Shadowbosses

[Eric]

"Shadowbosses reads like an organized crime novel, but it's actually a true story of how labor unions are infiltrating our government and corrupting our political process. This compelling and insightful book exposes how unions have organized federal, state, and local government employees without their consent, and how government employee unions are now a threat to our workers' freedoms, our free and fair elections, and even our American way of life."

Mark Belling Interviews Gov. Scott Walker on the EIB Network -07.06.12
"The clout that government unions have in the Democrat Party is clearly because they have all the money. Therefore, it seems to me that the only way you can address that clout is to go after the money. That's where compulsory dues membership become a big thing, and this is the thing that we saw fought out in my own state of Wisconsin." -Mark Belling

[Rich Douglas]

I was going to question the veracity of the commenter's comments, but then I saw it was broadcast on the "EIB," so I knew it was reliable.

Unions were a key to the establishment of the middle class. The attacks on them are attacks on workers by the wealthy.

Michigan just passed a so-called "right to work" law, allowing individuals working in a union shop to opt out of being members in the union (and paying their dues). This is outrageous because, by law, those workers enjoy the same protections earned by the union for EVERYONE in the bargaining unit, whether or not they're actually members. They get the benefits but don't pay the costs. There isn't a single business owner out there who could operate on such a model. Imagine a restaurant where the patrons could opt out of paying for their meals, but would still be entitled to them. Absurd.

Right to work? Hah! Right to leech, more like it.

It would be very interesting, however, to require that those who opt out of union membership (and paying their dues) also lost the union's protections and bargaining for wages, benefits, and working conditions. That would create two classes of workers and those without would realize immediately the value of being in the union. But no, this very bad law prevents that by requiring that unions carry these freeloaders.

This law is nothing more than an attempt to destroy unions. But the American worker, whether he/she is in a union or not, benefits from unions' success in bargaining with management. Higher wages at union shops put pressure on managers in non-union shops to compete for talent and to raise their wages, too. A rising tide lifts all boats.

Unions helped make the middle class great. It's no coincidence that the same people conducting an all out economic war against the middle class are simultaneously attacking organized labor wherever possible. It's filthy.

[Eric]

I was going to question the veracity of the commenter's comments, but then I saw it was broadcast on the "EIB," so I knew it was reliable.

Unions were a key to the establishment of the middle class. The attacks on them are attacks on workers by the wealthy.

Michigan just passed a so-called "right to work" law, allowing individuals working in a union shop to opt out of being members in the union (and paying their dues). This is outrageous because, by law, those workers enjoy the same protections earned by the union for EVERYONE in the bargaining unit, whether or not they're actually members. They get the benefits but don't pay the costs. There isn't a single business owner out there who could operate on such a model. Imagine a restaurant where the patrons could opt out of paying for their meals, but would still be entitled to them. Absurd.

Right to work? Hah! Right to leech, more like it.

It would be very interesting, however, to require that those who opt out of union membership (and paying their dues) also lost the union's protections and bargaining for wages, benefits, and working conditions. That would create two classes of workers and those without would realize immediately the value of being in the union. But no, this very bad law prevents that by requiring that unions carry these freeloaders.

This law is nothing more than an attempt to destroy unions. But the American worker, whether he/she is in a union or not, benefits from unions' success in bargaining with management. Higher wages at union shops put pressure on managers in non-union shops to compete for talent and to raise their wages, too. A rising tide lifts all boats.

Unions helped make the middle class great. It's no coincidence that the same people conducting an all out economic war against the middle class are simultaneously attacking organized labor wherever possible. It's filthy.

On the surface unions appear to be a good thing. They make sure that there isn’t
anything unjust going on with the treatment of member workers. The worse thing about unions is that they don’t care if they protect a good worker or a
bad worker.
So this makes it difficult for a bad worker to be removed and for a good worker to be brought in as a replacement.
In the end, there are positives and negatives to unions.

At what point union is collective bargaining and at what point its an extortion?

Thomas Jefferson on Union and Union Dues
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical."

"America is finally beginning to catch on to the union game, and a game is what it is. Consider the idea that people in public jobs are paying lobbyists and consultants to influence politicians on their behalf. Put in more understandable terms, imagine that you and your boss are colluding to get you the top pay possible, with shareholders unaware of the scheme. That's exactly what's happening; we the taxpayers are being duped by the people we pay." The Union Gang by Kevin Jackson.

The unions do all this in an in your face, screw the public, screw the employer behavior and to top it off arrogance. The public has been seeing this and has been scared to act in the past. Now it has come to a breaking point because the culmination of all such actions have resulted in an unbearable burden to the public which translates into higher taxes and yet produces inferior results in terms of work accomplishments that the public has been tolerating.

No good employee ever needs union protection! The unions fight tooth and nail to never include any accountability into their contracts. Example: The Teacher Unions do not care if there are inferior results achieved by teachers and make it simply impossible to remove, discipline or fire any teacher that may not perform. LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY BREEDS MEDIOCRITY. Please view "THE CARTEL MOVIE" an accurate documentary of the NJEA Teacher Union in NJ. The pubic would have no problem paying the worker a good and fair wage commensurate with the private sector as long as they are getting their money's worth and have control of receiving the result that they are paying for.

What The Unions Must Stand For

In order for Unions to survive they must make the following changes and do them fast. They must do them publicly in order for the general taxpayer, general public to accept them and give them some respect! In other words they must redefine the word union.

1) Stand for Accountability: They must encourage and install in their contracts accountability of their worker to the employer..in this case the government>>the public>>the taxpayer.

2) Promote achievement and strive to filter out the dead wood of under achievers as prescribed by the government>>the public>>the taxpayer.

3) Bargain for compensation, which includes health care etc, commensurate with the private sector.

4) Stop running it as a business and maintaining posh offices, positions which not only get compensated from funds from the union dues in addition to the salaries they receive for their primary job they were hired for paid by the government>>the pubic>>taxpayer.

5) Strict no strike policy which includes policy against any and all criminal activity such as extortion which holds the government>>the pubic>>the taxpayer hostage.

6) Membership is optional. No mandatory membership to work in the government>>public>>taxpayer jobs.

7) Raises equal to cost of living increase.

Health Care Contribution and Pension Contribution equal to the national private sector contribution figures.

http://theobserver.hubpages.com/hub/Wha ... ay-And-Age

[Rich Douglas]

Unions don't just provide protection. They allow workers to bargain collectively for work conditions, pay, benefits, etc. Unions are a key to moving wealth from the aristocracy to the middle class, whether or not you're in one.

There's nothing inherently wrong with this. Why can't workers come together to bargain with their employers? The union's power is strictly a supply-and-demand phenomenon. They bring workers together so workers can bargain as a unit, just as the employer is one big unit.

Many non-union workers bargain for their pay and benefits, too, but they do it individually. Good for them.

And when it comes to protection, the union can only provide what they've successfully negotiated for. Again, what's wrong with that? Same goes for retirement benefits.

Employers dislike unions because they make workers stronger. I've never understood individuals' objections to that.

[Jonathan Whatley]

Thomas Jefferson on Union and Union Dues
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical."

No, that was Thomas Jefferson on the separation of church and state. Aaron Swartz has a short discussion.

No good employee ever needs union protection! […]

The pubic would have no problem paying the worker a good and fair wage commensurate with the private sector as long as they are getting their money's worth and have control of receiving the result that they are paying for.

I note your sudden faith, Eric!, that large government and corporate bureaucracies will never do a person wrong, as long as the person is their employee.

For a conservative character reference for public sector unions, Bruce on degreeinfo was president of his local police union for some time. For teacher's unions specifically, here's a school principal — so on the other side of the table from her teachers' unions — and former rank-member, non-union-official teacher:

For more than 40 years I worked as a public school teacher or an administrator in three states and Puerto Rico. Where a teachers union existed, I joined. But I was never a part of union leadership. Because I was a superintendent/principal for the 12 years I worked in Oregon, I did not belong to the OEA. […]

At times when unions went to battle against school districts, it was because those districts were trying to suppress teachers' rights or control their legitimate actions. Neither the teachers nor their unions were greedy. In every place I worked, teachers' salaries were lower and working conditions less favorable than those in private industry.

Let me describe what a teacher's life was like before unions were widespread. In the New Jersey district where I first taught, my schedule required me to be with my class straight throughout the entire school day without a lunch hour, planning period or bathroom break. I ate with my class, supervised them on the playground, and taught them music and physical education. In that district all female teachers were paid less than their male counterparts because men were considered "heads of households." The district also reached into teachers' private leaves, warning them at the beginning of the school year that they should not go to local taverns. If teachers wanted to drink publicly, it should be in the next town over. Although teachers were evaluated annually by their principals, my principal did so by stopping by at my classroom a few times without ever staying long enough to observe a full lesson.

Many years and jobs later, as an elementary school principal in Wisconsin, I found it beneficial to work cooperatively with the local union. At times I saw teachers badly treated by the school district, without consideration of their good records or well-being. When I spoke up for them, I was often not listened to. The union, on the other hand, wielded some power in such instances. […]

In my 13 years as a principal in that district, I never saw a situation where the union fought to retain incompetent teachers. Only those teachers who had earned tenure by working for three years or more with satisfactory evaluations were defended. And "defense" meant only that they were assured a fair hearing before an impartial arbitrator. […]

So far all I've heard, all I've read, are self-serving distortions from powerful politicians, wealthy business leaders and their gullible followers, bent on destroying unions and disempowering the people who belong to them.

In defense of teacher's unions (Joanne Yatvin, guest columnist, OregonLive.com, June 23, 2011)

[Eric]

Well, I think there can be good unions. But what we have today is more on the politic extortion side.
We need Employers, we need jobs.
Stop demonize employers. There should be balance and fairness on both sides.

When I see union workers sleep at work, do absolutely nothing all day wile people who need their services suffer it gets to me.
Be it SSI, or Eligibility workers in County etc. Cases are dragged for months and years wile people are trying to get a government benefit.

A good union is the one that adds accountability into their contracts. All unions hate and fight accountability.

Now the initial post, is about abuse of power by the unions and how far they are taking it. A union as a powerful political body can bring government down, cause revolutions, like the communist revolution that promised protection of the working class.
That in turn gave a birth to Soviet Union.

There are many times when I want to create a good union for Engineers, Programmers and High tech workers.

[Rich Douglas]

Instead of undocumented anecdotes, perhaps we be shown how unions are practicing "extortion."

"Stop demonizing employers." Sure, when they stop abusing employees. The gap between CEO pay and worker pay is huge in the U.S. We have one of the most inquitable pay structures in the developed world. Here's a heavily sourced Wikipedia article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_ine ... ted_States

Workers' pay goes flat for a decade while employers' compensation skyrockets. Millionaires like Mitt Romney pay a lower effective income tax rate that does the average worker. (So much so that he decided not to take all of his entitled deductions to ensure his 2011 income tax rate stayed above a level he promised. Of course, he can always file an amended return and get the money back. Amazing.)

Defending employers in this day and age is like defending Ebeneezer Scrooge, Scrooge McDuck, and Monopoly's Mr. Moneybags. Throw in a Thurston Howell III and you have the complete set.

American workers got pulled into the machinery by the Industrial Revolution. They were treated like machines and cattle for decades. Organized labor was a key player in pulling them out and leveling the playing field. But where that counterbalance doesn't exist, you get:

-- Employer manipulating employees' work hours to ensure the employers don't have to provide benefits (made more prominent by Obamacare).
-- Flat wages for a decade.
-- Use and abuse of undocumented workers. (Wal-Mart, anyone?)
-- The elimination of defined benefit pension plan, exchanged for 401k plans. (Yes, let's put all these workers into the market and let them sustain the risk)

Who can change this? People can, through their government. Otherwise, the deck will always be stacked unfairly towards the haves and the have-some-mores. The never-haves will remain on the outside, looking in.

Read your history. Does anyone want to go back to the way it was 100 years ago? Really?

[Eric]

The role of Sovets - Unions in Communist revolution was huge.
Marksism and Leninism doesn't work. That system in former SU and now in other socialist countries simply steals all peoples belongings.

I think what you are not willing to accept is that power corrupts and that Union bosses have power and its no longer about the member workers
its about political power and welt redistribution.

I agree with many points that you raise but put a cap on them. I mean limited power.

CEO making millions and other managers who are making a killing in millions in bonuses etc wile laying off employees or cutting pensions etc not saying about the salaries is really wrong in my eyes too.
Here I think justice is not served.

But taxing more a 35 year old MD who just started making a good salary is not fair.

[Rich Douglas]

Cap the employees? Fine. Cap executive compensation, too. If you control one, control the other. Again, the ratio of worker/employer compensation has gone completely out of whack, yet the economy is moribund. Imagine if some of that cash was used to (gasp!) hire employees. Imagine the increased productivity and the economic benefits of fuller employment and people spending what they earn.

BTW, the Soviet Union is gone. Whatever influence it had--seriously, do you think it mattered one whit? Decades of failed investigations (witch hunts, really) belie that point. And even if they did, they're irrelevant now.

[Eric]

Cap the employees? Fine. Cap executive compensation, too. If you control one, control the other. Again, the ratio of worker/employer compensation has gone completely out of whack, yet the economy is moribund. Imagine if some of that cash was used to (gasp!) hire employees. Imagine the increased productivity and the economic benefits of fuller employment and people spending what they earn.

BTW, the Soviet Union is gone. Whatever influence it had--seriously, do you think it mattered one whit? Decades of failed investigations (witch hunts, really) belie that point. And even if they did, they're irrelevant now.

Are we not learn from these failures? Or we should practice failed practices and experiment with the failed systems our self? Should we let union bosses to take over?

I think we don't need Greece or Soviet Union here, and it appears that the government is leading us there, European type socialism that is failing.
I think the economists underestimate how close we are to economic collapse. I hope I'm wrong and we are in better shape.

As to the cap, I meant to the management. I would hold management highly responsible for failures.

[Rich Douglas]

Let union bosses "take over"? Who's saying that?

Eric, you have an unfortunate gift for creating and then taking down one strawman argument after another. It's tiresome chasing them down like red herrings.

If you're fine with wealth increasingly being transferred out of the hands of the working person and into the already wealthy, fine. Just say so.

[Eric]

Dr. RD I am for fair treatment of all people.
Today I'm regular employee and would love to bring a larger paycheck home.
I also used to own a small consulting practice that is inactive now. But if it was more successful and I with hard work made above 250K a year Why suddenly I;m to be punished for that and pay more % Per Cent in taxes? I'm not saying that I should pay less, even if I employ two consultants.
Or should I over pay the consultants and go out of business? I didn't force them to work for me and we agreed on employment conditions ahead of time , there were more candidates that would love to be in their place.

Make the ground even, I have no problem with that.
But if I have option to deduct from the tax, LEGALLY some expenses that government allows me then am I a "felon" now?
IF all I can charge my customer for an hour of consulting is XYZ then if my tax will rise then instead of two consultants I will have one.
And if the other revolts asking for more I will go out of business unless my client pays more.

Now back to the initial tread.
I have no problem with fair, good union. I do have a problem when the union heads i.e Bosses abuse the power they have, not in the interest of the member workers but other political power grab situations.
As I mentioned history shows that when this power is abused by unions we get disaster, kayos and everybody looses.

This article began with a book that shows a mafia type bosses for interests other then member worker well being playing dirty in the politics up there.
The stick will break if it bent to match either way. To powerful unions will cause closing of businesses and bigger unemployment.
They cam cause riots and revolutions as history teaches us.

wealth increasingly being transferred out of the hands of the working person is the banner used to achieve political gain. The worker under these bosses will never have wealth, will be depended on government handout and there will be noting to transfer as most workers will be poor.

[Eric]

This compelling and insightful book exposes how unions have organized federal, state, and local government employees without their consent, and how government employee unions are now a threat to our workers' freedoms, our free and fair elections, and even our American way of life."

Communism.

[Rich Douglas]

I do have a problem when the union heads i.e Bosses abuse the power they have, not in the interest of the member workers but other political power grab situations.
As I mentioned history shows that when this power is abused by unions we get disaster, kayos and everybody looses.

Please cite examples of this. While there were some cases of unions being infiltrated by the Mob, that doesn't represent the labor movement as a whole.

You're offering up another strawman argument.

Are you for or against workers getting better wages and working conditions, and narrowing the gap between worker and executive compensation?

[Eric]

Some one from UK sent this comment that Jacobs Engineering Group president Craig Martin's published 2011 compensation $5,860,331, URS Corporations President's Martin Koeffel compensaton $6,399,140, KBR president William P Utt 2011 compensation $7.90 million.

All of these companies produce more than 50% compensation from Government and public agencies. Who says there is shortage of engineers or they are not paid well.
You know where the problem is, just bring it to share holders meetings. Buy one share each, show up on the meeting and asked them what they did in 8760 hours, while spending 800 hours per year in chartered planes with nuts and NUTS and soft drinks and drinks and produced that they deserve $670 dollar per hour for their sleeping hours also and will not pay a 25 years experienced engineer $100.00 per hour while working hard? Ask share holders how long they will like to get ripped that these executives are cutting down the bonus and even holiday pay of those hard working engineers.

Any company that seeks overseas worker VISA for lack of talent should be advertised for public comments for 30 days with under oath certification, and if it is found false, they should be imprisoned, does not matter which company or how big the company is.

These companies have already bought companies in Australia, UK and France and have EXPATS helping them outsource work to Hongkong, China and India.

I'm for fair treatment of workers.

As to specific examples of Union bosses and their activities, they are in the book i commented about.

Dr RD I'm for good unions not the kind that abuse their workers members.