WyBlog, the best thing about New Jersey since the invention of the 24 hour diner.
Chris Wysocki
Caldwell, NJ
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." - Ronald Reagan
Linkiest
CH 2.0 Info Center
The Jersey Report
Labor Union Report
Memeorandum
Net Right Nation
The Patriot Post Newsletter
Pajamas Media
PJTV
Victor Davis Hanson
J! E! T! S! Jets! Jets! Jets!
OpenVMS.org Portal
AVS Forum
NJ.com Caldwell Forum
The Caldwells Patch
The Jersey Tomato Press
"This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes."
Should a mother who cares for her disabled adult son be forced to join a union and pay dues out of her meager Medicaid stipend?
The state of Michigan, and the SEIU, say "absolutely."
Yesterday a lawyer for that mother asked the U.S. Supreme Court to let her be free.
William Messenger of the National Right to Work Committee asked the Supreme Court today to hold that public employee unions are unconstitutional.
"This is—I'm just going to use the word here, it is a radical argument. It would radically restructure the way workplaces across this country are—are run," Justice Elena Kagan said from the bench. Since 1948, she pointed out, states have had the power to enact "right-to-work" laws that limit union power. Was Messenger arguing that "a right-to-work law is constitutionally compelled?"
Messenger didn't back off. "In the public sector, yes," he replied.
His clients, home-care providers paid by the state of Illinois with federal-state Medicaid funds, had started out arguing only that they were not "employees" for purposes of coverage by the Court's previous labor precedents. (Though they get state paychecks, they are selected and supervised by the families they serve.) But after cert was granted, their lawyers, the NRTWC's legal-defense fund, decided instead to go for the kill shot. They want the court to hold that permitting the unions to collect fees for representing non-members—the so-called "agency fee"—violates the First Amendment.
At least four members of the Court seemed ready to reach that "radical" result. The fate of public employee unionism in the nation seemed, by the end of the argument, to lie in the hands of Justice Antonin Scalia.
It's high time for Mr. Justice Scalia to deliver the coup de grace and free us from the tyranny of public employee unions.
The argument against public-sector agency fees is this: Since public employees work for government, everything they bargain about is political. Higher wages, better benefits, new work rules—all affect the state budget. Assessing fees from non-members thus requires them to pay for political speech.
Yes. Public employee unions are by their very nature inherently political. And it's an incestuous relationship. The union collects dues from its members, which it then uses to lobby government officials and contribute to their election campaigns. Those government officials in turn, not wanting to bite the hand that feeds them, always ensure the union's contract demands are easily ratified.
In many cases, like for instance when a recently retired teacher is elected to the school board (with her union's backing), the union ends up negotiating with itself. That's hardly a formula for fiscal restraint. But it does keep the union in clover.
You know who else hated public employee unions? No less a liberal icon than Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Roosevelt openly opposed bargaining rights for government unions.
"The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," Roosevelt wrote in 1937 to the National Federation of Federal Employees. Yes, public workers may demand fair treatment, wrote Roosevelt. But, he wrote, "I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place" in the public sector. "A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government."
And if you're the kind of guy who capitalizes "government," woe betide such obstructionists.
FDR wasn't alone among Democrats, either.
It was orthodoxy among Democrats through the '50s that unions didn't belong in government work. Things began changing when, in 1959, Wisconsin's then-Gov. Gaylord Nelson signed collective bargaining into law for state workers. Other states followed, and gradually, municipal workers and teachers were unionized, too.
Even as that happened, the future was visible. Frank Zeidler, Milwaukee's mayor in the 1950s and the last card-carrying Socialist to head a major U.S. city, supported labor. But in 1969, the progressive icon wrote that rise of unions in government work put a competing power in charge of public business next to elected officials. Government unions "can mean considerable loss of control over the budget, and hence over tax rates," he warned.
Which of course is the reason New Jersey has the highest property taxes in the nation. Our public employee unions own the government. And they don't care one whit about the taxpayers. We've seen the result. Overly generous union contracts awarded by career politicians who live large on union dues funneled into their campaign coffers while the cities and towns they supposedly represent fall into disgrace.
The Supreme Court now has a chance to level the playing field and wrest control
of our government back into the hands of "We The People." Let's hope they don't
let us down.
Posted at 14:38 by Chris Wysocki
[/news]
Comments | Perm Link |
Technorati Tags:
unions
SCOTUS
public-employees
right-to-work
|
Tweet
Previous: Media frenzy over Bridgegate is having the desired effect, Chris Christie's 2016 prospects dim | Next: When will Obama stop borrowing? He blew through the last debt ceiling in 3 months! |
Main |