Category: Unions

Unionize College Sports? Strike That!

By Chris Freind

Footballs are leather. Teams play on grass. Pads are made of nonmetallic materials. So why is the United Steelworkers union bankrolling the efforts of the Northwestern University football team to unionize?

Maybe it’s because they play on a grid-iron. But if so, the Ironworkers union must be molten-mad at what would seem a hostile takeover of its natural constituency.

Or maybe it’s because organized labor is desperate in its quest to stay relevant, given that private sector union density is a paltry 7 percent, a level not seen since 1932.

But using a trick play, the Steelworkers and the football team, led by quarterback Kain Colter, are ahead in the first quarter, thanks to a controversial call by the ref — National Labor Relations Board Regional Director Peter Sung Ohr. In his ruling, Ohr decided that Northwestern scholarship players are “employees” of the university, and can therefore unionize. On its face, the argument would seem likely to get sacked. But with the courts, you never know.

But the union issue is a red herring, with the big picture being entirely missed. Instead of discussing whether players should be paid or if they are “student-athletes” or just “athletes,” the situation can never truly improve until the NCAA is either abolished, or at the least, massively reformed.

Let’s review:

The NCAA — officially a nonprofit, which sounds like an April Fool’s joke — has become an authoritarian religion demanding that all who want to play, or administer, college sports must bow to it, strictly adhering to its creed — or risk swift excommunication. It rakes in billions off the backs of football players and their universities while rewarding both with mind-boggling restrictions. No one pays to watch sanctimonious, fat cat hypocrites masquerading as caring NCAA executives. The athletes are the star attraction, yet they get precious little for their efforts, compared to the revenue they generate.

The NCAA monopoly needs to be broken, and reformed from top to bottom. Only government can do it under the auspices of anti-trust violations, but given its complexity, we’ll deal with that in a separate column.

Now let’s look at the lawsuit itself:

1. On a political note, this case illustrates an often-overlooked but extremely important aspect of presidential power. While high-profile nominees generate headlines, those appointed to the obscure National Labor Relations Board make decisions that affect millions of Americans. From its case against Boeing — because that company moved some production facilities to another state — to the Northwestern case, the NLRB, reflecting the philosophy of the president, has made many far-reaching decisions.

2. Are scholarship players employees of the university? Maybe.

There are numerous statutes defining what constitutes an employee, but a general description is one who reports to a boss (in this case, the coach), at a particular place and time (a set schedule), and fulfills agreed upon duties (practice, games and all team-related activities) in exchange for economic compensation (scholarships). From that perspective, it becomes difficult to argue that they are not employees — especially given the benefit received by the employer (millions in revenue).

3. On the other hand, one of the “employee” arguments is that players are sought solely for their playing abilities. Therefore, they are not student-athletes, but just athletes. But if that were the case, the athletes wouldn’t be required to attend class, since the “student” part would no longer be relevant. But they are mandated to go to class and required to maintain certain grades to remain eligible. Tutors travel with the teams, and academics, depending on the school, play an important role in college athletes’ lives. If team members didn’t go to class, they wouldn’t remain on the team.

4. Ohr ruled that Northwestern prioritizes football over academics, since players aren’t permitted to take classes that conflict with practice or leave practice early to make a class. This clearly demonstrates that the director is a Monday morning quarterback who knows nothing about the real world.

My God — the horror that one has to schedule classes around practice! Guess what? So does the band, many of whom are also on scholarship. And other athletes. And the student body president. And all those who have jobs on or off campus. Kind of like how people have to schedule their privates lives — from picking up the kids to dropping off the dry cleaning — around their jobs. To claim that players are employees because the team has a dedicated schedule is downright insulting. Maybe if Ohr had a private sector job, he’d understand the concept.

5. Regardless of whether players are employees, where does it end? Can academic scholarship recipients form a union? Surely they would be employees too, since they are being “paid” via their scholarship, and they bring in revenue, even if indirectly, when their high marks and excellent records make the university a more desirable institution — allowing it to charge higher tuition. What about poor, affirmative action students? They add diversity to the school, further enhancing its appeal, which can be a financial windfall, as many state and federal grant programs exist solely for minority and low-income students — money that ends up in university coffers.

So if the criteria for “employees” to unionize are based on revenue generated for the school, it clearly can’t, and won’t, just be for football.

6. The elephant in the room is whether athletes should be paid, receiving some stipend to offset expenses. Sure, a full ride at 50, 60 and even 70 grand per year is fantastic, but to lose it all because a dirt-poor student signs a jersey for pizza money or accepts a bus ticket home to see mom and dad at Thanksgiving is insane.

Paying athletes shouldn’t be for the NLRB to decide. Instead, it should be a decision made at the university or conference level, using the free market as a guide. But the NCAA doesn’t allow it, and things won’t change until the justice department breaks the NCAA’s monopoly on deciding such issues.

Undoubtedly, college football players deserve some level of protection and compensation. But permitting them to unionize isn’t the way to go. Instead, it’s time to strike at the heart of the matter, demanding that the NCAA reform itself, or be locked out. And that would be a touchdown — for everyone.

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Unionize College Sports? Strike That!
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Unionize College Sports? Strike That!

 

Paycheck Protection Helps Pa

By Lisa Esler

Currently, Harrisburg is considering “Paycheck Protection” legislation, known as HB1507, a bill sponsored by Rep Bryan Cutler. HB 1507 effectively bans all use of public resources to collect, bundle and transmit public sector union dues and PAC contributions as a service to the unions and their members. The Senate version of the bill is SB1034.
Neither version would end collective bargaining rights of the unions.

Under Paycheck Protection legislation, school districts and
counties would stop collecting dues for the unions via automatic payroll deduction. Seven states have already banned this practice.

Public union members, such as teachers and state and county
public employees, will be responsible for paying their own dues and
political contributions directly to the unions. This would bring public
sector unions, which are private organizations, in line with any other
private organization or business.

With Paycheck Protection in effect, taxpayers’ resources such as
our school district or government entity would no longer act as a
collection agency for the unions.

Dues and political contributions are used by the unions to lobby for or against legislation for their members’ best interest, many times conflicting with the taxpayer’s best interest. Pension reform would be the best example of this. It is also used to bargain for better wages and generous benefits which are paid with tax money.

While unions claim the cost to collect their dues is negligible,
that is not the issue. The issue is the breach of public trust and
conflicts of interest in using public resources to assist funding
political activities that may be against the political views or best
interests of the public.

When legislators depend on special interest contributions to fund
their elections, their legislative decisions will surely follow the
money, not the best interest of their constituents. Without Paycheck
Protection, this unfair cycle will continue with the poor taxpayer’s
best interest and concerns being silenced.

Polls show popular support for passage of Paycheck Protection. In
fact, one poll shows 58 percent support among union households!

Paycheck Protection is the most important issue because it
directly affects all other legislation in Harrisburg. Putting a stop to
this practice is the right thing to do.

Let’s educate ourselves on this issue and encourage our lawmakers
to fight for the best interest of the Pa. taxpayer instead of bowing to
union pressure for the status quo.

Lisa Esler is a member of the Penn Delco School Board in Delaware County, Pa.

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Paycheck Protection Helps Pa
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Paycheck Protection Helps Pa

Union Tries, Fails Disrupting AFP Townhall

Union Tries, Fails Disrupting AFP Townhall

Union Tries, Fails Disrupting AFP TownhallThe crowd at the March 19 AFP Townhall in Newtown Square, Pa. See if you can pick out the union guests

 

By Bill Lawrence

An upbeat townhall concerning paycheck protection and related issues in Pennsylvania ended, tonight, March 19, in Newtown Square without a hitch despite a contingent of 10 union activists who attended with the intent to make a few.

An initial attempt at disruption was quickly squelched by moderators and security when the leader tried to begin a mocking Pledge of Allegiance.

The group sat beaten and sullen throughout the night before leaving in a noisy production shortly before the question and answer session. Their questions would have been welcomed it should be noted.

The event was sponsored by the state chapter of Americans for Prosperity and featured WPHT talk host Dom Giordano; AFP-Pa Director Jennifer Stefano, a frequent guest on Hannity; Penn Delco School Director Lisa Esler; and children’s rights advocate Simon Campbell who heads Pennsylvanians for Union Reform.

Paycheck protection is an effort to end the use of taxpayer resources to collect government unions’ political money. It was pointedly noted that it does not make Pennsylvania “right to work” or change how unions can collectively bargain or eliminate union dues or mandatory fee payments.  Mrs. Stefano expressed puzzlement as to why private sector unions were the ones who usually turned out to protest as the proposal would only affect government unions.

Right to work means workers may not be forced to pay union dues.

For the record, none of the speakers were opposed to right to work. In fact, Mrs. Stefano called paycheck protection “a good first step.”

The other major issue addressed by the speakers was HB 1154,  the bill overwhelmingly passed, March 11, by the State House that would amend the criminal code to prohibit harassment, stalking and the “threat to use weapons of mass destruction by union members, something that is strangely enough allowed. It now awaits an uncertain fate in the union-friendly, yet Republican-controlled, State Senate.

The bill, despite being introduced almost a year ago, only came to be passed after 10 member of Ironworks Local 401 were indicted for burning down a Quaker meeting house being built with nonunion labor and for the vicious harassment of Sarina Rose, an executive at developers Post Brothers, who was subject to vile public abuse and whose children were threatened.

“What kind of low life scum would harass a soccer mom?” said Giordano to the silent discomfort of the union contingent.

Mrs. Stefano treated the guests with equal contempt.

“If you are a big, tough guy and go after women like me and our children, you are weak,” she said as the union contingent squirmed in their seats. She noted she often receives threatening letters from union activists. She said she framed them and showed them to her children.

“They are a bunch of dinosaurs that fail to see Pennsylvania moving forward,” Giordano said. “. . .The sickness in Philadelphia is that people grow up with this. They think that’s how the world works.”

Giordano also fired some shots at Attorney General Kathleen Kane who at the beginning of her term pointedly refused to follow state law regarding gay marriage and was revealed on Sunday to have killed an investigation of corrupt acts by Philadelphia Democrat legislators.

He said it is likely Pennsylvania Republican legislators will soon take action of some sort against her.

Mrs. Stefano said her group will make a major effort regarding paycheck protection to sway Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, the Republican who represents much of southern Delaware County and whom Mrs. Stefano described as the capo di tutti capi of Harrisburg.

“The Republicans and Democrats have been between the rock and a pillow. Now they’ve met the hard place,” she said regarding how those in the state capital deal with labor legislation.

Mrs. Esler noted that she is the wife of a union member and a daughter of a union member. She said that what she has learned as a school board member is that much of what dictates school budgets stem from union-supported mandates and laws from Harrisburg. She said this is largely made possible by automatic collection of union dues from the districts employees.

“They fund special interests against the taxpayers with the taxpayers’ money,” she said.

She cited the prevailing wage law — the law which requires public entities to pay wages set by a state, and union-controlled board — for major projects.

She said Penn Delco spent $46 million on recent projects which would have been $8 million less without prevailing wage.

Simon Campbell, the last speaker, who was born and raised in the United Kingdom, described the union abuse he witnessed growing up in the 1970s.

He said he had “hate-hate relationship with the teachers union (here)” stemming from the similar abuse he saw involving them and his fight to stop it.

 

Union Tries, Fails Disrupting AFP Townhall

Union Members Like Paycheck Protection

Government unions aren’t about fightingfor public employees and workers any more — they’ve become political operations with agendas that harm both their members and taxpayers. Americans, and even union members themselves, increasingly realize that public-sector unions often do not serve the public interest.

As a consequence, several states — including Washington, Idaho, Utah, Michigan, and Wisconsin — have passed commonsense “paycheck protection” laws to protect employees and taxpayers from being abused by union bosses. Lawmakers in my home state of Pennsylvania are looking to follow their lead. The idea is so sensible that polling suggests the majority of members of Pennsylvania union households support it.

Paycheck protection is a simple reform that would prohibit
taxpayer-funded “automatic deduction” of dues and campaign contributions
from government-union members’ paychecks. Current law grants government
union leaders the unique privilege of using public resources (the
government payroll system) to collect their union dues and PAC money,
which they use for lobbying and political activity. Dues are mandatory
and can go to certain political purposes, while members can agree to
make extra donations to PACs — also collected by the state payroll
system — which can be spent on almost any political activity.

Like every politically privileged group, union leaders are fighting
tooth and nail to hold on to this unfair advantage. Recently,
Pennsylvania’s union bosses stormed our state capitol to protest
paycheck protection by ranting against “big corporations” and even
leading obscene chants. Yet union leaders danced around the core policy
issue: whether taxpayer resources should be used for politics.

Perhaps that’s because many bussed-in union protesters actually
supported the concept of paycheck protection. When Media Trackers asked protesters
why they thought the government should collect their union dues, union
members answered that government shouldn’t be involved. Ironically, this
is exactly what paycheck protection would mean.

In fact, this is the view of most union members. In a new survey
of union households in Pennsylvania, we found that a large majority
support paycheck-protection legislation. Nearly two-thirds agreed that
such a law would empower workers to have greater control over how their
money is spent on politics. Moreover, an overwhelming 80 percent of
union households said taxpayer resources should not be used to collect
campaign contributions.

Several Pennsylvania legislators have recently gone to prison for
using taxpayer resources for politics. Yet government unions are
permitted to essentially engage in this practice right under the capitol
dome and in public schools across our state.

Taxpayer-funded collection of government-union political money gives
union bosses an unfair political advantage. In Pennsylvania, government
unions reported spending nearly $5 million in dues on political activity
and lobbying in 2012, plus more than $2.6 million in campaign
contributions. All of that money was collected using public resources
and sent directly to union bosses.

Nationally, the numbers are even more astounding: Labor unions spent more than $1.6 billion on politics in 2011 and 2012.

While government-union bosses argue their political spending will
“protect the middle class,” the policies they support actually harm
middle-class families, including their own members.

Here in Pennsylvania, union politicking recently blocked pension
reform — resulting in higher taxes and teacher layoffs — and
liquor-store privatization, despite overwhelming public support for the
latter measure, even among union members. Union-funded ad campaigns
against charter schools prevented thousands of children from escaping
violent and failing schools. Government unions lobbied for Obamacare
too, to the detriment of school employees and taxpayers.

Matt Eason, a teacher in the Philadelphia suburbs, opposes his
union’s politics: “It’s going against, not only my beliefs and morals
and values,” he says. “It’s something I don’t want to support, but I
don’t have a choice.”

Because Pennsylvania is a compulsory union state (as opposed to a
right-to-work one), paycheck protection would empower teachers like Matt
to hold his union accountable. Instead of automatically deducting money
from his paycheck, union leaders would have to look Matt in the face
each pay period to explain how the union plans to spend his money, and
ask for his dues.

Paycheck protection doesn’t silence union voices in politics; nor
does it hinder unions’ ability to collectively bargain. It certainly
isn’t right to work. It simply means that government unions will have to
collect their own dues and political money just like every other
private political organization.

Paycheck protection would, however, do one thing that both sides of
the political aisle should agree on: Stop spending taxpayer money on
politics.

Matthew J. Brouillette, a former history
teacher, is the president and CEO of the Commonwealth Foundation,
Pennsylvania’s free-market think tank.


Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Union Members Like Paycheck Protection
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Union Members Like Paycheck Protection

 

Stalking Kids Called Free Speech

John Kane, who is expected to be the Democrats nominee in the race to fill the 26th District Pennsylvania State Senate seat being vacated by Republican Ted Erickson, has released, according to the Delaware County Daily Times, a statement slamming  HB 1154,  the bill recently passed by the State House that would amend the criminal code to prohibit harassment, stalking and the “threat to use weapons of mass destruction.”

Kane claims it seeks to outlaw the right to picket against
unfair or unsafe practices.

“Picketing and protest are essential rights that every American should be guaranteed,” said Kane, of Ridley, who is the business manager for Plumbers Union Local 690

Um, John, taking photos of kids at school bus stops and abusing women in restaurants is not picketing.

Hey, nobody is going to stop you from having a couple of guys standing near a job site wearing signs saying “unfair”

Providing they aren’t blocking anybody’s right of way, of course.

We suspect you will still be able to set up those stupid inflatable giant rats too.

The Republican in the race is County Council Chairman Tom McGarrigle, of Springfield.

Go Tom.

HB 1154 still must be passed by the GOP-controlled state senate and signed by Gov. Corbett. It’s not as done a deal as one would think it should be as there are Republicans in that body who are in bed with union bosses and other special interests as much as the typical Democrat.

 

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Stalking Kids Called Free Speech
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Stalking Kids Called Free Speech

Stalking Kids Called Free Speech

Union Violence Bill Passes Pa House

The Pennsylvania House, today, March 12, passed HB 1154 that would amend the criminal code to prohibit harassment, stalking and the “threat to use weapons of mass destruction” by union members during labor disputes.

The vote was 115-74. There were no Republican dissenters. Among the Democrats who voted for the bill was Greg Vitali of the 166th District.

Greg reportedly got up and spoke against the bill after he saw that he was a yes vote leading some to speculate that he wasn’t paying attention when he hit the button.

The bill now goes to the state senate.

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Union Violence Bill Passes Pa House
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Union Violence Bill Passes Pa House

Paycheck Protection Lies

By Bob Dick

Should you be forced to subsidize government union politics? That’s the question asked by a reform gaining steam in Harrisburg called paycheck protection. But you wouldn’t know it by listening to government union bosses, who are deliberately misrepresenting paycheck protection legislation and engaging in personal attacks on its supporters in an effort to preserve their exclusive political privilege.

Pennsylvania law allows government union bosses—and only government union bosses—to negotiate the use of public resources to bundle union dues and political money and send it to union headquarters. In many cases, this dubious deal is made with politicians who receive contributionsand campaign support funded by the same political money.

Paycheck protection would end this flagrant conflict of interest and level the political playing field for all.

Given their lucrative arrangement, it’s no surprise that government union leaders don’t want to play by the same rules as everyone else. They’ve launched a misinformation campaign to confuse the public and their own members about the details of paycheck protection.

For starters, they claim that only a few outside interest groups support paycheck protection.  In reality, nearly 80 percent of Pennsylvanians—including 75 percent of union members—believe taxpayer resources should not be used to collect union dues and campaign contributions, according to a recent poll of likely voters.

Government union leaders also claim that paycheck protection is actually “Right to Work” in disguise. The truth is paycheck protection doesn’t affect government unions’ ability to collectively bargain. Even if paycheck protection were to pass, government workers—like most public school teachers in the state—would still have to pay union dues or fees or lose their jobs.

So, what would change? Government union leaders would simply have to collect their dues and campaign contributions directly from workers, rather than forcing taxpayers to do it for them. Either union bosses don’t understand the legislation, or they’re intentionally misleading their members and the public.

Another pernicious claim about paycheck protection is that it constitutes an attack on union members’ free speech. Nothing could be further from the truth. Paycheck protection does not stop government unions from spending money on politics; it merely removes taxpayers from the process of collecting their political money.

The U.S. Supreme Court agrees that paycheck protection supports, rather than violates, freedom of speech. In 2009, the court ruled in Ysursa v. Pocatello that Idaho’s paycheck protection law, which ended taxpayer collection of political money, “does not restrict political speech, but rather declines to promote that speech by allowing public employee check-offs for political activities.”

Indeed, requiring union leaders to collect their own political money would actually make them more responsive to members’ free speech rights.

Perhaps government union bosses’ greatest trick is claiming that dues cannot be used for politics. In reality, union dues fund a variety of political activities including lobbying, candidate endorsements, get-out-the-vote efforts, candidate and issue advocacy, contributions to “independent” political and partisan organizations, and fundraising for campaign contributions.

Pennsylvania’s major government unions spent nearly $5 million of members’ dues on lobbying and political activities in 2012—that’s according to their own reports to the U.S. Department of Labor.

Moreover, union Political Action Committee (PAC) contributions are also collected via public payroll systems. Government union PACs contributed an additional $4 million directly to candidates during the 2011-12 elections.

This perverse power cycle allows elected officials to sign checks giving money to union PACs and later accept campaign contributions from those same PACs!

Former State Senator Jane Orie was recently released from prison after being convicted of using public resources for campaigning. Why do we allow government union leaders to engage in the same behavior without batting an eye?

The debate over paycheck protection must be informed by facts, not half-truths or conspiracy theories from those clinging to their government-granted political privilege. Here’s the bottom line: Public resources should never be used for partisan politics.

This article was provided by Commonwealth Foundation

 

Paycheck Protection Lies at BillLawrenceDittos.com
Paycheck Protection Lies at BillLawrenceOnline.com

 

Union Legal Thuggery, Feckless GOP

Union Legal Thuggery, Feckless GOP — The Philadelphia Inquirer, proving blind squirrels can occasionally find nuts, carried a big, bold front-page banner headline on Feb. 26 concerning how unions are exempt from state harassment and stalking laws.

The story described how union minions followed Sarina Rose, a mom who is an executive at developers Post Brothers, heaping abuse on her at a crowded restaurant and taking photos of her children at a school bus stop.

The Inquirer was appropriately outraged.

It’s been almost a week since the story. Where has been the Republican response? The union-controlled Democrats obviously want the matter to disappear and it will unless the GOP doesn’t let it.

So where are the Republicans? Where is Gov. Tom “Gonna Lose Big” Corbett’s statement of condemnation and proposal for what should be a rather minor but overwhelmingly popular change in law the GOP-controlled legislature should have no trouble passing?

Where is their willingness to make an issue of something the union-controlled Democrats would find impossible to support yet impossible to defend?

The lack of action on what should be a no-brainer opportunity is a perfect example as to why a huge percent of the GOP constituency is apoplectic at the party leadership.

Frightened Union Bosses Sic Minions

An AFP Pennsylvania event concerning paycheck protection in Warminister a few days ago was disrupted by flying monkeys sent by union leaders. Speakers were shouted down and filthy language was directed at those interested in what was to be said.

Police were called to escort the AFP people from the building. Jennifers Stefano, the speaker, found two tires slashed on her car.

Paycheck protection means union dues are forbidden from being automatically deducted from paychecks. In other words, if the union bosses want to keep their sweet salaries they have to convince their members to donate voluntarily, which means they have actually work for the issues that will help them.

Mrs. Stefano, a mom, says remaining townhalls are being rescheduled to address security concerns.

Below is a snippet of video taken at the Warminister event.

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Frightened Union Bosses Sic Minions
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com Frightened Union Bosses Sic Minions
Visit Rights-Right.com, for an excerpt.

 

Corbett Supports Paycheck Protection

Gov. Tom Corbett has announced his support for pending legislation that will ban the automatic deduction of union dues from public employee paychecks reports Pennsylvania Independent.

Voluntary deductions will obviously remain allowed.  Paycheck protection empowers union workers as it allows them to withhold funding from leaders who may not be using the money, well, appropriately.

The legislation is being shepherded  by John Eichelberger in the senate and Bryan Cutler in the House.

This type of legislation is very good and necessary. If Corbett should actually sign it I will once again return to being his supporter despite the gas tax hike he has foisted upon us and his attempt to run an Obama supporter as the Republican senate candidate.

Still, if one gets a chance to sign a petition for Bob Guzzardi, the retired businessman seeking to the get on the Republican gubernatorial primary ballot, please do. Knowing the voters have an option on May 20 will certainly help keep Gov. Corbett’s mind right.

Corbett Supports Paycheck Protection