Archive for the ‘Unions’ Category

In a blatant act of hypocrisy the Obama Administration plans to cut health benefits for active duty and retired military personnel but leaving unionized defense workers at current levels.

Bill Gertz reported at the Washington Beacon, that Congressional Republicans are saying this is a blatant attempt to force military servicemen into Obamacare.

Gertz also said,

“The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.”

This is a plan that is sure to enrage Congressional Republicans and cause a big fight on Capital Hill.

Military personnel would see their annual Tricare premiums increase anywhere from 30 – 78 percent in the first year, followed by sharply increased premiums “ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent—more than 3 times current levels.”

Gertz added,

“According to congressional assessments, a retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048,”

Pharmaceutical benefits for military personnel would also increase under the proposed plan.

Although military families have long had to deal with low salaries and rough working conditions, solid health care benefits has always been a draw to career soldiers. The military is worried this is going to hurt recruitment and retention.

John Hayward of Human Events adds:

“Veterans will also be hit with a new annual fee for a program called Tricare for Life, on top of the monthly premiums they already pay, while some benefits will become “means-tested” in the manner of a social program – treating them like welfare instead of benefits for military service. Naturally, this is all timed to begin next year and “avoid upsetting military voters in a presidential election year,”

Next month there are going to be hearings about the new health care rules and opposition to the policies is already building. The VFW, one of the largest military organizations in the country, has “called on all military personnel and the veterans’ community to block the health care increases.”

Others are concerned about the double standard being set between uniformed military personnel – who are not unionized – and civilian defense workers who belong to public sector unions.

According to a Congressional Aide,

“We all recognize that we are in a time of austerity. But defense has made up to this point 50 percent of deficit reduction cuts that we agreed to, but is only 20 percent of the budget. The administration is asking troops to get by without the equipment and force levels needed for global missions. And now they are going to them again and asking them to pay more for their health care when you’ve held the civilian workforce at DoD and across the federal government virtually harmless in all of these cuts. And it just doesn’t seem fair,”

Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said,

“We shouldn’t ask our military to pay our bills when we aren’t willing to impose a similar hardship on the rest of the population. We can’t keep asking those who have given so much to give that much more,”

McKeon will be joined by some 5 million members of 32 military service and veterans groups, according to retired Navy Capt. Kathryn M. Beasley of the Military Officers Association of America, who called the plan “a breach of faith.”

EAG.org released this must-see video today on the Wisconsin socialist protest movement. The Wisconin protests last year were a preview of what was to come from the orchestrated Occupy Wall Street protests. The video explains like never before how the left uses chaos and violence to move their selfish platform forward.

EAGnews.org has produced an exclusive video report disclosing who and what were behind the massive demonstrations, the occupation of the Capitol in Madison, and extreme tactics employed to stop Walker’s reforms from being enacted.

Titled “Anarchy 101: How Wisconsin’s Left Embraces Chaos,” the report takes us through the protests, legal challenges and subsequent recall efforts of 2011 and 2012. It features Brett Healy and Brian Fraley of the MacIver Institute, Collin Roth of Media Trackers, an unidentified citizen journalist on the ground for many of the protests, and State Sen. Alberta Darling, a target of death threats, intimidation tactics, and a failed recall attempt last year.

It also features two teachers, including Kenosha’s Kristi Lacroix, and a school board member who would not be silenced by the radicals’ intimidation tactics and spoke to EAGnews about the benefits of Scott Walker’s reforms.

By the way…….
GP has a Drudge hit today so we cut back on the blogposts per page for a while to help handle the traffic.

Posted on April 7, 2012 by Conservative Byte

Claire Waites, an Alabama school teacher who joined the local teachers union to obtain liability insurance, was pressured by her union to donate to the NEA Fund for Children. In reality, she found out later that the funds went to political action groups chosen by the union—which turned out to be in support of John Kerry in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008. Waites was furious and recently testified about the situation on the House floor.
As it stands, the law empowers unions over employees when conflict arises. This is the opposite of how America should be, and there are several things being done to combat it.
One of them is the Employee Rights Act (ERA), which would protect private-sector workers from union pressure and extortion. This law wouldn’t specifically protect Waites, because she works for a government union, but it would go a long way for those with the same issues in the private sector.
Simply put, individuals would have a say in what kinds of political causes (if any) they care to endorse monetarily through the union. The ERA would require unions to get permission from workers before spending their dues on politics. James Sherk, Heritage Foundation senior policy analyst in labor economics, explains that the act would actually “shift the balance of power in the workplace from unions to workers.”he truth is that most union members oppose their unions’ active political spending. Polling shows that 60 percent of workers object to their money being spent in this way. Unfortunately, the law currently protects the union action. In 2010, the AFL-CIO devoted one-sixth of its national budget to politics and lobbying. Most of that money goes toward liberal candidates who, in turn, do the union’s bidding.
In addition the ERA would guarantee every worker enough time to research the costs and benefits of unionizing before voting—no snap elections. Unions would also have to regularly stand for re-election as workers’ bargaining representatives, allowing workers to hold them accountable.
The House Oversight Committee, lead by Representative Darrell Issa (R–CA) is committed to fighting this rampant abuse with a new site, “Protecting American Workers,” where employees affected by partisan politics in their union are encouraged to speak out against the infringement on their personal freedoms. The home page of the new site explains why individuals should come forward and stand up for their rights:
Workers should decide how their hard-earned money is spent. They should know how their dues are spent…because personal freedom isn’t partisan: it’s American. We are committed to working with everyone—workers, union leaders and each other—to restore workplace freedom and fairness for all Americans.
Already, three individuals have come forward to call out their unions for abuse. House Oversight sent letters this week to their unions—SEIU, UAW Local, NEA and Alabama EA.
Unions spent a reported $1.1 billion on politics and lobbying in the 2010 election cycle (LINK). How much input did the union members—whose dues funded those contributions—get? Many support the individual provisions of the ERA, and that ought to tell you something about how well people feel their rights are currently being upheld. Who wouldn’t want the “paycheck protection” that is included in the ERA? As Sherk explains:
The “paycheck protection” requires unions to obtain employees’ permission before spending dues for purposes—like political activism—unrelated to collective bargaining. Employees would be free to support these activities, but the union would have to get their permission first. Union members support this proposal by a 4-to-1 margin.
Employees should not be afraid to stand up for their rights and demand that their money be spent fairly and transparently. Unions have a chokehold on the American political scene, and the power has gone to their heads. It’s time to restore employee rights and empower individuals to resist union pressure. That’s the American way.

This is the obama administration; this is hate; this is what obama/soros want for our nation.
This is the evil they belong to. Stand up and be counted to fight against this evil democrap/marxist/anti-God/Amer­ican hoard. Be prepared and vote!

By Richard Pollock – The Daily Caller
This is the first in a Daily Caller investigative series.
The politically aggressive Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has quietly created a national network of at least eight community-organizing groups, some of which function alongside the Occupy Wall Street movement, a Daily Caller investigation shows.
Incorporated by the SEIU as local non-profits, the groups are waging concerted local political campaigns to publicly attack conservative political figures, banks, energy companies and other corporations.
Each local group has portrayed itself as an independent community organization not tied to any special interest. But they were founded, incorporated, and led by SEIU personnel.
The individual activist groups use benign-sounding names including This Is Our DC; Good Jobs, Great Houston; Good Jobs, Better Baltimore; Good Jobs Now in Detroit; Fight for Philly; One Pittsburgh; Good Jobs LA; and Minnesotans for a Fair Economy.
In reality, they are creations of the wealthy and influential labor union, amounting to a secret network of new SEIU front groups.

Since Occupy Wall Street seemingly went into hibernation (we note seemingly because the movement keeps popping up despite what some national outlets are reporting), The Blaze has brought you plenty of analysis theorizing that the spring could be an even bigger time for the movement. Now, it looks like those theories have been confirmed: the unions and other leftists have announced a “99% spring.”

“We are at a crossroads as a country,” a letter on the site dedicated to the new movement says. “We have a choice to make. Greater wealth for a few or opportunity for many. Tax breaks for the richest or a fair shot for the rest of us. A government that can be bought by the highest bidder, or a democracy that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

It continues: “The choice is in our hands. This spring, we will act on that choice and rise up in the tradition of our forefathers and foremothers. We will not be complicit with the suffering in our families for another year. We will prepare ourselves for sustained non-violent direct action.”

That “preparation” looks like a week-long training session from April 9-15. But not just any training session, this training session will be held across the country and will reportedly feature meetings in “places of worship:”

From April 9-15 we will gather across America, 100,000 strong, in homes, places of worship, campuses and the streets to join together in the work of reclaiming our country. We will organize trainings toTell the story of our economy: how we got here, who’s responsible, what a different future could look like, and what we can do about it
Learn the history of non-violent direct action, and
Get into action on our own campaigns to win change.
“This spring we rise!” the website declares. “We will reshape our country with our own hands and feet, bodies and hearts. We will take non-violent action in the spirit of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi to forge a new destiny one block, one neighborhood, one city, one state at a time.”

So just who exactly is behind this? The letter contains “signers” that will be familiar to you. Or at least their organizations will. And it’s a buffet of far leftists, unions, and even the communist group Working Families Party. Oh, and of course Van Jones:

Sarita Gupta
Jobs With Justice
Bob King
United Auto Workers
George Goehl
National Peoples Action
Ai-jen Poo
National Domestic Workers Alliance
Justin Ruben
MoveOn.org
Mary Kay Henry
Service Employees International Union
Van Jones and Natalie Foster
Rebuild the Dream
Phil Radford
Greenpeace
Leo Gerard
United Steel Workers
Daniel Cantor
Working Families Party
Bruce Klipple
United Electrical Workers Union
But while Bob King of the United Auto Workers (UAW) is a signer of the letter, might the union be behind it more than it’s letting on? It would seem so. The Daily Caller was able to download a cache of files from the UAW website last week that point to a high level of organizing:

[A] series of files The Daily Caller downloaded from the United Auto Workers website indicate that the organized labor powerhouse is behind the effort.
The files, downloaded Sunday, include campaign talking points, a fill-in-the-blank press release template for participating organizations and an advance look at the social media campaign the organizers plan for Facebook and Twitter.
Also included is a “FYI” letter designed for endorsers to distribute, complete with a blank space at the top of the list of participating groups. Filling in a given organization’s name lends the impression that it, not the UAW, is the campaign’s driving force.
A Google cache indicates that the files were available on an unprotected area of the UAW’s web server at least as early as February 16. They disappeared from public view Monday.
Also interesting? It appears the domain for the 99% Spring was registered by the leftist group MoveOn.org (also a signer of the letter).

“We will rise this spring, because we DO hold these truths to be self evident,” the 99% Spring site concludes, “that all men and women are created equal, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Get ready.

Published by the Labor Union reportPosted by LaborUnionReport (Diary)
Saturday, February 4th at 9:00AM EST

Next weekend, political conservatives from all over the nation will be descending on Washington, DC to attend the annual Conservative Political Action Conference—better known as CPAC. Across town, however, union bosses and their adopted #OccupyDC progeny are planning to disrupt and lay siege to the conservative conference.

According to the AFL-CIO’s Washington DC Metro Council website, “Actions are currently being planned for noontime and after work on Friday, February 10.”

Apparently, the unions plans to attempt to disrupt the conference with rats, puppets, and more:

WE’VE HEARD ENOUGH FROM THE 1%! Join the rally featuring tents, an inflatable fat cat, puppets, “candidate Walmart,” and more to LET THE VOICES OF THE 99% BE HEARD!

There is also a Facebook page for Occupy CPAC, posted by Change to Win staffer, Trina Tocco. It is important to note that Change to Win is the SEIU-led federation that broke away from the AFL-CIO in 2005—which means both union federations are involved in planning the attacks on CPAC.

Unlike the Americans for Prosperity event, where #OccupyDC violently protested outside Washington Convention Center, as well as tried to lock attendees into the building, CPAC’s event is at the Marriott Wardman Park, which is on private property and is set back from the street.

Therefore, if the AFL-CIO, Change to Win and their #Occupy goon squads do attempt to storm the hotel, while it may not immediately address any of those union occupiers who are inside the event, DC police should be able to keep them from gaining access from the street.

Stay tuned…

__________________

“Socialism has no place in the hearts of those who would secure the fight for freedom and preserve democracy.” Samuel Gompers, American Federation of Labor, 1918

Supporters of Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker are attempting to spoil the recall effort against him with a campaign to get voters to write the governor‘s name in as a candidate in the state’s Democratic primary to seek an opponent for him.

Walker opponents officially filed petitions last month to force a recall election in an attempt to oust the governor from office.

According to the Menomonee Falls Patch, the write-in effort started as a conversation on Facebook, but in little more than a week the page “Operation: Write in Scott Walker in Democrat primary“ garnered more than 900 ”likes.”

“If we can gain a majority of the votes in the [D]emocratic primary we will have defeated the [D]emocrats at their game and save [sic] the tax payers millions of dollars,” the page states. In addition to Wisconsin-related news, recent postings on the page include anti-Obama and anti-Nancy Pelosi links.

Such a write-in effort is possible under Wisconsin’s open primary system, which allows voters to vote in a party’s primary even if they do not share its political affiliation.

Still, it’s not clear what would happen in the general recall election if the effort were successful, the Patch reported, and the Government Accountability Board — the body overseeing the recall effort — would not speculate.

“The law requires a space for write-in on the ballot,” spokesman Reid Magney said. “Beyond that, it would be premature for us to comment on something that involves so much speculation.”

John Willock, a volunteer with Friends of Scott Walker and a fan of the write-in page, said the plan is getting a lot of buzz.

“I go from one side of the state to the next during my work day, and I’ve heard people talking about it from Racine to Eau Claire,” Willock said. “It’s not really an organized effort, but there’s a lot of people talking about it.”

Wisconsin Democratic Party spokesman Graeme Zielinksi dismissed the chance of any kind of Walker write-in campaign succeeding, telling the Patch his first reaction to it was “Surprise, then laughter.”

“Republicans seem frightened by democracy and the will of the people and, given what Scott Walker has done to ruin Wisconsin, they should be,” Zielinski said.

As The Blaze previously reported, efforts to recall Walker stem from anger over his successful move to effectively end collective bargaining rights for most public workers.

In 22 states in the Union, workers have the freedom under “Right-to-Work” laws to decide whether or not to pay union dues, and now Indiana is poised to become the twenty-third state on that list, bringing the workers there renewed hope in an economy that has seen few glimmers of light.

Last week, Indiana’s House and Senate passed a right-to-work bill after weeks of political maneuvering by pro-union politicians hoping to stop the proposal in its tracks. Today, the legislation returns to the state’s Senate for a final vote, and Governor Mitch Daniels (R) has promised to sign the bill into law. Meanwhile, a dozen labor unions have protested the measure, with threats to “occupy” the Super Bowl to be held in Indianapolis next week. Nationally, right-to-work states have become a target, as well. Last year, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) took aim at the Boeing Corporation for its decision to locate a new factory in South Carolina, a right-to-work state. The NLRB attempted to stop Boeing from making fundamental decisions about where to do business — ultimately, it dropped the case after union negotiators reached a deal that benefited their members in a union state.

Proponents of Indiana’s measure — which protects workers from being fired for not paying union dues — say that the law will help the state attract more businesses and jobs, spurring economic growth. And there’s data that proves it. Heritage’s James Sherk writes that right-to-work states have lower unemployment rates (9.2 percent) than states without right-to-work laws (9.9 percent). And though critics say that could be a result of regional differences (right-to-work states are mostly in the South and West), research comparing counties across state lines shows that, “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,” as Sherk explains.

It’s understandable that states would want the benefits that right to work brings, but it’s also understandable why unions oppose it so strongly. When Idaho and Oklahoma passed right-to-work laws, union membership fell 15 percent. Likewise, all the dues the unions collect plummeted right along with their membership. Sherk writes that in Indiana, right to work would save private-sector workers $18.4 million a year. In union-stronghold Michigan, where some are pushing for the law, workers would save $46.4 million a year. And though unions claim that right to work undermines their ability to keep wages high — truly the bread-and-butter of the union movement — most studies show that right-to-work laws have little effect on wages in either direction.

All that said, while workers are rejecting unions, they still want their voices heard in the workplace. Sherk explains how systems like these can operate in non-union workplaces:
Many employees (and employers) would like employee involvement (EI) programs and work groups in which workers and supervisors can meet to discuss workplace issues. These programs can take many forms. Examples include self-directed work teams, safety committees, and production committees. The essential element is advancing employee interests through employee involvement.

Polls show that 60 percent of workers prefer EI programs to improve working conditions over either more government regulations or labor unions. Examples of effective EI programs that advance worker interests abound.

The trouble is that current law prohibits non-union employers and employees to work together to improve working conditions. Sherk writes that Congress banned these kinds of programs in order to prevent companies from creating and negotiating with employer-dominated “company unions” to fight off organizing drives — a senseless prohibition today given that few workers want to unionize, anyhow.

Employee involvement programs can improve working conditions, help companies attract valuable employees, and create an environment that’s beneficial to the workers — and to the company. Congress should give employees and employers this kind of flexibility. And in states where employees are still forced to pay union dues, governments ought to give their employees the right to work without fear of big labor reprisal.

Indiana’s House of Representatives approved a bill that exempt nonunion employees from paying dues when working alongside union workers.
by Talla Ralph

Members of area labor unions and Occupy Wall Street demonstrators participate in a “March For Jobs and Fairness” in New York City. Indiana is slated to pass an anti-union law that would exempt nonunion workers from paying union fees. (Spencer Platt/AFP/Getty Images)
A right to work law, which exempts nonunion workers from paying dues when working with union employees, has been approved by Indiana’s House of Representatives.

The approval, which is a critical step in the law’s passage, Bloomberg Businessweek reported. Next, the bill goes to the Senate, which has already approved a version.

Indiana will become to the first right-to-work state in the nation’s industrial belt, and the first state to pass such legislation since Oklahoma approved a similar measure in 2001, according to Businessweek.

“Adopting a right to work law will increase Indiana’s economy, bringing more customers and growth to Indiana’s small businesses,” Indiana’s National Federation of Independent Businesses director Barbara Quandt told CBS News.

More from GlobalPost: Newt Gingrich says poor kids have no work habits, suggest janitorial work (VIDEO)

Over the past year, Republicans have pushed for other anti-union laws in battleground states such as Wisconsin and Ohio, where many of the country’s manufacturing jobs are located, CBS reported. However, they have faced backlash from Democrats and union supporters.

“If you look at states that have enacted this policy, the average worker loses about $5,500 in salary per year,” Jeff Harris, of the state AFL-CIO, told CBS.

Indiana’s democrats boycotted some of the Republican-controlled chamber’s sessions for about three weeks, according to Businessweek.

According to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation,

The Right to Work principle…affirms the right of every American to work for a living without being compelled to belong to a union. Compulsory unionism in any form–”union,” “closed,” or “agency” shop–is a contradiction of the Right to Work principle and the fundamental human right that the principle represents.

Roughly 4.7 million Americans moved from forced-union states to right-to-work states between 2000 and 2008, according to a Cato Journal study by economist Richard Vedder. Per capita income also rose 23 percent faster in right-to-work states between 1977 and 2007.

Organizers of a drive to recall Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker said they have far more signatures than they need to file on Tuesday to force the controversial Republican to defend his seat in a special election barely a year into his first term.

Recall officials expect to turn in far more than the 540,208 signatures required on Tuesday to force a special election, a milestone in their effort to recall Walker and slow an agenda that has diminished the power of public unions.

If the state Government Accountability Board, the agency charged with validating the petitions, determines enough valid signatures have been gathered, it will set a recall election for Walker and Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch.

Only two governors in U.S. history have been successfully recalled — California’s Gray Davis in 2003 and Lynn Frazier of North Dakota in 1921.

No Democrat has emerged to run against Walker, although Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, who ran for governor against Walker in 2010, and Secretary of State Doug La Follette have been mentioned as possible candidates.

Others include former congressman Dave Obey, state Senator Jon Erpenbach and former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk.By law, organizers had only 60 days to conduct the formal petition drive, which they launched in November with thousands of volunteers fanning out across Wisconsin.

The roots of the drive stretch back nearly a year to efforts by Walker and the Republican-controlled state legislature to pass a raft of controversial measures that included strict limits on the union rights of public employees.

The anti-union measures triggered weeks of mass protests in Madison and a fierce political backlash from Democrats and union supporters.

Walker defended the measures as necessary to address a budget gap and to make Wisconsin attractive to employers.

Backing his agenda, which also included passage of voter identification and looser gun laws, six Republican senators and Walker allies faced recall last summer. Three Democratic senators who opposed the measures also faced recall.

Of those, two lost their seats to Republican challengers.

Along with the governor and lieutenant governor, as many as 17 state senators — 11 Republicans and six Democrats — could face recall elections this year in Wisconsin.

The contests could tip the balance of power in the state senate, where Republicans hold a slim 17-16 majority.

On Friday, organizers of a separate effort to recall Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said they had enough signatures to force the Republican to defend his seat in a special election.

Fitzgerald has filed a complaint with the GAB, claiming recall organizers took too long to collect signatures.

According to a GAB report, processing the Walker recall petitions will cost the state more than $650,000, including the purchase of software and staff time. The total cost of recall elections for the state and municipalities may be more than $9 million, according to estimates from GAB officials.

Comment by Corkie Taylor-WashingtonWe already know that Obama is behind this. We know that AFL-CIO Union thug Richard Trumka is behind this and we know that state “outsiders” are behind this.
Governor Scott Walker NEEDS our help! Without our help he will lose his elected position from the onslaught of left wing lunacy that want to unseat him because of his conservative values and love for his state to bring it out of Obama debt! Don’t forget the Democrat elected officials who ran and hid in order to shirk their civil duties to create a budget that would bring Wisconsin out of debt. They along with their cheat and liar in Chief of the United States, Barack Obama are out for his head.
Please, do what you can do to help him even if it’s a word of encouragement. He has only been able to raise aprox. 5 million for his defence. Much of that from outside sources.
America NEEDS Scott Walker!

The White House will propose a 0.5 percent pay increase for civilian federal employees as part of its 2013 budget proposal, according to two senior administration officials familiar with the plans.

The across-the-board pay jump would be the first increase for federal workers since before a two-year freeze began in late 2010. Raises for within-grade step increases and promotions have continued during the freeze.

The proposal, which requires congressional approval, differs from Republican plans supported by lawmakers and presidential candidates that would freeze basic pay rates for one more year. Some of those plans also call for denying within-grade raises. In recent weeks, GOP lawmakers have called for extending the pay freeze as a way to pay for a payroll tax extension.

But, “a permanent pay freeze is not an acceptable policy,” one of the senior Obama administration officials said Friday. “While modest, a 0.5 percent increase reflects the belt-tightening we must do in these difficult times.”

The officials were unauthorized to speak publicly on the matter, but said that the White House notified agency budget offices about the decision Friday morning so that agencies could complete their 2013 budget requests.

The White House is expected to formally unveil its fiscal 2013 budget proposal in early February. No decision has been made yet on a potential pay raise for uniformed military personnel, the officials said, though lawmakers and federal worker unions traditionally push to ensure pay parity between civilian and military personnel. Pay parity was the standard practice for many years before 2009.

The pay bump is below the 3.6 percent cost of living adjustment that went into effect this week for Social Security recipients and most federal retirees to keep pace with inflation. It is also far below private sector earnings, which climbed roughly 2 percent in 2011, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Federal worker union leaders voiced tepid support Friday.

William R. Dougan, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, called the move “a breath of fresh air for all those who serve their country every day.”

But John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, the nation’s largest federal union, said the move “doesn’t make me yell and cheer.”

“Clearly I don’t think it comes close to paying federal employees what they’re worth, but at the same time, it also breaks this terrible pay freeze that has been put on us,” Gage said. “And hopefully it will carry through, and we will avoid any pay freezes that might come from the payroll tax deduction negotiations.”

Gage said “a real threat” remains that Republicans will successfully enact a pay freeze as part of the payroll tax negotiations. AFGE and other unions believe Republicans should focus on raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans instead of federal employees, the vast majority of whom are middle-class wage earners.

Lawmakers who track federal personnel issues were not immediately available for comment.

The federal government employs roughly 2 million civilian federal employees, with about 85 percent living and working outside the Washington area…

A misguided law enables the president’s union pandering 

The National Labor Relations Board has become a partisan issue of late. After trying—and failing—to destroy secret-ballot union elections via “card check” legislation, President Obama turned away from the democratic process, and toward the NLRB, as a venue for advancing Big Labor’s interests.

To date, Obama has placed three people on the NLRB. During a congressional recess, he installed Craig Becker, who’d served as a top lawyer for two of the nation’s largest unions (the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO), as a member of the board. He selected Mark G. Pearce—who had worked in “union side labor and employ­ment law,” as his official NLRB bio puts it—as another. And Obama chose Lafe Solomon, a career NLRB lawyer, as the board’s general counsel.

Solomon promptly filed a complaint against Boeing, claim­ing the company had illegally discriminated against a union­ized, strike-happy plant in Washington State when it chose to expand production in South Carolina, a right-to-work state, instead. And the board is trying to change the rules governing union elections so that companies have less time to mount anti-union campaigns.

These moves go beyond anything the NLRB has done in the past. But the current behavior of the National Labor Relations Board is only the outermost layer of the true problem: the National Labor Relations Act. In addition to creating a labor system that hurts non-union workers, forcing contracts upon unwilling participants, and engendering corruption, the 1935 legislation violates the Constitution, gives the NLRB the power to function as all three branches of government at once, and allows each president to stock the board with flagrantly biased nominees. President Obama may have abused the NLRA more than his predecessors did, but the NLRA is built for abuse. It should be repealed, or at least reformed.

Remember the violent and disgusting demonstrations over Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker doing away with collective bargaining for Teacher’s unions? The results are in. Some school districts went from a $400,000 deficit to a $1,500,000 surplus as a result. They are even hiring new teachers, not firing like the Liberals said would happen. Why?

It seems that the insurance company that provided all the “so-called” benefits to the teachers was an insurance company owned and operated by the teacher’s union. Since the outfit was guaranteed to get the insurance business from the teachers, and the State had to pay for it (not the teachers) the insurance company was increasing annual costs every single year to become the most expensive insurance company in the state. Then the company was donating millions and millions of dollars to its favorite democrat politicians who, when they got elected, guaranteed to keep funding the union’s outrageous costs. In other words, the insurance company was a “pass through” for Wisconsin taxpayer money directly to the democrat politicians.

Nice racket, and this is the racket that is going on in every single State that allows collective bargaining. No wonder the States are taking it away. Now the State of Wisconsin is free to put the insurance contract out for bids and, lo and behold, they have saved so much money it has turned deficits into surplus amounts. As a result, none of the teachers had to be laid off, everyone got a raise, etc., etc., and the taxpayers of Wisconsin don’t have to pay more taxes to fund the union’s political ambitions.

If you weren’t aware of the reasons Gov. Walker was fighting to take away collective bargaining, it gives you an idea of the problem
the Republican Party has. Outside of one or two, none of them know how to speak up and explain properly what the problem was. We could sure use a Ronald Reagan now, someone who could explain things for people to understand, since we know that people don’t like to read anymore.

Here is the article:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/07/wisconsin-schools-buck-union-cut-health-costs

PLEASE BE SURE TO SEND THIS ONWARDS ! ITS THE ONLY CHANCE OF STOPPING THIS CORRUPTION

NBC News and msnbc.com

updated 10/12/2011 11:45:07 AM ET

A labor leader in Chicago is expected to receive pension payments of nearly $500,000 a year, while another could get about $438,000 a year, according to reports Wednesday.

 

The Chicago Tribune and WGN-TV, which obtained information about union pension benefits during a joint investigation, said at least eight union officials in Chicago were eligible for what were described as inflated city pensions on top of union pensions for the same period of employment.

The news organizations said this was due to “a charitable interpretation” of Illinois law by officials representing two city pension funds.

“Can you name any place in the world where someone can get two pensions for the same job?” state Rep. Tom Cross, a Republican, told the paper. “Even by our standards here in Illinois, it’s beyond belief. It’s insane.”

Chicago and Illinois are facing financial trouble, in part due to pension shortfalls.

On Tuesday, state Sen. Mark Kirk released a report on Illinois’ debt that said it had the worst credit rating of any state and that its debt was rising, NBC Chicago reported.

Kirk said the state was nearly insolvent and said he doubted there would be any help from Washington.

“It’s highly unlikely that the federal government would ever bail out a spend-thrift state. Therefore, Illinois needs to fix this on its own,” he said.

Amid the city’s financial woes, Mayor Rahm Emanuel has reportedly proposed a budget that would see three of Chicago’s oldest police stations closed. The budget was due to be unveiled Wednesday.

 

$9 million over lifetime?
The Tribune said the official who was expected to get about $438,000 a year would do so from three pensions covering the same work period: a city laborers fund, a union district council fund and a national union fund.

It said an analysis showed that this 59-year-old union official, Liberato “Al” Naimoli, would get a total of about $9 million if he lived to his expected lifespan.

Another official, Charles LoVerde III, a former trustee of the city laborers’ pension fund, stood to receive three pensions for the same time period totaling nearly $500,000 a year, the investigation found.

The Tribune said he took leave of absence in 1998 from a job with the city’s water management department, which paid $44,000 a year, to work full time for the local.

The paper said the law states that union leaders with city pensions cannot “receive credit in any pension plan established by the local labor organization based on his employment by the organization.”

But pension fund officials say a union district council is not a local labor organization, the paper said.

“The Legislature never told us how to administer this thing,” the city pension fund directors’ attorney, Fredrick Heiss, told the paper. “They could have said ‘no second pension at all,’ but they didn’t say that.”

The Tribune said the joint investigation with WGN-TV found that Naimoli, president of Cement Workers Local 76, was receiving a city pension of about $158,000 a year. It said his city pension was based on his union salary.

Naimoli, who retired in 2010 from the $15,000-a-year city job, is also now eligible to receive a pension of about $60,000 a year, the paper said, from the Laborers’ Pension Fund for Chicago and Vicinity.

He also will become eligible for payments of about $220,000 a year from a third pension, provided by the national union, LIUNA, on his 60th birthday next year.

The Tribune said he had not worked his $15,000-a-year job with the city for a quarter of a century.

 

Radical labor organizer Stephen Lerner of SEIU intends to terrorize the families of bank executives in their homes as part of the Occupy Wall Street protests.

SEIU, a longtime ally of ACORN, has done it before, as ably documented by Big Government’s Liberty Chick.

The home invasions are scheduled to begin Tuesday.

Lerner, a prime architect of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, laid out the Left’s plans to his fellow Marxists at the left-wing Take the American Dream Back conference in Washington, D.C., on October 3, 2011.

Here’s the video of his remarks:

The president, you may remember, gave a speech this past January in the wake of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords on how “only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation.” Some consider the speech to be the finest of his presidency, though history is likely to be less kind to it now that we know the president was completely insincere.

Early last week, President Barack Obama sat idly on the same stage while Teamsters president James P. Hoffa told the assembled union crowd, “We’ve got a bunch of people there that don’t want the president to suc­ceed, and they are called the Tea Party. … Let’s take these son of a bitches out, and give America back to America where we belong.”

Hoffa, of course, owes his current position as a powerful union leader to a family legacy of crime and cor­ruption. It may not have been a literal call to violence, but when your name is “Jimmy Hoffa,” you don’t deserve much in the way of the benefit of the doubt. Especially given that the Amer­ican left almost gleefully—and wrong­ly—accused the Tea Party of pulling the trigger in the Giffords shooting. The White House declined to com­ment on whether Hoffa’s remarks were appropriate.

But, believe it or not, that wasn’t the most offensive thing that the White House did last week to suck up to or­ganized labor. Last Thursday, a group of longshoremen in Washington state broke into a port. That’s when things got really ugly according to the Asso­ciated Press: “Hundreds of longshore­men stormed the Port of Longview early Thursday, overpowered and held security guards, damaged railroad cars, and dumped grain that is the cen­ter of a labor dispute, said Longview Police Chief Jim Duscha. Six guards were held hostage for a couple of hours.”

Like most union disputes, getting to the bottom of International Long­shore and Warehouse Union’s (ILWU) grievance is as byzantine a process as programming Satan’s own VCR. Basi­cally, the port had an agreement with the ILWU, but a shipping consortium had recently built new facilities at the port. The shipping company was under the impression that the newly signed lease freed them from having to hire exclusively ILWU workers, and hired another union that negotiated more favorable terms.

It’s not clear whether ILWU has a case, and, if it does, whether the port or the shipping company is to blame for violating the contract. And the shipping company went off and hired union workers, anyway. It does seem clear that this is a matter for the courts to decide, and there’s utterly no justi­fication for violence. There’s a reason it’s called “collective bargaining,” not “collective hostage-taking.”

That was last Thursday. As you might recall, something else of significance happened that day—the presi­dent gave his long-awaited speech roll­ing out a $450 billion jobs package to a joint session of Congress. Shortly be­fore the president’s speech, the White House sent out an email announcing the official guests of the president that would be sitting in the first lady’s box.

Among the names was one Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO. Note that the ILWU is an AFL-CIO af­filiate. Not that it’s likely Trumka was troubled by the ILWU’s conduct— after all, Trumka once shrugged off the murder of a worker in the middle of a mine dispute, saying, “If you strike a match and you put your finger in it, you’re likely to get burned.” Trumka’s union then fought the wrongful death lawsuit brought by the victim’s wife and children for years.

So just hours after AFL-CIO workers were literally taking hos­tages, Trumka was being honored by the White House. Of course, Trumka figuratively took the Obama White House hostage a longtime be­fore the air in the port of Longview was thick with the heady smell of pepper spray. The AFL-CIO has spent more than $100 million elect­ing Obama and Democrats in the last two election cycles.

 

Obama may have refused to com­ment on union rhetoric last week, but the message came through loud and clear: Write enough campaign checks and unions can talk—and act—as vio­lently as they want to.   

 

From the Weekly Standard – www.weeklystandard.com