unions | Fausta's Blog

July 15, 2010 By Fausta

Chavista unions on a rampage

Juan Forero at the Washington Post reports,
Venezuelan union clashes are on the rise as Chavez fosters new unions at odds with older ones

Calling itself the most labor-friendly government in Latin America, President Hugo Chávez’s socialist administration has repeatedly increased the minimum wage, turned over the management of some nationalized companies to workers and fostered the creation of new unions.

But labor leaders and human rights groups say the government’s efforts have had a dark side. About 75 union members have been shot dead in the past two years as the new unions — many of them pro-Chávez — and traditional unions battle it out, making Venezuela among the world’s most dangerous countries for labor activists.

“The state is responsible for all these deaths,” said Orlando Chirinos, a former Chávez ally who helps lead a labor federation that has seen several members killed in this northern city. “When union leaders from parallel unions know of job sites, they sit there and wait — and they are all armed. Everyone knows. Why doesn’t the government send troops?”

Union leaders and the respected Provea rights group in Caracas say newly formed unions have turned to paid killers, targeting low-level activists and union chiefs alike.

Pedro Perez, a union activist here who was shot in March, said the violence stems from new unions trying to sideline old ones like his.

Power and money are the motives:

Most of the deaths have taken place in the lucrative construction industry. In exchange for jobs, workers are forced to pay kickbacks to union bosses.

With big profits at stake, and the state doing little to control the violence, the number of killings has tripled from 12 four years ago to 34 recorded in the 12 months ending in May, according to the Catholic Church’s human rights unit. Though Colombia, with its slow-burning conflict, has historically recorded the most union slayings in the world, Venezuela appears to have surpassed its neighbor in the past two years and registered more.

Since Chávez controls all branches of government and the judiciary, the thugs operate with impunity,

And unlike Colombia, where teams of prosecutors, investigators and judges have been deployed to resolve cases, Venezuela’s judicial system has brought only a handful of killers to justice, according to the human rights arm of the Organization of American States. The killings have also failed to garner much attention in Venezuela or with international labor groups.

While the country has a history of union violence, the new trend has to do with Chávez’s attempt to control one of the last remaining institutions in the country that does not bow to his whims: the unions:

Human Rights Watch, which carried out a study of Venezuelan labor, says the government intervenes in union elections and favors pro-government unions in negotiations, sometimes sidestepping larger, established unions for smaller organizations that support Chávez.

Union leaders here say the government is trying to ensure that unions are solidly pro-government, thus bringing practically all important institutions in Venezuela, save for the Catholic Church, under the state’s fold.

Read the rest of the article.

And a question: Where is Nancy Pelosi, the unions, and the Democrats who oppose the Colombia Free Trade Agreement on this?

21612

July 10, 2010 By Fausta

Privatize, says Christie

A man after my little libertarian capitalist heart:
Christie looks to privatize motor vehicle inspections, other services

New Jersey would close its centralized car inspection lanes and motorists would pay for their own emissions tests under a sweeping set of recommendations set to be released by the Christie administration today.

State parks, psychiatric hospitals and even turnpike toll booths could also be run by private operators, according to the 57-page report on privatization obtained by The Star-Ledger. Preschool classrooms would no longer be built at public expense, state employees would pay for parking and private vendors would dish out food, deliver health care and run education programs behind prison walls.

All told, the report says, New Jersey could save at least $210 million a year by delivering an array of services through private hands.

Indeed, private business in New Jersey has been building and operating some of the best parks, psychiatric hospitals, schools and food services in the country.

Currently, motor vehicle owners can pay their local service station for the state-mandated inspections.

The state employee unions aren’t going to be happy,

Despite past predictions that up to 2,000 public employees could lose their jobs to privatization, the report does not specify the number of layoffs to come. But its impact could be felt from parks — where private recreation firms would run concessions, operate facilities and perhaps collect a fee — to preschools.

Apparently the reporter who wrote the article can not understand that the jobs would shift to the private sector.

21530

June 25, 2010 By Fausta

Card check lives?

Sure looks like it:
Card-check lives: ‘A lot of things can happen in a lame-duck session’ (emphasis added)

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, is so determined to reward Democrats’ labor union donors that he is now openly discussing the possibility of passing pro-union legislation after voters have already rendered a verdict on the union-friendly 111th Congress.

“A lot of things can happen in a lame-duck session,” he told The Hill today.

Even if voters remove Democrats from power in the November elections, their new choices for Congress will not be seated until January. This leaves nearly two months for the exiting Congress — commonly referred to as a “lame duck” Congress — to enact unpopular laws that might have otherwise cost them more seats in the preceding election.

One such law is the so-called “card-check” bill, which takes away employees’ right to vote secretly against unionizing and skews the balance in favor of labor unions during negotiations with newly unionized employers. Labor unions see the bill as essential in saving their many under-funded multi-employer pension plans. The bill’s binding arbitration provision could force many employers to enter the unions’ underfunded pension plans, taking away their employees’ opportunity to contribute to tax-deferred 401(k) retirement plans.

And they can do it. too.

21185

June 18, 2010 By Fausta

Latest Gulf oil spill insanity: Coast Guard stops the barges! VIDEO

Just when you thought the federal government’s incompetence couldn’t get worse, along comes the Coast Guard and stops barges from sucking up the oil:

The President can’t suck it up with a straw, so no one else is allowed to?

BP Oil Spill: Against Gov. Jindal’s Wishes, Crude-Sucking Barges Stopped by Coast Guard
59 Days Into Oil Crisis, Gulf Coast Governors Say Feds Are Failing Them

“The Coast Guard came and shut them down,” Jindal said. “You got men on the barges in the oil, and they have been told by the Coast Guard, ‘Cease and desist. Stop sucking up that oil.’”

A Coast Guard representative told ABC News today that it shares the same goal as the governor.

“We are all in this together. The enemy is the oil,” said Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Dan Lauer.

But the Coast Guard ordered the stoppage because of reasons that Jindal found frustrating. The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges.

Louisiana Governor Couldn’t Overrule Coast Guard

The governor said he didn’t have the authority to overrule the Coast Guard’s decision, though he said he tried to reach the White House to raise his concerns.

“They promised us they were going to get it done as quickly as possible,” he said. But “every time you talk to someone different at the Coast Guard, you get a different answer.”

This is fertile ground for conspiracy theories, but hey, you don’t need to go further than downright malfeasance, patronage, and union cronyism:
Obama blocked clean-up of BP oil spill by America’s allies; Failed to issue timely Jones Act waiver

Crucial offers to help clean up BP’s oil spill came “from Belgian, Dutch, and Norwegian firms that . . . possess some of the world’s most advanced oil skimming ships.” But the Obama administration didn’t accept their help, because doing so would require it to do something past presidents have routinely done: waive rules imposed by the Jones Act, a law backed by unions.

“The BP clean-up effort in the Gulf of Mexico is hampered by the Jones Act. This is a piece of 1920s protectionist legislation, that requires all vessels working in U.S. waters to be American-built, and American-crewed. So” the U.S. Coast Guard “can’t accept, and therefore don’t ask for, the assistance of high-tech European vessels specifically designed for the task in hand.”

The law itself permits the president to waive these requirements, and such waivers were “granted, promptly, by the Bush administration,” in the aftermath of hurricanes and other emergencies. But Obama refused to do so after the spill, notes David Warren in the Ottawa Citizen. Instead, Obama rejected a Dutch offer to help clean up the spill, noted Voice of America News:

“The Obama administration declined the Dutch offer partly because of the Jones Act, which restricts foreign ships from certain activities in U.S. waters. During the Hurricane Katrina crisis five years ago, the Bush administration waived the Jones Act in order to facilitate some foreign assistance, but such a waiver was not given in this case.”

“After the Obama administration refused help from the Netherlands, Geert Visser, the consul general for the Netherlands in Houston, told Loren Steffy: ‘Let’s forget about politics; let’s get it done.’” But for Obama, politics always comes first: “The explanation of Obama’s reluctance to seek this remedy is his cozy relationship with labor unions. . . ‘The unions see it [not waiving the act] as … protecting jobs. They hate when the Jones Act gets waived.’”

Can’t forget about politics, because it’s all about politics:

In April 2009, the Obama administration granted BP, a big supporter of Obama, a waiver of environmental regulations. But after the oil spill, it blocked Louisiana from protecting its coastline against the oil spill by delaying rather than expediting regulatory approval of essential protective measures. It has also chosen not to use what has been described as “the most effective method” of fighting the spill, a method successfully used in other oil spills. Democratic strategist James Carville called Obama’s handling of the oil spill “lackadaisical” and “unbelievable” in its “stupidity.”

Obama is now using BP’s oil spill to push the global-warming legislation that BP had lobbied for. Obama’s global warming legislation expands ethanol subsidies, which cause famine, starvation, and food riots in poor countries by shrinking the food supply. Ethanol makes gasoline costlier and dirtier, increases ozone pollution, and increases the death toll from smog and air pollution. Ethanol production also results in deforestation, soil erosion, and water pollution. Subsidies for biofuels like ethanol are a big source of corporate welfare: “BP has lobbied for and profited from subsidies for biofuels . . . that cannot break even without government support.”

And let’s not allow a crisis to go to waste – as Darleen points out,

the Gulf spill also provides yet another serious crisis too good to waste; from perp walking BP execs up to the frontdoor of the White House, to a $20 billion dollar slush fund administered by Obama’s hand-picked Pay Czar.

Meanwhile, back to the Gulf coast,

UPDATE
The press is being kept out of the spill zone.

20997

May 25, 2010 By Fausta

Pay, and pay some more, for the union label

Just as millions of Americans face more inflation and more taxes, here’s another bill, since it’s payback time for the unions by the Democrats:
Doug Ross posts, Delightful: Democrats to stick American taxpayers with a $165 billion bill to pay off the Unions’ underfunded pensions

It appears that bankrupting the United States Treasury was only the first step in the Democrat plan to destroy the American economy. Layering in a new entitlement program — socialized medicine — when the country can’t afford its existing programs was thought to be the icing on the cake. It wasn’t.

The final nail in the coffin may come in the form of stealing $165 billion additional dollars from taxpayers to fund union pensions that were mismanaged and misappropriated by the bosses who support Democrats in good times and bad.

Doug points out that the SEIU spent $85 million just on getting Obama elected. I should add that Obama has also made the government owner of automakers whose unfunded pension plans burden the public – so we’re being punched twice with this proposed bill, first with the bailout, now with this. (Is cardcheck far?)

But Doug is optimistic as to the tab total:
Fox News reports (emphasis added):

A Democratic senator is introducing legislation for a bailout of troubled union pension funds. If passed, the bill could put another $165 billion in liabilities on the shoulders of American taxpayers.

The bill, which would put the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation behind struggling pensions for union workers, is being introduced by Senator Bob Casey, (D-Pa.), who says it will save jobs and help people.

As FOX Business Network’s Gerri Willis reported Monday, these pensions are in bad shape; as of 2006, well before the market dropped and recession began, only 6% of these funds were doing well.

Although right now taxpayers could possibly be on the hook for $165 billion, the liability could essentially be unlimited because these pensions have to be paid out until the workers die.

Happy yet?

UPDATE
Welcome, Instapundit readers. Please visit often!

AJ Strata looks at how Insipid Arrogance Abounds In Today’s Politics, and takes a peek at the future.

Follow-up post:
And how is this sustainable?

20514

April 23, 2010 By Fausta

Christie goes after the public-employee unions

George Will writes about how Gov. Christie is Bringing Thunder-ous change to New Jersey

He inherited a $2.2 billion deficit, and next year’s projected deficit of $10.7 billion is, relative to the state’s $29.3 billion budget, the nation’s worst. Democrats, with the verbal tic — "Tax the rich!" — that passes for progressive thinking, demanded that he reinstate the "millionaire’s tax," which hit "millionaires" earning $400,000 until it expired Dec. 31. Instead, Christie noted that between 2004 and 2008 there was a net outflow of $70 billion in wealth as "the rich," including small businesses, fled. And he said previous administrations had "raised taxes 115 times in the last eight years alone."

So he closed the $2.2 billion gap by accepting 375 of 378 suggested spending freezes and cuts. In two weeks. By executive actions. In eight weeks he cut $13 billion — $232 million a day, $9 million an hour. Now comes the hard part.

Government employees’ health benefits are, he says, "41 percent more expensive" than those of the average Fortune 500 company. Without changes in current law, "spending will have increased 322 percent in 20 years — over 16 percent a year." There is, he says, a connection between the state’s being No. 1 in total tax burden and being No. 1 in the proportion of college students who, after graduating, leave the state.

Partly to pay for teachers’ benefits — most contribute nothing to pay for their health insurance — property taxes have increased 70 percent in 10 years, to an average annual cost to homeowners of $7,281. Christie proposes a 2.5 percent cap on annual increases.

Challenging teachers unions to live up to their cloying "it’s really about the kids" rhetoric, he has told them to choose between a pay freeze and job cuts. Validating his criticism by their response to it, some Bergen County teachers encouraged students to cut classes and go to the football field to protest his policies, and a Bridgewater high school teacher showed students a union-made video critical of him. Christie notes that the $550,000 salary of the executive director of the teachers union is larger than the total cuts proposed for 190 of the state’s 605 school districts.

It’s been done before:
Jennifer Rubin:

Christie is taking a page from another northeastern Republican (and another former federal prosecutor) who when he came into office was told he had to raise taxes, but proceeded to show that budget discipline and tax cuts could revive the greatest of American cities. Rudy Giuliani became a conservative rock star and New York came roaring back. If Christie pulls this off, he will not only elevate himself to the top tier of Republican politicians; he will also point the way to taming state budgets (California, are you paying attention?).

How far will Christie be able to implement changes while in a political atmosphere where unions like the SEIU are ascendant at the White House?

We shall soon find out.

January 24, 2010 By Fausta

Most U.S. Union Members Are Working for the Government

Most U.S. Union Members Are Working for the Government, New Data Shows

For the first time in American history, a majority of union members are government workers rather than private-sector employees, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced on Friday.

In its annual report on union membership, the bureau undercut the longstanding notion that union members are overwhelmingly blue-collar factory workers. It found that membership fell so fast in the private sector in 2009 that the 7.9 million unionized public-sector workers easily outnumbered those in the private sector, where labor’s ranks shrank to 7.4 million, from 8.2 million in 2008.
…
According to the labor bureau, 7.2 percent of private-sector workers were union members last year, down from 7.6 percent the previous year. That, labor historians said, was the lowest percentage of private-sector workers in unions since 1900.

Among government workers, union membership grew to 37.4 percent last year, from 36.8 percent in 2008.

After rising the two previous years, overall union membership fell by 771,000 in 2009, to 15.3 million, largely because employment declined over all. But the rate of private-sector unionization fell because two sectors where unions are especially strong — manufacturing and construction — suffered especially large job losses. Construction lost more than 900,000 jobs last year, falling to 5.9 million, while 1.3 million factory jobs were lost, declining to 11.6 million.

The overall unionization rate edged lower, to 12.3 percent last year from 12.4 percent in 2008.
…
Notwithstanding the recession, government employment grew last year, inching up 16,000, to 22,516,000, according to the bureau.

Fred Siegel, a visiting professor of history at St. Francis College in Brooklyn and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative research organization, said, “There were enormous political ramifications” to the fact that public-sector workers are now the majority in organized labor.

“At the same time the country is being squeezed, public-sector unions are a rising political force in the Democratic Party,” he said. “They depend on extra money for the public sector, and that puts the Democrats in a difficult position. In four big states — New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California — the public-sector unions have largely been untouched by the economic downturn. In those states, you have an impeding clash between the public-sector unions and the public at large.”

As John Steele Gordon points out, these public service unions have become The engine of spending,

A big part of the problem is that the laws in place that cover collective bargaining were devised in the 1930’s when public-sector unions didn’t exist. A corporation is a wealth-creation machine and collective bargaining is a negotiation over how to divide the profits between stockholders and labor. Each side knows that if they drive too hard a bargain, they will injure the goose that lays the profit eggs. If labor is paid too much, the company will be less competitive. If it is paid too little, good workers will leave for better-paying jobs elsewhere. But in the public sector, unions and the bureaucrats who negotiate with them are playing with someone else’s money (yours, to be precise), and have overlapping interests in spending more of it. Bureaucrats, after all, measure their prestige by the size of the budget they control and the number of people who report to them.

The result has been an explosion in public-sector compensation. Federal workers now earn, in wages and benefits, about twice what their private-sector equivalents get paid. State workers often have Cadillac health plans and retirement benefits far above the private sector average: 80 percent of public-sector workers have pension benefits, only 50 percent in the private sector. Many can retire at age 50.

The public-sector unions have become the engine behind ballooning state and federal budgets. There will be no cure for excess government spending until their power is decisively curbed. It would be a winning issue for a Republican presidential candidate in 2012. The Democratic candidate, deeply beholden to Andy Stern, who has visited the White House more than anyone else not in government since Obama has been in office, will be very hard pressed to defend against such an attack but will have no option but to try.

Sweetness and Light casts a shadow on the long-term, though

Even the Soviet Union saw that that unions were unnecessary when everyone worked for the state.

Not there yet, but here’s a parting word from Labor Secretary Hilda Solis,

Noting that union members generally have higher earnings, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said in a statement: “As workers across the country have seen their real and nominal wages decline as a result of the recession, these numbers show a need for Congress to pass legislation to level the playing field to enable more American workers to access the benefits of union membership. This report makes clear why the administration supports the Employee Free Choice Act,” a bill that would make it easier to unionize.”

And for the Dems to continue to use unions as a source of political slush funds while we all pay for it.