Yeah, I'm just going to let the editors of the National Review Online take this one. Read the original here.
The Democrats’ GM Fiction
By The Editors of the National Review
SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 4:00 A.M.
The Democrats have decided to run in 2012 as the bailout party. It is an odd choice — the 2008–09 bailouts were deeply unpopular among the general public, and even their backers were notably conflicted about the precedent being set and the ensuing moral hazard. But Democrats have nonetheless made one of the most abusive episodes in the entire bailout era their economic cornerstone: the government takeover of General Motors.
The GM bailout was always an odd duck: The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was created in order to preserve liquidity in the financial markets by heading off the collapse of key financial institutions that had made catastrophically bad bets on real-estate securities — nothing at all to do with cars, really. GM’s financial arm, today known as Ally Financial, was in trouble, but GM’s fundamental problem was that its products were not profitable enough to support its work-force expenses. A single dominant factor — the United Auto Workers union’s extortionate contracts with GM — prevented the carmaker from either reducing its work-force costs or making its products more efficiently. And its hidebound management didn’t help.
Admirers of the GM bailout should bear in mind that it was the Bush administration that first decided to intervene at the firm, offering a bridge loan on the condition that it draw up a deeply revised business plan. President Obama’s unique contribution was effectively to nationalize the company, seeing to it that the federal government violated normal bankruptcy processes and legal precedent to protect the defective element at the heart of GM’s troubles: the financial interests of the UAW. It did this by strong-arming GM’s bondholders into taking haircuts in order to sweeten the pot for the UAW. The Obama administration also creatively construed tax law to relieve GM of tens of billions of dollars in obligations — at the same time that Barack Obama & Co. were caterwauling about the supposed lack of patriotism of firms that used legal means rather than political favoritism to reduce their tax bills.
Mitt Romney’s proposal for a structured bankruptcy would have necessitated considerable federal involvement, too, but with a key difference: The UAW contracts would have been renegotiated, and GM’s executive suites would have been cleaned out, placing the company on a path toward innovation and self-sufficiency rather than permanent life support. Which is to say, Obama did for GM what he is doing by un-reforming welfare: creating a dependent constituency.
The Democrats cling to the ridiculous claim that the bailout of GM and its now-Italian competitor, Chrysler, saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs. This preposterous figure is based on the assumption that if GM and Chrysler had gone into normal bankruptcy proceedings, the entire enterprise of automobile manufacturing in the United States would have collapsed — not only at GM and Chrysler but at Ford and foreign transplants such as Toyota and Honda. Not only that, the Democrats’ argument goes, but practically every parts maker, supplier, warehousing agency, and services firm dedicated to the car industry would have collapsed, too. In fact, it is unlikely that even GM or Chrysler would have stopped production during bankruptcy: The assembly lines would have continued rolling, interest and debt payments would have been cut, and — here’s the problem — union contracts would have been renegotiated. Far from having saved 1.5 million jobs, it is not clear that the GM bailout saved any — only that it preserved the UAW’s unsustainable arrangement.
Bill Clinton bizarrely tried to claim that the bailout has been responsible for the addition of 250,000 jobs to the automobile industry since the nadir of the financial crisis. Auto manufacturers and dealerships have indeed added about 236,000 jobs since then, but almost none are at GM, which has added only about 4,500 workers, a number not even close to offsetting the 63,000 workers that its dealerships had to let go when the terms of the bailout unilaterally shut them down.
Ugly as the bank bailouts were, the federal government appears set to make its money back on most of them, with the exception of some smaller regional banks and CIT. Even AIG, one of the worst of the financial basket cases, is set to end up being a break-even proposition for U.S. taxpayers. But tens of billions of dollars will be lost on GM. The federal government put up more for a 60 percent interest in the firm than GM is worth today.
At their convention, Democrats swore that GM is “thriving,” but the market doesn’t think so: GM shares have lost half their value since January 2011. And while the passing of the Great Recession has meant growing sales for all automakers, GM is seriously lagging behind its competitors: Its sales are up 10 percent, a fraction of the increases at Kia, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Porsche. With its sales weak, its share price crashing, and its business model still a mess, some analysts already are predicting that GM will return to bankruptcy — but not until after the election.
The Obama administration talks up all of the “jobs” it saved at GM — but jobs doing what? Manufacturing automobiles that are not competitive without a massive government subsidy? Propping up an economically unviable enterprise just long enough to get Barack Obama reelected? As much as it will pain the hardworking men and women of GM to hear it, it is not worthwhile to save jobs at enterprises that cannot compete on their own merits. So long as the federal government is massively subsidizing the operation, a job at GM is a welfare program with a fairly robust work requirement. (And we all know how the Obama administration feels about work requirements.)
We have bankruptcy laws and bankruptcy courts for a reason. It may make sense to expedite the proceedings for very large firms such as GM in order to prevent disruptions in the supply chain that would, as Ford’s executives argued, harm other, healthier firms. But bankrupt is what GM was, and bankrupt is what GM is, a fact that will become blisteringly apparent should the government ever attempt to sell off the shares it owns in the company.
The GM bailout was a bad deal for GM’s creditors, for U.S. taxpayers, and, in the long run, for the U.S. automobile industry and our overall national competitiveness. No wonder the Democrats are campaigning on a fictionalized account of it.
Showing posts with label Unions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Unions. Show all posts
Monday, September 10, 2012
Monday, August 1, 2011
Don't upset the union in Chicago...
Read the original here.
Chicago Union News » Ex-Union Member Fights Hefty Carpenters Fine
(POSTED: 7/25/11) Union members better think twice before working for a non-union company — it could cost them.
The Chicago Regional Council of Carpentersimposed a $300,900 fine on a former union member who crossed a picket line and went to work for a non-signatory contractor while he was still part of the union, court documents show.
The individual, Nathaniel Musser, who was a member of Waukegan-based Local 250, has filed charges of unfair labor practices against the union with the National Labor Relations Board. A hearing is set for mid-August.
Musser, described as a young man, could not find employment through the union, said his lawyer, Stanley Niew. He eventually found a job through a non-union company that has since gone out of business and performed work on various dates in April and May of 2009.
Once the union learned of Musser’s employment, Local 250 filed internal charges against him in June of 2009 and the Regional Council imposed the fine in June 2010.
Musser appealed the fine, which was then reduced to $200,850.
According to court documents, Musser alleges that the Carpenters Union has maintained a policy that precluded members from resigning from the union.
“If he would have known about a way to resign, he would have resigned before he worked for a non-union employer,” Niew said.
Joe Heilgeist, identified in court papers as a business representative and organizer of Local 250, declined to comment and the attorney representing the union did not return phone calls.
Frank Libby, president of the Regional Council, said he was unfamiliar with this particular case but said the situation was common.
“It makes sense,” Libby said. “He went to work with a non-union contractor while he held membership. You can’t do that. . . . He made a conscious decision apparently to say the hell with the union.”
By Katie Drews, for ChicagoUnionNews.com
Contact: info@chicagounionnews.com
ChicagoUnionNews.com welcomes online advertisers. For inquiries or to obtain a media kit, please email info@ChicagoUnionNews.com or call (630) 981-1528.
ChicagoUnionNews.com also reserves the right to refuse advertisers. (We will not accept advertising from any body of government.)
Chicago Union News » Ex-Union Member Fights Hefty Carpenters Fine
(POSTED: 7/25/11) Union members better think twice before working for a non-union company — it could cost them.
The Chicago Regional Council of Carpentersimposed a $300,900 fine on a former union member who crossed a picket line and went to work for a non-signatory contractor while he was still part of the union, court documents show.
The individual, Nathaniel Musser, who was a member of Waukegan-based Local 250, has filed charges of unfair labor practices against the union with the National Labor Relations Board. A hearing is set for mid-August.
Musser, described as a young man, could not find employment through the union, said his lawyer, Stanley Niew. He eventually found a job through a non-union company that has since gone out of business and performed work on various dates in April and May of 2009.
Once the union learned of Musser’s employment, Local 250 filed internal charges against him in June of 2009 and the Regional Council imposed the fine in June 2010.
Musser appealed the fine, which was then reduced to $200,850.
According to court documents, Musser alleges that the Carpenters Union has maintained a policy that precluded members from resigning from the union.
“If he would have known about a way to resign, he would have resigned before he worked for a non-union employer,” Niew said.
Joe Heilgeist, identified in court papers as a business representative and organizer of Local 250, declined to comment and the attorney representing the union did not return phone calls.
Frank Libby, president of the Regional Council, said he was unfamiliar with this particular case but said the situation was common.
“It makes sense,” Libby said. “He went to work with a non-union contractor while he held membership. You can’t do that. . . . He made a conscious decision apparently to say the hell with the union.”
By Katie Drews, for ChicagoUnionNews.com
Contact: info@chicagounionnews.com
ChicagoUnionNews.com welcomes online advertisers. For inquiries or to obtain a media kit, please email info@ChicagoUnionNews.com or call (630) 981-1528.
ChicagoUnionNews.com also reserves the right to refuse advertisers. (We will not accept advertising from any body of government.)
Friday, July 15, 2011
Michigan Public Schools using Automated calling for Politics?
If this is true, it feels pretty shady...Read the original here.
Michigan Public School Illegally Uses Robocall System Against GOP Governor
Written By : Warner Todd Huston
News has emerged that a Michigan public school illegally used its automatic phone calling system to call the homes of every student to urge parents to join the recall effort against Republican Governor Rick Snyder last month. To imagine that they can illegally use public school facilities for a partisan, left-wing political effort, this is the arrogance of left-wingers in our mis-educational system writ large.
It is certainly illegal for a school to put it’s telephone alert system for partisan political use, but that is what happened nonetheless. Here is what the message said:
This is a message from the Lawrence Public Schools (inaudible) alert system. This is an informational item and not directly associated with the school. Concerned parents interested in cuts to education . . . we’re here to inform you that there is information about the problem. Also, be advised that there is a petition to recall Governor Snyder. If you want, stop by Chuck Moden’s house right by the school June 7th/8th between 3:30 and 4:00 pm. Thank you. Goodbye.
(To hear a recording of the message, click here.)
The school robocall system is supposed to be used to alert students and parents to school closings due to weather and other school business but not to push partisan political efforts.
Lawrence Public Schools Superintendent John Overley told Michgan Capitol Confidential that it wouldn’t happen again. But it shouldn’t have happened at all. According to Robert LaBrant , senior vice president of political affairs and general counsel for the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the action by the district violates, “Section 57 of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act.”
LaBrant imagines that any finding of a violation would bring a fine to said persons of up to $20,000.
But all that aside, it is the arrogance of these leftist union hacks to imagine that they have the right to use the tools given them for the education of our kids for partisan political attacks on those they don’t like. It is an outrageous misuse of resources that all citizens, left-wing and conservative, pay for.
Left-wingers, however, feel that government is theirs and theirs alone and they see nothing wrong with violating laws as long as their agenda is furthered. This is yet another example of why government employees should not be allowed to unionize.
Obviously, the health and welfare of the union was more important to this school than the integrity of their education.
Written By : Warner Todd Huston
News has emerged that a Michigan public school illegally used its automatic phone calling system to call the homes of every student to urge parents to join the recall effort against Republican Governor Rick Snyder last month. To imagine that they can illegally use public school facilities for a partisan, left-wing political effort, this is the arrogance of left-wingers in our mis-educational system writ large.
It is certainly illegal for a school to put it’s telephone alert system for partisan political use, but that is what happened nonetheless. Here is what the message said:
This is a message from the Lawrence Public Schools (inaudible) alert system. This is an informational item and not directly associated with the school. Concerned parents interested in cuts to education . . . we’re here to inform you that there is information about the problem. Also, be advised that there is a petition to recall Governor Snyder. If you want, stop by Chuck Moden’s house right by the school June 7th/8th between 3:30 and 4:00 pm. Thank you. Goodbye.
(To hear a recording of the message, click here.)
The school robocall system is supposed to be used to alert students and parents to school closings due to weather and other school business but not to push partisan political efforts.
Lawrence Public Schools Superintendent John Overley told Michgan Capitol Confidential that it wouldn’t happen again. But it shouldn’t have happened at all. According to Robert LaBrant , senior vice president of political affairs and general counsel for the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the action by the district violates, “Section 57 of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act.”
LaBrant imagines that any finding of a violation would bring a fine to said persons of up to $20,000.
But all that aside, it is the arrogance of these leftist union hacks to imagine that they have the right to use the tools given them for the education of our kids for partisan political attacks on those they don’t like. It is an outrageous misuse of resources that all citizens, left-wing and conservative, pay for.
Left-wingers, however, feel that government is theirs and theirs alone and they see nothing wrong with violating laws as long as their agenda is furthered. This is yet another example of why government employees should not be allowed to unionize.
Obviously, the health and welfare of the union was more important to this school than the integrity of their education.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Tax Dollars pay Unions?
Apparently, you can collect public employee salary for doing union work...Read the original here.
Union Price Tag Grows At A Cost To U.S. Taxpayer
Union behavior and their bargaining power has been of intense interest in many states. As the country continues to work its way out of a recession and the unemployment level is still hovering at a high 9 percent, the additional costs of unions are again being scrutinized in Washington.
Unlike state government worker unions, federal employees of unionized agencies are not required to join the union or pay mandatory dues. Wisconsin lawmakers sought to abridge that power, sending the nation into a frenzy.
Of specific interest on Capitol Hill[1] Wednesday was something known as official time. Official time is a federal term for the hours spent by union officials employed by the government conducting union business. The officials are paid their normal government salaries for this work on behalf of the unions.
Official time is seen by supporters as compensation for the fact that unions are required to handle labor issues related to all employees, not just union members. When union officials negotiate with federal managers over work rules, like appropriate attire and other human resource requirements, those functions are carried out under official time.
Rep. Dennis Ross[2], R-Fla., chairman of the Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service[3], and Labor Policy, called it "charity" to federal employee unions.
“This came at a cost of $129 million to American taxpayers,” he says, citing a 2009 Office of Personnel Management report.
That’s about three million hours of official time.
The provision was included in a law passed by Congress in 1978, signed by President Jimmy Carter[4]. The law stipulated time on the clock could be used as long as that time is negotiated with management and is agreed "to be reasonable, necessary, and in the public interest."
But conservatives in Congress say it isn’t reasonable anymore and have railed against what they claim are inordinately high government pay rates that are being used as a negotiating tactic by unions.
Republican Sen. Tom Coburn[5] of Oklahoma this week highlighted a report from the Congressional Research Service, first reported by the Washington Times, which found 77,000 federal employees earn a higher salary than their respective governors. A union representing federal employees said the bigger problem is payments to contractors, not government workers.
Rep. Stephen Lynch[6], D-Mass., thinks Republicans are targeting unions and argues official time is fair. “This is absurd. Give me a break. “
Union leaders say official time makes the government run more efficiently, and ultimately saves money.
John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said at the House hearing Wednesday, “If workers and managements are really communicating, work place problems that would otherwise escalate into costly litigation can be dealt with promptly and more informally.”
For now, Republicans aren’t buying that argument. Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., has proposed a bill called the Federal Employee Accountability Act of 2011, which would repeal parts of the 1978 law, and limit how and when federal employees could use official time.
References
^ Capitol Hill (www.foxnews.com)
^ Dennis Ross (www.foxnews.com)
^ Postal Service (www.foxnews.com)
^ Jimmy Carter (www.foxnews.com)
^ Tom Coburn (www.foxnews.com)
^ Stephen Lynch (www.foxnews.com)
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/01/union-price-tag-grows-cost-taxpayer/#ixzz1O81NRH3s
Union Price Tag Grows At A Cost To U.S. Taxpayer
Union behavior and their bargaining power has been of intense interest in many states. As the country continues to work its way out of a recession and the unemployment level is still hovering at a high 9 percent, the additional costs of unions are again being scrutinized in Washington.
Unlike state government worker unions, federal employees of unionized agencies are not required to join the union or pay mandatory dues. Wisconsin lawmakers sought to abridge that power, sending the nation into a frenzy.
Of specific interest on Capitol Hill[1] Wednesday was something known as official time. Official time is a federal term for the hours spent by union officials employed by the government conducting union business. The officials are paid their normal government salaries for this work on behalf of the unions.
Official time is seen by supporters as compensation for the fact that unions are required to handle labor issues related to all employees, not just union members. When union officials negotiate with federal managers over work rules, like appropriate attire and other human resource requirements, those functions are carried out under official time.
Rep. Dennis Ross[2], R-Fla., chairman of the Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service[3], and Labor Policy, called it "charity" to federal employee unions.
“This came at a cost of $129 million to American taxpayers,” he says, citing a 2009 Office of Personnel Management report.
That’s about three million hours of official time.
The provision was included in a law passed by Congress in 1978, signed by President Jimmy Carter[4]. The law stipulated time on the clock could be used as long as that time is negotiated with management and is agreed "to be reasonable, necessary, and in the public interest."
But conservatives in Congress say it isn’t reasonable anymore and have railed against what they claim are inordinately high government pay rates that are being used as a negotiating tactic by unions.
Republican Sen. Tom Coburn[5] of Oklahoma this week highlighted a report from the Congressional Research Service, first reported by the Washington Times, which found 77,000 federal employees earn a higher salary than their respective governors. A union representing federal employees said the bigger problem is payments to contractors, not government workers.
Rep. Stephen Lynch[6], D-Mass., thinks Republicans are targeting unions and argues official time is fair. “This is absurd. Give me a break. “
Union leaders say official time makes the government run more efficiently, and ultimately saves money.
John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said at the House hearing Wednesday, “If workers and managements are really communicating, work place problems that would otherwise escalate into costly litigation can be dealt with promptly and more informally.”
For now, Republicans aren’t buying that argument. Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., has proposed a bill called the Federal Employee Accountability Act of 2011, which would repeal parts of the 1978 law, and limit how and when federal employees could use official time.
References
^ Capitol Hill (www.foxnews.com)
^ Dennis Ross (www.foxnews.com)
^ Postal Service (www.foxnews.com)
^ Jimmy Carter (www.foxnews.com)
^ Tom Coburn (www.foxnews.com)
^ Stephen Lynch (www.foxnews.com)
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/01/union-price-tag-grows-cost-taxpayer/#ixzz1O81NRH3s
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Who decides where a company should be located?
Apparently, the government thinks the union should...Read the original here.
More In Store For Businesses Like Boeing « Hot Air
The complaint against Boeing might have just been the beginning. It seems the National Labor Relations Board can’t bear to let businesses relocate without allowing unions to have a say.
Current NLRB rules allow a business to move without first negotiating the relocation with its union — provided the decision doesn’t turn on labor costs. But according to a recent internal memo[1] from the NLRB general counsel’s office, NLRB Chairman Wilma Liebman now wants to compel businesses to provide unions with information about relocation decisions in advance. That way, Liebman reasons, unions will have a chance to ascertain to what extent the business is moving because of labor costs — and will ultimately be able to bargain against the move.
On one level, this sounds sensible: If a business decides to relocate and the decision seems to be based primarily on labor cost concerns, union leaders might complain to the NLRB — and say, given the chance to bargain, they would have made concessions that might have altered the business’ decision. In other words, requiring businesses to advise unions as to the motivation for a move in advance might necessitate bargaining — but it might also spare companies NLRB involvement. That seems to be what Liebman wants businesses to believe, anyway.
But to require business leaders to provide unions with this kind of detailed information about their business plan is just one step closer to making unions “equal partner[s] in the running of the business enterprise” — and the Supreme Court has already said the National Labor Relations Act in no way mandates such equal partnership.
Moreover, these requirements would be expensive[2].
What Liebman envisions would raise business costs enormously. Current labor law and the attitude of the pro-union NLRB enables unions to drag negotiations on … and on … and on. Until bargaining hits an “impasse,” employers could not legally make any business changes opposed by their union.
If the NLRB really wants to preserve work in any given state, its best bet would be to advise that state to pass right-to-work legislation. Compared to forced-unionism states, right-to-work states have more new residents, more new businesses, more new jobs and faster income growth, according to a new report[3]from Sen. Jim DeMint. What’s not to like?
References
^ memo (mynlrb.nlrb.gov)
^ these requirements would be expensive (www.nationalreview.com)
^ a new report (demint.senate.gov)
More In Store For Businesses Like Boeing « Hot Air
The complaint against Boeing might have just been the beginning. It seems the National Labor Relations Board can’t bear to let businesses relocate without allowing unions to have a say.
Current NLRB rules allow a business to move without first negotiating the relocation with its union — provided the decision doesn’t turn on labor costs. But according to a recent internal memo[1] from the NLRB general counsel’s office, NLRB Chairman Wilma Liebman now wants to compel businesses to provide unions with information about relocation decisions in advance. That way, Liebman reasons, unions will have a chance to ascertain to what extent the business is moving because of labor costs — and will ultimately be able to bargain against the move.
On one level, this sounds sensible: If a business decides to relocate and the decision seems to be based primarily on labor cost concerns, union leaders might complain to the NLRB — and say, given the chance to bargain, they would have made concessions that might have altered the business’ decision. In other words, requiring businesses to advise unions as to the motivation for a move in advance might necessitate bargaining — but it might also spare companies NLRB involvement. That seems to be what Liebman wants businesses to believe, anyway.
But to require business leaders to provide unions with this kind of detailed information about their business plan is just one step closer to making unions “equal partner[s] in the running of the business enterprise” — and the Supreme Court has already said the National Labor Relations Act in no way mandates such equal partnership.
Moreover, these requirements would be expensive[2].
What Liebman envisions would raise business costs enormously. Current labor law and the attitude of the pro-union NLRB enables unions to drag negotiations on … and on … and on. Until bargaining hits an “impasse,” employers could not legally make any business changes opposed by their union.
If the NLRB really wants to preserve work in any given state, its best bet would be to advise that state to pass right-to-work legislation. Compared to forced-unionism states, right-to-work states have more new residents, more new businesses, more new jobs and faster income growth, according to a new report[3]from Sen. Jim DeMint. What’s not to like?
References
^ memo (mynlrb.nlrb.gov)
^ these requirements would be expensive (www.nationalreview.com)
^ a new report (demint.senate.gov)
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
More Bureaucratic Indifference or Unavoidable incident?
When I was in school, it didn't matter which authority figure walked by whether it be Principal, retired Marine- Vice Principal, teacher, or janitor. Once it was clear that the fight was over (much like hockey) it was broken up by an adult. And if that adult got their hair messed up because of the effort in breaking the two of you up, there was hell to pay (more hell than the instigator of the fight is already going to get). Should the teacher have intervened? Should the teacher intervene only with training? Is the union rule correct in allowing one student to assault another? In my opinion, what's the point of an authority figure if they have no enforceable authority? Whatever happened to "No more bullying". Also in my opinion, bullies are real, you can't protect kids forever. Parents need to teach kids how to live in a world with bullies. And you can bet my kid isn't starting fights, but he/she sure as hell is going to know how to end one. Read the original here.
Teacher Watches As Students Fight
DALLAS - Video of a student punching another student in a local classroom has sparked a debate about student safety. More precisely, should teachers get involved to break up fights?
The Dallas Independent School District said it is still investigating a fight that apparently happened this past Thursday at Seagoville High School. The district believes YouTube video of the incident likely tells only part of the story.
The video shows 17-year-old Michael Milczanowksi getting punched over and over during geometry class. His teacher stands by watching as he appears to take several blows to the head.
While it may seem the teacher could have intervened, a teacher’s union president said that is not what teachers are told to do.
“In today’s society which is a violent society, you do not touch the student. That should be left up to the administration,” said Rena Honea of Alliance-AFT. “I believe that that is for the safety of number one the students, but for the individual teacher as well.”
The district said it has no policy on how teachers should handle student fights because every situation is different.
“The altercation on the video shot at Seagoville High School is clearly inappropriate. The district has zero tolerance for violence in the classroom and has responded accordingly,” DISD said in a statement.
DISD said the student who threw the punches in the video has faced disciplinary action and could face assault charges. But the district would not comment on if the teacher was disciplined because “it’s a personnel matter.”
Read more on myFOXdfw.com: http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/education/051011-video%3A-teacher-watches-as-students-fight#ixzz1M3pLZ7w9
Teacher Watches As Students Fight
DALLAS - Video of a student punching another student in a local classroom has sparked a debate about student safety. More precisely, should teachers get involved to break up fights?
The Dallas Independent School District said it is still investigating a fight that apparently happened this past Thursday at Seagoville High School. The district believes YouTube video of the incident likely tells only part of the story.
The video shows 17-year-old Michael Milczanowksi getting punched over and over during geometry class. His teacher stands by watching as he appears to take several blows to the head.
While it may seem the teacher could have intervened, a teacher’s union president said that is not what teachers are told to do.
“In today’s society which is a violent society, you do not touch the student. That should be left up to the administration,” said Rena Honea of Alliance-AFT. “I believe that that is for the safety of number one the students, but for the individual teacher as well.”
The district said it has no policy on how teachers should handle student fights because every situation is different.
“The altercation on the video shot at Seagoville High School is clearly inappropriate. The district has zero tolerance for violence in the classroom and has responded accordingly,” DISD said in a statement.
DISD said the student who threw the punches in the video has faced disciplinary action and could face assault charges. But the district would not comment on if the teacher was disciplined because “it’s a personnel matter.”
Read more on myFOXdfw.com: http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/education/051011-video%3A-teacher-watches-as-students-fight#ixzz1M3pLZ7w9
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Double Standards
So it's cost saving when Dems do it and Fascism when Republicans do it. I got it now. Read the original here.
House Votes To Restrict Unions
“It’s pretty stunning,’’ said Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. “These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. The same Democrats who tell us over and over again that they’re with us, that they believe in collective bargaining, that they believe in unions… . It’s a done deal for our relationship with the people inside that chamber.’’
“We are going to fight this thing to the bitter end,’’ he added. “Massachusetts is not the place that takes collective bargaining away from public employees.’’
The battle now turns to the Senate, where President Therese Murray has indicated that she is reluctant to strip workers of their right to bargain over their health care plans.
DeLeo said the House measure would save $100 million for cities and towns in the upcoming budget year, helping them avoid layoffs and reductions in services. He called his plan one of the most significant reforms the state can adopt to help control escalating health care costs.
“By spending less on the health care costs of municipal employees, our cities and towns will be able to retain jobs and allot more funding to necessary services like education and public safety,’’ he said in a statement.
Last night, as union leaders lobbied against the plan, DeLeo offered two concessions intended to shore up support from wavering legislators.
The first concession gives public employees 30 days to discuss changes to their health plans with local officials, instead of allowing the officials to act without any input from union members. But local officials would still, at the end of that period, be able to impose their changes unilaterally.
Under the legislation, mayors and other local officials would be given unfettered authority to set copayments and deductibles for their employees, after the 30-day discussion period with unions. Only the share of premiums paid by employees would remain on the health care bargaining table.
Geoff Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, said that, even if the bill becomes law, municipal workers would still have more bargaining power over their health care plans than state employees. “It’s a fair, balanced, strong, effective and meaningful reform,’’ he said.
Unions lobbied to derail the speaker’s plan in favor of a labor-backed proposal that would preserve collective bargaining, and would let an arbitrator decide changes to employee health plans if local officials and unions deadlock after 45 days. Labor leaders initially persuaded 50 lawmakers, including six members of DeLeo’s leadership team, to back their plan last week. But DeLeo peeled off some of the labor support in the final vote.
Representative Martin J. Walsh, a Dorchester Democrat who is secretary-treasurer of the Boston Building Trades Council, led the fight against the speaker’s plan. In a speech that was more wistful than angry, he recalled growing up in a union household that had health care benefits generous enough to help him overcome cancer in 1974. He said collective bargaining rights helped build the middle class.
“Municipal workers aren’t the bad guys here,’’ he said. “They’re not the ones who caused the financial crisis. Banks and investment companies got a slap on the wrist for their wrongdoing, but public employees are losing their benefits.’’
The timing of the vote was significant. Union leaders plan today to unleash a major lobbying blitz with police officers, firefighters, and other workers flooding the State House. Taking the vote last night at 11:30 allowed lawmakers to avoid a potentially tense confrontation with those workers, and vote when the marble halls of the House were all but empty.
Michael Levenson can be reached at mlevenson@globe.com.
House Votes To Restrict Unions
“It’s pretty stunning,’’ said Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. “These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. The same Democrats who tell us over and over again that they’re with us, that they believe in collective bargaining, that they believe in unions… . It’s a done deal for our relationship with the people inside that chamber.’’
“We are going to fight this thing to the bitter end,’’ he added. “Massachusetts is not the place that takes collective bargaining away from public employees.’’
The battle now turns to the Senate, where President Therese Murray has indicated that she is reluctant to strip workers of their right to bargain over their health care plans.
DeLeo said the House measure would save $100 million for cities and towns in the upcoming budget year, helping them avoid layoffs and reductions in services. He called his plan one of the most significant reforms the state can adopt to help control escalating health care costs.
“By spending less on the health care costs of municipal employees, our cities and towns will be able to retain jobs and allot more funding to necessary services like education and public safety,’’ he said in a statement.
Last night, as union leaders lobbied against the plan, DeLeo offered two concessions intended to shore up support from wavering legislators.
The first concession gives public employees 30 days to discuss changes to their health plans with local officials, instead of allowing the officials to act without any input from union members. But local officials would still, at the end of that period, be able to impose their changes unilaterally.
Under the legislation, mayors and other local officials would be given unfettered authority to set copayments and deductibles for their employees, after the 30-day discussion period with unions. Only the share of premiums paid by employees would remain on the health care bargaining table.
Geoff Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, said that, even if the bill becomes law, municipal workers would still have more bargaining power over their health care plans than state employees. “It’s a fair, balanced, strong, effective and meaningful reform,’’ he said.
Unions lobbied to derail the speaker’s plan in favor of a labor-backed proposal that would preserve collective bargaining, and would let an arbitrator decide changes to employee health plans if local officials and unions deadlock after 45 days. Labor leaders initially persuaded 50 lawmakers, including six members of DeLeo’s leadership team, to back their plan last week. But DeLeo peeled off some of the labor support in the final vote.
Representative Martin J. Walsh, a Dorchester Democrat who is secretary-treasurer of the Boston Building Trades Council, led the fight against the speaker’s plan. In a speech that was more wistful than angry, he recalled growing up in a union household that had health care benefits generous enough to help him overcome cancer in 1974. He said collective bargaining rights helped build the middle class.
“Municipal workers aren’t the bad guys here,’’ he said. “They’re not the ones who caused the financial crisis. Banks and investment companies got a slap on the wrist for their wrongdoing, but public employees are losing their benefits.’’
The timing of the vote was significant. Union leaders plan today to unleash a major lobbying blitz with police officers, firefighters, and other workers flooding the State House. Taking the vote last night at 11:30 allowed lawmakers to avoid a potentially tense confrontation with those workers, and vote when the marble halls of the House were all but empty.
Michael Levenson can be reached at mlevenson@globe.com.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
California Teachers Union has the right priority
Read the original here.
California Federation Of Teachers Rallies To Support Cop-Killer | The Daily Caller
Between negotiating for more benefits and teaching their students, the California Federation of Teachers[1] has adopted a resolution of support for convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal[2].
At the CFT’s 2011 Convention in late March, the delegates passed 30 resolutions, from solidifying support for anti-bullying legislation to supporting transitional kindergarten. Among the resolutions largely pertaining to education and collective bargaining rights was Resolution 19 – to “Reaffirm support for death row journalist.”
“Therefore, be it resolved, that the California Federation of Teachers reaffirm its support and demand that the courts consider the evidence of innocence of Mumia Abu-Jamal,” the Committee Report reads.
Mumia Abu-Jamal was a former member of the Black Panthers who was found guilty of murdering Philadelphia police officer Daniel J. Faulkner during a routine traffic stop in 1981. Abu-Jamal was subsequently sentenced to death.
His supporters, such as the California Federation of Teachers, argue that his trial was unfair and that he is a civil rights hero.
“Mumia Abu-Jamal has for decades as a journalist fought courageously against racism and police brutality and for the human rights of all people and has taken strong stands in support of working people involved in labor struggles and in support of well-funded, quality, public education,” the resolution reads.
Daniel Flynn, author of “Cop killer: How Mumia Abu-Jamal conned millions into believing he was framed” told The Daily Caller that Abu-Jamal was the poster-child for ending the death penalty…20 – 30 years ago.
“Somebody should tell the California Teachers Federation that this is over, he is in jail, he is going to stay there,” Flynn said. “You have numerous eyewitnesses saying Mumia did it. You had ballistic evidence – Mumia’s gun at the scene was consistent with the bullet used to kill Faulkner. Mumia admitted after the fact that he did it.”
Fred Glass, CFT spokesman, told TheDC that the even though the case is 30 years old, since Abu-Jamal is still going through appeals, the issue remains relevant.
“The delegates decided it was time to reiterate that they supported him due to the irregularities that they felt had taken place during his case,” said Glass. “They see this as a civil liberties issue, it is quite common for the CFT to take positions on broad social matters like this.”
References
^ California Federation of Teachers (www.cft.org)
^ Mumia Abu-Jamal (en.wikipedia.org)
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/11/teachers-support-cop-killer/#ixzz1JKdBPdxe
California Federation Of Teachers Rallies To Support Cop-Killer | The Daily Caller
Between negotiating for more benefits and teaching their students, the California Federation of Teachers[1] has adopted a resolution of support for convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal[2].
At the CFT’s 2011 Convention in late March, the delegates passed 30 resolutions, from solidifying support for anti-bullying legislation to supporting transitional kindergarten. Among the resolutions largely pertaining to education and collective bargaining rights was Resolution 19 – to “Reaffirm support for death row journalist.”
“Therefore, be it resolved, that the California Federation of Teachers reaffirm its support and demand that the courts consider the evidence of innocence of Mumia Abu-Jamal,” the Committee Report reads.
Mumia Abu-Jamal was a former member of the Black Panthers who was found guilty of murdering Philadelphia police officer Daniel J. Faulkner during a routine traffic stop in 1981. Abu-Jamal was subsequently sentenced to death.
His supporters, such as the California Federation of Teachers, argue that his trial was unfair and that he is a civil rights hero.
“Mumia Abu-Jamal has for decades as a journalist fought courageously against racism and police brutality and for the human rights of all people and has taken strong stands in support of working people involved in labor struggles and in support of well-funded, quality, public education,” the resolution reads.
Daniel Flynn, author of “Cop killer: How Mumia Abu-Jamal conned millions into believing he was framed” told The Daily Caller that Abu-Jamal was the poster-child for ending the death penalty…20 – 30 years ago.
“Somebody should tell the California Teachers Federation that this is over, he is in jail, he is going to stay there,” Flynn said. “You have numerous eyewitnesses saying Mumia did it. You had ballistic evidence – Mumia’s gun at the scene was consistent with the bullet used to kill Faulkner. Mumia admitted after the fact that he did it.”
Fred Glass, CFT spokesman, told TheDC that the even though the case is 30 years old, since Abu-Jamal is still going through appeals, the issue remains relevant.
“The delegates decided it was time to reiterate that they supported him due to the irregularities that they felt had taken place during his case,” said Glass. “They see this as a civil liberties issue, it is quite common for the CFT to take positions on broad social matters like this.”
References
^ California Federation of Teachers (www.cft.org)
^ Mumia Abu-Jamal (en.wikipedia.org)
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/11/teachers-support-cop-killer/#ixzz1JKdBPdxe
Thursday, March 31, 2011
How to form a union...2011 style
Read the original here.
Barry’s Backdoors, Vol. 1, No. 1: Forcing The Union Label On Unsuspecting Workers
There are some basic truths in the American model. We loveelections[1]. We create hierarchies constantly. If someone wants to be the voice of the group, we’re very willing to let them do that. Tell us your thoughts and plans, perhaps we’ll have more than one wanting to be that voice, and we’ll get together and pick the voice. If only one person wants to be the voice, we might vote whether or not to even have a singular voice speaking for all us. We don’t have to have one.
And when the role of a singular voice is important enough, we’ll want to ensure that everyone votes. We want everyone’s opinion. Consider a family decision. While us parents know the game – the only eligible voters[2] are mom and dad – we’ll elicit opinions of the kids at a family meeting. Sometimes we learn something. Then mom and dad “vote” on what to do: Move to another state for a job, change churches, or move in gramma for the rest of her Earthly existence.
Now assume that mom comes home from work one day to find her mother-in-law in the living room and boxes stacked where mom’s car used to be parked in the garage. Assessing the situation, she determines that it’s best to wait for her husband[3] to come home. She waits ever so impatiently, distracted, naturally enough, by the piercingly high volume of the television.
Husband arrives. Story proceeds: ”Well, just like we always do, I held a family meeting to get everyone’s ideas, and then I voted on whether or not to move her in. I voted ‘yes’.” Wife responds, “I don’t recall that particular meeting.” Husband, “Of course not. You weren’t there.”
And therein lies the change the Obama Administration[4] has effected for creating unions in the railroad and airline industries.
The Railway Labor Act of 1926 (expanded in 1936 to include airlines) has a fairly simple mechanism[5] for creating a labor union:
The RLA contemplates that employees will be represented on a carrier-wide basis through crafts or classes of employees (e.g., railroad engineers and airline pilots), and that the majority of the employees in each class or craft may select a bargaining representative. Representational disputes include issues of whether: (1) a majority of a craft or class of employees desire to be represented by a particular union or to be unrepresented; (2) a union’s certification survives a merger; and (3) two related carriers will be treated as one (or two) for representation purposes. The RLA commits representational disputes to the exclusive jurisdiction of the NMB, and requires the NMB, upon the request of either party to a dispute among a carrier’s employees, to investigate and certify bargaining representatives for a class or craft. A carrier is required to deal with the representatives certified to it by the NMB.
That emphasis is mine. It means that dad had better include mom in the vote as to whether to bring gramma into the house. The entire class is counted – every machinists, or both mom and dad. To form a union or move in gramma requires a majority of the entire class.
There is an alternative, and National Mediation Board, dominated by Obama[6] appointees, chose it: Rather than a majority vote of the entire class, a union could be formed by only a majority of those voting – ergo, dad.
It’s logical, right? It’s what we do with elections[7] all the time. Ah, not when it comes to gramma moving in. Gramma will suck all the oxygen out of the room while we’re home, and when we’re at work she’ll be installing satellite television, canceling the Internet, and having the grass in the yard replaced with white pebbles. She’ll make the decisions that she feels are best, and will send you the bill afterward – just like union dues and unfunded pensions.
And the NMB decision is not a Conservative’s fiction[8]:
AirTran Airways’ 2,900 fleet employees and passenger service and reservation employees have voted to be represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the union and theNational Mediation Board said Monday.
The union would have lost under the old NMB rules governing union representation elections, rules that were changed last year. They won under the new rules.
The NMB said 2,904 employees were eligible to vote. Under the old rules that required a union to get a majority of the eligible votes, the Machinists would have needed 1,453 votes in favor.
Instead, it won by a 978-870 vote. Under the new rules, the union needs only to get a majority of the votes cast, not a majority of the votes eligible to be cast
That was just a couple of days ago. 978 machinists – 475 less than a simple majority – committed all 2,904 machinists to join the union. Gramma moved in, and mom wasn’t consulted.
The unions have a twist[9] to not consulting mom:
Under the old NMB voting rules, any worker who did not vote in a union representation election was automatically counted as a vote against the union.
They say it like that’s a bad thing. But, that’s right, boys and girls: If we’re discussing something fundamental to our lives, I have to assume your mom wants the status quo unless she informs me otherwise.
And now Congress[10] is stepping up to ensure that mom gets her vote. The FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011[11] is up in the House. It will achieve the status quo ante of requiring a majority of all workers in a class in order to create a union. And it also reasserts the role of Congress to set such fundamental changes in labor law.
And the latter, I suggest, is just as important as the former. The Obama Administration is known for its backdoors. From EPA regs to HHS Obamacare[12] to NMB unionization rules, what they can’t get through legislation, they do through regulation – and then Obama vetoes anything that overrides it. Yes, there is a violation of the Constitutional Separation of Powers here. And it will catch up to him.
For today, let’s ensure that Veto Pen is well-inked. It’s not just a 2012 campaign commercial. Mom is counting on you. Contact Congress[13] … now, kindly.
Related Posts
Wisconsin Senate votes to strip union bargaining rights for public workers[14]
Boeing workers vote to decertify union[15]
Look For the Union Label [Reader Post][16]
Obama’s SOTU school got better by offing teachers and union[17]
Gov. Walker’s administration stops collecting union dues, starts charging for health care[18]
Short URL: http://libertypundits.net/?p=29932
References
^ elections (libertypundits.net)
^ voters (libertypundits.net)
^ husband (libertypundits.net)
^ Obama Administration (libertypundits.net)
^ fairly simple mechanism (www.fra.dot.gov)
^ Obama (libertypundits.net)
^ elections (libertypundits.net)
^ is not a Conservative’s fiction (aviationblog.dallasnews.com)
^ unions have a twist (www.goiam.org)
^ Congress (libertypundits.net)
^ FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011 (www.opencongress.org)
^ Obamacare (libertypundits.net)
^ Contact Congress (www.contactingthecongress.org)
^ Wisconsin Senate votes to strip union bargaining rights for public workers (libertypundits.net)
^ Boeing workers vote to decertify union (libertypundits.net)
^ Look For the Union Label [Reader Post] (libertypundits.net)
^ Obama’s SOTU school got better by offing teachers and union (libertypundits.net)
^ Gov. Walker’s administration stops collecting union dues, starts charging for health care(libertypundits.net)
Barry’s Backdoors, Vol. 1, No. 1: Forcing The Union Label On Unsuspecting Workers
There are some basic truths in the American model. We loveelections[1]. We create hierarchies constantly. If someone wants to be the voice of the group, we’re very willing to let them do that. Tell us your thoughts and plans, perhaps we’ll have more than one wanting to be that voice, and we’ll get together and pick the voice. If only one person wants to be the voice, we might vote whether or not to even have a singular voice speaking for all us. We don’t have to have one.
And when the role of a singular voice is important enough, we’ll want to ensure that everyone votes. We want everyone’s opinion. Consider a family decision. While us parents know the game – the only eligible voters[2] are mom and dad – we’ll elicit opinions of the kids at a family meeting. Sometimes we learn something. Then mom and dad “vote” on what to do: Move to another state for a job, change churches, or move in gramma for the rest of her Earthly existence.
Now assume that mom comes home from work one day to find her mother-in-law in the living room and boxes stacked where mom’s car used to be parked in the garage. Assessing the situation, she determines that it’s best to wait for her husband[3] to come home. She waits ever so impatiently, distracted, naturally enough, by the piercingly high volume of the television.
Husband arrives. Story proceeds: ”Well, just like we always do, I held a family meeting to get everyone’s ideas, and then I voted on whether or not to move her in. I voted ‘yes’.” Wife responds, “I don’t recall that particular meeting.” Husband, “Of course not. You weren’t there.”
And therein lies the change the Obama Administration[4] has effected for creating unions in the railroad and airline industries.
The Railway Labor Act of 1926 (expanded in 1936 to include airlines) has a fairly simple mechanism[5] for creating a labor union:
The RLA contemplates that employees will be represented on a carrier-wide basis through crafts or classes of employees (e.g., railroad engineers and airline pilots), and that the majority of the employees in each class or craft may select a bargaining representative. Representational disputes include issues of whether: (1) a majority of a craft or class of employees desire to be represented by a particular union or to be unrepresented; (2) a union’s certification survives a merger; and (3) two related carriers will be treated as one (or two) for representation purposes. The RLA commits representational disputes to the exclusive jurisdiction of the NMB, and requires the NMB, upon the request of either party to a dispute among a carrier’s employees, to investigate and certify bargaining representatives for a class or craft. A carrier is required to deal with the representatives certified to it by the NMB.
That emphasis is mine. It means that dad had better include mom in the vote as to whether to bring gramma into the house. The entire class is counted – every machinists, or both mom and dad. To form a union or move in gramma requires a majority of the entire class.
There is an alternative, and National Mediation Board, dominated by Obama[6] appointees, chose it: Rather than a majority vote of the entire class, a union could be formed by only a majority of those voting – ergo, dad.
It’s logical, right? It’s what we do with elections[7] all the time. Ah, not when it comes to gramma moving in. Gramma will suck all the oxygen out of the room while we’re home, and when we’re at work she’ll be installing satellite television, canceling the Internet, and having the grass in the yard replaced with white pebbles. She’ll make the decisions that she feels are best, and will send you the bill afterward – just like union dues and unfunded pensions.
And the NMB decision is not a Conservative’s fiction[8]:
AirTran Airways’ 2,900 fleet employees and passenger service and reservation employees have voted to be represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the union and theNational Mediation Board said Monday.
The union would have lost under the old NMB rules governing union representation elections, rules that were changed last year. They won under the new rules.
The NMB said 2,904 employees were eligible to vote. Under the old rules that required a union to get a majority of the eligible votes, the Machinists would have needed 1,453 votes in favor.
Instead, it won by a 978-870 vote. Under the new rules, the union needs only to get a majority of the votes cast, not a majority of the votes eligible to be cast
That was just a couple of days ago. 978 machinists – 475 less than a simple majority – committed all 2,904 machinists to join the union. Gramma moved in, and mom wasn’t consulted.
The unions have a twist[9] to not consulting mom:
Under the old NMB voting rules, any worker who did not vote in a union representation election was automatically counted as a vote against the union.
They say it like that’s a bad thing. But, that’s right, boys and girls: If we’re discussing something fundamental to our lives, I have to assume your mom wants the status quo unless she informs me otherwise.
And now Congress[10] is stepping up to ensure that mom gets her vote. The FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011[11] is up in the House. It will achieve the status quo ante of requiring a majority of all workers in a class in order to create a union. And it also reasserts the role of Congress to set such fundamental changes in labor law.
And the latter, I suggest, is just as important as the former. The Obama Administration is known for its backdoors. From EPA regs to HHS Obamacare[12] to NMB unionization rules, what they can’t get through legislation, they do through regulation – and then Obama vetoes anything that overrides it. Yes, there is a violation of the Constitutional Separation of Powers here. And it will catch up to him.
For today, let’s ensure that Veto Pen is well-inked. It’s not just a 2012 campaign commercial. Mom is counting on you. Contact Congress[13] … now, kindly.
Related Posts
Wisconsin Senate votes to strip union bargaining rights for public workers[14]
Boeing workers vote to decertify union[15]
Look For the Union Label [Reader Post][16]
Obama’s SOTU school got better by offing teachers and union[17]
Gov. Walker’s administration stops collecting union dues, starts charging for health care[18]
Short URL: http://libertypundits.net/?p=29932
References
^ elections (libertypundits.net)
^ voters (libertypundits.net)
^ husband (libertypundits.net)
^ Obama Administration (libertypundits.net)
^ fairly simple mechanism (www.fra.dot.gov)
^ Obama (libertypundits.net)
^ elections (libertypundits.net)
^ is not a Conservative’s fiction (aviationblog.dallasnews.com)
^ unions have a twist (www.goiam.org)
^ Congress (libertypundits.net)
^ FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011 (www.opencongress.org)
^ Obamacare (libertypundits.net)
^ Contact Congress (www.contactingthecongress.org)
^ Wisconsin Senate votes to strip union bargaining rights for public workers (libertypundits.net)
^ Boeing workers vote to decertify union (libertypundits.net)
^ Look For the Union Label [Reader Post] (libertypundits.net)
^ Obama’s SOTU school got better by offing teachers and union (libertypundits.net)
^ Gov. Walker’s administration stops collecting union dues, starts charging for health care(libertypundits.net)
Friday, March 25, 2011
Teachers Union Seeks to Hide Strike Talk in School Emails from Public Eyes
Read the original here.
Teachers Union Seeks to Hide Strike Talk in School Emails from Public Eyes
By Tom Gantert | March 25, 2011
The Michigan Education Association’s attorney sent an email advising its members to make sure that all emails pertaining to the illegal activity of striking teachers not be released in a Freedom of Information request sent to their districts. Art Przybylowicz, the MEA’s general counsel, warned union members that the Mackinac Center for Public Policy had sent a FOIA to school districts asking for electronic correspondence regarding a strike.
Last week, MEA president Iris Salters sent an email to members asking about their willingness to allow the union to “initiate crisis activities” which could include “work stoppages.” Teacher strikes are illegal under Michigan law.
Przybylowicz cited the Michigan Court of Appeals ruling on the Howell Education Association vs. Howell Board of Education case. This ruling stipulated that email communications between public school employees in their capacity as members of the union were “personal emails” and thus not subject to FOIA.
“Thus, school districts should not be disclosing those types of e-mails in response to this inquiry,” Przybylowicz wrote in his email. “If you become aware that your school district is planning to disclose e-mails between staff members, please contact your UniServ Director.”
But Robin Luce-Herrmann, general counsel to the Michigan Press Association, said she thinks Przybylowicz has an overbroad interpretation of the Court of Appeals ruling. Herrmann said emails in the Howell case involving teacher/union members and the administration were released pursuant to FOIA. She said the Court of Appeals ruling said that emails were not considered “public records” solely because they were in a teacher’s email. Herrmann said emails related to “crisis activity” or “job action” involves teachers acting in their official capacity as public employers.
There is a motion that the Michigan Supreme Court reconsider the Howell Education Association vs. Howell Board of Education decision. Herrmann said the MEA’s overbroad interpretation of the ruling is one reason why the Supreme Court should take up the case.
The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation and the Michigan Press Association have jointly filed a legal brief in the case.
“One of our contentions has been that last year’s ruling would lead to public employees’ illegal activity being hidden from public scrutiny, thereby gutting the state’s FOIA law,” said MCLF Director Patrick Wright, who coauthored a joint amicus brief. “That concern has been heightened now that a school district has used the decision to thwart a request for emails discussing school employee strikes. Such strikes are illegal.”
~~~~~
Copyright © 2011 Mackinac Center for Public Policy
www.mackinac.org
Teachers Union Seeks to Hide Strike Talk in School Emails from Public Eyes
By Tom Gantert | March 25, 2011
The Michigan Education Association’s attorney sent an email advising its members to make sure that all emails pertaining to the illegal activity of striking teachers not be released in a Freedom of Information request sent to their districts. Art Przybylowicz, the MEA’s general counsel, warned union members that the Mackinac Center for Public Policy had sent a FOIA to school districts asking for electronic correspondence regarding a strike.
Last week, MEA president Iris Salters sent an email to members asking about their willingness to allow the union to “initiate crisis activities” which could include “work stoppages.” Teacher strikes are illegal under Michigan law.
Przybylowicz cited the Michigan Court of Appeals ruling on the Howell Education Association vs. Howell Board of Education case. This ruling stipulated that email communications between public school employees in their capacity as members of the union were “personal emails” and thus not subject to FOIA.
“Thus, school districts should not be disclosing those types of e-mails in response to this inquiry,” Przybylowicz wrote in his email. “If you become aware that your school district is planning to disclose e-mails between staff members, please contact your UniServ Director.”
But Robin Luce-Herrmann, general counsel to the Michigan Press Association, said she thinks Przybylowicz has an overbroad interpretation of the Court of Appeals ruling. Herrmann said emails in the Howell case involving teacher/union members and the administration were released pursuant to FOIA. She said the Court of Appeals ruling said that emails were not considered “public records” solely because they were in a teacher’s email. Herrmann said emails related to “crisis activity” or “job action” involves teachers acting in their official capacity as public employers.
There is a motion that the Michigan Supreme Court reconsider the Howell Education Association vs. Howell Board of Education decision. Herrmann said the MEA’s overbroad interpretation of the ruling is one reason why the Supreme Court should take up the case.
The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation and the Michigan Press Association have jointly filed a legal brief in the case.
“One of our contentions has been that last year’s ruling would lead to public employees’ illegal activity being hidden from public scrutiny, thereby gutting the state’s FOIA law,” said MCLF Director Patrick Wright, who coauthored a joint amicus brief. “That concern has been heightened now that a school district has used the decision to thwart a request for emails discussing school employee strikes. Such strikes are illegal.”
~~~~~
Copyright © 2011 Mackinac Center for Public Policy
www.mackinac.org
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Is BusinessInsider.com a reputable source? If so....
Former SEIU Official Reveals Secret Plan To Destroy JP Morgan, Crash The Stock Market, And Redistribute Wealth In America
A former official of one of the country's most-powerful unions, SEIU, is detailing a secret plan to "destabilize" the country.
Specifically, the plan seeks to destroy JP Morgan, nuke the stock market, and weaken Wall Street's grip on power, thus creating the conditions necessary for a redistribution of wealth and a change in government.
The former SEIU official, Stephen Lerner, spoke in a closed session at a Pace University forum last weekend.
The Blaze procured what appears to be a tape of Lerner's remarks.[1] Many Americans will undoubtely sympathize with and support them. Still, the "destabilization" plan is startling in its specificity, especially coming so close on the heels of the financial crisis.
Lerner said that unions and community organizations are, for all intents and purposes, dead. The only way to achieve their goals, therefore--the redistribution of wealth and the return of "$17 trillion" stolen from the middle class by Wall Street--is to "destabilize the country."
Lerner's plan is to organize a mass, coordinated "strike" on mortgage[2], student loan, and local government debt payments--thus bringing the banks to the edge of insolvency and forcing them to renegotiate the terms of the loans. This destabilization and turmoil, Lerner hopes, will also crash the stock market, isolating the banking class and allowing for a transfer of power.
Lerner's plan starts by attacking JP Morgan Chase in early May, with demonstrations on Wall Street, protests at the annual shareholder meeting, and then calls for a coordinated mortgage strike.
Lerner also says explicitly that, although the attack will benefit labor unions, it cannot be seen as being organized by them. It must therefore be run by community organizations.
Lerner was ousted from SEIU last November[3], reportedly for spending millions of the union's dollars trying to pursue a plan like the one he details here. It is not clear what, if any, power and influence he currently wields. His main message--that Wall Street won the financial crisis, that inequality in this country is hitting record levels[4], and that there appears to be no other way to stop the trend--will almost certainly resonate.
A transcript of Lerner's full reported remarks is below, courtesy of The Blaze. We have heard the tape, but we have not independently verified that the voice is Lerner's. You can listen to the tape here[5].
Here are the key remarks:
Unions are almost dead. We cannot survive doing what we do but the simple fact of the matter is community organizations are almost dead also. And if you think about what we need to do it may give us some direction which is essentially what the folks that are in charge - the big banks and everything - what they want is stability.
There are actually extraordinary things we could do right now to start to destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement.
For example, 10% of homeowners are underwater right their home they are paying more for it then its worth 10% of those people are in strategic default, meaning they are refusing to pay but they are staying in their home that's totally spontaneous they figured out it takes a year to kick me out of my home because foreclosure is backed up
If you could double that number you would you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again.
Students have a trillion dollar debt
We have an entire economy that is built on debt and banks so the question would be what would happen if we organized homeowners in mass to do a mortgage strike if we get half a million people to agree it would literally cause a new finical crisis for the banks not for us we would be doing quite well we wouldn't be paying anything...
We have to think much more creatively. The key thing... What does the other side fear the most - they fear disruption. They fear uncertainty. Every article about Europe says in they rioted in Greece the markets went down
The folks that control this country care about one thing how the stock market goes what the bond market does how the bonuses goes. We have a very simple strategy:
How do we bring down the stock market
How do we bring down their bonuses
How do we interfere with there ability to be rich...
So a bunch of us around the country think who would be a really good company to hate we decided that would be JP Morgan Chase and so we are going to roll out over the next couple of months what would hopefully be an exciting campaign about JP Morgan Chase that is really about challenge the power of Wall Street.
And so what we are looking at is the first week in May can we get enough people together starting now to really have an week of action in New York I don't want to give any details because I don't know if there are any police agents in the room.
The goal would be that we will roll out of New York the first week of May. We will connect three ideas
that we are not broke there is plenty of money
they have the money - we need to get it back
and that they are using Bloomberg and other people in government as the vehicle[6] to try and destroy us
And so we need to take on those folks at the same time. And that we will start here we are going to look at a week of civil disobedience - direct action all over the city. Then roll into the JP Morgan shareholder meeting which they moved out of New York because I guess they were afraid because of Columbus.
There is going to be a ten state mobilization to try and shut down that meeting and then looking at bank shareholder meetings around the country and try and create some moments like Madison except where we are on offense instead of defense
Where we have brave and heroic battles challenging the power of the giant corporations. We hope to inspire a much bigger movement about redistributing wealth and power in the country and that labor can’t do itself that community groups can’t do themselves but maybe we can work something new and different that can be brave enough and daring and nimble enough to do that kind of thing.
FULL TRANSCRIPT FROM THE BLAZE
SPEAKER: Stephen Lerner. Speaker at the Left Forum 2011 "Towards a Politics of Solidarity" Pace University March 19, 2011
Speaker Bio: Stephen Lerner is the architect of the SEIU's groundbreaking Justice for Janitors campaign. He led the union's banking and finance campaign and has partnered with unions and groups in Europe, South American and elsewhere in campaigns to hold financial institutions accountable. As director of the union's private equity project, he launched a long campaign to expose the over-leveraged feeding frenzy of private equity firms during the boom years that led to the ensuing economic disaster.
TRANSCRIPT:
It feels to me after a long time of being on defense that something is starting to turn in the world and we just have to decide if we are on defense or offense
Maybe there is a different way to look at some of theses questions it’s hard for me to think about any part of organizing without thinking what just happened with this economic crisis and what it means
I don't know how to have a discussion about labor and community if we don't first say what do we need to do at this time in history what is the strategy that gives us some chance of winning because I spent my life time as a union organizer justice for janitors a lot of things
It seems we are at a moment where the world is going to get much much worse or much much better
Unions are almost dead we cannot survive doing what we do but the simple fact of the matter is community organizations are almost dead also and if you think about what we need to do it may give us some direction which is essentially what the folks that are in charge - the big banks and everything - what they want is stability
Every time there is a crisis in the world they say, well, the markets are stable.
What's changed in America is the economy doing well has nothing to do with the rest of us
They figured out that they don't need us to be rich they can do very well in a global market without us so what does this have to do with community and labor organizing more.
We need to figure out in a much more through direct action more concrete way how we are really trying to disrupt and create uncertainty for capital for how corporations operate
The thing about a boom and bust economy is it is actually incredibly fragile.
There are actually extraordinary things we could do right now to start to destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement.
For example, 10% of homeowners are underwater right their home they are paying more for it then its worth 10% of those people are in strategic default, meaning they are refusing to pay but they are staying in their home that's totally spontaneous they figured out it takes a year to kick me out of my home because foreclosure is backed up
If you could double that number you would you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again.
Students have a trillion dollar debt
We have an entire economy that is built on debt and banks so the question would be what would happen if we organized homeowners in mass to do a mortgage strike if we get half a million people to agree it would literally cause a new finical crisis for the banks not for us we would be doing quite well we wouldn't be paying anything.
Government is being strangled by debt
The four things we could do that could really upset wall street
One is if city and state and other government entities demanded to renegotiate their debt
and you might say why would the banks ever do it - because city and counties could say we won’t do business with you in the future if you won’t renegotiate the debt now
So we could leverage the power we have of government and say two things we won’t do business with you JP Morgan Chase anymore unless you do two things: you reduce the price of our interest and second you rewrite the mortgages[7] for everybody in the communities
We could make them do that
The second thing is there is a whole question in Europe about students’ rates in debt structure. What would happen if students said we are not going to pay. It’s a trillion dollars. Think about republicans screaming about debt a trillion dollars in student debt
There is a third thing we can think about what if public employee unions instead of just being on the defensive put on the collective bargaining table when they negotiate they say we demand as a condition of negotiation that the government renegotiate - it’s crazy that you’re paying too much interest to your buddies the bankers it’s a strike issue - we will strike unless you force the banks to renegotiate/
Then if you add on top of that if we really thought about moving the kind of disruption in Madison but moving that to Wall Street and moving that to other cities around the country
We basically said you stole seventeen trillion dollars - you've improvised us and we are going to make it impossible for you to operate
Labor can’t lead this right now so if labor can’t lead but we are a critical part of it we do have money we have millions of members who are furious
But I don't think this kind of movement can happen unless community groups and other activists take the lead.
If we really believe that we are in a transformative stage of what's happening in capitalism
Then we need to confront this in a serious way and develop really ability to put a boot in the wheel then we have to think not about labor and community alliances we have to think about how together we are building something that really has the capacity to disrupt how the system operates
We need to think about a whole new way of thinking about this not as a partnership but building something new.
We have to think much more creatively. The key thing... What does the other side fear the most - they fear disruption. They fear uncertainty. Every article about Europe says in they rioted in Greece the markets went down
The folks that control this country care about one thing how the stock market goes what the bond market does how the bonuses goes. We have a very simple strategy:
How do we bring down the stock market
How do we bring down their bonuses
How do we interfere with there ability to be rich
And that means we have to politically isolate them, economically isolate them and disrupt them
It’s not all theory i’ll do a pitch.
So a bunch of us around the country think who would be a really good company to hate we decided that would be JP Morgan Chase and so we are going to roll out over the next couple of months what would hopefully be an exciting campaign about JP Morgan Chase that is really about challenge the power of Wall Street.
And so what we are looking at is the first week in May can we get enough people together starting now to really have an week of action in New York I don't want to give any details because I don't know if there are any police agents in the room.
The goal would be that we will roll out of New York the first week of May. We will connect three ideas
that we are not broke there is plenty of money
they have the money - we need to get it back
and that they are using Bloomberg and other people in government as the vehicle to try and destroy us
And so we need to take on those folks at the same time
and that we will start here we are going to look at a week of civil disobedience - direct action all over the city
then roll into the JP Morgan shareholder meeting which they moved out of New York because I guess they were afraid because of Columbus.
There is going to be a ten state mobilization it try and shut down that meeting and then looking at bank shareholder meetings around the country and try and create some moments like Madison except where we are on offense instead of defense
Where we have brave and heroic battles challenging the power of the giant corporations. We hope to inspire a much bigger movement about redistributing wealth and power in the country and that labor can’t do itself that community groups can’t do themselves but maybe we can work something new and different that can be brave enough and daring and nimble enough to do that kind of thing.
Listen to the tape here >[8]
See Also: 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America[9]
References
^ appears to be a tape of Lerner's remarks. (www.theblaze.com)
^ mortgage (www.businessinsider.com)
^ ousted from SEIU last November (www.laborunionreport.com)
^ inequality in this country is hitting record levels (www.businessinsider.com)
^ listen to the tape here (www.theblaze.com)
^ vehicle (www.businessinsider.com)
^ mortgages (www.businessinsider.com)
^ Listen to the tape here > (www.theblaze.com)
^ 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America (www.businessinsider.com)
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/seiu-union-plan-to-destroy-jpmorgan#ixzz1HLUC4UF0
A former official of one of the country's most-powerful unions, SEIU, is detailing a secret plan to "destabilize" the country.
Specifically, the plan seeks to destroy JP Morgan, nuke the stock market, and weaken Wall Street's grip on power, thus creating the conditions necessary for a redistribution of wealth and a change in government.
The former SEIU official, Stephen Lerner, spoke in a closed session at a Pace University forum last weekend.
The Blaze procured what appears to be a tape of Lerner's remarks.[1] Many Americans will undoubtely sympathize with and support them. Still, the "destabilization" plan is startling in its specificity, especially coming so close on the heels of the financial crisis.
Lerner said that unions and community organizations are, for all intents and purposes, dead. The only way to achieve their goals, therefore--the redistribution of wealth and the return of "$17 trillion" stolen from the middle class by Wall Street--is to "destabilize the country."
Lerner's plan is to organize a mass, coordinated "strike" on mortgage[2], student loan, and local government debt payments--thus bringing the banks to the edge of insolvency and forcing them to renegotiate the terms of the loans. This destabilization and turmoil, Lerner hopes, will also crash the stock market, isolating the banking class and allowing for a transfer of power.
Lerner's plan starts by attacking JP Morgan Chase in early May, with demonstrations on Wall Street, protests at the annual shareholder meeting, and then calls for a coordinated mortgage strike.
Lerner also says explicitly that, although the attack will benefit labor unions, it cannot be seen as being organized by them. It must therefore be run by community organizations.
Lerner was ousted from SEIU last November[3], reportedly for spending millions of the union's dollars trying to pursue a plan like the one he details here. It is not clear what, if any, power and influence he currently wields. His main message--that Wall Street won the financial crisis, that inequality in this country is hitting record levels[4], and that there appears to be no other way to stop the trend--will almost certainly resonate.
A transcript of Lerner's full reported remarks is below, courtesy of The Blaze. We have heard the tape, but we have not independently verified that the voice is Lerner's. You can listen to the tape here[5].
Here are the key remarks:
Unions are almost dead. We cannot survive doing what we do but the simple fact of the matter is community organizations are almost dead also. And if you think about what we need to do it may give us some direction which is essentially what the folks that are in charge - the big banks and everything - what they want is stability.
There are actually extraordinary things we could do right now to start to destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement.
For example, 10% of homeowners are underwater right their home they are paying more for it then its worth 10% of those people are in strategic default, meaning they are refusing to pay but they are staying in their home that's totally spontaneous they figured out it takes a year to kick me out of my home because foreclosure is backed up
If you could double that number you would you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again.
Students have a trillion dollar debt
We have an entire economy that is built on debt and banks so the question would be what would happen if we organized homeowners in mass to do a mortgage strike if we get half a million people to agree it would literally cause a new finical crisis for the banks not for us we would be doing quite well we wouldn't be paying anything...
We have to think much more creatively. The key thing... What does the other side fear the most - they fear disruption. They fear uncertainty. Every article about Europe says in they rioted in Greece the markets went down
The folks that control this country care about one thing how the stock market goes what the bond market does how the bonuses goes. We have a very simple strategy:
How do we bring down the stock market
How do we bring down their bonuses
How do we interfere with there ability to be rich...
So a bunch of us around the country think who would be a really good company to hate we decided that would be JP Morgan Chase and so we are going to roll out over the next couple of months what would hopefully be an exciting campaign about JP Morgan Chase that is really about challenge the power of Wall Street.
And so what we are looking at is the first week in May can we get enough people together starting now to really have an week of action in New York I don't want to give any details because I don't know if there are any police agents in the room.
The goal would be that we will roll out of New York the first week of May. We will connect three ideas
that we are not broke there is plenty of money
they have the money - we need to get it back
and that they are using Bloomberg and other people in government as the vehicle[6] to try and destroy us
And so we need to take on those folks at the same time. And that we will start here we are going to look at a week of civil disobedience - direct action all over the city. Then roll into the JP Morgan shareholder meeting which they moved out of New York because I guess they were afraid because of Columbus.
There is going to be a ten state mobilization to try and shut down that meeting and then looking at bank shareholder meetings around the country and try and create some moments like Madison except where we are on offense instead of defense
Where we have brave and heroic battles challenging the power of the giant corporations. We hope to inspire a much bigger movement about redistributing wealth and power in the country and that labor can’t do itself that community groups can’t do themselves but maybe we can work something new and different that can be brave enough and daring and nimble enough to do that kind of thing.
FULL TRANSCRIPT FROM THE BLAZE
SPEAKER: Stephen Lerner. Speaker at the Left Forum 2011 "Towards a Politics of Solidarity" Pace University March 19, 2011
Speaker Bio: Stephen Lerner is the architect of the SEIU's groundbreaking Justice for Janitors campaign. He led the union's banking and finance campaign and has partnered with unions and groups in Europe, South American and elsewhere in campaigns to hold financial institutions accountable. As director of the union's private equity project, he launched a long campaign to expose the over-leveraged feeding frenzy of private equity firms during the boom years that led to the ensuing economic disaster.
TRANSCRIPT:
It feels to me after a long time of being on defense that something is starting to turn in the world and we just have to decide if we are on defense or offense
Maybe there is a different way to look at some of theses questions it’s hard for me to think about any part of organizing without thinking what just happened with this economic crisis and what it means
I don't know how to have a discussion about labor and community if we don't first say what do we need to do at this time in history what is the strategy that gives us some chance of winning because I spent my life time as a union organizer justice for janitors a lot of things
It seems we are at a moment where the world is going to get much much worse or much much better
Unions are almost dead we cannot survive doing what we do but the simple fact of the matter is community organizations are almost dead also and if you think about what we need to do it may give us some direction which is essentially what the folks that are in charge - the big banks and everything - what they want is stability
Every time there is a crisis in the world they say, well, the markets are stable.
What's changed in America is the economy doing well has nothing to do with the rest of us
They figured out that they don't need us to be rich they can do very well in a global market without us so what does this have to do with community and labor organizing more.
We need to figure out in a much more through direct action more concrete way how we are really trying to disrupt and create uncertainty for capital for how corporations operate
The thing about a boom and bust economy is it is actually incredibly fragile.
There are actually extraordinary things we could do right now to start to destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement.
For example, 10% of homeowners are underwater right their home they are paying more for it then its worth 10% of those people are in strategic default, meaning they are refusing to pay but they are staying in their home that's totally spontaneous they figured out it takes a year to kick me out of my home because foreclosure is backed up
If you could double that number you would you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again.
Students have a trillion dollar debt
We have an entire economy that is built on debt and banks so the question would be what would happen if we organized homeowners in mass to do a mortgage strike if we get half a million people to agree it would literally cause a new finical crisis for the banks not for us we would be doing quite well we wouldn't be paying anything.
Government is being strangled by debt
The four things we could do that could really upset wall street
One is if city and state and other government entities demanded to renegotiate their debt
and you might say why would the banks ever do it - because city and counties could say we won’t do business with you in the future if you won’t renegotiate the debt now
So we could leverage the power we have of government and say two things we won’t do business with you JP Morgan Chase anymore unless you do two things: you reduce the price of our interest and second you rewrite the mortgages[7] for everybody in the communities
We could make them do that
The second thing is there is a whole question in Europe about students’ rates in debt structure. What would happen if students said we are not going to pay. It’s a trillion dollars. Think about republicans screaming about debt a trillion dollars in student debt
There is a third thing we can think about what if public employee unions instead of just being on the defensive put on the collective bargaining table when they negotiate they say we demand as a condition of negotiation that the government renegotiate - it’s crazy that you’re paying too much interest to your buddies the bankers it’s a strike issue - we will strike unless you force the banks to renegotiate/
Then if you add on top of that if we really thought about moving the kind of disruption in Madison but moving that to Wall Street and moving that to other cities around the country
We basically said you stole seventeen trillion dollars - you've improvised us and we are going to make it impossible for you to operate
Labor can’t lead this right now so if labor can’t lead but we are a critical part of it we do have money we have millions of members who are furious
But I don't think this kind of movement can happen unless community groups and other activists take the lead.
If we really believe that we are in a transformative stage of what's happening in capitalism
Then we need to confront this in a serious way and develop really ability to put a boot in the wheel then we have to think not about labor and community alliances we have to think about how together we are building something that really has the capacity to disrupt how the system operates
We need to think about a whole new way of thinking about this not as a partnership but building something new.
We have to think much more creatively. The key thing... What does the other side fear the most - they fear disruption. They fear uncertainty. Every article about Europe says in they rioted in Greece the markets went down
The folks that control this country care about one thing how the stock market goes what the bond market does how the bonuses goes. We have a very simple strategy:
How do we bring down the stock market
How do we bring down their bonuses
How do we interfere with there ability to be rich
And that means we have to politically isolate them, economically isolate them and disrupt them
It’s not all theory i’ll do a pitch.
So a bunch of us around the country think who would be a really good company to hate we decided that would be JP Morgan Chase and so we are going to roll out over the next couple of months what would hopefully be an exciting campaign about JP Morgan Chase that is really about challenge the power of Wall Street.
And so what we are looking at is the first week in May can we get enough people together starting now to really have an week of action in New York I don't want to give any details because I don't know if there are any police agents in the room.
The goal would be that we will roll out of New York the first week of May. We will connect three ideas
that we are not broke there is plenty of money
they have the money - we need to get it back
and that they are using Bloomberg and other people in government as the vehicle to try and destroy us
And so we need to take on those folks at the same time
and that we will start here we are going to look at a week of civil disobedience - direct action all over the city
then roll into the JP Morgan shareholder meeting which they moved out of New York because I guess they were afraid because of Columbus.
There is going to be a ten state mobilization it try and shut down that meeting and then looking at bank shareholder meetings around the country and try and create some moments like Madison except where we are on offense instead of defense
Where we have brave and heroic battles challenging the power of the giant corporations. We hope to inspire a much bigger movement about redistributing wealth and power in the country and that labor can’t do itself that community groups can’t do themselves but maybe we can work something new and different that can be brave enough and daring and nimble enough to do that kind of thing.
Listen to the tape here >[8]
See Also: 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America[9]
References
^ appears to be a tape of Lerner's remarks. (www.theblaze.com)
^ mortgage (www.businessinsider.com)
^ ousted from SEIU last November (www.laborunionreport.com)
^ inequality in this country is hitting record levels (www.businessinsider.com)
^ listen to the tape here (www.theblaze.com)
^ vehicle (www.businessinsider.com)
^ mortgages (www.businessinsider.com)
^ Listen to the tape here > (www.theblaze.com)
^ 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America (www.businessinsider.com)
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/seiu-union-plan-to-destroy-jpmorgan#ixzz1HLUC4UF0
Friday, March 18, 2011
Unions equate benefits to Civil Rights
Frankly, that seems a bit insulting and diminishes what people went through during the civil rights fight. Read the original here. ...And Trumka sounds like a blowhard when he talks like this.
"Madison is just the beginning!" AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka told a union rally in Annapolis on Monday. "Like that old song goes, 'You ain't seen n-n-n-n-nothing yet!' "
Fresh from defeat in Wisconsin, union leaders are planning a new campaign not just to head off future challenges to their collective bargaining powers but also to make the case that organized labor's benefits and prerogatives -- wages, health care, and pensions that are more generous than those of comparable workers in the private sector -- are the moral equivalent of rights won by black Americans during the civil rights movement.
To make the point, the AFL-CIO is planning a series of nationwide events on April 4, the 43rd anniversary of the day the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated after speaking in Memphis, Tenn., on behalf of striking black garbage collectors. The message: King's cause, and that of angry schoolteachers in Madison, are one.
"April 4 [is] the day on which Martin Luther King Jr. gave his life for the cause of public collective bargaining," Trumka said in another speech, in Washington, on Wednesday. And on the AFL-CIO blog, there is this notice: "Join us to make April 4, 2011, a day to stand in solidarity with working people in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and dozens of other states where well-funded, right-wing corporate politicians are trying to take away the rights Dr. King gave his life for."
Union officials are not planning a traditional mega-rally in Washington. Rather, they're encouraging locals across the country to stage shows of force in support of Wisconsin unions and the Democratic lawmakers who fled the state in a failed effort to stop Republican Gov. Scott Walker's budget plan. Throughout, the AFL-CIO is asking local leaders to tie the Wisconsin issue to the King assassination and civil rights.
"A lot of people forget that what [King] was doing in Memphis was fighting for sanitation workers there," says Josh Goldstein, an AFL-CIO spokesman. "It's important for people to make the connection. Martin Luther King was so important to the labor movement. Workers' rights and civil rights go hand in hand. It's a time to remind people what he was fighting for."
The AFL-CIO is advising member unions to come up with activities to stress ties between big labor and the civil rights movement. AFL-CIO planners suggest that local labor leaders team up with churches to make workers' rights a theme at worship services. Union bosses also advise asking churches "to consider organizing candlelight vigils, which could include the reading of Dr. King's 'I've Been To The Mountaintop' speech," which King delivered the night before he was killed.
But was King fighting for the things that Trumka and his union forces are fighting for today? Is, say, the "right" for well-paid, unionized public employees to enjoy a health plan that includes coverage for Viagra ---- a cause for which Milwaukee teachers waged a protracted court battle -- the equivalent of King's work in Memphis, much less his efforts for the right to vote and access to public accommodations?
"It is delusion, bordering on abomination, to try to equate what Martin Luther King was doing in Memphis to public workers getting Cadillac benefits for which they contribute very little, or nothing, at taxpayers' expense," says Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights who has also served on the National Labor Relations Board. "The sanitation workers in Memphis were receiving wages that were so significantly below that which are enjoyed by middle-class teachers in Madison that to try to draw that comparison is offensive. Truly offensive."
Whatever events take place on April 4, look for the effort to have the enthusiastic support of the Obama administration. "Union rights are no different than civil rights," Labor Secretary Hilda Solis told officials of the Communications Workers of America during a Wisconsin strategy conference call two weeks ago. "It's a part of our history, it's a part of our culture, it's a part of what has made this country so great."
Will it work? After all the demonstrations, and all the speeches, will the public watch protests by angry, nearly all-white, middle-class school teachers with excellent health and retirement plans and think of Martin Luther King? Trumka's AFL-CIO and the big unions are very rich and very powerful. They have the ability to get their message out. But their April 4 strategy might be too ambitious even for them.
Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com[1].
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/03/union-equates-lavish-benefits-black-civil-rights#ixzz1GxPNZ2qm
Union equates lavish benefits to black civil rights | Byron York | Politics
"Madison is just the beginning!" AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka told a union rally in Annapolis on Monday. "Like that old song goes, 'You ain't seen n-n-n-n-nothing yet!' "
Fresh from defeat in Wisconsin, union leaders are planning a new campaign not just to head off future challenges to their collective bargaining powers but also to make the case that organized labor's benefits and prerogatives -- wages, health care, and pensions that are more generous than those of comparable workers in the private sector -- are the moral equivalent of rights won by black Americans during the civil rights movement.
To make the point, the AFL-CIO is planning a series of nationwide events on April 4, the 43rd anniversary of the day the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated after speaking in Memphis, Tenn., on behalf of striking black garbage collectors. The message: King's cause, and that of angry schoolteachers in Madison, are one.
"April 4 [is] the day on which Martin Luther King Jr. gave his life for the cause of public collective bargaining," Trumka said in another speech, in Washington, on Wednesday. And on the AFL-CIO blog, there is this notice: "Join us to make April 4, 2011, a day to stand in solidarity with working people in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and dozens of other states where well-funded, right-wing corporate politicians are trying to take away the rights Dr. King gave his life for."
Union officials are not planning a traditional mega-rally in Washington. Rather, they're encouraging locals across the country to stage shows of force in support of Wisconsin unions and the Democratic lawmakers who fled the state in a failed effort to stop Republican Gov. Scott Walker's budget plan. Throughout, the AFL-CIO is asking local leaders to tie the Wisconsin issue to the King assassination and civil rights.
"A lot of people forget that what [King] was doing in Memphis was fighting for sanitation workers there," says Josh Goldstein, an AFL-CIO spokesman. "It's important for people to make the connection. Martin Luther King was so important to the labor movement. Workers' rights and civil rights go hand in hand. It's a time to remind people what he was fighting for."
The AFL-CIO is advising member unions to come up with activities to stress ties between big labor and the civil rights movement. AFL-CIO planners suggest that local labor leaders team up with churches to make workers' rights a theme at worship services. Union bosses also advise asking churches "to consider organizing candlelight vigils, which could include the reading of Dr. King's 'I've Been To The Mountaintop' speech," which King delivered the night before he was killed.
But was King fighting for the things that Trumka and his union forces are fighting for today? Is, say, the "right" for well-paid, unionized public employees to enjoy a health plan that includes coverage for Viagra ---- a cause for which Milwaukee teachers waged a protracted court battle -- the equivalent of King's work in Memphis, much less his efforts for the right to vote and access to public accommodations?
"It is delusion, bordering on abomination, to try to equate what Martin Luther King was doing in Memphis to public workers getting Cadillac benefits for which they contribute very little, or nothing, at taxpayers' expense," says Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights who has also served on the National Labor Relations Board. "The sanitation workers in Memphis were receiving wages that were so significantly below that which are enjoyed by middle-class teachers in Madison that to try to draw that comparison is offensive. Truly offensive."
Whatever events take place on April 4, look for the effort to have the enthusiastic support of the Obama administration. "Union rights are no different than civil rights," Labor Secretary Hilda Solis told officials of the Communications Workers of America during a Wisconsin strategy conference call two weeks ago. "It's a part of our history, it's a part of our culture, it's a part of what has made this country so great."
Will it work? After all the demonstrations, and all the speeches, will the public watch protests by angry, nearly all-white, middle-class school teachers with excellent health and retirement plans and think of Martin Luther King? Trumka's AFL-CIO and the big unions are very rich and very powerful. They have the ability to get their message out. But their April 4 strategy might be too ambitious even for them.
Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com[1].
References
- ^ byork@washingtonexaminer.com (washingtonexaminer.com)
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/03/union-equates-lavish-benefits-black-civil-rights#ixzz1GxPNZ2qm
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
You can join a union, or get a different job
Read the original article here.
One Wisconsin Democrat says…if people don’t like paying union dues that are used to support Dem candidates, they can always get another job.
State Rep. Nick Milroy is the Democratic state representative from Wisconsin’s 73rd assembly district. He was on America’s Radio News with anchors Chris Salcedo and Lori Lundin. Salcedo pointed out that union membership was split by their votes in 2010, 49% for Democrats and 47% for Republicans, nearly an even split. But unions donated 93% of their total contributions to Democrats in 2010, and 7% to Republicans or others. The question was asked if the assemblyman could understand why Republicans were not in favor of having tax payer funded dues go to fund Democrat campaigns? The assemblyman contended that public employees can opt out of the unions. But when pressed about how even those that opt out must pay union dues, the assemblyman suggested that those people that didn’t want to be part of a union could find other work.
Get that? You’ll be forced to donate to a party that you don’t support, and you’ll like it!
Wisconsin is a unionized state, where right-to-work laws do not apply. So in many trades and occupations, there is no option to get another job without changing careers. That plus the high unemployment makes Milroy’s comments particularly heartless.
Who decides who you get to hire?
Read the original article here.
"My concern quite frankly is not who decides the issues. It's getting a resolution on the core issue, which is: Who should determine how I staff my office?" said Constant, who was re-elected last year to a second term representing West San Jose.
The City Council's only Republican contends that residents of the district support his ability to make decisions for them. Besides, Constant said, he prefers to do all of the secretarial work himself, with help from four full-time council aides. And he contends that the $70,000 can be better spent on things such as resource fairs, helping neighborhood associations, an online database that updates Constant's office with constituent information and inquiries, and license fees for an iPhone app that allows residents to easily report problems.
But LaVerne Washington, president of the employees' association, said it is not Constant's prerogative to create his own "process and procedures," which she said conflict with labor agreements between the city and the union.
"This is not just somebody's job. This was a process the city designed well before Pete Constant got there," Washington said. "It's my belief that they want some consistency and regularity in the council offices, which is why each council member has an administrative assistant."
City Attorney
Schwarzenegger's defense of California's climate-change legislation is his greatest legacy, and the ARPA-E crowd gave him a standing ovation. That's led to a fresh wave of speculation that the former action-hero governor could become energy secretary if and when Steven Chu decides to terminate his tenure.
Internal Affairs: The fight over Councilman Constant's missing secretary
Employees' union wants councilman to hire an assistant
At a time when San Jose faces more than a $100 million budget deficit and the prospect of hundreds of layoffs, San Jose City Councilman
Pete Constant is battling with a City Hall employees' union over whether he should be forced to hire an administrative assistant.
Kevin McKenney of Santa Clara County Superior Court recently ordered that the case be taken to a costly arbitration instead of the state's Public Employment Relations Board -- something both Constant and the city's attorneys had sought.
That decision pleased the city's 214-member Confidential Employees Organization, which contends the city was required to confer with the union before Constant decided to eliminate the position. The job -- which requires answering phones, scheduling appointments and making photocopies, among other duties -- pays about $70,000 a year."My concern quite frankly is not who decides the issues. It's getting a resolution on the core issue, which is: Who should determine how I staff my office?" said Constant, who was re-elected last year to a second term representing West San Jose.
The City Council's only Republican contends that residents of the district support his ability to make decisions for them. Besides, Constant said, he prefers to do all of the secretarial work himself, with help from four full-time council aides. And he contends that the $70,000 can be better spent on things such as resource fairs, helping neighborhood associations, an online database that updates Constant's office with constituent information and inquiries, and license fees for an iPhone app that allows residents to easily report problems.
But LaVerne Washington, president of the employees' association, said it is not Constant's prerogative to create his own "process and procedures," which she said conflict with labor agreements between the city and the union.
"This is not just somebody's job. This was a process the city designed well before Pete Constant got there," Washington said. "It's my belief that they want some consistency and regularity in the council offices, which is why each council member has an administrative assistant."
City Attorney
Rick Doyle, however, said there is nothing in the union contract that prohibits Constant from not hiring an assistant.
No word yet on whether his office will appeal the judge's ruling.Schwarzenegger's speech a big hit at energy event
Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger rocked the house last week during his keynote address at ARPA-E, the Department of Energy's annual geekfest for clean-technology engineers, entrepreneurs, policy wonks and venture capitalists.
The event was 3,000 miles away in Washington, D.C., so IA couldn't make it. But we got a kick out of reading the text of the speech, which included this line: "Why should a dried-up little country like Libya with a crazy dictator play havoc with America's economy and security?"Schwarzenegger's defense of California's climate-change legislation is his greatest legacy, and the ARPA-E crowd gave him a standing ovation. That's led to a fresh wave of speculation that the former action-hero governor could become energy secretary if and when Steven Chu decides to terminate his tenure.
Internal Affairs is an offbeat look at state and local politics. This week's items were written by Tracy Seipel and Dana Hull. Send tips to internalaffairs@mercurynews.com[1], or call 408-920-5552.
STEVE JOBS BACK IN THE SPOTLIGHT
Apple CEO Steve Jobs, who on Wednesday took a break from his medical leave and stepped back into the spotlight for the unveiling of the iPad2. "This one really blows my mind," Jobs said. It was awesome to see you, Steve.
PG&E'S NIGHTMARE CONTINUES
PG&E engineer Chih-hung Lee, who wrote a 2006 memo saying that the utility didn't need automatic shutoff valves on its natural gas pipelines. Last week, he was bombarded with questions from investigators at a D.C. hearing on the San Bruno pipeline explosion. Other PG&E employees at the hearing said automatic valves would have reduced the time of the fire from 90 minutes to about 20 minutes.
FIREfighter LAYOFFS STILL LOOM
The San Jose firefighters' union tentatively agreed to accept 10 percent cuts in pay and benefits to reduce the need for further layoffs -- a noble concession. But the city couldn't promise that any more firefighters wouldn't lose their jobs. Last year, 49 firefighting jobs were axed.
References
- ^ internalaffairs@mercurynews.com (www.mercurynews.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
