Patriot Action Network

-By Warner Todd Huston

An actress, model, and African American business entrepreneur credited with reviving a once-blighted neighborhood and bringing back theater goers to the New York Theater District is about to lose her business to a greedy union that wants to hike the rent for her famous restaurant 350 percent.

Back in 1986, Barbara Smith, sometimes called “the black Martha Stewart,” opened a restaurant in the Theater District called B. Smith’s. Her eatery soon became the toast of theater goers and stars alike. It also became a favorite in the African American community.

B. Smith’s was visited by such famous people as Denzel Washington, August Wilson, Danny Glover, Sidney Poitier, Luther Vandross, Aretha Franklin, Angela Bassett Liza Minnelli and more.

Unfortunately, the building in which Smith opened her famous restaurant is run by the Local One of the stagehands union and quite despite what she has done for New York Theater the union has decided to raise the rent so high on Smith that she will be priced out of her long-time business.

Now with the lease expiring in February, the union wants to increase the rent 350 percent — from around $13,500 a month to about $50,000, going up to $60,000 a month within five years.

Smith is aghast at the union’s uncaring attitude.

“The very nature of the money they are asking says they don’t want us here,” Smith said. “Our attitude is that we survived 11 years and gave the building and Restaurant Row more value than it had previously.”

So, once again, we see the lie put to every axiom that unions put to businesses. They say that they want “quality of life.” They say that tradition and people are more important than profits. Unions claim they are more interested in the community than evil businesses are.

Yet here they are in this case destroying every single thing they claim to champion.

These greedy, money hungry union thugs are the worst kind of hypocrites.

But, these are tough times, to be sure. Perhaps these stagehands need the money? Hardly. Many of these unionistas extort a salary of upwards to $422,000 per year from theaters. They hardly need the cash.

These are just moneygrubbing, greedy unions at work.

Tagged with:
 

-By Larry Sand

To a large extent, the progressives have taken over American education, are transforming it and are doing it in plain sight

Indoctrination: How ‘Useful Idiots’ Are Using Our Schools to Subvert American Exceptionalism is an invaluable book written by Kyle Olson, founder and CEO of the Education Action Group, an organization that is on the frontline of education reform and a champion of school choice.

In this brief and very readable book, Olson describes the ways that the progressives in our society have taken over K-12 education. They have been running most of our elite colleges and schools of education for years now and this step is in keeping with their plan to transform America.

As a public school teacher whose career spanned four decades, I have seen the long march first hand. Perverting the traditional purpose of American education (which has been to make better and more educated citizens), progressives have been inspired by the theories of Paolo Freire, a Brazilian socialist who saw everything through a Marxist class warfare lens.

Carrying Freire’s mantle, current gurus like revolutionary terrorist Bill Ayers and the recently deceased Communist Howard Zinn have been behind the effort to destroy America as we know it. They claim that basically the U.S. and its capitalist system are the root of all evil. Unfortunately, their love-the-world/hate-America attitude has gained an incredible amount of currency in our public schools in a relatively short time. Ayers, Zinn and their ilk have essentially managed to convince much of the education establishment to abandon every teaching technique and curriculum that benefited prior generations. For example, “drill and kill” has been thrown on the refuse heap; we are now supposed to let our students “discover” learning. The “sage on the stage” has been replaced by the “guide on the side.” The only problem with these techniques is that they haven’t worked, but they do sound good (at least to the progressives.) As such, we are now raising a nation of dunces.

Continue reading »

Tagged with:
 

Board Chairman releases details of election proposal for Wednesday vote

National Labor Relations Board Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce today released details of his proposal to amend certain election procedures in order to reduce unnecessary litigation in disputed cases. The amendments are drawn from a comprehensive overhaul of the election process proposed this summer through the federal rulemaking process.

The Chairman’s resolution will be considered and put to a vote at a public meeting of the Board set for Wednesday afternoon at 2:30. The text of the Chairman’s resolution is here, and an explanation of the amendments can be found here. The meeting will be streamed live from the Board’s website at www.nlrb.gov.

If the resolution is approved by a majority of the Board, a final rule will be drafted and circulated among the members for a subsequent vote. No final rule can issue without such approval.

Chairman Pearce issued the following statement in connection with the resolution:

“The vast majority of NLRB-supervised elections, about 90%, are held by agreement of the parties – employees, union and employer – in an average of 38 days from the filing of a petition. The amendments I propose would not affect those agreed-to election

Rather, the amendments would apply to the minority of elections which are held up by needless litigation and disputes which need not be resolved prior to an election. In these contested elections, employees have to wait an average of 101 days to cast a ballot. And as several employees testified at our hearing in July, that period can be disruptive and painful for all involved.

Today an election can be held up by pre-election appeals to the Board, which in the end are rarely granted and even more rarely result in a changed outcome. An election can also be delayed by raising irrelevant issues in pre-election hearings, which are intended to be quick and non-adversarial. Such unnecessary litigation wastes enormous amounts of time and resources for the parties and the agency. The amendments I propose would simply address these procedures, by 1) limiting subjects that can be raised in a pre-election hearing to those that are directly relevant to the election, and 2) postponing any election-related appeals to the Board until after the election.

I continue to believe that modernizing and streamlining the Board’s processes as originally proposed would greatly increase the efficiency of the agency in carrying out its statutory mission. However, because the Board may lose a quorum in a matter of months, I am putting forward a more limited resolution at this time. Other portions of the original rule will remain under consideration by the Board for possible future action.”

To view the NLRB press release, go here.

Read more at Labor Union Report.

 

-By Warner Todd Huston

Barack Obama is very successful at one thing: the bait and switch. He stands before America presenting a picture of a hard-working moderate and claims that he wants to work with the Republicans to get things done. In reality he won’t even meet with them. He talks about compromise, but never offers any. He mouths kind words abut the business sector but uses his powers to make new regulations to destroy its profitability. In short, he’s a radical even though he doesn’t play one on TV. His modus operandi is to assume most voters are too stupid, lazy, or disinterested to compare his hope-n-change rhetoric with his actions.

Obama’s penchant for bypassing Congress and making radical changes to regulations in order to push his far left agenda is a case in point. Obama’s push to radicalize the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and turn it from a non-partisan watchdog agency into a tool for Big Labor is a perfect example of how the President uses regulations to achieve what he and the far left cannot do with legislation. It is also an example of how he is trying to radically change America under the radar of most voter’s notice.

This month Obama’s far left, Big Labor controlled appointees to the NLRB are trying to push in a new rule on the fast track. That rule would take away much of the time that businesses currently have to prepare for the employees of their businesses to vote on whether or not they want to become unionized but would not take away any of the time that unions have to cajole employees to vote yes. This puts employers at a severe disadvantage.

The Wall Street Journal’s one paragraph explanation works well to inform of the crux of the matter.

Originally floated in June as a proposed rule-making, the plan would shorten to as little as 10 to 14 days the period between the time a union seeks an election to organize a work site and the election date. Under current rules, companies typically have five to six weeks to make their case to employees before the union holds a secret-ballot election. The Becker-Pearce putsch would give labor organizers months to quietly pitch workers, then give targeted companies less than two weeks to react and make their own case before a quickie election.

Those that stand against Obama’s constant favors to Big Labor — all for millions in campaign donations, of course — do have one short term weapon to stop this fast tracked attack on the business sector. The last remaining Republican appointee to the NLRB can resign.

If NLRB Commissioner Brian Hayes does this the board will not have enough members for a quorum and no further regulatory changes can be made until next year when Obama can begin to fill the board out anew.

But there is a further reason why Hayes might — and should — resign. Contrary to standing three-vote rule that has been an NLRB practice for several presidents, the two Democrats have said that they will push the rule through with only their two votes quite regardless what Hayes has to say about it. It is this lawless arrogance that has characterized every single appointee that Obama has installed throughout every board and agency in Washington over which he has power.

Even more arrogantly, the President’s extremists on the NLRB has even announced that they are going to deny Hayes the traditional 90-day period to review their rule and write a dissent. Obama’s power-mad, extremists intend to simply pass the rule regardless of all the rules and practices of the very board upon which they serve. They just don’t care about the process.

Naturally, even as the President’s appointees are breaking rules right and left, Big Labor is saying that it is Hayes’ fault. The only guy on the board that is trying to keep the agency on track to obeying its own rules and history, the only guy trying to be fair is the one Big Labor is attacking.

It all goes to show that President Barack Obama is the most lawless, most extremely leftist president we’ve ever had.

Tagged with:
 

-By Conn Carroll

What if there were emails showing Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor coordinating with Attorney General Eric Holder and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs on how the Obama administration should fight judicial challenges to Obamacare?

At a bare minimum, Justice Sotomayor would have to recuse herself from the case, she might be impeached, and Holder would face serious ethics questions as well. But such emails do not exist … concerning Obamacare. When it comes to the National Labor Relations Board suit against Boeing, that is a different story.

Cause of Action, a conservative government accountability nonprofit, has obtained emails through a Freedom of Information Act request showing then-NLRB Chairwoman Wilma Liebman, NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon and NLRB Public Affairs Director Nancy Cleeland coordinating the board’s response to its own decision to sue Boeing for opening a factory in the right to work state of South Carolina…

Read the rest at The Washington Examiner.

Tagged with:
 

-By Warner Todd Huston

You might recall in October when it was discovered that a few union bosses had paid off Illinois lawmakers to write a law that allowed union bosses to serve as a substitute teacher for one day in order to qualify them for state pensions for life. Well, apparently one of those union bosses also got freebies from the state for his kids and extended family.

Steven Preckwinkle, the Director of the Illinois Federation of Teachers, not only got a free pension for life paid for by the taxpayers of Illinois after being a “teacher” for only one day, but the Chicago Tribune has discovered that Preckwinkle also got free college tuition for his kids and a nephew, also courtesy of the taxpayers.

Through a spokesman, Preckwinkle said that his undeserved pension and the freebie education for his kids was perfectly legitimate and that “political connections played no role” in his amazing good fortune. If you believe that I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

The whole situation with Preckwinkle and fellow unionista David Piccioli is an affront to the people of Illinois and is just more proof that the political climate in Illinois is set up to benefit insiders not the people of Illinois.

The union thug’s kids got their free tuition through what is called a “legislative scholarship,” a program that allows Springfield pols to give away college tuition waivers to anyone they please. Governor Quinn has proposed eliminating the program but is meeting resistance in Springfield.

The Tribune also highlighted the crooked quid pro quo that occurs every single day in Illinois.

The pol that gave Preckwinkle his free tuition packages was Springfield Representative Mike Curran. Curran left the legislature in 1995 and guess where he works now? Yep, the very union that Preckwinkle works for.

After he left the state legislature Mike Curran got hired as a “consultant” by the Illinois Federation of Teachers.

Yeah. Imagine that, eh?

In the meantime, Preckwinkle gave hundreds if not thousands of dollars to Mike Curran’s various political campaigns. Quid pro quo.

This is the sort of corrupt bargain you get when you allow state employees to unionize. The best solution to eliminate such insider dealing, fraud, waste of tax dollars, and corruption is to eliminate all public employee unions.

Meanwhile and unsurprisingly, the children of Red Chinese Communist Party members are living lives of luxury in China while the rest of the nation struggles in poverty. Is it a parallel to the corrupt situation in Illinois? What do you think?

Tagged with: