Unions vs. the Right to Work ~ WSJ.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. ^ | FEBRUARY 28, 2011 | ROBERT BARRO

[Elle Bee]

Collective bargaining on a broad scale is more similar to an antitrust violation than to a civil liberty. P>How ironic that Wisconsin has become ground zero for the battle between taxpayers and public- employee labor unions. Wisconsin was the first state to allow collective bargaining for government workers (in 1959), following a tradition where it was the first to introduce a personal income tax (in 1911, before the introduction of the current form of individual income tax in 1913 by the federal government).

[Elle Bee]

Mr. Barro is a professor of economics at Harvard and a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

"Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool." --Clinton presidential aide Paul Begala, July 1998

President Kennedy’s Executive Order 10998, allowing Federal unions, is what opened the door for public sector unions at the state and local level, which is leading to bankruptcy from bloated public sector salaries, benefits, and retirement plans. Businesses that offered plans like many governments have would go bankrupt. Gov’t entities will, too, eventually, but it will be much more painful.

When collective bargaining was brought into American schools in the 1960s, it was a revenue stream and power base for Big Labor. Suddenly, union bosses became more interested in building political muscle than educating children.

At that point the battle between unions and school boards became more focusing on salary, benefits, pensions and working conditions for adults, and less about students.

Kids are only pawns in the self-serving union game.

This is why unions should again be outlawed for public employees.

All government unions should be banned. The idea that government workers need protection from guess who?? THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, is ridiculous. remember, teachers are government employees. Ban government unions.

Public Service doesnt mean you're to be serviced by the public for life

Contract snafu Bumps Teacher Salaries Unexpectedly High, some by almost $30K (Florida Keys)

.

[KeyLargo]

Listen Live

Conservative Charlie Sykes has another week of great radio discussing the inside information on the socialist protestors at the Madison state building.

LISTEN to Newsradio 620 WTMJ Milwaukee over the Internet!

Click Here
http://www.620wtmj.com/home/ondemand/44930432.html

[FrankR]

[Buckeye McFrog]

ESPN had a legal expert on this morning talking about the NFL collective bargaining agreement that is about to expire.

Apparently the players are going to vote to de-certify their Union this week. This will then allow them to go to court and get an injunction against the owners locking them out, which will presumably force the owners to re-enter negotiations with a union which, at that point, technically will no longer exist (??!!)

The expert claimed this was fully within the law and was actually good strategy. If so, labor law in this country is in need of one serious overhaul!

[Elle Bee]

Labor unions like to portray collective bargaining as a basic civil liberty, akin to the freedoms of speech, press, assembly and religion. For a teachers union, collective bargaining means that suppliers of teacher services to all public school systems in a state—or even across states—can collude with regard to acceptable wages, benefits and working conditions. An analogy for business would be for all providers of airline transportation to assemble to fix ticket prices, capacity and so on. From this perspective, collective bargaining on a broad scale is more similar to an antitrust violation than to a civil liberty.

.

[Elle Bee]

Remarkably, labor unions are not only immune from antitrust laws but can also negotiate a "union shop," which requires nonunion employees to join the union or pay nearly equivalent dues. Somehow, despite many attempts, organized labor has lacked the political power to repeal the key portion of the 1947 Taft Hartley Act that allowed states to pass right-to-work laws, which now prohibit the union shop in 22 states. From the standpoint of civil liberties, the individual right to work—without being forced to join a union or pay dues—has a much better claim than collective bargaining. (Not to mention that "right to work" has a much more pleasant, liberal sound than "collective bargaining.") The push for right-to-work laws, which haven't been enacted anywhere but Oklahoma over the last 20 years, seems about to take off.

.

[LuvFreeRepublic]

...collective bargaining on a broad scale is more similar to an antitrust violation than to a civil liberty.

Excellent!

[Mouton]

“The push for right-to-work laws, which haven’t been enacted anywhere but Oklahoma over the last 20 years, seems about to take off.”

I sure hope you are correct.

[Alberta's Child]

Apparently the players are going to vote to de-certify their Union this week. This will then allow them to go to court and get an injunction against the owners locking them out, which will presumably force the owners to re-enter negotiations with a union which, at that point, technically will no longer exist (??!!)

Something seems to be missing from this. Wouldn't the players have to hold a vote to "re-certify" a new union before the owners could "re-enter negotiations" with the union?

My understanding is that the de-certification move would be done as a strategy to: (1) block an attempt at locking out the players, and/or (2) block the unilateral imposition of new work rules by the owners. I believe the second point is a bigger issue in this scenario, because the NFL owners would apparently be in blatant violation of U.S. antitrust law if they were to do such a thing outside a legitimate collective bargaining process.

[Carry_Okie]

The question is NOT necessarily "unions v. right to work." The real problem is that unions are legal monopolies. End the exemption from anti-trust they enjoy and they would have to market a competitive service, maximizing the productivity of every worker.

[tophat9000]

I have a different solution... let the unions stands

But tax unions and union income at a diffrent higher rate then Non-Union Workers income ...

The whole argument of the left is the better off should pay more, that people that make or get more of the “profit” should pay more ...

The whole argument of the Unions is they are better off then Non-Union Workers, that the Unions help you make more and get more of the “profit” for the Union worker

So take the Unions at their word... Union worker are better off... they make more

Take the Left at their word the better off that make more should pay more in taxes....

So Tax Unions, Union Pay and Union befits at a different and higher rate... make them pay their fair share

[Alberta's Child]

That makes sense, but the whole purpose of having the antitrust exemption is to eliminate utter chaos from the collective bargaining process by allowing for one-on-one negotiations between management and labor. Could a company even function if it had to deal with competing unions for the same workers? I can't imagine what a contract negotiation would be like for an auto manufacturer, for example, if they had to conduct simultaneous negotiations with a dozen different variations of the United Auto Workers -- each of which had their own priorities for their members, and each of which had their own union representatives among their members working for the company?

How could you even run a business if the workers of Union #1 got Columbus Day off, while the workers of Union #2 didn't get Columbus Day off but had Veterans Day off?

[Eva]

The Obama administration is trying to make this an anti-union issue, rather than an anti-government union issue, but that is only a distraction. The government unions are at the heart of the Obama push to “re-make” the economy. Everything that Obama has done since he took office is aimed at controlling the economy through expansion of the SEIU.

The real goal of Obamacare is to take over 1/5 of the economy and unionize it under the SEIU. They have already made great strides in this direction on the west coast, taking over all nurses and hospital worker unions and putting them under the SEIU, turning our health care providers into adversaries. If states are successful in stopping the growth of the SEIU, they will stop Obama.

Watch for Obama to take action to defend the SEIU.

[Carry_Okie]

Could a company even function if it had to deal with competing unions for the same workers?

Sure, as long as the work functions were broken down into separate contracts. It's done right now in car plants across the world where contractors perform many specific assembly functions.

How could you even run a business if the workers of Union #1 got Columbus Day off, while the workers of Union #2 didn't get Columbus Day off but had Veterans Day off?

Remember, they won't be monopolies. That means things have to work for the customer or there's no deal.

[Elle Bee]

SEIU was looking towards all of those Obama care bureaucrats

Look at Gerry McEntee who runs AFSCME with Paul & Heather Booth's hands on the tiller

I think McEntee was SDS too

.

[Elle Bee]

How could you even run a business if the workers of Union #1 got Columbus Day off, while the workers of Union #2 didn't get Columbus Day off but had Veterans Day off?

You wouldn't have to jump through those hoops

You just set the work conditions and those who choose not to accept them simply don't have to work there

.

[Elle Bee]

taxing unions is a wonderful idea

If they have enough money to hand out to politicians then they have enough to pay taxes

.

[Eva]

Just think if all the SEIU nurses decided to walk out because they were unhappy with their benefit package. It’s not like it couldn’t happen because it is illegal for the teachers to strike in Wisconsin and it didn’t stop them.

[newzjunkey]

They have already made great strides in this direction on the west coast, taking over all nurses and hospital worker unions and putting them under the SEIU, turning our health care providers into adversaries.

In California we saw the nurses union run endless ads against Arnold. For an entire calendar year, with a union dues-funded and headquarter's mortgaged war chest of over $100,000,000, he was hacked away at in 2005 when he dared suggest ending pensions for public employees and moving them to 401(k) plans. Perish the thought!

He also tried to make it harder for them to "raise political funds from their members" according on allnurses.com. That was a "paycheck protection" plan which would require unions to get written authorization from members to use dues for political purposes. Union forces outspent supporters 10-1.

Looking back I see the CA Nurses Association (CNA) beaming with pride that their ranks swelled from 20,000 to 60,000 in only 10 years time!

CNA aren't above illegal acts either as this 2010 article PERB rules UC conduct fair, union strike plan illegal shows. It took 5 years for a ruling!

Public sector unions are enemies to the very public good they claim motivates them! If we're to survive, these leeches must be lanced permanently so sanity can be restored to our budgets at all levels of gov't. This is a battle that cannot be lost in Wisconsin.