“For more than two years, the Michigan Education Association [MEA] has had a manual that urges its members to use students as propaganda in contract negotiations and also lays out how to organize strikes,” writes Tome Gantert of Michigan Capitol Confidential.

Considering the fact that teacher strikes are illegal in Michigan, some may find it odd that the MEA has been encouraging this sort of behavior. In fact, the MEA has done a lot more than just “encourage” potentially illegal activity. As Gantert reports, the organization produced an anonymously written 28-page manual titled, “Building Full Capacity Locals — Crisis Planning, It’s Never Too Early To Start!”

And of course, what union protest would be complete without the exploitation of children in the bargaining process?

“In terms of a bargaining message, the public responds most positively when we talk about children, quality in the classroom and the future,” the MEA manual states.

The manual even suggests one slogan that it claims has worked for other locals: “It’s not about dollars and cents; it’s about our children.”

Perhaps the most disturbing moment occurs when one section appears to quote almost verbatim Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals.”

Alinsky instructs his followers to “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Likewise, the MEA manual instructs teachers to “Pick a target—personalize—and polarize the opposition [pg. 17].” And those are just the verbatim quotes; the entire manual is a handbook for creating, managing, and profiting from crises.

 

Union bosses have subsidized these radicals and in the end union workers suffer twice — first they lost their pay checks and second, their union dues paid for the protests.

The American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO (AFT) which benefits dramatically from government employee forced dues at one time was opposed to representing both administrators and teachers.  From the New York Times, Aug 19, 1959 report from the AFT national convention held in Minneapolis, MN:

The American Federation of Teachers assailed the National Education Association today for what it termed “refusal to uphold” school desegregation decisions of the Supreme Court.

A Chosen Epithet “Company union” is an epithet the A. F. T. uses for the N. E. A., which represents school administrators as well as classroom teachers. The A. F. T. has 54,817 members, the N. E. A. about 700,000.

And, it opposed union financial disclosure known as the Landrum-Griffin Act.

It protested that the House passed Landrum-Griffin bill went far beyond the original intent of labor-management reform proposals by involving the Federal Government in the internal affairs of every union.

James Sherk

Union contracts frequently require employees to pay union dues or lose their jobs. This forces workers to support the union financially even if the union contract harms them or they oppose the union’s agenda. Several states, including New Hampshire and Indiana, are considering right-to-work laws, which protect workers from being fired for not paying union dues. Unions oppose these laws because they reduce union membership and income. However, the rest of the economy benefits from right-to-work laws.

States can and should reduce unemployment by becoming right-to-work states.

Right-to-Work

Unions often negotiate contracts requiring all workers to pay union dues or lose their jobs, whether or not they support the union. But many workers reject unions. Some do so because union contracts reduce their pay. Others oppose unions’ political agendas: Unions almost exclusively support Democrats, despite 37 percent of their members voting Republican in the last election.[1]

To prevent workers from being forced to support unions financially, 22 states have passed right-to-work laws. Such laws prevent companies from firing workers who do not pay union dues. Workers may still pay voluntarily, but unions cannot threaten their jobs if they do not join. Lawmakers in several states, including New Hampshire, Indiana, and Michigan, are considering right-to-work bills.

Forced Unionization Is Not an American Value

The government should not force workers to pay for unwanted union representation. In a free society, workers alone should make that choice. Right-to-work laws also make good economic sense. They reduce the incentive for union organizers to target companies that treat their workers well. Since unions hurt businesses, less aggressive union organizing attracts investment—and jobs.

Lawmakers considering right-to-work proposals should ignore the union movement’s self-interested opposition. Unions could negotiate contracts that apply only to their members—they simply prefer not to. Unions should not be able to force workers to choose between financially supporting them and losing their jobs.

Unions Lose Money When Workers Opt Out

The union movement strongly opposes right-to-work laws. It has self-interested motives in doing so: Union membership fell 15 percent after Idaho and Oklahoma passed right-to-work laws.[2]

Most of the union-represented workers who choose not to pay dues when given the option are those who do not benefit from union contracts. Disproportionate numbers of highly educated workers, for example, choose not to pay dues—the very workers held back by union seniority systems.[3] Without the threat of losing their jobs, the union movement will not persuade these workers to pay dues.

Making union membership voluntary would save workers—and cost unions—a lot of money. Losing 15 percent of their dues-paying members would cost private-sector New Hampshire unions $1.9 million a year. Right-to-work would similarly save private-sector workers in Indiana $18.4 million a year. In Michigan, right-to-work would save workers $46.4 million a year. [4] Giving workers a choice means less money for unions.

Less Aggressive Union Organizers

For the same reason, right-to-work reduces the aggressiveness of union organizers. Making union membership voluntary reduces the financial incentives for unions to target workplaces where they have lukewarm support. Research shows that union organizing falls 50 percent within five years of a state passing a right-to-work law.[5]

Workers who feel mistreated have the right to unionize. Right-to-work laws encourage union organizers to restrict their attention to such workers.

Increased Investment in Right-to-Work States

Right-to-work states are much more attractive for businesses investment. Unionized firms earn lower profits, invest less, and create fewer jobs than comparable nonunion firms.[6]

Boeing’s decision to build a new plant in South Carolina—a right-to-work state—illustrates a larger trend.

Research suggests that foreign direct investment in Oklahoma and Idaho increased after these states passed right-to-work laws.[8]

More Jobs

States that attract more investment should create more jobs. In fact, right-to-work states have lower unemployment rates (9.2 percent) than states without right-to-work laws (9.9 percent).[9]

The share of manufacturing jobs in counties in right-to-work states is one-third higher than in adjacent counties in non–right-to-work states.[10] Right-to-work laws attract jobs.

Wage Effects Small

Economic theory does not predict how right-to-work laws affect wages. The additional business investment a right-to-work law attracts usually raises the demand for labor, increasing wages. Yet unions argue that businesses will cut wages if the risk of union organizing falls.

Most studies show that right-to-work laws have little effect on wages in either direction.[11] Right-to-work states do have lower average wages than non–right-to-work states, but this is because they are located primarily in the South, which was once much less developed than the North and still has a lower cost of living. Research controlling for this shows that workers in right-to-work states have, if anything, slightly higher wages.[12]

Members-Only Contracts Permissible

In a free society, workers should not have to financially support organizations they oppose.

Unions do not have to represent workers who do not pay dues. They can negotiate contracts that apply only to their members. The law requires unions to represent nonmembers only if they negotiate as “exclusive bargaining representatives.”[13]  Unions almost never do this.

Consider seniority systems: They ensure that everyone gets raises and promotions at the same rate, irrespective of individual performance. If a union negotiated a members-only contract with a seniority system, high-performing workers would refuse to join. Those workers would negotiate a separate contract with performance pay. The best workers would get ahead faster, leaving less money and fewer positions available for those on the seniority scale. The union wants everyone in the seniority system—especially those it holds back.

Workers in the grocery stores in New York City and surrounding areas are forced to pay union dues and fees to keep their jobs.  It appears this revenue is not enough for the union officials who enjoy the privilege.

From the Epoch Times:

Police arrested the president, former president, and treasurer of Local 348 United Food andCommercial Workers International Union (UFCW) on Thursday. Anthony Fazio Sr., John Fazio Jr., and Anthony Fazio Jr. were charged with racketeering, extortion, money laundering, and witness tampering.

The Fazios used their positions in the union to extort money from employers unionized by the UFCW. They stole more than $2.4 million from union members and employers over the course of 16 years, according to the indictment.

Each leader earned more than $150,000 in annual salary. The UFCW represents more than 6,000 members. It hold close to $7.4 million in assets [source: US DOL LM. The Local 348 office was closed during business hours and could not be reached for comment.

Forced-dues continue to fill the coffers of unions, as well as, union presidents’  and politicians’ pockets according to this recent study by the Commonwealth Foundation:

Government Unions and Forced Dues

• Almost half of government workers in Pennsylvania are union members, compared to 9.3 percent in the private sector.
  • Pennsylvania is a forced union state, meaning that workers can be forced to join a union or pay a [so-called] “fair share fee” just to keep their job.  Most government units in Pennsylvania are “agency shops,” with a specified union to which workers must pay a fee.
  • When state and local governments automatically deduct dues and fair share fees from government workers’ paychecks—as is the practice in Pennsylvania—employees have little or no say in how their money is used.

Union Bosses

• Union bosses collect hefty salaries derived from member dues and fair share fees. In most cases, the salaries are several times the average union member’s annual pay.
  • While acknowledging that budgets were tight, AFSCME Council 13 President David Fillman got a 6 percent raise in 2010, making his salary higher than Gov. Tom Corbett’s.
• Dues and fees often go towards expensive conferences, outings and junkets.  For example, in 2009-10 the Pennsylvania State Education Association—the state’s largest public sector union—spent:
  • More than $250,000 on a board of directors retreat in Gettysburg.
  • More than $89,000 for a “political institution meeting” at the Radisson Penn Harris in Camp Hill, Pa.
  • $20,000 for advertising in the Pittsburgh Steelers Yearbook.
  • Almost $5,900 at Kimberton Golf Club and more than $5,100 at Concord Country Club in Chadd’s Ford.

Political Activity and Lobbying

• Union interests mean leaders frequently do not advocate for the best policies for their members, or for tax-payers.
  • The PSEA promotes a “last in, first out” policy for teacher lay-offs, meaning seniority, rather than competence, determines who keeps their jobs. This especially hurts excellent, but more junior, teachers.
  • The PSEA opposes options for parents, such as school vouchers, tax credits, and charter schools, which foster competition in education.
  • All four public sector unions profiled here are members of the Coalition for Labor Engagement and Accountable Revenues (CLEAR).  CLEAR advocates for job and retirement protection for government workers “without the threat of layoffs, rolling furloughs or privatization”—a policy that inevitably privileges tax increases over spending cuts.
• Union PAC contributions, while voluntary, are also deducted from workers’ paychecks by state and local government.  These deductions help make government union PACs some of the most well-funded in the state.

Looks like this Chicago teacher’s attitude has spread West.

WTAE reports that unions used locks to block exits at a facility in Pennsylvania forcing the company to go to court to keep their doors open.

According to the company, ”Some union picketers put up chains and locks across and exits of the parking lot of a Verizon facility in Dormont today, prohibiting the workers there from leaving in their cars. The Dormont police were called, and the fire department removed the chains and locks. This act is a direct violation of a court injunction prohibiting illegal blocking of Verizon facilities and those responsible are subject to legal action on the part of law enforcement authorities.”

New Jersey Communications Workers compulsory-dues funded union boss’ ridiculous statements reveal why solutions for New Jersey problems are not coming from Big Labor – they want to take New Jersey back to the 1940’s. From Politico’s Maggie Haberman:

Gov. Chris Christie is like Adolf Hitler and New Jersey is like Nazi Germany, a local labor leader declared at a rally against the governor’s proposed pension reform moves Thursday.

“It took World War II to get rid of the last Adolf Hitler — it’s gonna take World War III to get rid of Adolf Christie!” shouted Communications Workers of America vice president Chris Shelton at a rally outside the statehouse in Trenton.

“Welcome to Nazi Germany!” Shelton said when he first took the podium.

Full text of Letter:

The Honorable Barack Obama

Re: Withdrawal of Lafe Solomon as NLRB General Counsel Nominee

Dear Mr. President:

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Lafe Solomon’s complaint against The Boeing Company (“Boeing”) in Case No. 19-CA-32431, to force a private aircraft manufacturer to move jobs from a Right To Work state to a compulsory unionism state, overstretches legal precedents and abuses the power that Congress granted the NLRB. As Acting General Counsel, Solomon should dismiss such filings rather than issuing ill-considered complaints.

The NLRB complaint against Boeing, and in effect the workers in South Carolina who will lose their jobs, seeks to force Boeing to halt its South Carolina (Right To Work State) factory expansion and re-locate it to the state of Washington (Forced Unionism State).

Boeing has already hired more than 1,000 new South Carolina-based employees for its 787 Dreamliner factory in Charleston. But simultaneously, Boeing has increased its employment in its Puget Sound, Washington factory. Boeing’s actions have created no loss of jobs for the International Association of Machinists (IAM) and its represented workers there. Yet, the NLRB’s proposed remedy will result in lost jobs immediately for 1,000 workers in the Charleston, South Carolina area. Ironically, many of these workers have already decertified the IAM at this same plant under a prior employer, thereby expressing their legally protected choice to work without union compulsion.

Without regard to the loss of jobs to workers in South Carolina and the fact that there has been no harm to the workers in Washington, General Counsel Solomon is attempting to curtail free speech, harm workers who have chosen to work without union representation, intimidate employers, discourage other employers from locating in Right To Work States, and encourage employers to leave the United States. The NLRB’s complaint has virtually no legal support, and its claim that Boeing committed “unlawful employer speech” for saying that the company “cannot afford to have work stoppages every three years” like it has experienced at the hands of the IAM in Washington since the 1980s is frivolous.

The NLRB position ignores that “the Supreme Court has long held that firms may consider the economic effect of strikes when making business decisions. Also, Boeing’s existing collective bargaining agreement with the IAM allows Boeing to build facilities at other locations.”

Solomon’s poor judgments regarding the deliberations that brought about his complaint and the complaint itself disqualify him as an acceptable nominee for NLRB General Counsel. The Foundation requests that you withdrawal Lafe Solomon’s nomination to serve as General Counsel of the NLRB immediately.

Respectfully submitted,

Mark Mix

President

SEIU, UFCW and other unions that spent hundreds of millions of dollars of forced union dues supporting ObamaCare have filed requests to be exempt and have been granted exemptions from onerous ObamaCare regulations.  ObamaCare continues to create hypocrites out of Big Labor and the Obama Administration.  Below is a partial list of waivers granted by the Obama Administrations (for the current list from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services click here):

(H/T The Drudge Report)

Question 25.  Now I am going to read you two opposing statements on what Washington should do with remaining funds from the bailout bill of 2008. If you had to choose, which do you agree with MORE?

Monopoly bargaining reveals its ugly head

Union stagehand Duane Hammond, part of the crew that built the platform for the Obama event in California, was fired for wearing a USS George Bush sweatshirt.  His son is currently serving in the Navy on the George Bush. 

***UPDATE:   Duane Hammond says union officials called him this afternoon to apologize for the incident.  He say they are “bending over backwards” to make it up to him. 

The looks on the UFCW union boss’ face when challenged by the Daily Show reporter makes this well worth watching:

(Video: Watch this video on the post page)

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) is doing his best to ensure the Garden State does not go bankrupt but he can’t do anything about the moral bankruptcy of New Jersey’s labor union bosses who have spent $5 million in critical TV ads trying to ensure the spending spigot continues unabated..