Federal Govt Attacks.. This is applied Marxism

Sometimes by favoring a narrow constituency, the federal government can cause economic devastation for a company or a state and even encourage companies to manufacture outside the United States. In terms of sheer economic stupidity, the Obama Administration committed an economic felony when the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ordered Boeing to shutter a spanking new $2 billion facility that would have created 1,000 much-needed new jobs in South Carolina.

Last week, the NLRB told Boeing that it could not open the facility it had spent three years creating to build its new Dreamliner series of airplanes. The NLRB did not deem the plant unsafe or harmful to South Carolina workers. The NLRB simply said that it could block Boeing from using the new plant as Boeing’s decision to locate it in South Carolina was in part based on a desire to avoid work stoppages and strikes, and this rationale was harmful to unions and thus an illegal act.

Never before has the federal government told a company it may not relocate within the United States. Never before has the statute used been interpreted to affect a decision on where a product is made. Never before has the Constitutional goal of easing interstate commerce been so trampled by a formal act of the federal government.

This outrageous overreach is unacceptable and will certainly be overturned in time by the federal courts. But the process may take years, and meanwhile a great American company – and one of our nation’s largest exporters – will be hurt irreparably. Imagine the Boeing customers abroad who placed firm orders awaiting their new planes; Airbus must be getting lots of calls and new orders thanks to this decision.

Our federal government has become the enemy of job creators. Look at the facts here: South Carolina’s Dreamliner production line would be in addition to, not instead of, Boeing’s production line in Seattle. Boeing is already facing a backlog of orders for the plane, and this NLRB action, if not reversed soon, will certainly cause it to lose orders for these American-built planes. The NLRB apparently wants the second line to also be produced in the Puget Sound area – also silly if you see what too much concentration of production capacity in one venue can do (witness the Sendai area in Japan). The greatest irony is that if Boeing had put this facility in Canada or even in China the NLRB probably could not have ordered its shutdown (but who knows given their perverse interpretation of the law).

The Obama Administration has been criticized as light on those with any real business experience. If you have not made a payroll or never created a job you can play in the niceties of doing what union fundraisers want. But with all due respect to my father who was a union activist until he died, unions have lost their way. Having successfully changed laws to protect worker safety, overtime and vacation compensation, and even process for termination, unions are pushing our nation over the edge with unaffordable defined benefit pensions and no-fire tenure.

This latest example with the NLRB and Boeing pushes the “union gets everything it wants” envelope further; it is just one more reason why a company would choose not to manufacture in the United States. I suspect even my loyal unionist dad would say he and his fellow WWII veterans might think this controlling government action is beyond the American ideal for which they fought.

Our government is killing American jobs. American companies compete in the real world, and our nation is in real trouble as we isolate ourselves, create trade barriers and handcuff our best companies with absurd policies, excessive litigation costs, high taxes and social engineering.

It is time for common sense. South Carolina Senators should filibuster the Senate until this issue is resolved. Business groups must speak up. Responsible Democrats and Republicans must demand this action be reversed. This march towards national economic suicide must end, and immediate reversal of this act of insanity against Boeing is a good place to start.

Gary Shapiro, president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), the U.S. trade association representing some 2,000 consumer electronics companies, is the author of “The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream.

We have Fools running our federal government. The Obama administration can’t help but take over and control private industry.. making it become a union controlled, quasi government captive. This is not the America we want, or need.

Advertisements

» In Shot Heard Around Business World, Obama’s Labor Board Issues Complaint Against Boeing – Big Government

In Shot Heard Around Business World, Obama’s Labor Board Issues Complaint Against Boeing

by

LaborUnionReport


On Wednesday, President Obama’s union-controlled National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint against the Boeing Company that, if ruled in the union and NLRB’s favor, may prove to have far-reaching consequences across the American business landscape. Ultimately, the outcome to this case will state whether or not America has, in fact, become entirely hostile to business (and the jobs they provide). The complaint was issued by the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel (the same one who threatened to sue South Carolina and three other states over the states’ secret-ballot initiatives) and is set to go to hearing on June 14th before an administrative law judge in Seattle.

At issue, according to the NLRB, is whether Boeing violated federal labor law by deciding to transfer a second airplane production line from a union facility in the state of Washington to a non-union facility in South Carolina for “discriminatory reasons.”

Despite the fact that Boeing now employs around 1,000 employees in South Carolina and has spent millions to build a facility, the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel is seeking an order for Boeing to maintain production of the second production line in Washington.

Lafe Solomon, acting general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, has suggested a remedy for Boeing’s actions: that Boeing will maintain a second 787 line in Washington state. The labor board, however, isn’t saying Boeing has to close its South Carolina facility.

We’re not telling them what to do with it,” said Nancy Cleeland, a spokeswoman with the labor board.

Despite the possibility of political retaliation on the part of the Obama NLRB, as well as the possible job losses in South Carolina an eventual NLRB decision may cause, the core principle at stake is whether or not an employer has the right to move business away from a unionized location that has repeatedly been the victim of extortive strikes, causing the employer hundreds of days of lost production, customer delays and billions in revenue.

The Background—

In 1989, the International Association of Machinists engaged in a 48-day strike against Boeing which caused the company to miss orders and resulted in sales being $2 billion less than projected.

In 1995, the IAM struck again—this time lasting 69 days.

In 2005, while not as lengthy as prior strikes, the IAM struck Boeing for four weeks.

In 2008, the IAM struck Boeing for 58 days and cost the company $1.8 billion.

In 2009, with orders for its new 787 having been put in jeopardy Boeing officials began exploring alternatives to having to deal with union strikes every three or four years. One alternative was to talk to the union about obtaining longer contracts with no-strike clauses and the other was to begin searching for location for a second production line outside of the Puget Sound area. It decided to do both.

Boeing entered into discussions with the IAM, something that even the NLRB noted it did not have to do:

The investigation did not find merit to the union’s charge that Boeing failed to bargain in good faith over its decision regarding the second line. Although a decision to locate unit work would typically be a mandatory subject of bargaining, in this case, the union had waived its right to bargain on the issue in its collective bargaining agreement with Boeing.

As Boeing is a huge employer in the Puget Sound, the local media coverage was quite extensive as the talks between the IAM and Boeing were taking place. Eventually, however, the union’s demands in exchange for a long contract (and no strikes) were too great and talks broke down. According to a statement from Boeing:

Boeing had hoped to secure a long-term agreement with a no-strike clause that would ensure production stability for its customers and be cost competitive for the future.  In exchange, however, the IAM insisted upon terms unacceptable to Boeing, including a guarantee that Boeing would place all future commercial airplane production in Puget Sound, and a promise from the company to remain neutral in all IAM union organizing campaigns nationwide. When an agreement with IAM leaders could not be reached, Boeing opted to build the new facility in North Charleston.

Following the decision to expand production to a second line in South Carolina, in March 2010, the IAM filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB alleging, among other things, that Boeing retaliated against union employees for the 2008 strike. [Striking (that is, acting in concert), after all, is a protected right.]

In reviewing the NLRB’s complaint (see in full below), the Acting General Counsel accuses the company’s decision was coercive and is, apparently, basing his decision on five “incidents”—the first “incident” was that a company officer explained the decision on an earnings conference call that was later reported on, as well as posted on Boeing’s intranet site; the second was in a Q&A distributed to managers; and the other three were newspaper reports. All of these “incidents” took place after negotiations with the IAM had broken down and the decision was made. However, because all of them had basic statements explaining the business rationale for locating the production line in South Carolina was to have a “dual sourcing” system to ensure continuity because of past strikes, the NLRB believes that is illegal.

Boeing vows to fight.

Even as Boeing has expanded in South Carolina, it has also added jobs in Puget Sound which seems to undermine the NLRB’s claim that the company’s decision was based on union animus (animosity toward the union) versus sound business judgement. Nevertheless, Boeing has vowed to fight.

“This claim is legally frivolous and represents a radical departure from both NLRB and Supreme Court precedent,” said Boeing Executive Vice President and General Counsel J. Michael Luttig. “Boeing has every right under both federal law and its collective bargaining agreement to build additional U.S. production capacity outside of the Puget Sound region.”

[snip]

Boeing also was critical of the timing of the complaint, which comes a full 17 months after the company announced plans to expand its manufacturing capacity in the United States in South Carolina.  Construction of the factory is nearly complete and the company has hired more than 1,000 new workers.  Final assembly of the first airplane is slated to begin in July.

Boeing has made it clear that none of the production jobs created in South Carolina has come at the expense of jobs in Puget Sound and that not a single union member has been adversely affected.  In fact, IAM employment in Puget Sound has increased by approximately 2,000 workers since the decision to expand in South Carolina was made in October 2009.

Boeing does seem to have well-established law on its side—most notably, several U.S. Supreme Court Cases appear to undermine various components of the NLRB’s complaint (Darlington Mills, First National Maintenance, American Ship Building, as well as NLRB vs Brown)—which makes one wonder whether politics are more at play here.

The Politics of  Pull…

Last November, voters of four states (South Carolina being one of them) voted to ensure the secrecy of their ballots in unionization campaigns. In January, the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel threatened to sue the states if they moved to act on the voter-approves measures to which the Attorneys General for all four states shot back a terse reply. In early February, the Acting General Counsel seemed to back down from his earlier threat.

In January, the newly-elected governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, was sued by the Machinists union after she stated that she was opposed to unions.

Haley, however, is not one to be intimidated by the Machinists or the NLRB. Following the NLRB’s complaint on Wednesday, Haley fired right back:

“This is an absolute assault on a great corporate citizen and on South Carolina’s right-to-work status. We will continue to do everything we can to protect that status, and to stand with companies like Boeing who understand what it means to take care of their employees without the interference of a meddlesome, self-serving union. This bullying will not be tolerated in South Carolina.”

Senator Lindsay Graham [R-SC] issued a blistering statement which also speaks to the broader principles at stake for American businesses (and jobs):

This is one of the worst examples of unelected bureaucrats doing the bidding of special interest groups that I’ve ever seen. In this case, the NLRB is doing the bidding of the unions at great cost to South Carolina and our nation’s economy.

If successful, the NLRB complaint would allow unions to hold a virtual ‘veto’ over business decisions.  Left to their own devices, the NLRB would routinely punish right-to-work states that value and promote their pro-business climates. The current makeup of the NLRB Board has been skewed against business.  This action will not be allowed to stand.

“I would be surprised if any court recognized the legitimacy of this complaint.  It’s pretty easy to see that at its heart, this is about union politics. As Senator, I will do everything in my power, including introducing legislation cutting off funding for this wild goose chase, to stop the NLRB’s frivolous complaint.”

Senator Jim Demint [R-SC] also issued a similar statement with respect to the politics of pull likely at play:

“This is nothing more than a political favor for the unions who are supporting President Obama’s re-election campaign. Unfortunately, it comes at the expense of hundreds of jobs in South Carolina and thousands of jobs nationwide. There is no doubt that if the National Labor Relations Board’s claim against Boeing moves forward, it will have a chilling effect on job growth in my state and in right-to-work states across the country. Using the federal government as political weapon to protect union bosses at the expense of American jobs cannot be tolerated. I intend to use every tool at my disposal as a United States Senator to stop the President from carrying out this malicious act.”

Here is the full NLRB complaint:

_________________

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

X-posted.

Follow laborunionrpt on Twitter


Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , ,
Posted Apr 21st 2011 at 5:34 am in Big Labor |
Edit

Comments (82)

Continued effort by Government to shift America private enterprise towards a Marxist inspired collective form of economy. A sure “Road to Serfdom” for America.

Michigan Carpenters Union “Bannering”- becoming desparate

Union tactics continue to devolve. Because there is no actual “labor dispute”, they resort to hiring non union “picketers” to picket in front of businesses with absolutely no “dispute”.. but the union relies on general ignorance to fuel their lie based effort to retain members. They’re losing membership…

Govt, Unions, and the Battle in Wisconsin

 

AFSCMEUnions — in both the public and private sectors — have been thrust back into the national spotlight following weeks of unrest over proposed reforms, particularly in Wisconsin, but in other states as well. Countless commentators and analysts of all persuasions have offered their opinions on the matter. And the outcome of ongoing battles, all of them agree, will have far-reaching repercussions.

But what are the real issues? Every side in the debate is trying to frame its argument in terms of rights. And in a free society, workers would indeed have the right voluntarily to band together to form a union. But, freedom would also mean that workers would have a right not to join a union if they did not want to. And employers have rights, too — including the right to refuse negotiations with organized unions, to deny union demands, or even to fire and replace union members who (for example) walk off the job if their demands are not met.

In America, however, government has stepped in. Because of our labor laws, workers who do not want to join a union are forced to do so as a condition of employment at any company that has been unionized, unless the job is located in a “right to work” state. And the monopolistic power unions are able to exercise over employers’ labor forces via our labor laws infringe upon the rights of employers.

The ability to exercise monopolistic powers — whether possessed by a cartel of business interests made possible by government favoritism, or whether possessed by government-favored unions — are harmful to freedom, competition, and the overall economy. The fact that the monopolistic entity in question may be a labor union does not change the inherent nature of monopoly and the abuse of power that occurs when competition and choices are curtailed.

But public-sector unions — the question currently facing America — are fundamentally more monopolistic than their counterparts in the private sector. Private-sector unions may enjoy compulsory union membership, but they are at least subject to market limits. If a private-sector union demands too much from management, shareholders, and consumers, the firm will eventually fail as competitors not subject to those demands come to dominate the market. On the other hand, if an employer does not adequately compensate workers, market forces would eventually lead those employees to find a firm that will.

So in a sense, all parties in the private sector have a vested interest in maintaining reasonable working conditions and compensation. Otherwise, everyone suffers in the end. Of course, the same holds true whether or not workers are unionized, but in the private sector, monopoly bargaining is limited in its ability to wreak havoc.   

But unions in the government sector are an entirely separate issue. Rather than being faced with market pressures to keep wages at reasonable levels, politicians currying favor with union bosses seem eager to provide perpetually greater concessions — without having to worry about staying competitive in the marketplace (government, after all, is a monopoly), and without having to take the money out of their own pockets since the costs can be passed on to the taxpayers. In fact, the concessions actually result in more money in politicians’ pockets via political contributions from the unions that got the concessions.

“You see, monopoly bargaining rights and forced union dues allow union bosses to elect the politicians who negotiate their compensation packages,” pointed out Campaign for Liberty President John Tate in an e-mail to supporters. “This rigged game has led to public employee benefit packages and pensions that are bankrupting state after state across the nation.”

Tate pointed out that if action isn’t taken, “public unions will continue to treat taxpayers as human ATM machines, who exist only to fund budget-busting pension and benefit schemes ‘won’ via monopoly bargaining and forced union dues extracted from taxpayers.”

Arthur Thompson, CEO of The John Birch Society, expressed similar concerns in his most recent weekly update. “If our public officials — that we elect — are not allowed to set the compensation and benefits for public employees, what does that make us, the taxpayer?” he wondered. “The taxpayer can just keep working to pay them no matter how they vote.”

On top of the obvious conflict of interest inherent in politicians and the labor bosses who helped elect them colluding to extract ever-more wealth from taxpayers, the fact that government “services” are often monopolized means that a strike by unionized public-sector workers can easily lead to disaster. And it has before. Even President Franklin Roosevelt, viewed by many as the original enabler of labor unions, opposed government-sector collective bargaining for that reason.

“The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service,” Roosevelt asserted in a letter to the National Federation of Federal Employees cited by RealClearPolitics.com. “A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of government.”

Republican Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, of course, is not  advocating an end to public-sector unions. His proposal, aimed at shrinking a multi-billion dollar deficit, would eliminate collective bargaining by state- and local-employee unions in the areas of healthcare and pension benefits, but not for wage hikes not exceeding increases in the Consumer Pirce Limit.

But in Wisconsin — the first state to permit public-sector unions — and many other parts of America including Ohio and Indiana, labor leaders have rallied against what they call an assault on collective-bargaining “rights.” In reality, the unions’ power to monopolize the government labor force and compel taxpayers to pay for their demands is a privilege made possible by the state, not some unalienable right taxpayers are bound to respect. And numerous commentators and pro-liberty advocates have pointed this out, too.

Harvard economics Professor Robert Barro, for example, highlighted some of the obvious problems in a piece for the Wall Street Journal:

Labor unions like to portray collective bargaining as a basic civil liberty, akin to the freedoms of speech, press, assembly and religion. For a teachers union, collective bargaining means that suppliers of teacher services to all public school systems in a state — or even across states — can collude with regard to acceptable wages, benefits and working conditions. An analogy for business would be for all providers of airline transportation to assemble to fix ticket prices, capacity and so on. From this perspective, collective bargaining on a broad scale is more similar to an antitrust violation than to a civil liberty.

Libertarian commentator Sheldon Richman approached government-union problems from another angle, noting in a piece for The Freeman,

It is a grave mistake to treat so-called public employment like other employment.

Governments are monopolies that get their revenue by force, not through voluntary exchange. Thus they don’t face the market test of free competition, and they lack key price information with which to engage in economic calculation. The consequences of this difference are considerable.

Paleo-conservatives have also attacked the issue. “Since the 1960s, government unions have been able to sit behind closed doors with the politicians they put in office and write contracts, the cost of which is borne by taxpayers who have no one at the table,” wrote former Presidential candidate and frequent media pundit Pat Buchanan. “They call this collective bargaining. A more accurate term is collusive bargaining.”

And the battle currently raging in Wisconsin over the “rights” of government-employee unions will have broad implications for the whole country. Buchanan noted,

In Wisconsin, the die is cast and Walker cannot yield. For if he yields, the state and its 3,000 cities, counties, towns, and school districts will be forever at the mercy of these unions. If he yields, it will be a triumph for the tactics of intimidation, wildcat strikes and mass demonstrations to block legislative action.

If Walker yields, governors and legislators across America will read the tea leaves and back away from taking on government unions. That means higher and higher taxes, as in Illinois, and eventual sinking of the states into unpayable debt and default. Scott Walker cannot lose this fight, because his country cannot afford to have him lose it.

The stakes are indeed high. But for the sake of America, government budgets, and general sanity going forward, it is crucial that Gov. Walker win the battle. As The John Birch Society’s Arthur Thompson noted, and the facts have proven, this is an international phenomenon orchestrated behind the scenes by socialist and communist forces. If Americans cannot even rein in their servants, however slightly, the implications for the future are disastrous.

Photo: AP Images

Related articles:

Big, International Consequences in Wisconsin Union Battle

Wisconsin Cops Refuse Orders, Join Protests

Rallies Across U.S. Back Wisconsin Protestors

Wisconsin Protests Go National

Wisconsin Assembly Passes Budget Repair Bill

Wisconsin Protests: The Reforms, the Reality

Wisconsin Teachers, Doctors Caught Lying Could Face Trouble

Tea Party Shows Support for Wis. Gov. Walker, Reforms

Wisconsin Gov. to Obama: Butt Out

National Guard May Deploy as Socialists, Unions Wreck Havoc in Wisconsin

 

Trackback(0)

 

Comments (0)add comment

Write comment
You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy

Communists squash individual liberty wherever they go. You have no individual rights or protection from the Mob.. and the Mob may take your property at will, by force.  Remember, “personal” property includes you life.. and your property (life) is subject to the mob’s whim’s. See below.  

We must look at this issue for what the American Communist Party considers it to be.. a fight between the “old American” values that value the individual… vs. the Collective values that use force to trample the rights to life and/or personal property for the individual. Karl Marx’s ideas were put into effect in many places… Everywhere it is imposed, the individual has very few rights and becomes dependent on the State for shelter, income, food. What kind of life is that?

This kind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

Eric D. Weitz says that the mass killing in communist states are a natural consequence of the failure of the rule of law, seen commonly during periods of social upheaval in the 20th century. For both communist and non-communist mass killings, “genocides occurred at moments of extreme social crisis, often generated by the very policies of the regimes.”[34] They are not inevitable but are political decisions.[34]

Stephen Hicks of Rockford College ascribes the violence characteristic of twentieth-century socialist rule to these collectivist regimes’ abandonment of protections of civil rights and rejection of the values of civil society. Hicks writes that whereas “in practice every liberal capitalist country has a solid record for being humane, for by and large respecting rights and freedoms, and for making it possible for people to put together fruitful and meaningful lives”, in socialism “practice has time and again proved itself more brutal than the worst dictatorships prior to the twentieth century. Each socialist regime has collapsed into dictatorship and begun killing people on a huge scale.”[35]

The Black Book of Communism, a set of academic essays on mass killings under Communist regimes, details “‘crimes, terror, and repression’ from Russia in 1917 to Afghanistan in 1989”.[1](p x)[36](p727) Courtois claims an association between communism and criminality—”Communist regimes … turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government”[1](p4)—and says that this criminality lies at the level of ideology rather than state practice.[1](p2)

Look For the Union Fable – Ann Coulter

The good news out of Wisconsin is that public school students’ test scores skyrocketed last week, mystifying educators. The bad news is many student-teacher love affairs were hard-hit without access to janitors’ closets and locker rooms.

Democrats are acting as if Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s demand that public sector employees give up collective bargaining would have George Washington rolling in his grave (a clear violation of Gravediggers’ Local 803 regulations concerning the rolling of the dead).

In fact, government employees should never, ever be allowed to organize.

The need for a union comes down to this question: Do you have a boss who wants you to work harder for less money? In the private sector, the answer is yes. In the public sector, the answer is a big, fat NO.

Government unions have nothing in common with private sector unions because they don’t have hostile management on the other side of the bargaining table. To the contrary, the “bosses” of government employees are co-conspirators with them in bilking the taxpayers.

Far from being careful stewards of the taxpayers’ money, politicians are on the same side of the bargaining table as government employees — against the taxpayers, who aren’t allowed to be part of the negotiation. This is why the head of New York’s largest public union in the mid-’70s, Victor Gotbaum, gloated, “We have the ability to elect our own boss.”

Democratic politicians don’t think of themselves as “management.” They don’t respond to union demands for more money by saying, “Are you kidding me?” They say, “Great — get me a raise too!”

Democrats buy the votes of government workers with generous pay packages and benefits — paid for by someone else — and then expect a kickback from the unions in the form of hefty campaign donations, rent-a-mobs and questionable union political activity when they run for re-election.

In 2006, 10,000 public employees staged a rally outside the New Jersey State House to protest the mere discussion of a cut to their gold-plated salaries and benefits. Then-Gov. Jon Corzine leapt onto the stage shouting: “We will fight for a fair contract!”

Only later, someone noticed: Wait — isn’t he management? (It takes a special kind of courage to promise 10,000 crazed union agitators that you’ll fight to get them more money.)

Service Employees International Union officials openly threaten California legislators. At a 2009 legislative hearing, an SEIU member sneered into a microphone: “We helped to getchu into office, and we gotta good memory. Come November, if you don’t back our program, we’ll getchu out of office.”

It used to be widely understood that collective bargaining has no place in government employment. In 1937, the American president beloved by liberals, FDR, warned that collective bargaining “cannot be transplanted into the public service.” George Meany, head of the AFL-CIO for a quarter century, said unions were not appropriate for civil servants. As recently as 1978, the vast majority of states prohibited unionization of government employees.

Anytime there is the slightest suggestion that perhaps in the middle of a deep recession, public school teachers should pay 1.5 percent of their salaries toward their extravagant health care plans for their entire families, suddenly we get television ads of hard-working men doing dangerous jobs on docks and in foundries while being abused by their greedy capitalist overseers.

The unions must be desperately hoping that no one will notice … Wait a minute! WE’RE TALKING ABOUT TEACHERS! This isn’t the Discovery Channel’s “Dirty Jobs” — it’s Mrs. Cooper’s seventh-grade “values clarification” class.

With heavy union dues, labor has plenty of money to pay for propaganda and to threaten and bribe politicians.

On his first day in office, the Republican governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, signed an executive order denying public sector employees the right to bargain collectively — something that had been granted, naturally, by a Democratic governor.

As a result, Indiana government employees instantly got to take home an extra thousand dollars that no longer went to union dues — and good employees started getting raises, while bad employees got cashiered.

But government workers think the job of everyone else in the economy is to protect their high salaries, crazy work rules and obscene pensions. They self-righteously lecture us about public service, the children, a “living wage” — all in the service of squeezing more money from the taxpayer to fund their breathtakingly selfish job arrangements.

There’s never a recession if you work for the government. The counties with the highest per capita income aren’t near New York City or Los Angeles — they’re in the Washington, D.C., area — a one-company town where the company is the government. The three counties with the highest incomes in the entire country are all suburbs of Washington. Eleven of the 25 counties with the highest incomes are near Washington.

For decades now, the Democrats have had a good gig buying the votes of government workers with outrageous salaries, benefits and work rules — and then sticking productive earners with the bill. But, now, we’re out of money, no matter how long Wisconsin Democrats hide out in Illinois.

An Coulter is spot on.. again. Forcing Government workers to fund unions.. using those funds to finance campaigns ONLY for politicians who stick it to the taxapayer, is wrong. Since when is giving monopoly labor a right to use extortion as a means of negotiation? Very bad idea.. government employee unions are destroying our country.

The Trouble with Public Sector Unions

Media_httpwwwnational_siwfa

The Trouble with Public Sector Unions

Public Sector unionization and the corrupting influence such organizations have on our Republic. Even Progressive President Franklin D. Roosevelt would not allow public sector employee Unions. Today, now that we have allowed such unions to exist, we are learning that FDR had good reason to take that position.

 

Even a Eugene area Teamster and Union Shop Steward grudgingly awakens…

repost from :

http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/video/video/show?id=2600775%3AVideo%3A323…

 

While watching the protests in Wisconsin I remembered this quote from Willie Brown – former ultra liberal (D) CA Assemblyman and San Francisco Mayor who said; “The deal used to be that civil servants were paid less than private sector workers in exchange for an understanding that they had job security for life,” Brown asserted. “But we politicians — pushed by our friends in labor — gradually expanded pay and benefits . . . while keeping the job protections and layering on incredibly generous retirement packages. . . . This is politically unpopular and potentially even career suicide . . . but at some point, someone is going to have to get honest about the fact.”  Even Willie “gets it.”  And now the voters of liberal Wisconsin “get it.” When will the unions and the educated finally understand what broke really means? Look at the GM example…

  I don’t begrudge anyone a fair wage, pension or health plan- and I do appreciate our Teachers and Public servants who work hard, but… reality insists that we all understand we are broke.  Every state is facing the same problem- many of us have been sounding the alarm for years, yet the old tin- can continued to be kicked down the road. Now we see the end of the road and sacrifices must be made- the road is no longer paved with the spoils of the taxpayers for the public workers to enjoy. The inherent problems with all of these defined benefit public pension plans is basically three-fold.

  1.  They guarantee an 8% return on investment + many (like Oregon PERS Tier 1 Plan) also provide a 2% COLA to retirees.
  2. The 100 year average return from the NYSE (according to Warren Buffett) is 5.3%.
  3. The public sector employee generally has no real “skin in the game” concerning pensions and health insurance.

  This simple equation can be understood by grade school children – 10% is MORE THAN 5.3%. HELLO! ARE YOU SMARTER THAN A 5th GRADER! Whenever the return on these pensions falls below 8% the tax payers pay the difference.  Eugene 4J School District (16,500 students) spends 31% of payroll on PERS (approximately $40 million per year)-  Oakridge Schools spend 29% of payroll on PERS- ridiculously flawed public pensions are cannibalizing  public education and basic public services such as fire and police. Despite a Jan. 1, 2011 Oregon PERS cost increase of 6% (to the taxpayer) some mis-guided folks in Eugene are backing a new local income tax to support Eugene schools.  A somewhat noble but bad move! The money is there to educate, protect and provide basic services – not to propagate extravagant pensions that in the real world would require one to save $1 million in an annuity. Nor is the money intended to pay for “Cadillac Health Insurance” plans that are unaffordable to the private sector. Simply put- We are; “Taxed Enough Already.” It’s time for public employees to have some “skin in the game.”

 

                                                        Rob DeHarpport

                                                        (30 year Teamster and 20 yr. Union Shop Steward)