Red Clay Citizen

Why Do State Employees Want to be With the SEIU?

According to this article in the NY Sun, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is underfunded in its pension fund for dues-paying union members, but is over-funded for it's own union officers!

Yet in 2006, the SEIU National Industry Pension Plan, a plan for the rank-and-file members, covering 100,787 workers, was 75% funded. That is, it had three-fourths of the money it needed to pay benefit obligations of workers and retirees.

In contrast, a separate fund for the union's own employees, numbering 1,305, participants was 91% funded. Even better, the pension fund for SEIU officers and employees, which had 6,595 members, was 103% funded.

Wow, I guess we see who the union is really interested in.  Workers be damned, as long as they look after those making the decisions.  Maybe the union members need union representation to negotiate a better deal from the union bosses.

And these are the guys (well, SEANC by extension) who filed a lawsuit against Treasurer Richard Moore for his handling of state employee's pension funds!

Unions don't give up easily - especially when they lose a vote!

In an earlier post, there was a description of the House Local Government II Committee meeting that considered and rejected a union backed bill, SB 1271 - Firefighter/EMS Payroll Deductions. This bill, defeated once, is to be considered again by the same committee on Wednesday, 25 June at 10:00 AM.

In the first meeting those voting to allow the payroll deductions were Reps. Alma Adams (D-Guilford), Nelson Dollar (R-Wake), Susan Fisher (D-Buncombe), Earl Jones (D-Guilford), Jimmy Love (D-Lee) and Larry Womble (D-Forsyth).

While the votes of the Democrat members  in support of this legislation are understandable from a philosophical and practical point, unions poured a LOT of money into electing Democrats in the 2006 election, the vote of Representative Nelson Dollar (R-Wake), is not. Why does a self professed conservative Republican join with a group of mostly liberal democrats to support a union backed bill that will mostly benefit the Teamsters?

The way this "already defeated" bill will rise from the dead (Dracula like) is that one of the legislators who voted against the bill, Reps. Lucy Allen (D-Franklin), Larry Brown (R-Forsyth), Phil Frye (R-Mitchell), Marvin Lucas (D-Cumberland), Mary McAllister (D-Cumberland), Fred Steen (R-Rowan), Thom Tillis (R-Mecklenburg) or Laura Wiley (R-Guilford), will make a motion to "reconsider". They will again debate the bill and vote again. Since the bill failed by two votes last time they will need either opponents to take a walk or switch votes assuming they keep all of the original supporters.

Usually when a bill is brought back up in this manner the supporters are pretty sure they have the votes in their pockets...

Poll: Voters Support Right-to-Work

Despite the millions of dollars pumped into North Carolina campaigns and an intensive lobbying effort by national unions to weaken North Carolina’s labor laws, voters overwhelmingly support maintaining North Carolina as a right-to-work state according to a new poll released by the Civitas Institute. 

When asked if they supported maintaining North Carolina as a right-to-work state where workers can not be forced into a union, a resounding 78 percent agreed while only 16 percent disagreed.  7 percent were undecided.

“Big labor has targeted North Carolina as a potential state to expand its scope and influence.  Unions like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and Teamsters are pushing collective bargaining for state and local government employees as the first step towards repealing right-to-work in North Carolina,” said Francis DeLuca, Executive Director of the Civitas Institute.  “Unfortunately for the unions, the voters of North Carolina overwhelming reject this path,” DeLuca stated.

The State Employees Association of North Carolina (SEANC) recently voted to officially align with the national SEIU organization.  SEIU and other unions have pumped over $2 million into state and local elections in North Carolina over the past four years.

“It does not matter how long they have lived in North Carolina, natives and newcomers alike have seen the damage done to the economies of states like Michigan and New Jersey by forced unionization.  They do not want to see the same thing happen here,” DeLuca concluded.

Full text of question:

DO YOU SUPPORT KEEPING NORTH CAROLINA A RIGHT-TO-WORK STATE, WHERE WORKERS CAN'T BE FORCED INTO A UNION?

                                    #    %   
YES                             465   78    
NO                                95   16                                 
NOT SURE                      39    7    
REFUSED                              1         

                       TOTAL    600 

For crosstabs click here:

Legislative Lowdown: Public Union Setback

The House Local Government II Committee was packed on the morning of Wednesday, June 17th when members debated the merits of SB 1271.  This bill was being sold by lobbyists from the Firefighters' Assn. and the Fraternal Order of Police as a simple way for these associations to collect dues through their members' paychecks.  This bill was about much more than that. 

After passing through the NC Senate early during last session, the bill languished in the House Committee on State Personnel without a vote until the powers that be in the House pulled it from Personnel and sent it to the Local Government II Committee.  The bill sponsor, Sen. John Snow (D-Cherokee) made this case that this bill was a way to support our fire and police officers by allowing them to do the same thing that the United Way does, payroll deduction.

Rep. Thom Tillis (R-Mecklenburg) began to question the need for the measure and cited his experience as a town commissioner.  Rep. Laura Wiley (R-Guilford) also sought explanations for the bill's purpose.

Several local government advocacy groups then spoke against the measure, including the NC League of Municipalities, the NC Sheriff's Assn. and the  NC Assn. of Chiefs of Police.  But, by far, the most direct and compelling argument against the bill was made by Paul Meyer of the NC Assn. of Counties who correctly pointed out that this bill was really a precursor towards giving public employees in North Carolina the power of collective bargaining.  Sen. Snow took great exception to the mentioning of collective bargaining and appeared very agitated.

New people flee to North Carolina every year to escape the high taxes and poor economies of the Northeast that are dominated by public service unions that demand annual pay increases and threaten to strike if they don't get what they want.  A majority of representatives on the committee heard that message loud and clear and defeated the bill by a vote of 6-8.

Voting to allow the payroll deductions were Reps. Alma Adams (D-Guilford), Neslon Dollar (R-Wake), Susan Fisher (D-Buncombe), Earl Jones (D-Guilford), Jimmy Love (D-Lee) and Larry Womble (D-Forsyth).

Voting against allowing the payroll deductions were Reps. Lucy Allen (D-Franklin), Larry Brown (R-Forsyth), Phil Frye(R-Mitchell), Marvin Lucas (D-Cumberland), Mary McAllister (D-Cumberland), Fred Steen (R-Rowan), Thom Tillis (R-Mecklenburg) and Laura Wiley (R-Guilford).

The reality is that employee associations can have their members set up bank drafts that automatically deduct dues from the members' bank accounts without ever involving government.  But, once you have inserted these wannabe unions between a worker and his paycheck, the line between voluntary participation and coercion begins to blur.  What happens if you are the only member of your police dept. that does not have payroll deduction?  Maybe you just need a little "talking" to to "get your mind right."  Fortunately for North Carolina, on Wednesday morning, the Local Government II Committee was stacked with a number of members that remember their days on the city council or county commission and don't want to make the jobs of their successors anymore difficult.

25% = Majority

Only in the world of unions does less that one-forth of employees voting for a union give approval for the union.

Take the recent results in Colorado, where the Governor single-handedly enacted collective bargaining for state employees, then when the vote for unionization occurred, less that 25% of state workers voted in favor!  Yet, that is good enough for the union to compel the other 75% to join the union and now pay dues.

Denver post story here.

First Step Towards Collective Bargaining

As the General Assembly continues to debate giving collective bargaining rights to public employees, the first step in the process is apparently moving through the Senate next Tuesday.

SB 1394 would allow employees to have union dues deducted from their paychecks.  In essence, the state payroll office will be acting as a conduit to allow union dues to be collected.

This is all a result of SEANC's decision to align with SEIU.  This legislation will make it easier to sign members up and funnel their money to the deep pockets of the national organization.

The committee meeting is Tuesday at noon.  The list of members of the committee is here.

Moore: Union Tried to Bribe Me

A story so good, I wish I was making it up.

WRAL has a brief story here.

For the REAL scoop, please see Under the Dome's excellent series of blog posts beginning here, and continuing here, here, here, and here.  Or just read all of Dome until you get to it here.

Of course, the union will just argue "that's how things are done."

If they will attempt to bribe a lawmaker over control of the pension fund, what will they be willing to do when their workplace conditions and pay increases are at stake like if they had collective bargaining rights?

More Labor Follies

Today, a coalition of unions will march on the General Assembly to demand the passage of HB 1583 which would allow for collective bargaining for public employees (teachers and state and local government employees).

James Andrews of the AFL-CIO is given space in today's N&O to explain his position.  However, his points are misguided.

Andrews attempts to make his case by paralleling private sector collective bargaining and public sector collective bargaining.  Unfortunately, they are not one in the same.

In private sector collective bargaining the labor union has a stake in the overall success or failure of the company.  Therefore, they cannot make their demands so unreasonable as to cause the company to fail or lose profitability since that would hurt them as well.  Both the union and the firm share a profit motive, that as the firm is successful, the employees will be as well.

That does not hold true for the public sector.  There are no shared profits to motivate and thus, no shared collective interest in success.  Employee labor unions can continue to make demand after demand regardless of its economic impact because there is no collective sense of prosperity.  There's no risk of the government going bankrupt, it can always just go out and grab new revenues from the taxpayers!

I can go through the laundry list of other harms from collective bargaining (a basic piece I wrote last year is here): no chance EVER at merit-based pay, increased costs to government and taxpayers, forcibly taking money from employees who don't join the union (through administrative fees), and the whole cycle of using union dues to support political candidates who will promise to raise pay, which generates more union dues, which generates more money for their campaigns, and on and on...

But we'll save those for later.

More on Collective Bargaining/Unions/Elections

To those on the left who mocked my question relating the issues, I give you this press release:

Union prepared to spend more than $150 million, mobilize tens of thousands during and AFTER the election to win healthcare, big improvements for working people.

Under the plan, SEIU leaders are pledging to spend more than $150 million and put tens of thousands of members in motion to achieve those goals by the end of the first 100 days of a new administration.

SEIU leaders also pledged to continue the union’s unprecedented growth by creating a national plan to unite more than 500,000 new members in the union by 2012. That would make SEIU the largest union in American history that is not exclusively public sector, and ensure that it has the strength to continue winning high standards of pay and benefits for its members and all working people.

So, once again, tell me how expanding collective bargaining rights to public employees and SEIU's involvement in elections aren't related?

Poll: NC Voters Oppose Collective Bargaining

Full press release here.  Highlights follow...

Now that the State Employees Association of North Carolina (SEANC) has officially aligned with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), these groups have made overturning North Carolina’s ban on collective bargaining their highest priority. Unfortunately for them, the voters disagree.

When asked if state employees and teachers’ unions should be able to engage in collective bargaining with elected officials they might endorse in elections, 56 percent said no. Only 30 percent thought it should be allowed. 14 percent were undecided.

Not even a majority of self-identified government employees approved of collective bargaining when asked – 49 percent approved, 40 percent disapproved.

Full text of question:

Should state employee and teacher's unions be allowed to engage in collective bargaining with elected officials they might endorse in elections?

Yes - 30%
No - 56%
Not Sure - 14%