Tag: Trade unions

SCOTUS Takes On Blago

This could be interesting:

A 55-year-old woman who earns less than minimum wage caring for her disabled son could unravel decades of labor law and strike a blow against one of the most powerful political lobbies in the nation.

Pamela Harris is fighting an Illinois law crafted by imprisoned former Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D.) and enforced by his successor Pat Quinn (D.) that forces her and other home healthcare workers to pay union dues. Her case, Harris v. Quinn, begins oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Tuesday morning

“I don’t want to be the face and name associated with anti-union campaign, but this is at its heart a mother doing what she thinks is right for her son,” she told the Washington Free Beacon. “I don’t see this as a union issue, but the current administration in Illinois has an unhealthy relationship with public sector unions. We got swept up in that.”

Ms. Harris provides care to her son, who has a very rare disease that leaves him completely disabled. However, because she gets payments from Medicaid for this, under a Blagojevich law, she has to pay union dues (although without getting union benefits). No word yet on whether Illinois Democrats plan to deduct UAW dues if you get a tax credit for buying a hybrid car.

There is a lot of fear on the Left over what SCOTUS will do, because they could rule very broadly and strike a devastating blow against organized labor. However, I think that hype is overblown. The pattern of the Roberts court is to rule conservatively but narrowly. I expect it is very likely they will strike down this specific law 5-4 but avoid broadly striking down similar laws. The Left will freak out and go back to hating Roberts. And it’s likely some forced unionization laws will be nipped in the bud or be repealed. So expect a step against government-supported labor cartels, but not a decisive blow.

The Fiefdom Of Daniels

Fresh from his national ascension to prominence, kicking Obama ass all over the stage the other night, Mitch Daniels and Indiana is making more hay. Championing the cause of choice, letting workers decide for themselves by what conditions they are bound and by whom they are aligned, Indiana is on the cusp of making right-to-work “G” rated again:

In another blow to organized labor in the traditionally union heavy Midwest, Indiana is poised to become the first right-to-work state in more than a decade after Republican lawmakers cleared the way on Wednesday to ban unions from collecting mandatory fees from workers.

Over the past year, Republicans have pushed for other anti-union laws in battleground Rust Belt states where many of the country’s manufacturing jobs reside, including Wisconsin and Ohio, but they also have faced backlash from Democrats and union supporters. Wisconsin last year stripped public sector unions of collective bargaining rights.

Now here is something the 99% can get behind. Lazy smelly hippies spreading VD all over the place, that is no rallying cry, workers rights, that is where the action is.

I’ve always thought that being a governor of a state that did not suck was probably the best gig going. Naturally you need a compliant legislature to back your plays, and if you are a goofball then bad things will happen as witnessed in my home state. But true, lasting and effectual change can happen at the state level, and other governors pay attention. Nicky Halley got some good ink for her toe to toe with the NLRB (and boy does she need it). Ditto with Jan Brewer and her illegal immigration fight (how satisfying was it for her get her photo wagging her finger at Obama go viral?). Scott Walker is in the fight of his life over tangling with unions, but the fight was necessary and just.

I’ve talked before about unions and their primal/visceral fight to exist. Make no mistake, they will go to war, take no prisoners and go scorched earth. The public tit by which they gain sustenance is being threatened, this is a fight to the death.

But really, what Walker, Kasisch, and now Daniels are doing is not anti union per se, its pro choice, letting the workers decide for themselves. We can argue the benefits and liabilities of unions in general, and this in no way lessens their right to exist. But the folks should decide. In tandem with that, governments (local, state, and federal) should be able to decide for themselves if it is in their best interest to hire union, or not. This government mandate that only union crews get stimulus money, horseshit. If my city goes through the bidding process and decides that a local non union shop can do the job quicker and more cost effective (saving tax dollars) over the fat and bloated union company that normally gets these jobs, they should be able to go that route.

And lastly, what is up with these pussy legislators that skip town in the middle of session to avoid a vote? We saw this both in Wisconsin and Minnesota, and now in Indiana. I think it was Wisconsin where the only reason they returned is because their pay check was threatened. I don’t get it, if a vote on such and such is schedule for Thursday, have the vote on Thursday, whoever is present votes, this would stop that running away nonsense dead in it’s tracks.

My antipathy for unions is two fold, not only do they always support democrats (including my union dues, despite my complaints to my union rep) and the fact that they throw the supply/demand pay someone what he is worth aspect ass over tea kettle. Paying a union backed janitor 3 times what a non union janitor earns (or what he would take to do the job) is the very antithesis of capitalism.

Dog bites man story: Union violence yet again.

This timem it was the longshoremen in Washington that destroyed property and held people hostage. Why are they doing it?

The International Longshore and Warehouse Union believes it has the right to work at the facility, but the company has hired a contractor that’s staffing a workforce of other union laborers.

Get that? They have the “RIGHT” to do the work, but the employer has no business, let alone the right, to hire whomever they want within what the law allows, even if those other people are also unionized! In case you think the Longshoremen union has a right as they claim and the employer is in the wrong, let me point out the following little details that put things into perspective:

The blockade appeared to defy a federal restraining order issued last week against the union after it was accused of assaults and death threats.

This isn’t something that came out of the blue. This is likely the end game of something that has been going on for years, and that the union lost since it is obvious that the feds basically have told the union they are wrong and should back off. Yeah, the same feds that told Boeing they could not relocate work to their new plant in NC, where thousands of jobs would be crated, because the unions in Washington feared much of the work would be moved there to avoid dealing with the hassle and pain they cause, told the unions they have no case and to back off. A lot of good that warning did them though. After all, we still have unionized workers doing the work. I suspect the reason the Longshoremen union didn’t care about the warning from the feds is because, as the article points out, there have been no repercussions for both destruction of property and hostage taking, and there very likely will not be any either. It’s not as if their bought & paid for govenment stooges will actually take action against them. Get real.

Shit, these guys have no compunction of being violent when it affects other unionized workers! Anyway, will the LSM be telling this story? Accusing these people of engaging in terrorism against an employer whose crime is to have picked other union to do the work, of all things? Heh, just asking to make the point. We know the answer. Maybe this is some of that “war” Hoffa told us was coming the other day? Sure sounds like blue on blue action there, with other people, likely the tax payers, again picking up the tab.