Home / Unions
Showing posts with label Unions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Unions. Show all posts
Massive political expenditures by Public Teacher Unions

Massive political expenditures by Public Teacher Unions

My own guess is that education vouchers would not only vastly improve the quality of education (improving it the most for those who are stuck in the worst schools, namely where the poor, minorities live), but it would also reduce unionization of teachers and reduce the political pressure that helps hurt the quality of education for those at the bottom of the economic ladder. This discussion explains why you would be missing much of the public unions' political activity if you only looked at their donations to politicians. From the WSJ:
What do the American Ireland Fund, the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network have in common?

All have received some of the more than $330 million that America's two largest teachers unions spent in the past five years on outside causes, political campaigns, lobbying and issue education.

The contributions—totaling more than $200 million from the National Education Association and more than $130 million from the American Federation of Teachers—were disclosed in annual reports that unions file with the Labor Department detailing their spending on political activities and advocacy work, as well as separate political-action-committee filings. . . .

Members' dues underwrite much of the unions' "political activities," but not donations to candidates, parties and PACs. Those are funded by voluntary contributions. The NEA, the largest teachers union, with about 3.2 million members, also has a super PAC, which can raise unlimited funds. That super PAC had more than $3 million in cash on hand the end of June. . . .

The lack of reality by the "Occupy Wall Street" movement


Here is a question: if this is an accurate view of the world, why is it that the US has the highest corporate income tax rate in the world?  Why do we have a rate that is about 5 percentage points higher than the next highest country?

Few Wisconsin public employee members agree to continue paying dues when given a chance

Few Wisconsin public employee members agree to continue paying dues when given a chance

A 54 percent drop in membership is pretty significant.  What does it tell us that over half of union members aren't willing to pay these dues?  From the WSJ:

Wisconsin membership in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees—the state's second-largest public-sector union after the National Education Association, which represents teachers—fell to 28,745 in February from 62,818 in March 2011, according to a person who has viewed Afscme's figures. A spokesman for Afscme declined to comment.
Much of that decline came from Afscme Council 24, which represents Wisconsin state workers, whose membership plunged by two-thirds to 7,100 from 22,300 last year.
A provision of the Walker law that eliminated automatic dues collection hurt union membership. When a public-sector contract expires the state now stops collecting dues from the affected workers' paychecks unless they say they want the dues taken out, said Peter Davis, general counsel of the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission.
In many cases, Afscme dropped members from its rolls after it failed to get them to affirm they want dues collected, said a labor official familiar with Afscme's figures. In a smaller number of cases, membership losses were due to worker layoffs. . . .
Under a deal struck by the UAW during GM's bankruptcy, laid-off non-union workers will not be hired back

Under a deal struck by the UAW during GM's bankruptcy, laid-off non-union workers will not be hired back

From the WSJ:
Even General Motors Co.'s Lordstown, Ohio, complex, long known for its money-losing small cars and its bad labor climate, is running 24 hours a day, with more than 4,000 workers churning out hot-selling Chevy Cruze compacts. But here in Moraine, the GM assembly plant closed for good. Despite being one of GM's most productive and cooperative factories, Moraine was closed following the company's 2007 labor pact with the United Auto Workers union. Under a deal struck by the UAW during GM's bankruptcy two years later, Moraine's 2,500 laid-off workers were barred from transferring to other plants, locking them out of the industry's rebound. The trouble with Moraine: Its workers weren't in the UAW. "We did everything we could to keep that plant open and keep our jobs," said Mitchell Wood, a 44-year-old father of two who used to attach tailgates onto sport-utility vehicles at Moraine. "But in the end, we didn't have a chance, not being in the UAW." The plight of Moraine workers highlights the extraordinary role played by the UAW during the near-collapses and bankruptcy reorganizations of GM and Chrysler Group LLC. That role remains a political flash point today. Democrats have cast President Barack Obama and the UAW as saviors of America's auto industry. Republicans call the help a taxpayer-funded giveaway to the president's union allies. . . .
Piece in Investors' Business Daily: Big Labor's Endorsement For Obama Is All About Repaying Favors

Piece in Investors' Business Daily: Big Labor's Endorsement For Obama Is All About Repaying Favors


My piece starts this way:

This month the AFL-CIO "enthusiastically" endorsed Obama's re-election bid. No surprise there. No previous president has created anywhere near as large wealth transfers to unions.
Obama's $825 billion stimulus package targeted union jobs. Then there was the $26 billion Public Sector Jobs Bill of 2010. And the Disaster Relief and the Summer Jobs Act of 2010 provided another $24 billion to specifically help teachers, police and firefighters.
The stimulus required Davis-Bacon "prevailing wages and benefits" rules for contracts receiving any stimulus money. These rules typically force companies to pay union wages. . . .
Unions plan on spending more than $450 million this election year

Unions plan on spending more than $450 million this election year

Of course, this amount of money isn't directly comparable to other campaign donations because unions provide huge in kind donations through "volunteer" work. From Politico:

. . . Top labor leaders say they expect to spend more than ever before on both state and federal contests this year. And if recent elections are any indicator, unions could drop more than $450 million, which they reportedly doled out in the 2008 election.
Even in an age of billionaire-backed super PACs, that’s the kind of money that could have a major impact on a fight, particularly at the state and local-level, where unions plan to focus their attention.
The union playbook: safeguard Democratic governors’ seats, flip state legislatures and hamstring anti-union ballot initiatives.
“I think that the labor movement as a whole will be stepping up, and that will mean in this post-Citizens United world, having to spend more resources in this cycle,” said AFL-CIO political director Michael Podhorzer. But more cash going to state and local elections won’t come at the expense of federal races, he added. “This is a period of crisis for workers and the labor movement has to step up and be present at all levels of government to protect workers.” . . .
Enemy No. 1: Scott Walker . . .
Unions are also hoping to elect more labor backers to state legislatures throughout the country, but with a heavy focus on the Midwest . . .
Unions continue spending lots of money to damage Romney in primaries

Unions continue spending lots of money to damage Romney in primaries

Obviously these campaign expenditures are made possible by the Citizen's United Case. Democrats have no problem using this ruling for their own benefit. I remember that AFSCME had spent $1 million just in Florida's Republican primary to attack Romney. From The Hill Newspaper:

Several unions that back President Obama’s reelection bid are spending big in an effort to damage Mitt Romney in key GOP primary states.

Unions including The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) are making ad buys to hit the Republican presidential contenders on issues key to their members, including immigration reform and the bailout of the auto industry.

The primary focus of the attacks, however, has been Romney, who appears likely to face off against Obama in the fall.
Larry Scanlon, AFSCME's political director, told The Hill that while Romney has yet to officially sow up the nomination, the general election season has begun.

"Our position is: We are in a general election now. We want voters to hear our message," Scanlon said. "We have endorsed Obama, and we're going to do what we can to get him reelected."

AFSCME, the country’s largest public sector union, spent $500,000 on Internet, television and radio ads to air in Ohio that target Romney before the state’s GOP presidential primary this coming Tuesday, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records. . . .

Scanlon said the large expenditures were not intended to influence GOP contests, but rather to define Romney for all voters. . . .
NJ Public Teachers Union Chief makes embarrassing comment about vouchers for the poor

NJ Public Teachers Union Chief makes embarrassing comment about vouchers for the poor

The life's not fair comment surely implies that the poor would have been better off with vouchers. Possibly life shouldn't be fair for the well paid union members. From Fox News:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called Wednesday for a state teachers union chief to resign, after the union boss said in an interview that "life's not always fair" while arguing against vouchers to send poor students to private schools.
Christie, who has clashed repeatedly with the union over his education proposals, called the remark "outrageous" at a town hall meeting.
The call from the governor was the latest fallout for New Jersey Education Association Executive Director Vincent Giordano, whose own salary tops $300,000.
Giordano made the comment on the local "New Jersey Capitol Report" program over the weekend. During the interview, he was challenged by the host on why low-income families should not have the same options as other families when their child is in a failing school.
"Those parents should have exactly the same options and they do. We don't say that you can't take your kid out of the public school. We would argue not and we would say 'let's work more closely and more harmoniously,'" Giordano said.
When told some families cannot afford to finance the shift to private school without government help, Giordano said: "Well, you know, life's not always fair and I'm sorry about that."
The interview clip swiftly spread on the web, along with reminders about Giordano's healthy salary.
The Newark Star-Ledger reported in 2010 that his salary was nearly $422,000, and total compensation roughly $550,000 when deferred compensation and other benefits are counted. . . . .
The Teacher's Unions and Congressional Democrats

The Teacher's Unions and Congressional Democrats

Here is how the NEA grades congressmen.

The partisan divide plaguing Washington is evident in the National Education Association’s recently released Legislative Report Card for the first session of the 112th Congress (2011). The annual report card measures members’ of Congress overall support for public education and educators, with each member receiving a letter grade of A, B, C, D or F.

In 2011, only 57 Congressional Republicans earned passing NEA grades, while 143 did so in 2005. “Unfortunately, these ratings confirm that Congress is increasingly divided. We all have a responsibility to help our students succeed—especially our elected leaders,” said NEA President Dennis Van Roekel.

The grades of more moderate Democrats and Republicans rebounded from 2009-2010 lows as a result of bipartisan opposition to attacks on worker’s rights and support for education programs such as Title 1 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee also worked in bipartisan fashion to adopt some needed improvements to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

“We have to work together to ensure adequate and equal funding for all public schools so that all students have the opportunity to succeed in school and in life,” said Van Roekel. “These men and women hold much of the future of our students in their hands and we need to know if our member of Congress supports public education and workers’ rights.”

NEA graded members of Congress based on selected votes in 2011. . . .
Is Obama's desire to subsidize manufacturing jobs related to the fact that is where the union jobs tend to be?

Is Obama's desire to subsidize manufacturing jobs related to the fact that is where the union jobs tend to be?

The NY Times notes:

In his State of the Union address, President Obama called for a wide-ranging package of policies to help create American manufacturing jobs, including trade enforcement measures, business tax breaks and worker training programs. In many ways, the proposal is surprising, as few economists now consider manufacturing a potent engine for job growth in the United States. . . .


Economists would advocate treating all businesses the same, but the Obama administration doesn't think so. So this begs the question about why should the president single out manufacturing for special benefits? My guess is that it is unions.
Did Obama's union biased Stimulus slightly increase the number of workers in unionized firms?

Did Obama's union biased Stimulus slightly increase the number of workers in unionized firms?

All those rules requiring that work be done by unionized workers only had a small (I assume temporary) impact on the percent of workers who are unionized. From the WSJ:

The percentage of workers who belong to a union inched down to 11.8% from 11.9% in 2010, a decline the Bureau of Labor Statistics said left the rate "essentially unchanged." . . .

In 2011, the private sector added about 110,000 union members, pushing the total there to 7.2 million. In the public sector, membership fell by 61,000 as budget-strapped federal, state and local governments cut jobs.

Still, public-sector union members continued to account for more than half of the nation's total union members, and their membership rate of 37% remained five times greater than the private sector's rate of 6.9%. . . .
Public Employee Union Puts $1 million into Super PAC ads attacking Romney

Public Employee Union Puts $1 million into Super PAC ads attacking Romney

This should give Republicans some pause. Apparently public employee unions think that it is a good investment to put money into Super PAC attack ads against Romney. The obvious question is: why? Do they believe that Romney is the strongest candidate for the fall? Do they think that these attacks between Republicans are going to weaken the party for this fall? One thing seems pretty certain: this isn't good news. From the Washington Times (Public employees union heaps cash into GOP ad attacks on Romney, January 22, 2012):

An unlikely combatant has jumped into the big-money battle between independent groups running ads weighing in on the Republican presidential primary: a national union representing public employees. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) spent $1 million Friday on an ad accusing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney of greed, Federal Election Commission records show.

The liberal group’s intent is to sway the outcome of the Republican primary in Florida, with ads running there before the state’s party elections Jan. 31. The strategy seems to indicate that the union views Mr. Romney as the most realistic threat to President Obama and would much prefer to see Republicans field another candidate, such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, against Mr. Obama in the general election.

The piling-on of a liberal group on top of the Republican organizations attacking Mr. Romney highlights an irony to the 2010 Supreme Court decision that injected massive independent expenditures into politics with a ruling cheered by many conservatives: The majority of the spending thus far has been used to demonize Republicans. . . .
Unions for Hostess Bakery Brand into Bankruptcy

Unions for Hostess Bakery Brand into Bankruptcy

Unions are problematic. They are particularly problematic when a company has to deal with multiple unions. Each union hopes that the other unions will give in and it won't have to. From the WSJ:

The privately held Irving, Texas, company's move marks the second significant court restructuring in the past several years. In a statement, Hostess said the current cost structure "is not competitive, primarily due to legacy pension and medical benefit obligations and restrictive work rules." It said it would be able to maintain operations thanks to a $75 million financing commitment from a group of lenders.

In bankruptcy, Hostess said it plans to continue negotiating with 12 unions to modify the collective-bargaining agreements governing the employment of its union workers, who comprise 83% of its approximately 19,000 employees.

"Whether the debtors can achieve long-term viability depends directly and substantially on the debtors' ability to achieve dramatic change to their labor agreements, with a corresponding material reduction in their cost structure and legacy pension and medical obligations, and a restructuring of their capital structure," Hostess said in court papers. "That is the purpose and the focus of these Chapter 11 cases." . . .
A simple test of union control of local public schools?

A simple test of union control of local public schools?

New Jersey is going to allow school districts to decide whether to leave their school board elections in April or to change them to November. Public teacher unions like April because the low voter turnout during those off elections give teacher union members who always vote a great say in determining who wins the elections. The issue here is simple: the public school districts where teacher unions have the greatest influence will be the least likely to switch from April to November.

The school elections bill passed the Senate by a vote of 34-3 and the Assembly by a vote of 62-11 with three abstentions.
It makes moving the election to November optional but allows school districts that do move to forgo votes on the district’s school budget, provided the spending plan calls for a tax levy within the state’s 2 percent cap.
Supporters of the measure claim it will save money on election expenses and increase voter participation.
“Politicians and pundits have talked about doing this for years, but special interests and inertia have prevented progress on this important issue — until today,” said Assemblyman Lou Greenwald, D-6th of Voorhees, who sponsored the legislation. “Empowering towns to move their school elections to November will give voters better control of their local finances while saving property taxpayers the costs of holding yet another local election.” . . .
Labor unions primary beneficiaries of Obamacare waivers

Labor unions primary beneficiaries of Obamacare waivers

From the Daily Caller:

Labor unions continued to receive the overwhelming majority of waivers from the president’s health care reform law since the Obama administration tightened application rules last summer.

Documents released in a classic Friday afternoon news dump show that labor unions representing 543,812 workers received waivers from President Barack Obama‘s signature legislation since June 17, 2011.

By contrast, private employers with a total of 69,813 employees, many of whom work for small businesses, were granted waivers.

The Department of Health and Human Services revised the rules governing applications for health reform waivers June 17, 2011, amid a steady stream of controversial news reports, including The Daily Caller’s story that nearly 20 percent of last May’s waivers went to businesses in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s district in California. . . . .
How bad is California's Public Employees Retirement Fund?

How bad is California's Public Employees Retirement Fund?

Daniel Borenstein has a great article here that should be clear to everyone. He explains how the severe problems are being hidden.

The return rates also affect assessments of the current health of the pension systems. If they're counting on greater investment returns, the pension systems don't need as many assets now. Using a 7.75 percent investment forecast, CalPERS, as of June 30, had only about 74 percent of the funds it should have had, Nation calculated. But assuming a 6.2 percent annual return means the system had only 58 percent of funds it should have had.
Here's another way of thinking about it: Assuming future annual returns of 7.75 percent, the three pension systems combined were short $143 billion, or $11,703 for each California household. At a more realistic 6.2 percent investment assumption, they're short $291 billion, or $23,852 per household. Thus, the higher assumptions hide the magnitude of the problem.
We can insist on properly funding the systems now. Or we can keep hoping we'll win this risky gamble on the markets -- and we'll keep piling up more debt when we lose. . . .
Push to unionize Apple retail employees

Push to unionize Apple retail employees

It would be interesting to see how union work rules would raise costs and discourage the implementation of new Apple stores. You could help some existing workers and the expense of others, but that is the way unions always work. From CNET:

"The stores have been ranked in the top 50 best places to work by job tracker Glassdoor.com three years running, along with earning other accolades."

Apple stores currently are great places to visit. People are very friendly and anyone can help you out. Could you imagine what union work rules would do to the culture of the place?

Will there be a backlash for protests outside "tycoons'" homes?

You might remember Nina Easton reporting on this gruesome experience.



Now we have this. Will people get upset with these thuggish tactics?

Protesters from the Occupy Wall Street movement plan to leave their downtown Manhattan headquarters Tuesday and head uptown as part of a "Millionaires March" visiting the homes of some of New York City's wealthiest residents.
Between 400 and 800 people are expected to take part in the demonstration targeting the homes of JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, billionaire businessman David Koch, financier Howard Milstein, hedge fund maven John Paulson and News Corp. Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch, Crain's New York Business reported. . . .
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)