Posted by Labor Law Guy | Posted on 24-02-2010
Category : Random Musings
Tags: PSEECA
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Taking aim at states like Virginia that have passed laws forbidding the establishment of public sector unions, a law wending its way unnoticed through Congress called PSEECA, the Public Safety Employer/Employee Cooperation Act, would force unionization on all states' public sectors.
Though the Virginia law, which forbids the unionization of police, fire and paramedic personnel working for any public entity in the commonwealth, has broad bipartisan support, PSEECA would forbid any state from doing what Virginia and other states have done–protect themselves from the extortion expense and recalcitrant behavior of unionized public safety servants.
Nationwide, just 7.6 percent of private employees are unionized, but 36.8 percent of public sector employees belong to unions. Nationwide, almost 59 percent of police are unionized, and the figure is even higher for firemen–70 percent.
Consider the consequences: In Albana, N.Y., the firefighters' union recently argued that one of its members should not be terminated for committing off-duty arson–because it did not impact his firefighting abilities! In Seattle, the police have gone unpunished for a series of brutal–and unjustified–beatings, with the city virtually powerless to discipline those involved.
Anyway, while the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) gets all the headlines, PSEECA flies under the radar–while threatening not only states' rights but also public safety when intractable unions start dictating policy to firemen and policemen, and to the local governments that pay them.
Related Blogs
Posted by Labor Law Guy | Posted on 19-02-2010
Category : Federal Labor Law
Tags: health care reform, Obamacare, public option
The administration has announced that Barack Obama will issue his own health care reform plan on Monday, Feb. 22.
However, since Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius said Obama's "one proposal" will feature "some of the best ideas" from the House and Senate plans, this can only mean his proposal will be a blank piece of paper.
There were zero "best ideas" in either the House or Senate measures. In fact, there weren't even any "faintly good" ideas in either plan. Just more government, more government control, and less individual choice or freedom.
However, what this announcement really means is the re-emergence of the so-called socialist public option and a rush to reconciliation after trying to shame the Republican opposition at the Feb. 25 health care summit.
Whether we want it or not, and 60-plus percent of us don't, one way or the other we'll have Obamacare shoved down our throats.
Posted by Labor Law Guy | Posted on 17-02-2010
Category : Federal Labor Law
Tags: Social Security, Social Security Trust Fund
After you've paid into the Social Security slush trust fund for 40-some years, you'd think you should get something in return.
Wrong.
The Social Security Act of 1935 reserves the right for Congress to "alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act" at any time, for any reason, specified or not. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1960 ruled in Fleming v. Nestor that Americans have no "contractual right" to Social Security payments.
Keep this in mind as we race toward the year 2016 when Social Security taxes paid by those working will no longer be enough to cover payments to those retired and relying on Social Security.
The Social Security trust fund, set up in 1983 as part of a reform of the system, is nonexistent. When taxes were raised to feed the trust feed, feed they did–to the tune of $2.7 trillion, enough to cover Social Security through 2037.
One problem: Congress spent every penny of that $2.7 trillion on other causes (read: their own reelection), so the fund is penniless. (Where is Al Gore's mythical "lockbox" now that we need it?)
What this means is that, starting in 2016, Congress will have to raise taxes, reduce payments and/or raise the age of retirement–or any combination thereof. The last thing it can or will do is repay the $2.5 trillion since the government is already $12 trillion in debt.
Bottom line: Don't expect anything from Social Security when you retire. I imagine most of us will just have to find a way to work until we die at our jobs.
Oh, happy retirement.
Posted by Labor Law Guy | Posted on 16-02-2010
Category : State Labor Law
There's no way the courageous action of a Rhode Island School Superintendent will be allowed to stand once it comes before some far-left, union-brainwashed judge, but hats off to Frances Gallo for firing all administrators and teachers at a school for refusing to work harder.
Ms. Gallo, looking at the appalling results at Central Falls High School (graduation rate below 50 percent), asked the school's staff to work 25 additional minutes a day, spend some of that time tutoring students, and also undertake two weeks of training in the summertime, among other initiatives to turn around the school.
Central Falls, Rhode Island, is a low-income community suffering terribly from the recession, but the teachers take home between $70,000 and $78,000 a year while the media area income is $22,000 a year. Still, the Central Falls Teachers' Union refused to go along with the superintendent's plan.
So she fired the lot of them, teachers and administrators, totaling around 100 employees.
Bye, bye.
Of course, as we've discovered in California, you can't even ask state union members to take a pay cut to help balance the budget without some judge's ruling the action illegal.
Bottom line–no you know why America's schools are in such bad shape. The cause is spelled u-n-i-o-n-s.
Posted by Labor Law Guy | Posted on 11-02-2010
Category : Federal Labor Law
Tags: Barack Obama, Craig Becker, James Hoffa, NLRB
Even a couple of Democrats from states that generally vote Republican joined the GOP in keeping alive a Senate filibuster on the nomination vote for Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Now, with our hard-working Senators set to take next week off for a Presidents' Day recess (how many of you have the week off?), Barack Obama has hinted at some recess appointments. Trouble with those, however, is that they're only good until the next election, which just happens to be later this year.
Anyway, we'll find out soon enough. In the meantime, though, I got a good chuckle out of reading a hypocrisy-laden critique of the Senate's filibuster by International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) President James Hoffa,to wit:
“The President ought to be able to appoint who he wants to sit on the NLRB. Politics should not stand in the way of a well qualified [sic] appointee. "
Substitute Robert Bork as the rejected appointee and the Supreme Count for the NLRB, and do you think Hoff would ever utter such a concept?
Posted by Labor Law Guy | Posted on 05-02-2010
Category : Random Musings
Tags: CanadaCare, Danny Williams, Obamacare
After touting the beauty of single-payer (read: socialist) health care in Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams has secreted himself off to locations unknown in the United States to undergo a heart procedure, reportedly open-heart surgery.
Some reports claim the procedure was not available in Williams's home province; others aren't sure. However, clearly someone in Canada performs heart procedures for those who can't afford to go south of the border and are stuck with Canada's version of Obamacare. However, quality and waiting time are always huge factors in our northern neighbor's delivery system.
A few things shade this whole episode in gray if not downright darkness. First, Williams tried to hide the fact of his trip south for surgery. Second, it seems blatantly hypocritical for a staunch defender of CanadaCare to secretly opt for the obviously "lesser quality" (according to pro-Canada people like Williams) health care system in America. Third, it's not even clear if Williams is the payer or if the Canadian public is.
Which is why I've said all along, should Obamacare pass, the nation will face a two-tiered medical system: one for the public that's as awful as Canada's, and one for Obama and his cronies that retains all the glory and qualify of the privatized system we all currently enjoy.
Posted by Labor Law Guy | Posted on 04-02-2010
Category : Collective Bargaining/Unions, Federal Labor Law
Tags: Craig Becker, Scott Brown
Craig Becker, subject of a few posts here lately because of his views (since semi-renounced for confirmation's purposes) regarding legislating labor law from the bench of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), saw his nomination affirmed today by a party-line vote of 13-10 in the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.
It was the Democrats' goal to rush through all controversial appointments before newly elected Massachusetts GOP Senator Scott Brown could be seated (set for Nov. 11 originally), but Brown has now moved up his seating to today at 5 p.m., affording Republicans a 41-vote front to stop the Senate in its tracks through filibuster.
Does this mean Becker will be filibustered out of his appointment?
In three words: "I hope so."
Rejected procedurally by the full Senate on Christmas Eve, Craig Becker had his day in court yesterday (Feb. 2, 2010) as he was grilled by the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which in 2009 voted 15-8 to send his name to the full Senate for confirmation but was blocked by Senator John McCain (R.-Arizona), who used Senatorial prerogative to place a hold on the vote.
Becker is controversial for suggesting that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), to which he has been nominated by President Obama twice now, can issue a gag order on employers during union organization drives and can also green light the use of card authorization rather than secret ballot elections for unionization.
Yesterday, he backed down, saying:
"The law is clear that the decision…(of) an alternative route to certification rests with Congress and not the board," Becker said, adding that the writings were "intended to be provocative and to ask fundamental questions in order for scholars and others to re-evaluate."
The writings to which he referred were the documents in which he made his suggestions about the NLRB's acting alone to take pro-labor positions.
Becker is a union lawyer and academic who was served as counsel for both the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the AFL-CIO.
From what I've read, however, no one bothered to ask Becker if he would favor minority unions–in other words, forcing employers to bargain with unions that are formed by a minority of the total represented workers voting as a majority (of a minority).
That could be a big worry.
