Posts Tagged ‘Unions’

Do Unions Cause Inequality?

We hear quite a bit about inequality today.  This seems to be the mantra in the waning of the Obama Administration with the President saying, “Income inequality is “the defining challenge of our time.”  This is all code for another of President Obama’s descriptions of the same policy, the need to, “Spread this wealth around,” or in other words “From each according to his ability to each according to his need.”

Let’s spread the wealth around and end inequality.  One of the President’s and the Democrat Party’s most powerful allies in this long march to the promised land of a worker’s paradise where everyone is truly equal are the unions.

At one time it was dangerous to belong to a union in the United States.  They were considered illegal combinations in restraint of trade even though freedom of association has long been considered a right under the First Amendment to the Constitution.  People died organizing and participating in strikes.  Names like the Matewan Massacre, the Haymarket Riot, and the Battle of Blair Mountain convey the very real image of war that was fought for the right to organize.  This was a war that was decisively won by the unions.  This war for the allegiance of American labor was not won through the superior organizing techniques of the union bosses.  From the major battles of the 1800s and the early 1900s the unions were failing.  The workers just didn’t want to join.  Then along came FDR and his New Deal.  He passed pro-union legislation and with the patronage and support of the Federal Government unions not only flourished they triumphed.

According to the Progressives monopolies are terrible.  They benefit few and penalize many.  Never mind that before Rockefeller established his powerful Standard Oil a gallon of kerosene  cost 58 cents and after he had gained 90% of the market the price had fallen to 7 cents.  Or that under Carnegie’s US Steel, which controlled all steel production, the price of steel dropped.  Monopolies in production were universally branded as evil and they were made illegal by the progressives under Teddy Roosevelt “The Trust Buster” as he rigorously enforced the Sherman Antitrust Act and saved the people from the exploitation of efficiency and lower prices.

Monopolies were and are considered universally evil except when it comes to unions.  Unions have been allowed to exercise absolute control of entire industries.  Just ask yourself, how many auto worker unions are there?  How about Electricians, plumbers, carpenters?  How many unions compete with the NEA or SEIU?  These powerful unions have gained strangleholds over entire sectors of our economy.  They exercise coercive authority to allow some to work at their given professions and to deny others the same opportunity.  Through their unlimited power to exact unwilling support from anyone in their grasp they gain billions to support the very politicians who pass laws giving them the power to extort the money.  Through their government granted authority to become the sole negotiators of everyone’s pay, even those who don’t belong to the union, they effectively come to control the employers to a major extent.

Using the government awarded monopolistic and coercive power to drive up wages and benefits they drive up operating costs and prices.  By artificially driving up the wages of their members so that they can then collect bigger dues they distort the market place and artificially force down the wages of non-union workers.  You see unions can force wages above the levels that would be achieved in a free market only by limiting the supply with the threat to withhold labor if their demands aren’t met.

Workers in the private sector have been rejecting the big union cartels for generations.  Their participation rate has fallen from a high of 35% in the 1950s to its present dismal level of 11.1%.  According to the Washington Examiner, “The job sectors with the highest unionization rates in 2015 were in “protective service occupations,” primarily law enforcement, at 36.3 percent and education at 35.5 percent. The lowest rates were for retail sales at 3.3 percent and farming and forestry at 1.9 percent.”

And even this declining state of unionism is only possible because of the heavy hand of government patronage.  Rick Berman, president of the business-backed Center for Union Facts, attributed the stability in the numbers to pro-union policies under President Obama. “Union membership is apparently receiving a boost from an activist National Labor Relations Board. By tilting the scales in favor of labor organizers, the board and the sympathetic Obama administration are propping up Big Labor rather than helping the rank-and-file.”

As private sector employees bailed out of unions every time they had a chance, the employees-for-life in the civil service bureaucracy organized to gain an inordinate level of power over the government.  In 2009, for the first time in American history, government employees accounted for more than half the nation’s union membership.

Even FDR, the patron saint of unions warned about the distortions and disruptions of public sector unions.

In the President’s Aug. 16, 1937 correspondence with Luther C. Steward, the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees he said “meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.”

He added, “All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.  It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.”

And, “The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.”

He continued, “The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.”

He concluded, “The pay is fixed by Congress and the workmen are represented by the members of Congress in the fixing of Government pay.  In other words, you would not have the representatives of the majority as the sole bargaining agents?  Not in the government, because there is no collective contract.  It is a very different case. There isn’t any bargaining, in other words, with the government; therefore the question does not arise.”

This is in effect a money laundering scheme.  The unions bargain with the politicians who raise the pay of their members which raises the dues collected by the unions who then contribute money to the very politicians who raise their pay.  And even in the public sector when given the choice to remain in unions or leave when given the chance as in Wisconsin they are leaving in droves.

So how do unions cause inequality?  By controlling the labor in major industries they distort the free market by artificially raising the cost of labor over what it should be according to production costs and sales receipts.  This in turn contributes to economic misallocations of resources and malinvestments which sets the stage for the creation of bubbles, booms, and busts.

In America all people are equal before the law and all should have equality of opportunity.  However, it is a fact apparent to anyone who has interacted with anyone else that all people are not equal in talent, motivation, experience, or desires.  Therefore inequality as a result of the varying application of these four attributes will always exist.

Such horror shows as the USSR, Cuba, and Venezuela have tried this through collectivist pipedreams that became the nightmares of their captive people.

If unions are all about the free association of workers go to Chicago or New York and try to start a competing carpenters union.  See how well that goes.  I would suggest that you wear a hard hat.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion.  He is the Historian of the Future @ © 2016 Contact Dr. Owens  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens


McDonald’s Sales in Decline So Let's Raise Minimum Wage!

by Mark Home
As you may know, unions are scheming for ways to force fast food franchises to raise their minimum wage. Usually, McDonald’s is treated as the wealthiest of these franchises. Everyone seems to assume they have plenty of money and are only refusing to pay employees more out of spite.

I’ve mentioned before that McDonald’s is not that well off. And the bad news keeps coming. According to CNN: “McDonald’s July sales fell more than expected.”

McDonald’s on Friday reported July sales results that were much worse than analysts had expected.

Following the report, the company’s shares traded lower.

The dismal results prompted Janney Capital Markets to lower its estimates for the fast-food giant. Its analysts said the results “were the worst worldwide month in the last 10 years, once trading-day adjustments are taken into account.”

Same-store sales in the U.S. sank 3.2 percent, weaker than the 2.6 percent expected.

So what happens if McDonald’s goes bankrupt and closes?

Yes, I know that total liquidation is quite unlikely. But I think it is worth considering. As far as I can tell from the rhetoric for a higher minimum wage law, McDonald’s is an exploiter of poor people. The restaurant chain is guilty of paying wages that leave employees in squalor.

Well, if they are such an evil company, then obviously all their employees will be immensely better off if the restaurants are all closed down. Right?


Wait a minute! Are you saying that the sudden disappearance of McDonald’s would be a really bad thing for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of employees? Are you saying that, if there were no McDonald’s chain, these people would not be able to earn money?

So which is it? Is McDonald’s a blessing to its many employees or is it a curse? Are you willing to admit that they make the lives of many, many people much better off? Or are you going to claim that they should disappear and that everyone would be better off without them?

Something to think about.


Obamacare quietly undermines unions

Washington Post
Say what you want about Republicans’ obsession with destroying Obamacare. One thing they can’t be accused of is acting in calculated, partisan self-interest.
If all the GOP cared about was hurting Democrats, Republicans might support the health-care law—because it threatens a core Democratic Party constituency: organized labor.
Collective bargaining in this country developed under a sys tem of employer-based health insurance, which government encouraged via generous tax breaks. In European nations with state-run universal cover age, unions focus on pay and working conditions. Here, they have the added function of negotiating for health benefits.
By now, that’s much, if not most, of what unions do in return for members’dues.
Obamacare undermines this function and, therefore, labor’s already diminished power to attract and maintain members, whose dues fill the campaign treasuries upon which many Democratic politicians depend.
The law does this in several ways. The first is the 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health plans: employer-provided insur ance costing more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. This cost-control mea sure, widely hailed by health care economists, takes effect in 2018 and will hit many union plans. Over time, it will create a de facto cap on the benefits for which unions can bargain,
Obamacare’s individual health-care exchanges also disfavor unions. When organizers try to recruit members today, health care is often a big selling point. What will organiz ers tell workers who, thanks to Obamacare, already have access to subsidized health care?
Then there are the “Taft-Hartley” plans, which serve unions whose members work for various companies over their careers, rather than for one firm. These plans, common in the hospitality and construction industries, gather contributions from employers and buy insur ance for 6.2 million active participants, according to the Labor Department.
Obamacare menaces these affordable, portable plans by providing both workers and em ployers an affordable, portable alternative — the exchanges — that requires no union middle man and is partly subsidized by the tax on union plans. Sudden ly, nonunion employers have a new competitive advantage.
Laborers’ International Union President Terry O’Sullivan is so upset that he has threatened to support repeal of Obamacare unless the administration gives tax subsidies to Taft-Hartley plans, like it does for individuals on the exchanges. Alas for O’Sul livan, there appears to be no le gal way to do so.
A natural question: If Obamacare has so many pro visions bad for unions, why did most of them support passage?
It’s a bit of a mystery. The answer seems to be that Obamacare was a progressive goal, unions are progressive, ergo unions were for Obamacare.
They did negotiate changes, such as a lower “Cadillac tax” with a later start date. Perhaps labor thought it could go back to Congress after the bill passed for relief on the tax and other is sues, such as Taft-Hartley plans. If so, that became impossible after the GOP took back the House by campaigning against Obamacare.
In reaction to the unions’ clash with Obamacare, Republi cans offer little but rhetoric, the gist of which is “we told you so,” and continue demanding total repeal, as if the unions’ objections were additional valid reasons to oppose the law.
What they seem not to grasp is that the features of the law that the unions hate are those that many Americans, including many who do not currently vote Republican, might like: the end of health insurance “job lock,” say, or bending the cost curve through limits on Cadillac plans.
If Republicans were smart, they might support those aspects of the law, instead of total repeal. But, as we have seen in recent days, that is a very big “if.”
Charles Lane is a member of The Washing ton Post’s editorial board.

(no title)

Editor’s note: Below is the video of author Mallory Factor’s speech at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s 2013 West Coast Retreat. The event was held February 22nd-24th at the Terranea Resort in Palos Verdes, California. A transcript of the speech follows.Mallory-Factor-color-photoMallory Factor: I don’t know if you know how unions run elections and are involved in elections. I’d like to give you an idea of how that works.

When a union official was talking to the head of elections for the union, he was talking — he said — how did it go? He said — well, I got some good news for you, and I got some bad news for you. Said — well, what could be good, if there’s bad news? Said — well, the bad news is that the guy we didn’t want to win got 53 percent of the vote. Said — well, what could the good news be? Said — the guy we wanted to win we got 54 percent of the vote for.


That tells you everything you need to know about unions and elections.

I am just deeply honored to be here with you today. And I mean, you have to thank David Horowitz for all that he’s done over the years. You have to.


And likewise, Mike Finch — I don’t know how he does all of this. I mean, that is –


But I thank all of you, really, the great Americans that support the Freedom Center. Your work is vital to keeping our country free and for preserving and defending our American way of life. I can’t thank you enough for having me at this terrific gathering.

The first time I attended a Freedom Center event was this past November at Restoration Weekend. Once I came to that forum, I could not believe that I hadn’t been there before. It was like coming home. And now, coming back together with you all here in California, it’s an even richer experience. Mike, I guess I’m going to have to write another book so I can be invited back next year to these events.

My friends, today I want to give you an overview of the landscape of government unions in America, and why government unions are a huge problem for our nation. I covered some of this ground at the last meeting, when I shared with you some of my discoveries in researching “Shadow Bosses,” which is my recent book on how unions impact our government.

But today, I’m going to give you some new information for the first time. I’m going to share with you how the unions impacted the 2012 elections and how they secured victory for President Obama. I’ll explain what we need to do to have a fighting chance in the next election cycle.

First, all the things that you’ve heard about private sector unions are true — the violence, the corruption, the feather bedding, the wasteful rules, the graft. But what I discovered in writing “Shadow Bosses” is that government employee unions are far, far worse for this nation. Private sector unions have to make sure that their demands are not so excessive that the employer is driven out of business.

Hostess’s bankruptcy — you know, the death of the Twinkie — is just the latest example of what happens when unions representing private sector workers make unreasonable demands on the employer. Unions end up negotiating members out of a job, as 18,500 Hostess workers learned firsthand. By the way, it was just announced that the unions that bankrupted Hostess will be receiving generous government subsidies.

But the picture’s entirely different for government employee unions. Outrageous concessions to these unions don’t drive the government out of business and throw union members out of jobs. Unwieldy union contracts just make government immensely bigger and more burdensome to you, the taxpayer.

Republicans and Democrats used to agree that collective bargaining for government employees is harmful to our nation. One of the most pro-union Presidents in American history, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, said that collective bargaining for government workers was wrong. Strikes against our government were “unthinkable and intolerable.” This is what Roosevelt believed. Even union officials thought the idea of a government employee union was a nonstarter.

George Meany, the former head of the AFL-CIO, actually said, and I quote — “it’s impossible to bargain collectively with government.” The Democrats then realized that they could use the unions as a piggybank for their election campaigns. Suddenly, Democrats were able to get campaign support for unions in exchange for supporting the union agenda. In January 1962, President Kennedy signed an executive order to give collective bargaining to federal workers. And since then, government employee unions have taken over the union movement and even the entire Democrat Party.

The power and the money in today’s labor movement is centered on government employee unions. Unions elect their own bosses. They elect government officials and legislators who grow the size of our government, hire more government employees, and give these employees higher pay and benefits. Then unions keep government inefficient by preventing it from reorganizing, from streamlining and from rightsizing.

There will be a tipping point when our government gets so big and government unions get so entrenched that America will no longer be able to support the enormous cost of running our government. And, my friends, we are rapidly approaching that point.

You may’ve heard that union membership is down. And you may expect that the problems of unions are just going to go away naturally over time. It’s true — less than seven percent of private sector workers are now union members. But for government workers, the picture’s completely different. Of the — it’s mindboggling — 20.5 million government workers, already 42 percent are represented by a union.

Teachers, firemen, policemen and postal workers — they’re the most unionized government employees. And government unions now represent almost every type of government worker, including office workers in state and local government, Treasury workers, state university professors. But even the Peace Corps workers, zookeepers and NASA scientists!

Most people believe that while many other types of government workers are now represented by big labor, our military and our national security employees can’t be unionized. My friends, is that really true? Not at all. Many of our vital national security employees have already been unionized — border patrol agents, FEMA, immigration and customs agents, TSA and civilian military personnel. All these workers have been unionized, leaving our nation exposed to union control, strikes and work slowdowns. Without almost anyone noticing. Twenty percent of our entire military, our Defense Department’s workforce; 60 percent of our civilian military, and over 40 percent of Homeland Security has already been unionized.

One of the main arguments against privatizing government functions within the national security sphere, [as] these functions are too important to be subject to market forces. But if these critical functions shouldn’t be subject to Adam Smith’s invisible hand, they certainly shouldn’t be subject to the iron fist of the labor unions.

Unions are on our military bases, they’re inside our Pentagon. Unions are determining workplace rules and norms, filing grievances and influencing personnel decisions at these sensitive job sites. One Defense Department attorney alerted us to a grievance filed by the union on a military base — the price of a can of soda had been raised from 50 to 55 cents. And this type of grievance is filed all the time, wasting our military’s limited resources.

There’s another danger — organizing any group of employees makes strikes among them more likely. Strikes are illegal for federal workers and many state and local government workers. But that doesn’t prevent strikes from happening. New York City transit workers, Tacoma, Washington teachers; Detroit teachers, Chicago teachers, postal workers — they’ve all gone on strike illegally.

The legendary Al Shanker, former head of the American Federation of Teachers, explained. And I quote — “One of the greatest reasons for the effectiveness of the public employees’ strike is the fact that it is illegal.” When the Professional Air Traffic Controllers struck in 1981 — in violation, of course, of federal law — PATCO President Robert Poli snapped, “The only illegal strike is an unsuccessful one.” And that’s still true today.

As unions gain a stranglehold over our government, we lose something as a nation. We lose control over our national security employees to private entities — labor unions. Unions are private entities working to maximize their profits. These private entities drive big government spending and overregulation of our economy. They are also having a greater and greater influence over who wins our elections.

During the 2012 elections, unions doubled down on political spending. And they did this to build a monumental voter registration, electioneering, and get-out-the-vote machine. As a result, the unions almost singlehandedly won reelection for Obama in 2012. People think that the Labor Movement is a subsidiary of the Democratic Party — they’re wrong. Today, the Democratic Party is a subsidiary of the Labor Movement.

Right after the election, Richard Trumka, head of the huge Federation of Unions, the AFL-CIO, claimed credit for Obama’s victory. The huge push by the nation’s labor unions, Trumka claimed, gave President Obama Ohio, Wisconsin and Nevada, which carry 34 electoral votes combined. And I quote — without the unions, “none of those states would be in the President’s column.” This is what Trumka puffed. My friends, he’s right.

Unions practically ran the ground game for the entire Democrat Party. Matter of fact, I think Obama should hold a state dinner for Trumka. He should, at the very least, continue to meet with Trumka, as he did in his first term, more often than he does with most members of his cabinet.

Unions spent $500 million on President Obama’s reelection campaign. A single union, the SEIU, which Obama had worked for, spent $74 million to reelect President Obama, making it Obama’s largest outside spender, dwarfing spending by any PAC.

But the unions’ biggest contribution to President Obama’s reelection was the manpower and organization on the ground. AFL-CIO registered more than 450,000 new voters leading up to the election, mostly in the swing states. AFL-CIO volunteers knocked on almost 14 million doors nationwide during the election. And this voter canvassing and mobilization machine was not shut down on Election Day. AFL-CIO pledged to build a long-term year-round mobilization structure to keep its issues on the front burner all year long, not just during the election season.

Unions increased their reach over the electorate by using powers available to them under the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United case. Liberals complain that this case gave corporations more leeway to spend on politics. But the real story in the 2012 election was about what this case did for the unions, not the corporations.

As a result of the Citizens United decision, unions can buy advertising and campaign materials for candidates using their immense dues income. And by the way, it’s a little over $14 billion a year, which we were able to show in “Shadow Bosses.” And for the first time in this election, unions were able to canvass and call voters who were not their members as a result of the changes under Citizens United. All these changes meant that unions could vastly increase their voter canvassing and reach in battleground states and swing more union and nonunion voters alike to President Obama and, of course, other people on the Democrat ticket.

In the battleground states, unions overloaded the political landscape with volunteers, many of whom they actually paid for their efforts. Unions put 400,000 members on the streets to work for Obama.

Rather than go into a whole bunch of states, let’s just take one state as an example — Ohio. The unions in Ohio gave the Democrat Party use of 1,800 local union offices as outposts for the Obama Campaign. These local union offices have been operating for years, engaged in the community and in community organizing, and they’ve done this on a year-round basis. The fact that the Obama Campaign used permanent offices with deep roots in the community gave it a huge edge over the Republican ticket, which largely used offices just set up for the presidential campaign.

The Obama Campaign also used local unions to get into the workplaces all over the state. Local unions appointed worksite coordinators for each unionized workplace in Ohio, as well as in other swing states. But we’re using Ohio as an example. The coordinators ran extensive worksite leafleting and education programs — education programs — to reach voters at their place of work. My friends, Republicans didn’t have anything comparable in terms of workplace access, because they don’t control workplaces like the unions do.

Unions registered, in just Ohio, 70,000 new voters and worked to get almost all of them to the polls. And in the last four days before the election, just in Ohio, union representatives contacted 800,000 Ohio voters. One union in particular, the SEIU, had a very carefully targeted plan to drive voter turnout in Ohio. With 2,300 full-time volunteers on the ground in just Ohio, in the last days of the campaign, the SEIU — Service Employees International Union — focused on African-American and Latino voters.

The SEIU also purchased radio ads and targeted calls aimed specifically at communities that vote reliably for President Obama. The message aimed at the African Americans urged use of early voting procedures to overcome alleged voter intimidation at the polls. They said, and I quote — “Those who don’t vote are playing into the hands of those who are trying to suppress the vote.” The result? In Ohio, African-American voters increased from 11 percent of the electorate in 2008 to 15 percent this past election, which alone made the difference in winning the state for President Obama. Obama won this state by about 103,000 votes. And unions made the difference multiple times over.

Unions have spent so much money on political action that they’ve developed very sophisticated political operations. If we don’t counter it effectively, the union political machine at some point could turn the Democrats into an undefeatable majority.

And, my friends, what type of voter registration, canvassing and get-out-the-vote machine did the Republican Party control in 2012? Nothing, nothing even approaching the scale of this well-coordinated and well-funded union political machine. Republicans matched the Democrats dollar-for-dollar in 2012, with each side spending about $1.2 billion on the presidential election. But Republicans didn’t have the benefit of using year-round field offices run by local unions.

And as we know, Republicans probably also, shall we say, prioritized the wrong things in their spending. For example, the Romney Campaign spent close to $500 million on mostly negative TV ads, almost all in the battleground states. Republican spending on TV for Romney exceeded Democrat spending on Obama ads by about $100 million. But a plethora of 30-second spots didn’t change hearts and minds. TV ads couldn’t counter the years the unions have invested in political infrastructure and community organizing, which they shared with the Obama Campaign.

If the Republican Party is going to survive as a major party in national politics, the party will have to build up its own political infrastructure that operates on a year-round basis, particularly in the battleground states. It would take a huge investment and years of work to develop a political arm for the Republican Party that could compete with the unions.

My friends, we may be right on the issues. But Republicans cannot hope to win elections without matching the boots on the ground that the unions provided for the Democrats in the battleground states. The Republican Party is going to have to look to a new paradigm to win 2016, and the time to start is right now.

Since the November 2012 elections, we’ve been told again and again that Republicans will have to secure Latino votes to win future presidential elections. Our pundits debate which potential GOP candidate will attract Latinos, and they suggest changes in our policies to appeal to this growing demographic group.

But while Republicans have been talking about how to court the Latino community, unions have pursued Latinos directly. Unions have been bringing Latinos into the union movement and have been selling the Democrat Party to Latinos and two other groups as well.

To do this, unions have changed their historic approach to immigrants and immigration. Up through the 1970s, unions were openly hostile to immigrants. Unions considered immigrants strike-breakers and competitors who undercut union workers on wages and benefits. But now unions are even treating the 11 million undocumented workers as potential union members and recruiting them.

Unions have made immigration reform one of their core issues today. The SEIU has committed 2.1 million members for the fight for immigration reform and is planning extensive lobbying, rallies and member education on immigration. AFL-CIO Trumka embraces President Obama’s Pathway to Citizenship for illegal immigrants. Trumka explained that the President understands that empowering immigrant workers — and I’m quoting — “is a win for all working people.” Translation — turning immigrants into union members is a win for the shadow bosses and the labor unions.

Unions are courting immigrant and nonimmigrant Latinos to bolster their numbers. A number of unions, especially SEIU, have aligned themselves with immigrant groups and are actively organizing workplaces which rely on immigrant labor — you know, workplaces such as — that have janitors, home healthcare workers, domestic workers — they’ve all been unionized under this new initiative.

And my friends, the strategy’s working! Nationwide — and we’ve just been able to put this together — unions have gained a net of 156,000 Latino members in 2012, many of them immigrants. That also is about $150 million in additional dues, too.

While union membership declined in many states, union membership grew in California and in right-to-work states — Congressman Gohmert — like Texas and other Southwestern states, which the AFL-CIO credits to increases in Latino union membership. These gains are critical. And this is going to shock you all, because this is a new number — because unions have lost in 2012 an astounding 547,000 white members.

By building immigrant Latino membership, unions are riding the tide of growth in the Latino population. But at the same time, unions are also cementing an alliance between Latinos and the Democrat Party. It’s just another way unions are working hand-in-glove with the Democrats to achieve a permanent Democratic majority.

I want to conclude now, fairly rapidly. Because I see my time is going pretty fast, and I want to take some Q&As.

The key to curbing the influence of labor unions is to cut off the flow of the money into their coffers. There are a number of ways to do this. And the best way to do it is by strengthening workers’ rights. States can break up union monopoly over government employees, as Wisconsin did. States can enact right-to-work laws, as Indiana and Michigan did. The result in each case is fewer workers paying dues because they’re not forced to pay dues to keep their job, which means less income for the unions.

The big takeaway, though, isn’t just reducing union revenues; it’s increasing workers’ freedom — increasing their freedom to make a decision if they want a union in their workplace, if they want to have a union represent them. Believe it or not, of all the union members in government, less than seven percent ever voted for or against a union.

These members have had almost no rights. And that’s how we have to approach this. And they need to be able to decide, the workers need to be able to decide, if they want to pay a union. When workers are given these rights, unions will diminish, or unions will have to do something better to serve the workers. They’re going to have to do something for them to join them.

At the same time, the Republican Party needs to come up with an action plan to match the superior forces on the ground that unions provide to the Democrat Party. It’s not just enough to spend money on media and for the consultants to collect their 15 percent, and hope that this counteracts the sea of volunteers. [What] we need is in-person voter contacts that the unions do so well. The Republican Party needs to develop its own year-round political infrastructure on the ground. It’ll be expensive, it’ll take time, but we need to get started.

My friends, it’s going to take us all to stop labor unions and the Democrats from taking America further down the path to socialism and decline, and they’re doing this with each successive election. You, my friends here — you here are the heroes in this battle. And your support of the Freedom Center is just one part of it. You’re the people that are leading the fight to make sure government is held accountable to the people.

Our greatest battles are ahead of us. The fight will be long and hard. But with the help of each of you, we can ensure America’s freedom and America’s prosperity into the future.

I want to thank all of you for what you do to keep America the greatest country on earth. Thank you.


Unidentified Speaker: Mallory, thank you very much. Tremendously illuminating.

Can you comment on union elections, undocumented or illegal aliens, and the policies of the INS?

Mallory Factor: Thank you.

Something just came out over the past couple of days. And unions are willing to go very far to attract immigrants to their ranks. In a dramatic new development, unions are actually protecting immigrants who are potential union members against America’s own labor and immigration laws.

A recent example involves a company called Palermo’s Villa. It’s a Milwaukee, Wisconsin frozen pizza manufacturer that sells to Costco. The United Steelworkers have been trying to organize the largely Hispanic workforce at Palermo with the help of [Foch es] de la Frontera, which is an immigration rights group. In the midst of these organizational efforts, Palermo faced an immigration audit which required the company to ask each worker for proof of work eligibility. The company was compelled and did fire workers who did not comply, as federal law requires. Makes sense, right? Workers struck over this eligibility verification. It’s astonishing that they did.

Even more astonishing is how the federal government responded to the labor dispute of them striking. After union officials complained about the firings to the Obama Administration, the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, halted its immigration investigation against Palermo.

Was ICE satisfied that Palermo had resolved its immigration issue? That’s not it. You can’t make this up, this is just shocking — an agreement between the Department of Homeland Security and the Labor Department actually requires this — if a union and an employer are engaged in a dispute over organizing workers, the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency is barred from pursuing an immigration investigation of the workplace under this agreement. A pro-immigrant group explained that this agreement means ICE can’t take action against workers who have a false Social Security number or a borrowed employment authorization document to get a job in any workplace in which there’s an ongoing labor dispute.

My friends, enforcement of our laws apparently now takes a backseat to labor unions’ right to organize workplaces. This is exactly the type of outcome that we should expect when we let labor unions get deep into our federal government.

In 1973, there was a very famous case — it’s called US versus Enmons, a Supreme Court case that involved striking electrical workers who allegedly fired high-powered rifles at three utility company transformers. They drained oil from the transformers, and they blew up a substation. The Court decided that their acts were not wrongful –


– and that they couldn’t be prosecuted under federal extortion laws, because they were in the furtherance of legitimate union goals.

Unidentified Speaker: Whoa.

Unidentified Speaker: Wow.

Mallory Factor: And these goals being improving the outcome of a strike.

Some federal and state laws actually carve out labor union exceptions from laws regulating criminal conduct, such as stalking, trespassing. And we go into this in the book in great detail. Now, there was a bill put in, I think, from Georgia, Congressman Gingrey, to solve this problem. Can’t even get it on the floor, can’t even get it on the floor, with a Republican House. Because Republicans are afraid that the unions could hurt them.

Anyway, thank you, yes. We go into great detail in it, and there’s a whole chapter on that. And some of the stuff is just shocking. I mean, the idea that union violence and coercion is legal, and we can’t even correct it. Thank you.

Unidentified Audience Member: Can you tell us how many states have the right-to-work laws and how we can get more states to take the same approach?

Mallory Factor: Twenty-three — 24 now, I guess, with the last one — states are right-to-work. And basically, right-to-work doesn’t mean — do you all understand what right-to-work means? Okay, let me help you out here. First of all, right-to-work does not mean that you can stop a union from taking away your First Amendment rights. I mean, a union collectively bargains for you, and you have no right to stop them from doing that. This is under federal law. What it means is you don’t have to pay a union to keep your job. That’s all it means.

There are seven states, however, where if you’re a government employee you don’t have to have a union represent you. And these states, obviously, have the lowest unionization rates in government employees. But only seven states, not all the other right-to-work states. And most people don’t have any idea about it. We go into that in the book in detail, because that’s even more shocking.

Remember, if you have a job, and there’s a union in your workplace, even if you’re a right-to-work state, the union still represents you. You just don’t have to pay them dues. Obama wants to get right-to-work abolished by taking a little tiny section of the Labor Relations Act — it’s called section 14b, just a few words. And that goes, there’s no right-to-work states any longer.

Anyway, I could go on for days. If anybody wants to read “Shadow Bosses,” I’ll be happy to sign it for you. I know a lot of you have it already. And thank you all for being so generous and telling me that, it’s made me feel great. And thank you, Mike.

Beware The Unions’ Idea Of Immigration Reform

ICE Agents Shut Out of Immigration Reform Talks By White House

ICE BADGE2It looks like unionized Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents are starting to make some noise against the White House and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka about being shut out of talks involving immigration reform. They expressed concern about how such reform would affect federal agents, specifically those that are in the Border Patrol and work along the United States/Mexico border.
Yahoo News reports,
Unions “did have at one point some differences” on the issue, but “the entire labor movement is entirely behind this now,” Trumka said. “We’ll be at the table the whole time this thing is being developed to make sure it meets the needs of workers.” Once it’s drafted, he continued, “we’ll be pushing this thing [with a] full-fledged campaign” aimed at both public opinion and wary lawmakers.
Read more:



The fight over ‘right to work’ legislation that has passed the Michigan state legislature turned violent today when a mob of angry pro-union protesters vandalized a large tent.

The tent was erected by the Michigan chapter of Americans For Prosperity, a free market activist group. The tent, according to reports via social media from those in attendance, had women and children inside who were unable to get out because of the weight of the tent as well as union protesters standing on the edges. It’s clear from the video that there are people under the tent after it had fallen.

Reports on Twitter and Facebook claim more violence such as popular conservative activist Steven Crowder was punched in the face at least four times. Video of his encounter will be released later today via social media and again on the Sean Hannity show on the Fox News Channel later tonight.


Head of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, says he got into the Labor movement because he wanted to promote “massive social change”, or as we all know it, socialism. Wow. That is a rather stark admission, but Beck said eventually the would start revealing their agenda out in the open.

I’m glad we are awake.

“Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution.”

I don’t care what you people that believe in social justice thinks about it. There’s more of We The People than you the other people, and it won’t happen.

Social justice refers to the concept of a society in which justice is achieved in every aspect of society, rather than merely the administration of law. The term can be amorphous and refer to sometimes self-contradictory values of justice. It is generally thought of as a world which affords individuals and groups fair treatment and an impartial share of the benefits of society. (Different proponents of social justice have developed different interpretations of what constitutes fair treatment and an impartial share’.) It can also refer to the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society.

Social justice is both a philosophical problem and an important issue in politics, religion and civil society. Most individuals wish to live in a just society, but different political ideologies have different conceptions of what a ‘just society’ actually is. The term “social justice” is often employed by the political left to describe a society with a greater degree of economic egalitarianism, which may be achieved through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or property redistribution. The right wing also uses the term social justice, but generally believes that a just society is best achieved through the operation of a free market, which they believe provides equality of opportunity and promotes philanthropy and charity. Both the right and the left tend to agree on the importance of rule of law, human rights, and some form of a welfare safety net (though the left supports this last element to a greater extent than the right).

Social Justice features as an apolitical philosophical concept (insofar as any philosophical analysis of politics can be free from bias) in much of John Rawls’ writing. It is fundamental to Catholic social teaching, and is one of the Four Pillars of the Green Party upheld by the worldwide green parties. Some of the tenets of social justice, sometimes renamed civil justice, have been adopted by those who lie on the left or center-left of the political spectrum (e.g. Socialists, Social Democrats, etc). Social justice is also a concept that some use to describe the movement towards a socially just world. In this context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality.

DIRTY, DIRTY, DIRTY -SEIU Paid Protesters at Romney Cleveland Ohio Rally



by Matthew Boyle

Amalgamated Transit Union local 689 president Mike Golash, now an “Occupy” movement organizer, was caught on tape Sunday revealing his political goals: overthrowing capitalism in the United States and instituting a communist government.

“Progressive labor is a revolutionary communist organization,” Golash said during an Occupy DC “People’s Assembly” on August 19.

“Its objective,” he added, “is to make revolution in the United States, overthrow the capitalist system and build communism.”

Golash said he and his comrades are “trying to learn something from the historical revolutions of the past: the Russian revolution, the Chinese revolution, the revolutions in Cuba and Eastern Europe.”

“What can we learn from them so we can build a more successful movement to transform capitalist society?”


“An organization has to be built which can bring down capitalism,” Golash said.

Read more:

SEO Powered By SEOPressor