International Union (SEIU) member in Los Angeles who was mad that his dues money was going to pay for a pro-illegal alien bus tour planned by union leaders.
The tour was supposed to start in L.A. and end up in Phoenix, Arizona and was meant to highlight the supposed evils of Arizona’s SB1070, the anti-illegal immigrant law that has been so much in the news. The union member that contacted Malkin was apparently “furious” over the union’s plans.
I am furious over this and wrote an email back to them to tell them so. I forget to mention to them I am especially upset over them using my dues to pay for this bus and the trip
Well, now the L.A. Times has confirmed the story the outraged union member reported first to Malkin.
More than 550 people plan to ride on 11 buses to Arizona to stage a protest and launch a partnership with Arizona groups to boost voter registration. During the one-day trip, sponsored by the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, participants will meet with Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris, march to the state Capitol and hold a vigil. The participants represent 32 unions.
So, once again we see unions wasting their dues paying members money on political activism that has precisely nothing to do with their jobs.
What about the thousands of union members that support Arizona’s attempt to step into the gaping chasm that the federal government has left by refusing to do its job of protecting the border and monitoring and controlling lawbreakers from illegally crossing our borders?
When do union bosses move to support the members that stand against the lawbreaking of illegal immigrants?
Better yet, why are public employees unions engaging in this activism in the first place? What does the issue of illegal immigrants have to do with their government jobs, anyway? Nothing, of course, but it is the left-wing cause du jour and leftism is what unions are about, not their actual employment needs and issues.
Eric Odom (Media Director)
Warner Todd Huston