The “Uneasy” Alliance

On October 26, 2011, By NRTW Committee Staff

We have continually pointed out that union bosses are authorizing union dues money to support the radicals in the Occupy Wall Street movement despite incidents of anti-semitism, violence and vandalism.

The Washington Post has noticed the “uneasy alliance” writing:

The Occupy Wall Street protests that began as a nebulous mix of social and economic grievances are becoming more politically organized — with help from some of the country’s largest labor unions.

Labor groups are mobilizing to provide office space, meeting rooms, photocopying services, legal help, food and other necessities to the protesters. The support is lending some institutional heft to a movement that has prided itself on its freewheeling, non-
institutional character.

And in return, Occupy activists are pitching in to help unions ratchet up action against several New York firms involved in labor disputes with workers.

In one case, Occupy activists have helped union workers disrupt the rarified environs of Sotheby’s art auction house, which is engaged in a contract dispute with about 40 of its art handlers.

The fact is that worker’s who do not have a choice in the matter are forced to subsidize the activities of a group of radicals intent on “destroying capitalism” — thanks to union bosses.

Tagged with: • •
Posted in: Government Grants to Unions, Intimidation Tactics
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Washington Post Pushes Mitch Daniels for Republican Presidential Nominee, Rush Limbaugh Expresses Doubts

On May 10, 2011, By NRTW Committee Staff

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, who recently caved-in to fleeing Democrat lawmakers by giving away freedom in exchange for continuing Big Labor compulsion, receives a glowing Washington Post blog post while Rush Limbaugh is dubious:

RUSH: I’m just sick and tired of Democrat Party and the media picking our candidates. They picked McCain. They picked Dole. I’m tired of it. I don’t care who the candidate is, I’m sick of Democrats picking them, because I know they’re not gonna pick somebody that can win. That’s the whole point.

Headline: “Mitch Daniels: The Man Who Could Reshape the Republican Field.” Okay, I think Chris Cillizza wants Obama to be reelected. I know Chris; he works at it Washington Post. Chris Cillizza is like everybody else in the main stream media: He doesn’t want a conservative to be elected. So here we get a piece in the Washington Post telling us that the only chance we really have as Republicans is if Daniels is the nominee. Sorry, folks, it’s the messenger here that is alerting my antennae — and in this piece is a quasi-endorsement of Mitch Daniels from none other than Obama!

What I saw Thursday night at the debate does not lead to our defeat. This story tells me it does. This story tells me that that will cause us to lose, and therefore somebody who would not have sounded that way Thursday night is the only one that can win — and in today’s case it happens to be Mitch Daniels.

It’s time to get serious now? Well, given the source, I read that is a giant slam. That’s an insult. That is a profound insult, and I consider the source: Where is it coming from? (more…)

Tagged with: • • • •
Posted in: 2010 Union Member Poll, Forced-Dues for Politics, Government Grants to Unions, Indiana, Intimidation Tactics, Public Employee Monopoly Bargaining, Public Employees, Right to Work, Right To Work States, State Right To Work, State RTW
1 Comments
Leave A Response

California Needs Right to Work

On March 16, 2011, By NRTW Committee Staff

California is in deep trouble. The state has become an economic basket case and the power of the government worker’s unions have played a key role in its demise. Just this week, the Washington Post profiled a government pensioner — a man who retired from six four-day-a-week city jobs and now makes an astonishing $520,000 a year from the taxpayers. This is why the state’s liabilities on pensions alone has been described as a pending tsunami.

Writing for the OC Register, Gary Jason goes to the heart of the matter, by advocating the enactment of a California Right to Work law:

First, it is clear that Right to Work states have higher rates of economic flourishing. The data Vedder studied (spanning three decades from 1977 to 2007) show a statistically significant correlation between Right to Work legislation and economic growth. And per capita income rose 23 percent more quickly in states withRight to Work legislation than in those without. Moreover, the two areas of the country that have suffered the greatest loss of jobs – namely, the Northeast and Midwest – are precisely the states with the lowest presence of Right to Work legislation.

Second, and more fascinating, the data make clear that the presence of Right to Work legislation has a positive demographic impact. From 1970-2008, the percentage of Americans living in Right to Work states rose from about 28 percent to nearly 40 percent. Put another way, during a period in which the population in the non-Right to Work states increased by about 25 percent, the population in the Right to Work states exploded by over 100 percent.

Tagged with: • •
Posted in: California, Economic Development in RTW States, Economic Impact of Unionization, Economics, Government Grants to Unions, Legislation, Right to Work, State Right To Work, State RTW
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Will Fed Bailouts Government Unions?

On December 27, 2010, By NRTW Committee Staff

George Will asks a relevant question — with so many blue states beholden to Big Labor and their big spending policies, will the Federal Reserve start bailing out states, cities and municipalities?

Obviously, a bailout would do nothing but kill efforts to reform the system. It would allow union bosses to continue to press for higher salaries and benefits for government workers and the politicians who they elected would have no reason to say no.

Keep an eye out on this issue. It is the next big labor bailout on the horizon.

Tagged with: • • •
Posted in: Bailouts to Unions, Big Labor Payback, Economic Impact of Unionization, Economics, Elections, Exclusive Representation, Forced-Dues for Politics, Government Grants to Unions, Legislation, Pension Funds, Police Firefighters EMTs, Public Employee Monopoly Bargaining, Public Employees, Union boss power
1 Comments
Leave A Response

SEIU Political Expenditures Questioned By Washington Post

On October 26, 2010, By NRTW Committee Staff

The Washington Post’s Marc Thiessen is challenged by SEIU and Theissen responded:

The first rule of holes: when you are in one, stop digging.

This truth is lost on Jon Youngdahl, national political director of the Service Employees International Union. He digs the SEIU into an even deeper hole with his letter to the editor challenging my column on whether unions like his are funding their political activities with contributionsfrom foreign and illegal workers. Youngdahl writes:

“Most of the political work of the Service Employees International Union is funded by about 300,000 janitors, nurses’ aides, child-care providers and other members who voluntarily contribute on average $7 per month to SEIU’s Committee on Political Education (COPE). To be eligible to contribute to COPE, you must be a U.S. citizen or permanent legal resident.”

Most? Not even close. In May 2009, the Wall Street Journal reported that SEIU officials bragged they had spent $85 million during the 2008 campaign season, making them the the single biggest contributor to either party in the last election cycle.

Yet according to the Federal Election Commission, the SEIU’s COPE fund had total expendituresof just $40.9 million during the 2007-2008 campaign. Hmm. Where did the other $44.1 million come from? It appears that “most” of the SEIU’s political expenditures came from sources other than COPE.

… Money the union spends on political activities outside of COPE must come from the union’s general treasury — the same general treasury that collects funds from foreign and illegal workers. Youngdahl does not answer the question posed in my column: Does the SEIU keep track of how many illegal immigrants it has on its union rolls? How much money from these illegal workers (who are by definition foreign nationals) goes toward the tens of millions of dollars the union spends on political activities?

And even these figures don’t account for all SEIU political spending. According to the National Right to Work Committee, mailing and phone banking to union members is considered “member communication,” not political activity — even if the sole purpose of that communication is to get out the vote for the union’s chosen candidate. How does the SEIU pay for such “member communication,” and do foreign or illegal workers contribute to these obviously political expenses? And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

If the SEIU does not like such questions, it can thank President Obama. It was the president and his allies who opened the door to this line of inquiry. I contacted the SEIU before publishing my column to get them to provide some answers, but they did not reply. Perhaps they will answer when congressional investigators come calling next year.

Tagged with: • • • • • • •
Posted in: Elections, Forced-Dues for Politics, Political Activity, SEIU
0 Comments
Leave A Response
Go To Top »