Showing posts with label unions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unions. Show all posts

Thursday, July 2, 2015

Union Members Support Bernie Sanders

Report: 'Hillary Clinton has a union problem'

Bernie Sanders has turned Hillary Clinton’s parade to the White House into a competitive race for the Democratic nomination, as unions prefer Clintons’ socialist opponent.
LaborUnionReport.com organized an informal poll in mid-June 2015 and the results showed that union support for Hillary Clinton was lacking significantly.
Seventy-six percent of union members favor Bernie Sanders for president in 2016. Only 11 percent of union members favored Hillary Clinton.
The report said, “due to her time spent with the employer-friendly Rose law firm (which helps employers fight unions), as well as her stint on the board of directors for Wal-Mart, many union members believe Clinton cannot be trusted.”
Unions distrust Hillary Clinton’s intimacy with Wall Street, according to the report. In addition to that concern, Clinton declined to weigh in on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Labor leaders are opposed to the TPP.
“Hillary Clinton has a union problem,” the report said. “Since no Democrat can win the White House without union support, it is the union problem that may pose a bigger problem than all the others … and it has her campaign very worried.”

American Workers Subsidizing Unions With Tax Dollars

In St. Charles, IL, a teacher is paid $141,105 not to teach. In Philadelphia, “ghost employees” who don’t do work for the state collect benefits from the state. In Kalamazoo, MI a former teacher is collecting a government pension of $85,903 a year even though he didn’t teach his last 14 years, but instead worked as a union employee.
Called “release time,” or “official time” at the federal level, it’s a practice that allows public employees to conduct union business during working hours without loss of pay. These activities include negotiating contracts, lobbying, processing grievances, and attending union meetings and conferences.
According to Trey Kovacs, a policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, this racket has cost the federal government about $1 billion since 1998. Between 2008 and 2011, the fraud has increased from 2.9 million hours at a cost of $121 million to 3.4 million hours at a cost of $155 million.
School boards, which frequently consist of members bought and paid for by the teachers unions, are particularly guilty of this crime against the taxpayer. In CA, where the California Teachers Association wields great power, the situation is particularly egregious. Typically this scam is written into collective bargaining contracts and comes in different flavors. Sometimes the school district will pay for the cost of a sub if the teacher/union employee needs to do work for the union. In Los Angeles, page 6 of the teacher contract states that the United Teachers of Los Angeles “may request the release of designated employees from their regular duties with no loss of pay for the purpose of attending to UTLA matters, with the expense of the substitute or replacement to be borne by UTLA.”
Sounds fair, right? But it’s not.
The substitute invariably makes a lot less than the teacher/union employee and the taxpayer is sucking up the difference in pay. The teacher is also racking up pension time, (which is taxpayer-subsidized), while doing union work. And of course the students lose out by having frequent subs, who often are nothing more than placeholders.
In other districts, the union gets a completely free pass. Page 15 of Orange County’s Fountain Valley School District contract reads, “The Association (union) President or designee may utilize one (1) day per week for Association business. The District shall bear the cost of the substitutes.” So a classroom teacher of 15 years, who doubles as union president, makes an$89,731 yearly salary, or $485 a day. The taxpayer is also paying $100 a day for a sub which brings the total to $585 for one day of union business per week. Repeated over the 38 week teaching year, the taxpayer is on the hook for $22,230. And that amount does not include the thousands of dollars the employer (ultimately the taxpayer) has to pay for contributions to the teacher/union leader’s retirement fund, health benefits, unemployment insurance and workers compensation.
With over a thousand school districts in the state doing business like Los Angeles and Fountain Valley, we are talking about serious larceny.

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

Labor Unions’ Minimum Wage Push: A Shameless Scheme to Fatten Their Own Coffers

Protesters calling for pay of 5 an hour and a union march toward McDonald's headquarters in Oak Brook, Ill., Wednesday, May 20, 2015. (AP Photo/Teresa Crawford)

Utterly shameless. There really is no other way to describe what some unions are trying to pull when it comes to the minimum wage.
The issue, of course, has been in the news quite a bit lately, especially in Los Angeles, with supposedly incensed workers waving their “Fight for 15” placards. It’s all perfectly packaged for the media, an alleged David versus Goliath fight. Will those mean ol’ fast-food joints and other stingy employers finally start paying a “living wage”? Tune in for the dramatic video.
Never mind that a substantial hike in the minimum wage would price many unskilled workers right out of the market. Goodbye, entry-level jobs for men and women who will later become workers making a much better wage at a job with more responsibilities.
And never mind how this minimum wage hike would make the price of fast food soar. A huge part of the draw for fast food, after all, is the fact that it’s relatively cheap. Take that away, and now it’s goodbye to the industry, which, of course, will hardly help the workers who are supposed to benefit from the wage increase.
Employers, after all, don’t have a bottomless safe in the backroom from which to pull vast reserves of cash for these salaries. They’ll react by cutting hours, for one thing. Labor expert James Sherk, for example, found that raising the minimum wage to $15 would cause a 36 percent drop in hours worked in fast food.
Think of what such a hike would mean for a major city such as Los Angeles. “If the effects are the same for all low-wage food-service occupations,” writes economist Salim Furth, “the ‘Fight for 15’ will cost more than 20,000 Angelenos their jobs in those occupations alone.” We can expect the same type of effect everywhere if such a drastic hike is enacted.
Of course, we don’t hear about any negative effects from much of the media or from breathless proponents of such “wage equality.” Or if we do, the effects are shrugged off as the scaremongering tactics of employers who just don’t want to pay up.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

‘Trust Us – We’re the Government’ Isn’t the Best Justification for These Huge New Power Grabs

Seton Motley | Red State | RedState.comWe are deep into Year Seven of the Barack Obama Administration. It has not been a great time in the history of government transparency and accountability.
He at the outset sounded good.
We have to use technology to open up our democracy. Its no coincidence that one of the most secretive administrations in our history has favored special interests and pursued policies that could not stand up to the sunlight.
Then so quickly disintegrated.
Ill let you participate in government forums, ask questions, in real time offer suggestions that will be reviewed before decisions are made. And let you comment on legislation before it is signed.…”
Then…not so much.
President Obama promised transparency and open government. He failed miserably.
Speaking of fake transparency.
This “record number of comments” was ceaselessly touted.
The Left wasn’t pleased with the Net Neutrality order as it was then written.
Concerns for the new rules center around “fast lanes” and “slow lanes”….
President Barack Obama wasn’t pleased – and big-footed the whole process by saying so.
Then after the landslide, Less Government 2014 election – the President made it official.
Then this happened.
Then – it happened. The President’s FCC gave him exactly what he wanted.

Saturday, June 6, 2015

Unions Are Utterly Shameless. Here’s the Real Story Behind Their Minimum Wage Campaign.

Utterly shameless. There really is no other way to describe what some unions are trying to pull when it comes to the minimum wage.
The issue, of course, has been in the news quite a bit lately, especially in Los Angeles, with supposedly incensed workers waving their “Fight for 15” placards. It’s all perfectly packaged for the media, an alleged David versus Goliath fight. Will those mean ol’ fast-food joints and other stingy employers finally start paying a “living wage”? Tune in for the dramatic video.
Never mind that a substantial hike in the minimum wage would price many unskilled workers right out of the market. Goodbye, entry-level jobs for men and women who will later become workers making a much better wage at a job with more responsibilities.
And never mind how this minimum wage hike would make the price of fast food soar. A huge part of the draw for fast food, after all, is the fact that it’s relatively cheap. Take that away, and now it’s goodbye to the industry, which, of course, will hardly help the workers who are supposed to benefit from the wage increase.
Employers, after all, don’t have a bottomless safe in the backroom from which to pull vast reserves of cash for these salaries. They’ll react by cutting hours, for one thing. Labor expert James Sherk, for example, found that raising the minimum wage to $15 would cause a 36 percent drop in hours worked in fast food.
Think of what such a hike would mean for a major city such as Los Angeles. “If the effects are the same for all low-wage food-service occupations,” writes economist Salim Furth, “the ‘Fight for 15’ will cost more than 20,000 Angelenos their jobs in those occupations alone.” We can expect the same type of effect everywhere if such a drastic hike is enacted.
Of course, we don’t hear about any negative effects from much of the media or from breathless proponents of such “wage equality.” Or if we do, the effects are shrugged off as the scaremongering tactics of employers who just don’t want to pay up.
But it’s harder to ignore the fact that the same Los Angeles unions who campaigned so hard and so successfully for a $15 minimum wage want unionized companies to be exempted from the new requirement.
As Rusty Hicks, head of the Los Angeles Federation of Labor, told the Los Angeles Times: “With a collective bargaining agreement, a business owner and the employees negotiate an agreement that works for them both. The agreement allows each party to prioritize what is important to them. This provision gives the parties the option, the freedom, to negotiate that agreement. And that is a good thing.”
A new low in hypocrisy? Oh, no. It’s even worse than that.

Friday, June 5, 2015

Trouble in Dem-land as unions freeze cash contributions

For decades, labor unions have floated the Democratic Party with massive contributions (based on money taken out of the paychecks of members who are forced to join as a condition of employment) and donations of manpower, expecially useful in get-out-the-vote efforts.  And for decades, private-sector unions have shrunk in the face of competition from overseas, as the Democrats court fat-cat donors from Wall Street.

Is that era coming to an end?  Emily Cahn and Emma Dumain of Roll Call report:
The AFL-CIO, along with some public sector unions, announced a campaign finance freeze in March. Unions hoped the threat of withholding contributions would scare Democratic lawmakers out of supporting President Barack Obama’s Trade Promotion Authority, or “fast track,” to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership — a trade agreement labor groups say would hurt manufacturing jobs in the U.S.
The freeze is across the board, intended to punish the party as a whole, not individual members.  This must reflect frustration over being taken for granted and withering on the vine.  Naturally, there are howls of protest:

“I could understand withholding money from people who are on the fence — sure, great,” said one House Democratic chief of staff who asked not to be identified. “But for the people who are with them who also really need the help, I just don’t know that’s a smart strategy. I think that there’s plenty of people who they trust to be with them who could really use their help in deterring an opponent by showing some strength at this point in the cycle, and they’re not helping with that.”
Other Democrats are beginning to lose trust in unions coming through with campaign contributions at all, as House Democrats look to make inroads into a historic House majority.
Opposition to the TPP cuts across party lines.

Via: American Thinker


Continue Reading....

Thursday, June 4, 2015

Gawker’s Editorial Staff Votes Overwhelmingly to Unionize

gawkerThe hard-snarking editors at Gawker Media voted 80-27 to unionize yesterday. With the vote, the editorial staff of Gawker, Deadspin, Jezebel and several other sites join the Writers Guild of America, making them the first major online journalism venture to vote themselves the ability to collectively bargain.
“The next steps: determining what we want to bargain for; forming a bargaining committee; and negotiating a contract,” the staff wrote in a post announcing the tally Thursday morning.
Depending on your POV, this is a major territorial advance for the waning American union, which represents a decreasing slice of the American workforce in increasingly outsourced industries. Former New York Times labor reporter Steven Greenhouse had a great rundown of the frontier yesterday:
The Gawker effort is unusual in numerous ways, starting with the fact that its supporters say Gawker is currently a good place to work. Many say they want a union as a sort of insurance policy in case the next generation of managers is not so nice. “We’re in a very good place right now,” wrote Anne Merlan, a Jezebel writer, in an online debate about unionizing. “But we also exist in a bubble. When it bursts, I’d like us to have fair labor practices in place to protect everyone and provide for them in the event of ‘downsizing.'”
In another twist, the company has not opposed the unionization drive; indeed, Gawker’s founder, Nick Denton, said he was “intensely relaxed” about it. The company and the Writers Guild East even issued a joint statement: “We believe the cumbersome and often fractious process of unionization is premised on an assumption of complete antagonism between management and labor. Nothing of the kind exists at Gawker Media.”
Whether that’s a fluke or a harbinger of a new style of worker organizing remains to be seen. Gawker has been merciless in exposing the labor practices of rival publications such as Vice and Huffington Post, while the online writing industry in general remains mired in unpaid internships, low salaries, and borderline non-existent grievance processes for employees.
“Every workplace could use a union,” longtime Gawkerist Hamilton Nolan wrote in April. “A union is the only real mechanism that exists to represent the interests of employees in a company. A union is also the only real mechanism that enables employees to join together to bargain collectively, rather than as a bunch of separate, powerless entities. This is useful in good times (which our company enjoys now), and even more in bad times (which will inevitably come).”
UPDATE 9:27 a.m.: Writer’s Guild of America East responds:
“As Gawker’s writers have demonstrated, organizing in digital media is a real option, not an abstraction. People who do this work really can come together for their own common good,” said Lowell Peterson, Executive Director of the Writers Guild of America, East. “The WGAE, Gawker’s writers, and the company’s management share a commitment to journalistic integrity and creative freedom. We are eager for Gawker’s editorial staff to join our creative community, and we are eager to negotiate a fair contract.”
Via: Mediaite.com

Continue Reading.... 

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Epic mock-alanche in progress as labor unions who pushed for $15 minimum wage in Los Angeles now want an exemption

For the can’t-make-this-up-if-we-tried-file, the $15-per-hour minimum wage mandate that was just passed by the Los Angeles City Council has a new opponent now that it’s time to draft the specifics of the law — labor unions!
These same labor unions, of course, who pushed for this law in the first place. From the Los Angeles Times:
Labor leaders, who were among the strongest supporters of the citywide minimum wage increase approved last week by the Los Angeles City Council, are advocating last-minute changes to the law that could create an exemption for companies with unionized workforces.

The push to include an exception to the mandated wage increase for companies that let their employees collectively bargain was the latest unexpected detour as the city nears approval of its landmark legislation to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020.

For much of the past eight months, labor activists have argued against special considerations for business owners, such as restaurateurs, who said they would have trouble complying with the mandated pay increase.
But Rusty Hicks, who heads the county Federation of Labor and helps lead the Raise the Wage coalition, said Tuesday night that companies with workers represented by unions should have leeway to negotiate a wage below that mandated by the law.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

And let the well-deserved mocking begin:

Monday, May 25, 2015

Hostess's Revival: What Can Happen When You're Allowed to Start Fresh

Given how much wailing and gnashing of teeth there was in the press when the old Hostess liquidated in 2012, a mid-April story at Forbes has gotten surprising little attention. Well, maybe it's not that much of a surprise, for reasons which will be indentified here. 

Readers may recall that the final straw in that drama occurred late that year when the the AFL-CIO-affiliated Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers union called a strike after rejecting management clearly communicated final offer. The company, already in bankruptcy, was through negotiating, and chose to liquidate. The press moaned about how all of this meant the end of an era. Steven Bertoni's Forbes writeup shows how wrong they were, and what a business can accomplish when it's not saddled with legacy costs and constraints. 

Because it received no national press coverage despite affecting workers in 48 states, very few people know that the Department of Labor decided after Hostess's implosion that the company's 18,000 affected workers would be eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance. 

That's supposed to happen when workers lose their jobs because of imports, not because they walked away from their jobs and took their employer down with them. At the time, I estimated the taxpayer costs involved at about $800 million. A February 2012 Investor's Business Daily editorial accurately described the government's decision as "a reward for those who refuse to negotiate, and a sop to the manipulative unions that are most adept at gaming the system. ... It's corruption." - 

Bertoni's Forbes article describes the "Twinkies Miracle Comeback." Readers here really need to, well, digest the whole thing, but here are several key paragraphs (bolds are mine):
Twinkie's Miracle Comeback: The Untold, Inside Story of a $2 Billion Feast
... The new factory (in Lenexa, Kansas) is bright and clean. Tight rows of Twinkies march along the $20 million Auto Bake system with the precision of Soviet soldiers in a May Day parade. Yellow robotic arms, which look like they should be welding Teslas rather than boxing Twinkies, stack snacks with hypnotic rhythm. This 500-person plant produces more than 1 million Twinkies a day, 400 million a year. That’s 80% of Hostess’ total output–output that under the old regime required 14 plants and 9,000 employees. And it’s about to get more efficient: Metropoulos and Jhawar just installed a second Auto–Bake system, this one for Cup Cakes ...
In truth, it’s more a resurrection of an American icon ... Hostess’ closing was a cultural moment across the U.S., offering proof of the dire state of American manufacturing. After over a decade of failing health that saw two bankruptcies and five different CEOs, Hostess finally died on Nov. 16, 2012 after the baker’s union pulled the plug with an ill-conceived nationwide strike. Hostess’ roots went back more than 150 years. It left behind 36 factories, 5,600 delivery routes and 19,000 jobs, creating something of a national mourning, not just for the brands but also for what the demise seemed to say about the country itself.
... How they’d do it? Cherry–picking top assets, modernizing manufacturing and distribution, doubling the shelf life of products and capitalizing on the rare place in pop culture Hostess products still held. “People walk up and thank me for bringing back Twinkies,” says ("Junk Food Billionaire" Dean) Metropoulos, who has previously rebuilt brands like Bumble Bee Tuna, Chef Boyardee and Pabst Blue Ribbon. “No one ever thanked me for saving Vlasic pickles.”
... (In 2012) With the unions myopically unwilling to make concessions necessary to make Hostess viable, the debt–holders shuttered it, engendering those “end of an era” editorials nationwide.
... the liquidation had washed away everything. Yes, the company was gone, but so were the pension costs, the union contracts and the debt. It also unbundled the brands, allowing investors to carve out the best businesses. “
We didn’t have to take on the factories or the routes,” says Metropoulos. “We didn’t have to take all the historical drags on the company.”
Metropoulos and Jhawar targeted the cake business: It had the best recognized brands (Ding Dongs, Ho-Hos and Zingers, in addition to Twinkies and CupCakes) and the longest shelf life.
... Metropoulos spent millions on R&D, working with food lab Corbion to tweak the formula of starches, oils and gums in Twinkies, finally arriving at an acidity level that would prevent staleness and discoloration. The singular goal: Make the Twinkie warehouse-friendly. And while none of this will make Alice Waters’ heart flutter, the team succeeded in making the indestructible snack even more so–it’s (sic) shelf life was more than doubled, to 65 days. Hostess switched to a warehouse system. Delivery costs dropped to 16% from 36% of revenue, and Hostess’ retail reach expanded greatly.
... In July of 2013–less than four months after Metropoulos and Apollo took over operations–the Twinkie was back.
... Fans flocked to stores. Demand was so high that large retailers waived the slotting fees they usually charge brands for shelf space. The Metropoulos and Apollo business plan had predicted $100 million worth of Ebitda (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization — Ed.) for 2014–instead they hit $178 million. Those numbers make Hostess’ $410 million price tag look dirt cheap ... “What they’ve done at Hostess should be a Harvard Business School case study on how to turn around a business,” says (Joseph) Gatto, the Perella (Weinberg) banker.
It also should be a far more visible story in the nation's press. But it isn't. Why is that?
Perhaps because the new Hostess's runaway success demonstrates what could have been accomplished if two other companies in a heavily unionized industry had been allowed to go through legitimate bankruptcies in 2009.
Instead, General Motors and Chrysler went through sham "bankruptcies" where the government deliberately picked winners and screwed the losers, blatantly violating centuries of common law and contract law in the process. It was then when columnist Michael Barone coined the simultaneously appropriate and prescient term "Gangster Government."
How much more efficient, productive, and value-adding could the entire auto industry be right now if managers as smart in their line of work as Dean Metropoulos is in his had been allowed to pick up the pieces of GM and Chrysler and assemble new car business dynamos like the new Hostess, and if other competitors had then been forced to adapt to the new reality?
Sadly, we'll never know — and all except those who were favored are poorer for it.
Via: Newsbusters
Continue Reading...

Popular Posts