ERA would require employees to reaffirm unions every 3 years

On January 31, 2012, By NRTW Committee Staff

Most employees working under a union contract have never voted to be organized by a union.  Sen. Hatch and Rep. Scott want to fix that wit the Employee Rights Act.  From the Washington Times:

In an effort to loosen labor’s grip on workers, two GOP lawmakers want legislation that would require workers to re-affirm the existence of their unions with new votes every three years.

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Rep. Tim Scott of South Carolina are pushing the Employee Rights Act that also would place limits on strikes, how fast a union can organize and how membership fees may be used to support political candidates. The bill has yet to receive a committee hearing in either chamber.

Few workers – less than 10 percent of union members – vote to organize. Instead, most workers join an existing union as a condition of employment.

This bill, however, would give workers a chance to voice their opinions. Union officials would be up for re-election every three years. At that time, employees could decide whether to keep or eliminate their union.

“My goal is to make sure that employees of a company make the decision on joining unions,” Mr. Scott said. “This just gives them an opportunity to say, ‘Yes, I want to be a part of the union.’” (more…)

Tagged with: • • • •
Posted in: Exclusive Representation, Government Grants to Unions, Legislation, Organizing, South Carolina, Utah
1 Comments
Leave A Response

Heritage Foundation: Right to Work Creates Jobs and Choice

On November 14, 2011, By NRTW Committee Staff

James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation confirms what we have known for decades, enacting Right to Work laws create jobs and promote choice for workers:

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 (more…)

Tagged with: • • • •
Posted in: Boeing, Do Union Bosses Speak, Economic Development in RTW States, Economic Impact of Unionization, Economics, Exclusive Representation, Forced Dues, Forced-Dues for Politics, Government Grants to Unions, Legislation, Monopoly Bargaining, Right to Work, Right To Work States, So-called "Fair Share", State Right To Work
2 Comments
Leave A Response

Forced-Dues Drive Pennsylvania Public Union Salaries, Outpace Private Sector’s and Members’ Wages

On October 31, 2011, By NRTW Committee Staff

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 (more…)

Tagged with:
Posted in: AFSCME, Do Union Bosses Speak, Economics, Education, Exclusive Representation, Forced Dues, Forced-Dues for Politics, Government Grants to Unions, Legislation, NEA and Affiliates, Pennsylvania, Public Employee Monopoly Bargaining, Right to Work, SEIU, Teacher Unions, UFCW
0 Comments
Leave A Response

UAW in Financial Trouble

On September 28, 2011, By NRTW Committee Staff

The UAW, which purchased among other things, a golf course with members dues money, appears to be hitting the financial skids.

The Truth About Cars reports that the union is down to its savings and is running on fumes:

A bloated management, run-away costs, declining market share, imploding volume, a sell-off of assets and investments, headquartered in Detroit – what is it? No, it’s none of the Detroit automakers. It is their former nemesis and current co-owner, the United Auto Workers.

“Two years after the wrenching restructuring of the U.S. auto industry and the bankruptcies that remade General Motors and Chrysler, the UAW is facing its own financial reckoning. America’s richest union has been living beyond its means and running down its savings, an analysis of its financial records shows. Unless King and other officials succeed with a turnaround plan still taking shape, the next financial crisis in Detroit may not be at one of the automakers but at the UAW itself.”

This is the beginning of a special report written by the best in the reporting business, by Deepa Seetharaman and her boss, Kevin Krolicki, Chief of the Detroit Bureau of Reuters, with the help of their team of combat reporters from the Detroit front-lines.

“The UAW might have three to five years before its budget difficulties forced a financial crunch, absent changes. The “hand-grenade” math of the projection gave the union less than a five-year window of opportunity to turn things around by winning new membership at foreign-run auto plants, said the person who saw the internal forecast and asked not to be named because of its sensitivity.” (more…)

Tagged with:
Posted in: Economic Impact of Unionization, Economics, Exclusive Representation
1 Comments
Leave A Response

Unionization of California’s Baby-Sitters

On September 7, 2011, By NRTW Committee Staff

California’s legislative session is coming down to its final days and Big Labor is looking for another industry to foist its forced-unionization scheme upon.  Believe it or not they are targeting the Golden State’s babysitters.

The LA Times notes:

As this year’s legislative session entered its final week Tuesday, state lawmakers pursued one measure that would help politically powerful unions bolster their ranks … In unveiling the last-minute labor measure, Democratic leaders proposed allowing the unionization of nearly 40,000 people who receive state money to provide child care in their homes. That would vastly expand the dues-paying ranks of unions that contribute heavily to Democratic causes.  Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed three earlier versions of the proposal. It is unclear what action Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, would take….

The bill is modeled on a measure that allowed the unionization of workers paid by the state to provide in-home care for disabled patients. That law added more than 75,000 members to California unions and helped them become a dominant force in state politics.  Paul McIntosh, a lobbyist for the California State Assn. of Counties, said the new measure would require counties, which administer the state grants, to form entities to bargain with the unions. ”It would certainly drive up administrative costs if counties have to hire someone to negotiate contracts,” he said.

Posted in: Economic Impact of Unionization, Exclusive Representation, Forced-Dues for Politics, Forced-Unionism Abuses Exposed, Government Grants to Unions, Legislation, Monopoly Bargaining, Political Activity, Public Employee Monopoly Bargaining, Public Employees
1 Comments
Leave A Response

Another Big Labor Thiefdom Exposed

On July 15, 2011, By NRTW Committee Staff

Some Big Labor officials often see monopoly bargaining power and the union as their own fiefdoms. In this case of a husband and wife duo who held the union positions of business manager and treasurer, they treated the union treasury and “apprentice” training trust as personal banking accounts. Had Hilda Solis not eliminated disclosure of union trusts, this embezzlement scheme might have been discovered earlier by the union’s members or labor department investigators.

(Source Richard Connelly of the HoustonPress.com) A husband-wife team of union officials lived the high life on members’ money, federal prosecutors charged in indictments announced today.

Ronald Witt, 64, and his wife Anita, 56, were respectively the business manager and treasurer of local 450 of the International Union of Operating Engineers, whose members operate heavy equipment, mechanics and surveyors.

Prosecutors say the Witts embezzled funds from the union and its apprentice school — best to teach the young’uns the rough ways of the world early — and they spent it in style: “luxury trips for themselves and their friends, recreational travel trailers, purchases at hardware stores, personal meal expenses, rebuilding their Galveston home and depositing unearned union checks into their bank accounts,” the U.S. Attorney’s Office says.

Tagged with: • • • • • •
Posted in: Big Labor Payback, Exclusive Representation, Obama Administration, Union Corruption
0 Comments
Leave A Response
« Previous Entries
Go To Top »