About Me

Name: NAWER
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Firms must meet with unions formed by illegal workers





Firms must meet with unions formed by illegal workers

Appeals court split on ruling

Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
Jan. 10, 2008 12:00 AM

Companies can't refuse to negotiate with unions even if they find that many of the laborers who formed them are in this country illegally, a federal appeals court has ruled.

In a split decision, the majority acknowledged that the 1986 federal Immigration Reform and Control Act makes it illegal for any firm to knowingly employ undocumented workers. And that law requires companies to fire any worker who is not authorized to be here.

But Judge David Tatel, who wrote the majority opinion, said that doesn't mean the union, formed before the company discharged the illegal workers, is not valid. More to the point, he said the firm cannot now refuse to bargain with that union.



That conclusion irked Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who said the company should be able to overturn what he said was a "tainted union election."

The case involves Agri Processor Co., a New York firm that deals in kosher meats.

But the ruling is significant nationwide because it was handed down by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which adjudicates disputes over the National Labor Relations Act.

At the center of the dispute is that law's definition of what constitutes an "employee."

Attorneys for the firm, pointing to the 1986 immigration law, said the undocumented workers, by definition, could not be employees. That, they said, made the election in which they participated invalid.

The National Labor Relations Board disagreed, which led to this appeal.

Tatel said the exceptions in the labor act include agricultural laborers, domestic workers, individuals employed by a spouse or parents, and independent contractors. He pointed out that nowhere is there any language saying the worker must be in this country legally.

Tatel acknowledged the immigration law was enacted after the labor act. But he said that law never altered the labor law's definition of an employee.

"Where two statutes are capable of coexistence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective," he wrote.

Tatel also pointed to the report of the House Judiciary Committee, which was considering the federal immigration law.

"It is not the intention of the committee that the employer-sanctions provision of the bill be used to undermine or diminish in any way protections in existing law, or to limit the power of federal or state labor relations boards," that report states.

In fact, the report specifically cites a U.S. Supreme Court decision that says the purpose of the federal labor law "helps to assure that the wages and employment conditions of lawful residents are not adversely affected by the competition of illegal alien employees who are not subject to the standard terms of employment."

But Kavanaugh, in his dissent, said the federal immigration law was approved after that Supreme Court ruling. And that, he said, "changed the legal landscape," a change the judge said effectively alters the definition of who is an employee. For more go to->

http://www.azcentral.com/abgnews/articles/0110abg-labor0110.html



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How could these Republicans give labor unions a major victory?

How could these Republicans help Labor Unions to victory?
Stop S.2123 now! Call your Senator

To all who read this Alert:
Copy and paste it and send it along to your family and friends.

Call your Senator now to stop S.2123. The misnamed and egregious "Public Safety Employer-Employee cooperation act of 2007" was introduced by Senator Gregg on October 1 with enough Republicans (nine Republicans) to invoke cloture and pass the Bill.

The White House said it wanted flexibility on
responding to Homeland security threats and was able to defeat the TSA screener amendment in the Homeland Security-9/11 Bill. The congress with S. 2123 is deciding that not all parts of NIMS under Homeland security can be flexible to meet a terrorist threat. Some parts of NIMS the Policeman and Fireman will be held to the break time and vacations that eliminate the very word "responder" from the American lexicon of our domestic security. Here is what the Bill says "

State and local public safety officers, as first responders, are a component of our Nation's National Incident Management System, developed by the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate response to and recovery from terrorism, major natural disasters, and other major emergencies. Public safety employer-employee cooperation is essential in meeting these needs and is, therefore, in the National interest."

How can the National Incident Management System even work with one of its most vital
components out there in our local towns with its hands tied behind its back?

The bill S.2123 is an unfunded mandate on the states violating the 10th amendment. It is also about the union intimidation that Congressman Lynn Westmoreland saw directed against his own father.

"Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Florida for yielding, and when I came to the floor today, I didn't come here to speak; but, you know, my father was a fireman for 26 years for the City of Atlanta. In fact, he died in an alarm. I know what it is like for these firefighters to answer the alarms. He suffered a heart attack while turning off an OS&Y valve in a pit. It was 18 degrees that December morning. I know what it is like for those firefighters.

But, you know, my father never belonged to a firefighters union, and that is what this is. This is basically a union bill and payback to the unions. But, you know, Georgia is a right-to-work State. We have a 10th amendment to our Constitution. I was very disappointed to hear from the chairman that this thing passed out of committee 42-1. That breaks my heart. That really breaks my heart that those Republicans were on that side. I don't know what the majority thinks about the 10th amendment, but I believe very strongly in it. This has something to do with States rights. And I am sorry and I am very disappointed that this House will do this under suspension and there won't be any opportunity for amendments or this thing to be looked at.

I hope that the majority of the Members here will realize what is going on, oppose this suspension and bring it up under regular order."

It is a minute past midnight and we should not ever reward the Labor lords for their continued string of defeats in our workplace.

This Bill now stands to be passed by Congress and should be opposed by every free American who believes we should use all our resources in fighting the war to protect our homeland. Not one single Fireman or Policeman should be left behind.

Here are the nine republicans and eleven Democrats who co-sponsored S.2123

Sen. Sherrod Brown [D-OH]
Sen. Hillary Clinton [D-NY]
Sen. Norm Coleman [R-MN]
Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME]
Sen. Christopher Dodd [D-CT]
Sen. Pete Domenici [R-NM]
Sen. Thomas Harkin [D-IA]
Sen. Edward Kennedy [D-MA]
Sen. Joseph Lieberman [I-CT]
Sen. Mel Martinez [R-FL]
Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D-MD]
Sen. Patty Murray [D-WA]
Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL]
Sen. Mark Pryor [D-AR]
Sen. Bernard Sanders [I-VT]
Sen. Gordon Smith [R-OR]
Sen. Olympia Snowe [R-ME]
Sen. Arlen Specter [R-PA]
Sen. Ted Stevens [R-AK]
Sen. John Sununu [R-NH]

Again, call your Senator now and say no to S. 2123

This alert is sponsored by the National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights
http://www.freeworkplace.org
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The summer that shook the American workplace: The new threat and hidden agenda of Labors new Government

The summer that shook the American workplace

The new threat and hidden agenda of Labors new Government


By Will Fine, Executive Director National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights


This summer has been the summer that shook the foundations of the Employee -Employer relationship as no time has in nearly thirty years. While our national security is being defended overseas, our domestic security has become imperiled by governmental transformation at the hands of Labor Union Central Command that has deployed a  government it can control.   The credibility of Congress is at stake to defend a free workplace.


The summer began when our National Security and the American People were the victors in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Joseph Lieberman caved into Republican and White House opposition to a provision in S.4. The Homeland Security Bill granting collective bargaining rights to TSA screeners. The Bill, without the provision, moved forward on a unanimous consent agreement. Senate Republicans were on guard against the Labor Unions hidden agenda.


For the Pro-labor Democrats the plan was to tie the hands of the Bush Administration through collective bargaining in two ways: (1) -the labor contract would limit the President's flexible response to national emergencies by establishing certain hours and definitions of who could work the emergency contrary to the Presidents assessment and call up of resources for that emergency; (2)-the labor contract above that of the demands of the crises would prevail.  What about certain vacation and snack breaks that would happen even in times that potential Terrorists might be getting through our defenses? The snack breaks and vacations would continue and could not be changed. Indeed, collective bargaining is nothing but a dangerous risk in the time of national security crises and war.    The defeat of this provision puts the American people first.

Even as the TSA screeners provision defeat was a victory for America's National Security; The House of Representatives votes to imperil states and first responders again
.


The House voted with 98 Republicans in tow to reward those who threatened our domestic security by weakening our defenses through the granting of collective bargaining rights to both Firefighters and Police. The House turned its back on the valiant Senate defense of the American people and passed it its own version of the "Pearl Harbor" Bill to support the Labor Lords H.R. 980".  Does this vote suggest the first responders of public safety, -- the Police and Firefighters of America, are unlike the TSA Screeners protectors of our domestic security and not as important to Congress?  Let those who voted for H.R. 980 know that more workers who protect us will now serve under the shadow of the Union's coercive will.


 Nor did the defeat of the TSA screener and Employee Free Choice Act alter the drive of Labor Unions exerting more power to coerce our Government and, through their intimidating version of government, the American People.  Unions are transforming themselves into a new form to offset a historic decline. This new form puts the union on a collision course with our Democracy and National-Domestic Security. The recent debate over EFCA reflected the ill- intent of a union- controlled government through the exclusive lens of an EFCA- like world. Like the Orwellian 1984 party slogan "slavery is freedom," the clear illogic of our government under union's control is both broken and good.  The method of mind control in Orwell's 1984 was never to connect the past with the present day nobody in "1984" could. In fact, the true past was edited everyday so that nobody could tell the difference between truth and falsehood of history.  In the present day of "1984", there is no history at all but the "official" one. The official union history is a long story of how unions "fixed" both a broken and a working government.


Since no one can fix both a broken and good government, today's labor battles clearly show the difference between those who really know the past and those who seek "mind control". Labor Unions have more to loose in their past and far greater desire to control. The greater frequency under this Democratic Congress to improve Labor's position over workers is growing to "1984 proportions by creating an "official" history of those battles that continues to fool even some Republicans into doing the wrong thing.
 
Why would the Union bosses of today,  in turn,  mention to the  rank and  file the continuum of their true  historical defeats both on EFCA in 1978 and H.R. 980, which in a previous political cycles is a variation on  the postal bill battle of the  1960's-70's? Postal battles that began with unionizing postal workers at a Federal level now are mandated at the state level with fire-fighters and police being compelled today to join the union ranks.  Many times have labor unions failed to turn the American workforce into a Gulag of labor bondage. Does this free telling of labor history and conflict not remind the union rank and file of labor's thousand broken promises to them? And that their Labor Boss leadership knows the land of EFCA-- the prelude of Gulag and Socialist Europe-- so well because they already are there.

The Employee Free Choice Act introduced and reiterated the idea that Government ought to perform like an agent for the unions as binding arbitration became synonymous with a rank and file sellout of collective bargaining good faith agreements. If you are a union rank and file member you should be worried that the purpose of binding arbitration and card check is" Big Government"  in the form union controlled elections (card check) and special courts (binding arbitration).  This form of "Big Government" through third party agents is making decisions at odds with the will of the working man.  So why pay dues at all to the unions if the power to make decisions for you are going entirely to the "Big Government" agents themselves?

The establishment of collective bargaining rights for first responders under H.R. 980 is the first advance to a collective government spreading its wings into our lives. As H.R. 980 distorts the time- honored relationship between the state and federal domains by mandating to the states what level collective bargaining rights they should follow. Unmistakably, Labor Unions are doing this to impose TSA collective bargaining amendments and bills to compel government itself into moving their way. This then is the Union's dream of a new form of government. This is labor unions survival, all right, with our American political system in its own image.


If so, what EFCA proved about the new Labor image is that the unions claim the use of "Big Government" in multiple ways with its agents. Their reward for this work, for all of us to see, is paid in forced dues while the government not the unions does for workers what the unions desire. In other words, the unions are getting dues without doing anything for the working man.  The government would not split its revenues and taxes with the union: however, through forced dues workers would be paying twice to the government and to the union or they would loose their jobs. None of the union dues money would go to the Government in the end.


Yet, despite this Union threat to our American way of life, some House Republicans completed the Senate EFCA defeat with a major Union victory on H.R. 980. Members, including those Republicans, inexplicably swept this legislation through committee by a 42-1 margin and passage in the House of Representatives. Indeed, one could argue that Speaker Nancy Pelosi who brought up H.R. 980 under suspension of the rules on 7/17/07 did so because of the Republican capitulation in committee. She recognized this collective bargaining bill, with its Republican consent, as no different than all the other non-controversial bills that are normally debated during suspension of the rules.


Now we see how Republicans on the committee capitulated to Pro- Labor Democrats handing the unions a victory for their brand of collective government.


"I am hopeful that this legislation will be modified during the legislative process to strike a more appropriate balance on behalf of public safety officials and the states and local communities they so ably serve.  With that in mind, I do not plan to oppose the measure today, as it is marginally better than the bill introduced earlier in this Congress.  And should it continue to be improved along the way, I may be able to provide a more vigorous endorsement.  I cannot do so right now, however; but in the interest of moving the process forward and in light of the Chairman's willingness to make thoughtful adjustments to the legislation, I will support the measure advancing for consideration by the full House." Congressman Howard Buck McKeon, Press Release ED & Labor 6/20/07


Republicans on the committee should know better than to put their stock in a hope for a better legislative deal with the Unions and Democrats that never came to be. In the end, they should hear and remember these brave words of a man's real struggle than not to make the pernicious deals which shatter hope:


"I know what it is like for those firefighters. But,
you know, my father never belonged to a firefighters union, and that is
what this is. This is basically a union bill and payback to the unions.
  But, you know, Georgia is a right-to-work State. We have a 10th
amendment to our Constitution. I was very disappointed to hear from the
chairman that this thing passed out of committee 42-1. That breaks my
heart. That really breaks my heart that those Republicans were on that side."

Floor Statement 7/17/07 Congressman Lynn Westmoreland


Going into autumn and beyond, the collective bargaining Bill for so- called Public-Safety goes to Senate where again it will be Republicans who will likely lead both the fight for and against it. H.R. 980 political appeal is nothing less than another Big government-labor agent strategy not unlike the Employee Free Choice Act's outside calling upon Judges as union agents to settle Labors binding arbitration disputes.  Business organizations and other groups who rightly opposed the Employee Free Choice Act with its attack on collective bargaining in favor of EFCA's binding arbitration must ask themselves this question:   Is H.R. 980, if passed upon the public sector,   really about collective bargaining for the unions or about a new vehicle and unchecked precedent for further Congressional violations of the 10th amendment in Labor's name? If H.R. 980  is an "unchecked agent" for the unions in the states,  then  the so- called "crises" of  collective bargaining and its presumed  failure  in the private sector might  become  the next best means  for  public sector increases in Big Labor's over all appeal to Congress  to save the House of Labor  from its own demise.

 

Will Fine is Executive Director of the National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Richardson, New Mexico and the unions



Demand for Union Dues Nothing but Extortion

By Charles R. Ferguson
State Employee
    The sounds of the final vote had hardly died in the Legislature before Gov. Bill Richardson had signed the Public Employees Bargaining Act into law. After all, he was one of the most ardent advocates of the measure and did a good deal of lobbying to ensure its passage.
    Why? You might have noticed there is a presidential campaign going on and you know who is a candidate. Can't say as he's been doing much in the way of being governor these days though. But I'm sure he's collecting his pay and benefits, including a steady flow of cash from the unions he helped to get entrenched throughout the public sector for providing just such a campaign cash cow.
    He was the one most insistent that the "fair share" clause be included in every contract despite objections from some within the "bargaining units" who didn't want their co-workers terminated or forced into a union.
    The unions certainly didn't object; after all, the fair share clause makes their extortion and intimidation somewhat legal. Just think about this: if you walked into a business and demanded money from them, and told them to pay up or go out of business, the district attorney would have a field day charging you with extortion and racketeering. But stick a union label on that scenario and it's called "fair share" or "agency fee." Ah, extortion by a different name.
    If you're reluctant to put the extortion label on it, just stop and think of the implications posed by their most recent twist: "You have 20 working days from receipt of this letter to settle this matter before we will submit the outstanding balance to a collection agency."
    If you've worked hard all of your life, treated others fairly, and paid your bills on time, just stop and think about "collection agency" and what that means. And then sum things up with: "we will notify the state to issue a notice of contemplated action for dismissal and commence termination process in accordance with the rules of the State Personnel Board."
    When the unions were "organizing" they were allowed (by the N.M. Labor Relations Board— appointed by, you guessed it, Richardson) to utilize "card counts," promissory membership cards that had to be signed by prospective members. Nothing indicated that membership would somehow not follow if you signed a card. The threshold for recognition was 30 percent of the "bargaining unit."
    At that time, neither the union nor the agency actually knew who or how many were in the "bargaining unit." The NMLRB fell all over itself to grant standing to the unions despite not having verifiable tallies of card counts or exact make up of the bargaining units. Those records were never made available and probably don't exist today.
    Contract "negotiations" were promptly undertaken to produce the documents later signed by— again, you guessed it, Richardson. When presented to the "bargaining unit members for ratification, only those folks who had signed the promissory "card count" cards were allowed to vote on the contracts.
    Obviously, the majority of the bargaining unit was never allowed to participate. Just look at the theoretical numbers that are involved here. Only 30 percent had to sign cards. Once a contract was available for ratification, only 16 percent (one half of the original 30 percent plus 1 percent for a majority) of the entire "bargaining unit" was needed for approval. I'm quite confident that if the ratification process were opened to 100 percent of the "bargaining unit" members, there wouldn't be single union representing any public agency.
    I find it rather curious as to how the unions have been rattling around, obviously unsure as to who the bargaining unit members were. Obviously unsure— I point to Raam Wong's article in which Robin Gould of SEA-CWA Local 7076 extortion letter fame, mailed letters to 500 people not knowing if they were in the "bargaining unit" or not.
    These extortion letters were not sent by regular, $0.41 mail. Rather, she spent $5.21 per letter for certified, return receipt service. That's $2,605 versus $205; but then, we're talking about state government, unions and political campaigns after all, aren't we? And what a coincidence that these extortion letters get mailed just as the presidential campaign needs a shot of cash to bolster a candidate's image.
    It is truly unfortunate that Gov. Bruce King refused to sign a Right To Work Act years ago that would have prevented extortion by unions. I don't object to people joining or having a union if that's what they want to do. That's a right guaranteed by our Constitution.
    But just as they have that right to freely associate, myself, and many other non-supporters of SEA-CWA Local 7076 should be allowed the same right to not associate with the union and its policies of deception and extortion.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Group letter opposing H.R. 980

 

 

 

 

 

 

July 16, 2007

 

 

Honorable Members

United States House of Representatives

Washington, D.C.

 

Dear Representative,

 

     You are currently considering H.R. 980, the Public Safety employer-Employee Cooperation Act.  This ill conceived legislation would expand federal power into the area of local labor relations in an unprecedented and dangerous manner.  We, the undersigned organizations, call on you to do everything in your power to defeat this blatant pay-off to organized labor.

 

     H.R. 980, and the Kildee Substitute, fail as positive public policy on a number of counts.  First, and foremost, the legislation would interject the heavy hand of the federal government into one of the most vital public services offered by local governments.  Public safety employees and employers are, today, working in cooperation.  A large portion of public safety employees currently bargain collectively with their employers.  Others, at the discretion and decision of citizens on the local level, do not.  It is a clear violation of the very concept of separation of powers and the concept of local control to now mandate a standard alien to the local desires or needs.

 

     Second, H.R. 980 amounts to an unfunded mandate by Congress on state and local governments.  Inevitably labor policies dictated by federal bureaucrats will increase costs.  These costs, not now deemed relevant or appropriate at the local level, will be bourn by taxes paid at the local level with no financial support from Congress.  It is patently unjust for Congress to impose this burden on local taxpayers, especially when there is no need to do so.

 

     Finally, it is the height of hypocrisy for Congress to dictate local labor policies for public safety employees when it is law that numerous federal public safety employees are

expressly prohibited from engaging in collective bargaining.  Congress has no moral right to impose higher costs, diminished local control, and inflexibility on local governments while it operates in a completely opposition manner.

 

     H.R. 980 is not legislation dealing with public safety or security.  It is a raw, blatant pay-off to union officials.  Failing to attract members on their merits, unions have turned to their allies in Congress to have government impose them on workers. 

 

     We call on you to publicly declare your opposition to this destructive legislation.  If, through whatever circumstance, you are listed as a co-sponsor of H.R. 980, we urge you to remove your name from this travesty and join the overwhelming majority of Americans who support the right of localities and states to determine their own labor policies free of the dictates of union officials or the federal government.

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Will Fine

Executive Director

National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights

 

Grover Norquist

President

Americans for Tax Reform

 

Ryan Ellis

Executive Director

Alliance for Worker Freedom

 

Paul M. Weyrich

National Chairman

Coalitions for America

 

Richard Falknor

Executive Vice-President

Maryland Taxpayers Association, Inc.

 

Jim Martin

President

60+ Association

 

Colin Hanna

President

Let Freedom Ring

 

Dan Tripp

Director of Government Relations

Americans for Limited Government

 

Tim Phillips

President

Americans for Prosperity

 

Chuck Muth

President

Citizens Outreach

 

Mike Chmura*

Americans for the Preservation of Liberty

 

Amy Ridenour*

President

The National Center for Public Policy Research

 

*Organizations listed for identification purposes only

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Senator Shelby on Employee Free Choice Act

 




Free choice is a secret ballot

By
 

Sen. Richard Shelby, guest columnist Madison Record

Alabama's economy is better today than I have ever seen it. Numerous new businesses have chosen Alabama to base operations over the past several years, bringing thousands of new jobs and keeping Alabama's unemployment rate at one of the lowest in the nation-3.3 percent. While this growth has given me great hope for our state's economic future, we must continue to work to create the economic conditions that let the rest of the world know that Alabama is open for business. This includes building infrastructure, keeping taxes low and fair, and allowing free choice for our workers. For these reasons I do not, and will not, support the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act," a recently passed House of Representatives bill that radically alters the existing process for worker unionization.

Under the current collective bargaining system, workers can form unions through a process similar to how U.S. citizens vote for political candidates. Union organizers may speak with workers and ask for their support in bringing about a vote to unionize; however, employers and workers have the opportunity to ensure that the final decision is made through a secret ballot vote. This process removes any outside pressure from the ultimate outcome.


The proposed legislation would allow union organizers to ask workers to sign their ballot cards in the open - publicizing their vote and creating an awkward and potentially intimidating environment. Once a majority of a company's employees express consent by signing voting cards, the union would automatically be certified as the bargaining agent for all the workers.

This legislation takes away workers' voting privacy and exposes them to the outside pressure of the union organizers who are the distributors and collectors of the vote cards. Eliminating the right to a secret ballot is the antithesis of democracy and not an appropriate way for labor to organize. Therefore, I will continue to support a secret ballot for Alabama's workers and oppose the "Employee Free Choice Act."

While this legislation was aggressively pushed through the U.S. House of Representatives on a clear party-line vote, it is my hope that the majority of my colleagues in the Senate will join me in opposing this harmful bill that will only serve to undercut the great strides Alabama's workers have made to boost the economy in recent years.

Recently, I cosigned a letter to Senate leadership expressing my opposition to the "Employee Free Choice Act." It was signed with enough other members of the Senate to prevent the bill's passage.

Alabama has a robust economy in large part due to our tremendous workforce. We are a right-to-work state, neither forcing nor prohibiting participation in a union. Instead of creating new federal laws that favor power grabs by the unions, we need to build on our already strong economy which has attracted numerous new companies to make investments in Alabama.

From the Mercedes plant in Tuscaloosa to the Honda plant in Lincoln and from the Hyundai plant in Montgomery to the EADS facility in Mobile, successful businesses recognize that Alabama is a smart place to do business and that our workers are some of the best in the world. We must continue to create further opportunities in our state and focus on working to attract even more new businesses and jobs, rather than taking rights away from Alabama's workers. Alabama workers have partnered with business and together they have created a vibrant economy. The so-called "Employee Free Choice Act" would do nothing but harm our workers, our businesses, and our economy.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NAWER urges Right to Work Law passage in Missouri

Courageously, Rep. Hunter (R) and like-minded Missouri Representatives who supported him on March 1 passed the first Right to Work Law (H.B. 439) out of committee in recent Missouri History. Rep. Hunter's RTW Bill is now 54th on the Calendar for a full vote. The people have spoken: with pro-worker and employer majorities in the Senate, House and with Governor Blunt there has never been a better time to pass a right to work law in Missouri and pass it they will. The National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights wishes to thank Rep. Hunter for his vision and leadership to improve the lives of working families in Missouri. The people of Missouri are with you as well.

While Rep. Hunter has introduced his three Bills creating a RTW law, Paycheck Protection (H.R. 441), and greater Union accountability (H.R. 440) ; darker forces try to dim the hopeful promise of Missouri having at last a free and fair workplace. "Big Labor" Bosses are making their threats known against Legislators. With the freedom of your workplace at stake these threats can only be called small in promise, small in purpose, and small in compassion. "Big Labor" Bosses in Missouri can always be counted on for one thing: to try and turn away your working rights while embracing their own agenda. Their agenda against Right to Work in Missouri turns your fair choice on its head. You will get a lot for your "Fair Share," namely, the risk of loosing your job if you choose not to join a union. Where is your "fair choice" in that?

How many good workers will be fired because of labor's radical hidden agenda? As many as it took at the Daimler-Chrysler plant in St. Louis County that just recently had to move out of state. You see under the compulsory dues scheme of the unions non-union members still must their pay dues to the union and are the first to be fired. Why? Because for the simple reason that they do not want to join a union. Now that means Daimler Chrysler had to fire every worker who did not want to join a union-how then after all of those firings could Daimler Chrysler even compete with any other Automobile maker in the five surrounding RTW states? It could not and folded its shop and left. For as long as no RTW law is in place large and small Employers of Missouri have felt this deadly union squeeze against them. It is time the Legislators of Missouri stood up against this injustice and protect employers by embracing fair competition and open labor markets with a Right to Work Law in Missouri.

There are many reasons employers and employees should stay in Missouri. You should be proud of the outstanding economic prosperity of Missouri today. There has never been a better time for job growth in Missouri history. The second highest non-farm payroll of 2,788,700 was on record going into this year.

Yet, what does this say about union rank and file members? They are a lot smarter than their Bosses. While the unions have fought the majority of the Missouri workforce from having a RTW law, their own union membership has voted their disgust with their feet. Walking away from the unions, they know what is in their best interest, as more than 59,000 union members have left unions in Missouri over the last 15 years.

Could this have something to do with unions constant coercion of working families freedom? Yes. All Missourians should have their fair share of prosperity without union intimidation. What makes passing a RTW law a good objective? more than anything it is the choice and right of every worker to enjoy more economic freedoms and a better life for his or her family.

We don't hear so much from workers who try to speak out against unions. The unions don't allow any kind of speaking out about them that they don't like. That's how unions keep their power over workers--either they shut up or they loose their job. Realizing there is no protection against such union intimidation, Mr. Hunter's RTW Bill protects your right to work without fear of retribution from the unions. Union retributions continue to silence the people of Missouri from exercising their better judgment: For who knows your workplace better in the end what makes your life a better one? Does Andy Stern or Hoffa even have a clue?

Call Rep. Steve Hunter's office now at (573)-751-5458 and thank him with your vote for his Right to work Bill for all Missourians.

Sincerely,

Will Fine, Executive Director
National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Labor Unions hold Colorado Hostage

More Colorado snake oil:

Formula for Big Labor coercion to come:

Have we not been sold a bill of union goods in Colorado

Governor Ritter, a Democrat, went against his own big labor bosses by vetoing very prudently a pro-union Bill. Yes, a union intimidation Bill that would have driven many businesses from Colorado making it easier for unions to establish so-called "closed shops". "Closed Shops" that would have forced all workers to pay Union dues in designated unionized businesses. To punish Governor Ritter for his action, Labor threatened to remove the 08 Democratic Presidential convention from Colorado: "Unless we can be assured that the governor will support our values and priorities, we will strongly urge the Democratic Party to relocate the (2008 national) convention."

Clearly Unions still don't know how to win fair and square. Unions will do anything to coerce you into being a "yes" man, even to go against themselves. In this case, unions had set up the sweetest deal from the state of Colorado that would bring the Democratic convention to Denver in 08. Howard Dean had worked on the deal with Andy Stern and John Sweeney forcing Colorado to give into more Union demands. The sweet deal the Unions had worked out for themselves was to turn then non-Union Pepsi Center in Denver into a site staffed by the stage hand Union members alone. Even in Howard Dean's words, there is a strong commitment to Denver while he gave up on non-Unionized Coloradoans to close the deal: "Still, Dean said, the choice of Denver reflected his commitment to building the party nationally. It's important, in politics, to put your money where your mouth is, Dean said. I've said consistently we want to have a fifty-state strategy." Mr. Dean, an important question here for you to answer: Are threats to the Governor of Colorado if he is not a "yes" man for paying back the Unions a part of your fifty state strategy?

Are Unions not entitled to be named the match-coercers of the Democrats?

Sure, when Unions give $65,000,000 to Democrats in the last elections. Of the $65,000,000, $850,000 went to the Colorado delegation alone. Yes, in terms of desperation according to union density, Unions in Colorado have kept failing to keep their members unionized. For twenty nine years private sector unions have shrunk from 21.7% of employment in 1977 to today's Union density of only 7.4% Clearly, Unions are good matchmakers for a minority of Colorado Democrats out for their own self -survival.
Curiously,when you think Unions threaten cities like Denver with millions of potential victims to get their way you would think the Democrats would come forward to protect Governor Ritter? Maybe they looked back fondly to the 04 Democratic convention in Boston that brought in $154,000,000 and did nothing. The truth is no Democrat came forward to repudiate the lynching that Labor gave to the Governor for not toeing the party line, and isn't this another sad reflection on the kind of "yes" Democrats the Unions have bred nationwide. While the Democrats want their convention in Denver, they also endorsed a radical Union position that would have caused so much harm to the city. Through their undeniable silence they proved they would never stand up for Democratic rights even if their own Democratic Governor went to his end.
Don't these same national Democrats continue to use their silence to not protect your Democratic rights while hiding their own radical Union positions from you? Does this not hurt all Americans who want to have a say in their future? Have you heard the report from Congress that the Union- driven Democrats voted to end secret ballot elections in every workplace through their Employee Free Choice Act? Yes, when the Union-Democrats, in their vote for EFCA, had a chance to protect your free rights-- like they never did with Governor Ritter-- did they? As "yes men" what could you hear from them but the silence of your rights taken away.
People of Denver, the truth is Labor thinks you owe them. You owe them for just threatening unmitigated economic harm to your city by taking the Democratic convention away. Just talk to New Yorkers during Local 100's strike last year. During that strike, which was in violation of New York's Taylor law, businesses lost billions during Christmas time while chaos reigned. Isn't it clear that whether its New York or in Denver, Labor Unions continue to separate themselves from the harm they do to everyman and every woman when they hold hostage entire cities to get what they want? People of Colorado, ask yourself why should you be the victims of such Union coercion that forces workers to pay these "lords of chaos" for the single purpose and single privilege of having a job.
Will Fine is the Executive Director National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights

http://www.freeworkplace.org
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

National Alliance for Worker and Employer rights poll on the Secret Ballot Destruction Act

Should workers and Employers have a say in their own future?
Yes, I oppose the Employee Free Choice act. EFCA ends free speech and scares working Familes. I prefer Secret Ballot Elections in the workplace.
9 (69 %)

0 (0 %)
No, I support EFCA where union thugs can force me to sign "card checks" in public. Big Brother should decide my employment contract.
4 (30 %)
Total votes: 13

Vote in the National Alliance for Worker and Employer Right's poll now on the Secret Ballot Destruction Act....
http://www.freeworkplace.org
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats and unions kill DeMint Amendment: Another blow to National Security

Reid bowing to Labor union pressure just reversed himself on a full vote on the floor for the Demint Amendment barring Collective Bargaining rights for 48,000 TSA screeners. Instead Democrats tabled the amendment close to party lines 51-46. President Bush has threatened to veto the 9/11 Bill in which the Lieberman amendment supporting collective bargaining rights for TSA screeners is contained.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats and unions weaken National Security

Democrats and Unions threaten National Security again
Say no to collective bargaining for TSA Screeners
Call Now

Democrats and Unions are at it again:

Threaten National Security in union payback:

It all began in the last Congress when pro-union Democrats stripped out the Demint amendment which was but then Homeland Security instituted its own reforms right after...

A link to the DHS story-->

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,241239,00.html?sPage=fnc.specialsect...

That Port Security Bill (H.R. 4954) contained a provision written by Senator DeMint that would ban workers who have been convicted of a felony from working at United States seaports.

Under current law workers need a Transportation Worker, ID Credential to work at seaports. Under the DeMint Amendment workers convicted of a felony , such as, treason, murder or espionage would automatically be denied TWIC cards. Workers convicted of felonies like bribery, extortion, unlawlful possession and distribution of a firearm would have to wait five years for a TWIC card.

Unions objected to the DeMint amendment choosing rather to have felons make us safer at our seaports. In typical fashion they say union longshoreman are under attack rather than the American people because as Larry Willis, Counsel in the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO said of the DeMint Amendment that it is too "broad". Too broad? then who is the Terrorist, Mr.Willis? Longshoreman Communication Director Steve Stallone backs up Mr. Willis point that his Longshoreman are the real victims. Too broad or too narrow, In fighting the DeMint amendment the unions did not care to distinguish between terrorists and the true victims, us.

In fact the real question was who was the felon? The real concern of the unions is the thorough and very fair background checks longshoreman would go through revealing possible felons in their ranks. The unions continued to miss the point that the screening process also unmasks the terrorists in the process. Without such a through screening suitcase bombs and other biological weapons could invade our neighborhoods but for the unions this but all falls on deaf ears.

Now after loosing the fight on Port Security in the last congress. Unions are again weakening National Security by demanding collective Bargaining rights for 48,000 TSA screeners.

Why you should call your Senator to oppose the Lieberman amendment:

1) It is a demand not made by the 9/11 commission

2) It Weakens the hand of the President should their be a national crsises and he has to follow a bargaining contract instead of the immediate threat

3) It Bloats Government with huge salaried contracts and hours

4) How will you the American People like it when your TSA screener is on his fifth coffee break or on vacation precisely when a terrorist from abroad sneaks through with his bomb? Well that could be what the TSA screener contract would look like if he had collective bargaining rights.

The President had threatened to Veto the 9/11 Bill because this amendment is in it...

Your Congressman can do two things:

Call and ask him or her to support the Demint amendment to the 9/11 Bill that will bar collective bargaining rights for TSA screeners before the Senate right now. Tell your Congressman to vote against the Lieberman amendment as well.

Use this link and call now..
http://capwiz.com/freeworkplace/callalert/index.tt?alertid=9435771

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

C-Span Covering Employee Intimidation Act Debate

Tomorrow morning on C-SPAN's Washington Journal Program, Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on Health Education Labor and Pension Subcommittee, and great friend to the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace John Kline (R-MN) will be debating Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL) on the Employee Free Choice Act, H.R. 800.

 

The nature of this program allows individuals to call in and ask questions of the participants live. This is a great opportunity to force the other side to answer the tough questions on the legislation.

 

 Please call in starting at 7:45 am (EST) and ask Rep. Hare the tough questions on EFCA and let Rep. Kline know how much you appreciate his support.  Calling in to the program is easy, simply dial (202) 737-0001 to make your voice heard.

You can visit www.MyPrivateBallot.com to get some great ideas on question.

 

Please feel free to circulate to friends who share our concerns with EFCA

 

Thanks!!

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Video Against the Employee Intimidation Bill

A good video against the card check "Voter Intimidation Bill "everyone should watch before the vote.

YouTube URL:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH18MIF-1oU
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Employee Free Choice Vote set for March 1

Time to call all Congressman to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act: H.R. 800

Full House Vote is set for March 1

Call all RINOS as they are planning to vote for EFCA
and tell them not vote on March 1

Tell your friends we must not let the Democrats and unions win and turn
our country back into socialism...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Petition against Employee Free Choice Act

Petition against the Employee Free Choice Act H.R. 800

What do the American people not get? Employee free choice act ends collective Bargaining as it is know. How many employees will like when Government decides your working contract and you have no say in this? How many employers will like the fact that despite their best efforts to discuss unionization of the workplace with their employees nothing they say will matter under binding arbitration. Big Government with the help of the unions has gotten out of control with this union takeover of employer and employee democracy. It has to stop now. Honor the tradition of good faith collective bargaining where both employer and employee have a say in their own future. " said Will Fine, Executive Director National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights.Sign our petition. Please sign now

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/EFCA/


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »