Right to Work Blog

For nine years, Don Adams has sought justice. This week, he got some.

It was nearly a decade ago when Adams was assaulted by a group of Teamsters in Philadelphia while he protested a visit by then President Bill Clinton. John Morris, the secretary of Local 115, placed a fedora over Adams’ face, a gesture known as “capping.” Capping is a sign for Morris’ union goons to attack. And attack they did.

Mr. Adams suffered several injuries as a result of the attack.

As reported by Bradley Vasoli in the Evening Bulletin:

By January 1999, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office arraigned several suspects in the incident, including Don Adams. He was charged with simple assault and other misdemeanors.

Video footage of the event by television news teams depicted Mr. Adams and Miss Adams [Mr. Adams’ sister Teri is a signatory to the settlement.] having fallen to the street as several individuals with Teamster T-shirts and jackets pushed and kicked them. When Mr. Adams arose, blood dripped from his cheekbone. Television interviews later revealed his eyes blackened.

Criminal proceedings against Mr. Adams went on until September 2000, at which point he was found not guilty.

Five Teamsters did endure modest punishments for their role in the events of October 1998. A few days after the 1998 congressional elections, two male union-affiliated suspects were arrested. They pled guilty to assault and other charges in the summer of 1999 and received probation.

In September 1999, two more male Teamsters and one female were arrested and pled guilty the next year, similarly sentenced to probation. Mr. Morris, who died in May 2002, was never charged.

In October 2000, Mr. and Miss Adams filed civil complaints to obtain redress for his criminal trial and to elicit an admission of responsibility from the Teamsters.

This month, the ordeal came to an end when the Teamsters settled with Mr. Adams out of court.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has filed its opposition to a package of sweeping rule changes proposed by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) bureaucracy that would further undermine the right of American workers to choose freely whether to form a union.

To read more, click on: http://www.nrtw.org/
NLRBcomments.

Professional educators and leading opinion makers are calling for Iowa’s Governor Chet Culver to veto union power grab legislation that was rammed through the House and Senate by the Democrat leadership.

The Sioux City Journal writes:

For once, Iowa Gov. Chet Culver, Senate Minority Leader Ron Wieck, R-Sioux City, and House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City, can all agree on something:

An attempt to fast-track a bill that would expand labor unions’ collective bargaining abilities is short-sighted.

We concur.

More time is needed to better understand and debate significant change to a law that has served Iowa well for more than 30 years.

Unfortunately, Democrats in the state Senate pushed the bill through late Monday afternoon by a 27-23 vote. No Republicans voted for the bill; three Democrats also voted no.

Democrats who voted yes maintain the bill, which would expand the range of issues public employee unions can bring up in contract talks, is merely a modest tweak of the 1974 law that established collective bargaining for public employees.

That claim is simply outrageous.

The current law limits contract negotiations primarily to items dealing with salary or benefits. The new bill would expand the list of negotiable items to include just about anything related to working conditions. That means, for instance, teachers could negotiate things like class sizes as part of their contracts.

The negative impact this change could have on our public work force is so significant it has created some unlikely alliances. School districts and city governments who have traditionally worked primarily with Democrats are teaming up with Republicans to oppose this legislation.

Even Culver, who hasn’t exactly seen eye-to-eye with Republican leaders like Rants and Wieck lately, seems to understand the importance of a full debate on what is anything but a modest proposal.

In a statement released Monday, Culver called on the Senate “to apply a little common sense …” He went on to maintain it is “crystal clear” that more time is needed so that the legislature and the public can “have a chance to better understand this proposed legislation and be more involved in the process.”

Yet, Senate Democrats demonstrated no interest in openly discussing the merits of this bill and stubbornly pushed ahead, spurred on by big labor.

Of course, there is one way to slow down this rush to judgment. When it hits his desk, Gov. Culver should heed his own words and veto the bill.

The Journal is not alone.

The Professional Educators of Iowa is also calling for a veto:

The fate of HF 2645, a bill that would vastly expand the scope of collective bargaining in Iowa, may soon lie in the hands of Governor Chet Culver after the Senate passed the bill 27-23. The bill has raised quite a bit of ire not just with the Republican minority in the Assembly, but also with public officials from around the state.

The bill, in part, allows for the possibility that property taxes will be raised to meet union demands. In a memo, Governor Culver called upon the Senate to hold a public hearing on the bill to give Iowans a chance to better understand the stakes. The senate leadership refused, saying the governor would understand once he had the chance to review the discussion from the senate floor.

“Governor Culver himself was the one who called for public debates on this bill, which the leadership in the Assembly blatantly ignored,” said Jim Hawkins, executive director of Professional Educators of Iowa. “We now need the governor to be true to his word and not allow the voices of the citizens of Iowa to be silenced in favor of Big Labor.”

The governor expressed concern over the way the bill was being shuttled through the Assembly. The bill, which is seen by many as repayment by Democrats to the unions which contributed to their campaigns, was introduced in the House just six legislative days before it passed the Senate.

“This is the time when we most need the governor to govern the state of Iowa,” said Hawkins. “He cannot sign this bill into law; otherwise, he is simply paying his fair share of dues back to the Big Labor forces that got him elected.”

According to the Iowa constitution, after the Assembly officially hands the bill off, the governor has three days to either sign or veto the bill. After three days, the bill becomes law by default. Senate Democrats have expressed confidence that Governor Culver will not veto the bill, as he is planning on running in the future on the Democratic ticket. In a press conference on Tuesday, the governor reiterated his desire for public input on the bill and indicated the lack thereof could influence his decision whether to sign or veto.

The Department of Labor (DOL) has confirmed that, over the last year, the number of cases of embezzled union dues has increased.

As reported on CNS News, DOL’s:

. . . Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS) recently released its enforcement data. The totals for fiscal year 2008 – which began on Oct. 1, 2007 – now stand at 49 convictions, 57 indictments, and court-ordered restitution of $1,251,798.

According to the Labor Department, “The bulk of the cases involved the embezzlement of union funds.

“These totals represent increases of 20 percent (41 to 49) in convictions and 39 percent (41 to 57) in indictments over fiscal year 2007,” the department noted.

“This financial restitution, as well as the convictions and indictments, highlight the vital role OLMS plays in protecting America’s union members,” said Deputy Assistant Secretary for Labor Management Standards Don Todd.

Writing in the Weekly Standard, Stephen Moore details the massive financial obligations and costs imposed on taxpayers by the public employee unions.

It didn’t get much attention on the East Coast, but in late February the town of Vallejo, California, came within an eyelash of becoming the first city since Bridgeport, Connecticut, back in 1991 to declare bankruptcy. This San Francisco Bay suburb of 120,000 residents was threatening to take this radical step because it can no longer afford to pay the extravagant salary and retirement benefits of its public employees. Just a few hours before the city council was to file for bankruptcy, the unions caved in and granted wage concessions to keep the city operational.

Vallejo is not alone.

There are several other cities in California that are contemplating the bankruptcy option thanks to multi-billion-dollar public employee pension and health care obligations that have become effectively unpayable. “Vallejo’s fiscal problems aren’t unique. They’re just the tip of the debt iceberg here in California,” says Keith Richman, a former state legislator and now president of the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility (CFFR). The California Public Employees’ Retirement System has $26 billion of unfunded liabilities. The teachers’ retirement system is $20 billion in the red–health benefits add another $48 billion to its shortfall.

Moore called the situation with public employees’ unions the “. . . next great financial bubble in America–a fiscal time bomb that could cause your local and state tax bills to double or even triple in years to come.”

He is right. But this problem is not only on the state level.

Congress has decided to help make the fiscal time bomb even more explosive and powerful. The House of Representatives passed the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Act (H.R. 980) which would virtually ensure that Big Labor bosses are granted monopoly bargaining status for local and state police, firefighters, county paramedics, and other public safety officers in all 50 states. (This bill is officially called the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007.)

If you think the problem of public employee unions’ stranglehold on taxpayer funds is bad, wait to see what happens if this bill becomes law.

In the book, Stranglehold, Reed Larson reveals the astonishing story of how organized labor has acquired incredible, hidden power over local, state, and national governments in America. For a free copy of Stranglehold, go here.

Fact of the Day:

The political arm of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and other . . . [special interest groups] . . . have spent more than $7.1 million directly supporting the Illinois Democrat’s bid for the presidential nomination, campaign records show.

Pro-forced unionism politicians are up to their old tricks in Iowa. Once again, the best interests of Iowa workers and the taxpayers who pay their salaries are taking a backseat to the demands of compulsion-minded Big Labor bosses who financed their campaigns. In an end run designed to pay back their political financers on one hand and insure a steady supply of campaign dollars for future campaigns on the other, some of Iowa’s politicians are trying to legislate Big Labor’s access to taxpayers’ pockets.

As Linda Miler of the Quad-City Times points out:

Political payback to organized labor took precedence over sticking up for middle class families in the Iowa House on Wednesday and Thursday. House Democrats, under cover of darkness, brought up the most far-reaching revisions to Iowa’s collective bargaining since it’s [sic.] inception in 1974. Back then it took the Iowa House 13 days to debate the bill it was so controversial. House Democrats jammed the revisions through in about 13 hours of debate most of which came during the night.

House File 2645 was scheduled to be debated on Wednesday. Democrats camouflaged it as a non-controversial set of technical changes. In order for any amendment to be eligible for the debate on Wednesday, any amendments must be filed by 4 p.m. the day before. At 4 p.m. on Tuesday afternoon, Democrats dropped a 14 page amendment (H-8164 written by organized labor) onto HF 2645. This last minute maneuver is common in the legislature when a legislator or party wants to hide their intentions until the last minute to avoid and [sic.] negative media coverage or pushback from the public.

The bill, with the amendment, adds several mandatory bargaining items to the teacher quality law and eliminates some provisions that provided a balance between management and labor. The changes significantly tilt the playing field in favor of labor. The Des Moines Register reported on 3-20-08 that “school boards would lose much of their authority to determine a number of issues, including scheduling, class size and early retirement benefits for staff…”

None however were as controversial as the House Democrats attempt to sneak through the wildly controversial “Fair Share” provision. “Fair Share” is not fair. It is forced unionism. The House Democrats plan allowed forced unionism, which is currently illegal, to be placed onto the bargaining table by public employee unions. Forced unionism legislation like “Fair Share” forces non-union public employees – like teachers – to pay union dues. The only way for public employees to avoid paying union dues is to quit their jobs. The effect of any forced unionism legislation is the same as a direct repeal of the Right to Work law.

House File 2645 is a Trojan Horse in which organized labor hoped to subvert Iowa’s Right to Work law and codify a laundry list of the teacher’s union hopes and desires.

However, House Republicans sacked the Trojan Horse and Democrats were forced to offer a provision that prevents any forced unionism provisions from finding their way to the bargaining table.

The venerable Dan Walters, who covers California state politics for the Sacramento Bee, has discovered the obvious in a column entitled “Unions again using politics to bolster membership.”

Walters notes:

It’s no secret that organized labor has seen a steep erosion of its involvement in the private economy and that it has shifted its emphasis to public employees in California and other states to maintain union membership.

There is, however, another wrinkle to labor’s struggle to survive as the economy continues to undergo vast structural change – exerting political influence to coalesce independent service workers into public or private employment, thus making unionization more likely.

When then California Gov. Grey Davis signed union legislation to convert workers who care for the aged and infirmed from private contractors to employees of county-level agencies, he created a road of unionization that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) continues to follow. Now, two similar drives are being mounted in California in new tests of unions’ ability to use political clout to expand membership.

One battle centers on the forced unionization of truckers at the seaports of Long Beach and Los Angeles:

The city governments of Long Beach and Los Angeles, which own the ports, have agreed to impose fees on containers and provide grants to the truckers to buy newer and cleaner rigs.

There is, however, a big hitch. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who has close ties to unions, is insisting that the independent truckers become employees of large trucking firms, contending it’s needed to create financial stability for the truck replacement program. Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster, a former utility executive, declares that proviso to be “unacceptable” political interference in private economic matters.

The thinly veiled conflict has to do with the unionization of the truckers. As independents, they cannot be organized as a union, but as employees, the Teamsters Union would quickly sign them up as members and gain a long-sought foothold into the region’s rapidly expanding port trade.

The other battle is with the SEIU, who are trying to nudge “. . . home child caregivers who receive public funds under the state welfare program into becoming employees of ‘provider organizations,’ which then could be unionized.”

Schwarzenegger has vetoed similar legislation in the past, citing its impact on a deficit-ridden state budget. Another SEIU-sponsored bill was placed on his desk this week by the state Senate. This time, he may be induced to sign it by his political debt to SEIU’s aggressive leader, Andy Stern, who provided the governor with some much-needed union support for his unsuccessful health care plan.

Given the fragmented nature of child care, it’s entirely possible under the legislation, Senate Bill 867, that a grandmother taking care of her daughter’s children would become a union worker, or at least be required to pay some kind of fee to the union as a condition of employment.

The cost of unionizing baby sitters has been tagged by legislative analyst at around $60 million a year, but given the state’s precarious financial situation, that would mean either taking funds from other services or reducing the overall availability of child care.

It’s often said “as goes California, so goes the nation.” Hopefully they can hold the line against these coercive unionization efforts in a state without a Right to Work law.

A California appeals court ruling clamping down on homeschooling by parents sent shock waves across the state this week, leaving an estimated 166,000 children as possible truants and their parents at risk of prosecution, the San Francisco Chronicle reports. And not surprisingly, the California Teachers Association praised the effort to assimilate hundreds of thousands into their ranks:

“California courts have held that . . . parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children,” Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the 3-0 ruling . . . .

Parents can be criminally prosecuted for failing to comply, Croskey said.

“A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare,” the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue.

. . . The ruling was applauded by a director for the state’s largest teachers union.

“We’re happy,” said Lloyd Porter, who is on the California Teachers Association board of directors. “We always think students should be taught by credentialed teachers, no matter what the setting.”

Of course, being “credentialed” really means being forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. If the California legislature would unionize parents of homeschoolers then we bet the teacher union bosses would be “happy.”

$200 million dollars. That is the latest amount pledged, out of general treasury funds, by AFL-CIO bosses to spend on the 2008 presidential and congressional elections. The focus of much of their ire will be Sen. John McCain. Political director Karen Ackerman said the opening salvo will be to link McCain to President Bush, who endorsed the Arizona senator on Wednesday.

It’s important to keep in mind that the AFL-CIO and its affiliate unions alone will spend a quarter of a billion dollars on politics and that is a conservative estimate. Change to Win, the Service Employees International Union, the Teamsters, UNITE HERE, and the National Education Association union will spend hundreds of millions more. Based on 2004 and 2006 activity, it is likely that big labor will spend up to a billion dollars in 2008 trying to elect a president and a congress that will enact their agenda for more forced- unionism privilege. It has become evident that union officials have nothing to offer workers that they would buy voluntarily so the answer is to spend truckloads of forced-dues dollars on politicians who will bestow the privileges gladly.

One thing is clear: Most of that money would remain in workers’ pockets if they had a choice in the matter.