Electing their bosses....

How This New Government Ruling Destroys the Franchise Business Model - By James Sherk - The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) just issued a ruling likely to destroy the franchise business model. To understand how far-reaching this could be, it should be noted that almost 9 million Americans work at over 780,000 franchised businesses. From Jiffy Lube to Terminex to Wendy’s, franchises enable many Americans to run their own small businesses without having to design and market everything from scratch. Franchising is a particularly important opportunity for minority entrepreneurs.
   ...The recent ruling will probably force local franchises to give up total control of day-to-day business decisions to their corporate sponsors, turning thousands of investor entrepreneurs who currently own and manage a local business into middle managers in a giant corporate entity. ...The NRLB is now saying that companies that contract with others firms for services or set quality standards in exchange for brand licensing implicitly influence the other firms’ employees and should be required to bargain collectively with them. If allowed to stand, this new interpretation will effectively destroy the franchise model of business.
   ...The Goal Is to Unionize Franchise Employees. The slim NLRB majority that imposed this decision in a party-line vote appears to hope that it will aid union organizing efforts. Unions have largely failed to organize franchise employees. They have not persuaded the workers that the benefits of union representation outweigh the cost of union dues. Now they hope to be able to organize from the top down, pressuring large corporate management through public relations campaigns to accept unionization without having to go to the trouble of actually convincing workers that it will be to their benefit.  

James Sherk Tells Nevada Lawmakers Why Public Sector Unions Are Bad Policy By Maureen Collins - In his testimony, Sherk argues that unions for government employees are bad policy, because unlike private sector unions they: Undermine representative government: “Collective bargaining in government takes away the final say on public policy from voters’ elected representatives. It forces them to negotiate a contract with union leaders, excluding all other citizens and potential workers from the bargaining table.” Come with no checks and balances: Private sector unions have competition with non-unionized businesses, but government employee unions do not: ...Inflate pay for their workers: “Collective bargaining has considerably inflated the compensation of Nevada’s local government employees. It has produced benefit packages that few private-sector workers ever see. In many local governments, employees pay nothing toward the cost of their extensive health insurance benefits.” Follow this link to see the rest of Sherk’s testimony.

Meet the Social Studies Teacher Who Ditched the School Union and Created His Own - By Kelsey Harkness - “We believe in the collective bargaining process. However, we’re anti-big union,” Perialas told The Daily Signal in an interview. “The big bureaucratic unions, whether it be in education, the auto industry, or any industry, they’ve become so large that they’re not responsive to the very people, the income stream [they represent]. We left and we now very happily have the Michigan Education Association in the rear view.” Watch the interview to hear Perialas’ full story.

This is why unions hate worker freedom By Tim Dunkin - Unions hate worker freedom. Despite the chest-thumping propaganda that unions "saved the worker in America," the fact is that unions represent a business/labor model that simply is not relevant to our economy today. This, as much as the increased prevalence of right-to-work laws, is why they are dying out. Instead of adapting to the times, unions generally seek to freeze in place the sort of rust-belt economic model that peaked in the 1950s – which is a great example of the typical intellectual bankruptcy that is rife throughout liberalism. Part of this effort involves trapping workers in union shops were the union will "represent" them at the price of extorted dues taken out of their hard-earned paychecks. Obviously enough, the unions have a vested interest in forcing as many workers as possible to contribute. After all, expensive cigars and Cadillacs for the union bosses aren't cheap.
   Propagandists for the unions will try to claim that workers "really" like unions and want to be unionized. The very fact that so many workers bolt the unions when they can – as evidenced by the steep declines in union revenues seen in Wisconsin, to give one example – suggests that this is not the case. Likewise does the steadily declining membership rolls of most of the major unions in America. Sure, there are always some workers out there who want to belong to a union, but many don't, and right-to-work laws and laws such as Wisconsin's provide them the opportunity to make their own choice.
   The issue is really about worker freedom. Right-to-work laws do not outlaw unions or forbid union membership. These laws do not infringe upon the First Amendment right of workers to organize and associate together. What they do, instead, is to affirm the First Amendment right of workers to NOT organize or associate with a union if they don't choose to. Freedom to choose to join a union must by necessity carry with it the converse freedom to not join a union.
   Forced unionization is also unjust because of the fact that unions essentially serve as fundraising arms for the Democratic Party. Yet, large numbers of blue-collar workers support conservative and Republican causes and candidates. By requiring the deduction of union dues so that the unions can throw large bags of money at left-wing candidates and movements, at best the unions are misrepresenting many of their own constituent workers, and at worst they are disenfranchising them. Millions of workers in America see some of their money taken and given to candidates and causes they never would themselves support.
   ...As we can see in Wisconsin, worker freedom works. Wisconsin has seen declines in the funding (and therefore the power) of economically cumbersome unions. At the same time, Wisconsin has also seen its unemployment rate continue to decline, and also faces the somewhat unusual "problem" of having a budget surplus (due to increased economic activity in the state) that it has to figure out what to do with. Scott Walker's solutions have worked in Wisconsin – we should work to see them extended all across the country.   

3 Ways to Reform Labor and Save Our Country By Bob Beauprez - Editor, Bob Beauprez's Note: The following commentary on labor reforms is authored by 18 economists and labor experts, including A Line of Sight Contributing Editor, Sanjai Bhagat, Provost Professor of Finance at the University of Colorado. The article was originally published July 10, 2012 by Fox News.com. A full list of the authors may be found by clicking here. ...First, steer our cities away from insolvency and bankruptcy by passing meaningful reforms to public employee pensions and compensation. ...make modest pension cuts that will save taxpayers millions. (Unions responded by filing suit.) ...The next step, at the state level, is to advance right-to-work legislation that gives employees a choice in union membership. A key tenet of our democracy is freedom of association—including the freedom to form a union. But what about the right of a worker to choose not to join a union? In the 27 states that haven’t passed right-to-work laws, this right doesn’t exist. ...The last step to effective labor reform should happen at the federal level, with the passage of the Employee Rights Act (ERA), a piece of legislation sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.). The provisions of the ERA include reinforcing the right to a secret ballot union election, regular recertification votes on whether employees wish to remain part of a union, and paycheck protection to allow employees to prevent their dues from going to politicians they don’t support. Unsurprisingly, in polling commissioned from Opinion Research Corporation, these provisions receive 80 percent support—even in union households.

End the Secrecy in Public Union Collective Bargaining The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that state and local government employees earn 43 percent more than their private sector counterparts... ...In 11 states, secret government union collective bargaining is law, a lack of oversight that should be corrected.  This lack of oversight often leads to unions employing strong-arm tactics to receive higher wages and benefits at taxpayer expense, say Nick Dranias, Bryron Schlomach and Stephen Slivinski of the Goldwater Institute. ...Even when transparency in bargaining is enacted, government unions still have access to public records of government finance and can assess what the municipality can afford. Unions around the country have a lot to lose if transparency becomes the guiding principle for collective bargaining negotiations. Dranias, Schlomach and Slivinski believe that all bargaining should take place at open meetings. All meetings should be documented verbatim and those documents should be available as part of public record. Taxpayers and budgets everywhere will benefit if transparency and accountability is required in government union collective bargaining.  ...Source: Nick Dranias, Bryron Schlomach and Stephen Slivinski, "Airing Out the Smoke-filled Rooms: Bringing Transparency to Public Union Collective Bargaining," Goldwater Institute, January 17, 2013.

Understanding The Employee Rights Act By: UnionFacts.com - It’s been more than 50 years since Congress overhauled America’s labor laws. During the following decades, we’ve witnessed a workplace revolution that has fostered innovation, opportunity, and flexibility for America’s 150 million member strong workforce. It is time we reform our labor laws to put employees’ rights first, not self-interested labor union leaders. Now is the time for the Employee Rights Act.

The legislation would:
o Secret Ballot Elections — Guarantee employees the right to a secret ballot election when choosing whether or not to join a union.  
o Union Recertification Elections — Require that all unionized workplaces hold a secret ballot referendum every three years to determine whether the employee wish to remain represented by their current union.  
o Paycheck Protection — Gives employee the right to refuse support for a unions’ political operations or support of political parties or candidates.  
o Standardized Election Timing — Require unions and employers to give employees a minimum of 40 days to hear from both sides when deciding whether or not to join a union. o Decertification Coercion Prevention — Strengthen the National Labor Relations Act to prohibit unions from intimidating or coercing employees from exercising their rights, including their right to decertify the union.  
o Secret Ballot Strike Vote — Give employee the right to a secret ballot vote before union leaders can declare a strike.  
o Criminalizes Union Threats — Forbid unions from using violence, or threats thereof, in an effort to coerce employees.
o Unions Are the Political Dinosaur in the Room - Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh - A famous radio talk show host asked rhetorically why unions have supported and financed the Occupy Wall Street movement. The answer is quite simple. Occupiers are asking for communism. In communism, the entire labor force is unionized. It is in the best interest of unions to promote communism since union membership in this country is down to single digits and not likely to rebound. Unions were necessary at the turn of the 20th century to protect workers from dangerous working conditions. Unions survive today as a political tool to influence elections and exert economic power.

o Rescuing Detroit From Its Own Folly (PatriotPost.us) - “It is not the business of government … to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly,” said Henry George, a 19th century American writer and politician. Unfortunately, that advice is rarely heeded today. The Detroit Free Press reports that the federal government is considering providing $100 million to ease the pain of Detroit's ongoing city pension reforms. The money technically would not be provided directly to the city's pension program, instead going to Michigan's state fund for “blight remediation,” which would allow the state to provide the same amount to Detroit. But the practical result is the same – the U.S. taxpayer getting stuck with part of the bill for Detroit's decades of foolish, unsupportable pension promises. In our current environment where billions and even trillions are common reference points, $100 million may seem like small potatoes. But the precedent set by such a bailout would be far-reaching and potentially devastating to the nation's already shaky financial health.
   Why? Because Detroit is just one example of a major city with unsupportable public-employee pension obligations – in fact it's only number 10 on the list of the worst offenders. The top 10, in order of pension debt per capita: Chicago, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Columbus, Los Angeles, San Jose, San Diego, Denver and Detroit. Considering that public employees are among the most loyal and vocal of Democrat constituencies, the risk of political favoritism is obvious.
   As if that's not alarming enough, consider that looming larger behind these cities are states with the same pension debt problems, led by California's estimated $170 billion sea of red ink (and that is the LA Times' “best case” estimate – the worst case is more than $500 billion). Note, that is not California's total debt; just its un-funded pension obligations. Barack Obama's home state of Illinois is next with more than $100 billion in un-funded pension debt. If the federal government begins handing out money to save major cities from their pension debts, you can bet the states will come begging soon after. And the worst pension shortfalls at the state level are concentrated, unsurprisingly, in blue states like California. As Mark Alexander wrote last year, it's no coincidence that Detroit is in the shape it's in.
Regardless of the politics of the cities or states in question, there is the larger question of why the ordinary taxpayer should have to bail out a public employee pension system. Why does a farmer in Idaho or a construction worker in Oklahoma have to fork over money to support a retired city worker in Detroit or Los Angeles? The great majority of Americans are private sector workers whose taxes have always supported the salaries of public employees in their state. Are they now to be forced to pay for the foolish retirement plans promised to state and local public employees?
   Yet there is still some room for optimism in the public pension debt problem. In December the Illinois legislature passed a bill that would implement major reforms to the pension system, and did so in the face of enormous resistance from public-employee unions. Other states have also been forced into making difficult pension choices in recent years. But the temptation of seeking federal money to pay for local or state pension debt will always exist so long as the federal government is willing to provide it. Which makes Detroit an important test case in whether the government – meaning the taxpayers – have to rescue the fools from the consequences of their folly. 

o The Left Versus Minorities - By Thomas Sowell - Not all charter schools are successful, of course, but the ones that are completely undermine the excuses for failure in the public school system as a whole. That is why teachers' unions hate them, as a threat not only to their members' jobs but a threat to the whole range of frauds and fetishes in the educational system. The autonomy of charter schools is also a threat to the powers that be, who want to impose their own vision on the schools, regardless of what the parents want. ... Charter schools take power from politicians and bureaucrats, letting parents decide where their children will go to school. That is obviously offensive to those on the left, who think that our betters should be making our decisions for us.

o Big Labor, Bad Losers (PatriotPost.us) - If at first you don't succeed, blame Republicans and get your cronies in high places to let you try again. That seems to be the strategy of the United Auto Workers, a group that couldn't take the hint they weren't exactly welcome in the right-to-work state of Tennessee.
   After losing a 712-626 secret ballot vote at the Chattanooga Volkswagen plant, the UAW is appealing to the National Labor Relations Board on the grounds that statements by Republican legislators at both the state and federal levels gave the opposition an unfair advantage. Calling these tactics “a coordinated and widely-publicized coercive campaign,” the union wants the results thrown out based on the Laboratory Conditions Doctrine adopted in a 1948 case, where the NLRB held that unionization votes have to be conducted as free from interference as possible. Translation: the union wants their shop floor propaganda to be accepted without question. The management in the Volkswagen plant was more than cooperative with the UAW, giving their plant allies easy access to workers while denying the same for anti-union workers. In a truly fair fight, the results may have been even more lopsided against the UAW.
   Oddly enough, in cases where Laboratory Conditions have come into play, the complaint was from the employer charging that the union was overly aggressive in its campaign, and in two recent cases ruled that union interference wasn't blatant enough to overturn an election in their favor. But since the shoe is now on the other foot, and knowing the current political composition of the NLRB, it's likely the UAW will receive its second try – and maybe a third, fourth, fifth, and so on until they get the results they want. 

o Michigan's Right to Work Upheld (PatriotPost.us) In March, Michigan became the 24th "right to work" state following last December's vote to overhaul organized labor. Unsurprisingly, unions -- infuriated by the state's attempt to liberate workers forced to join their ranks -- responded quickly by challenging the decision. On Thursday, an appeals court countered the bid by handing down another blow.
   "The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the [state] legislature had the authority to create the law that makes union fees voluntary," reports Reuters, "because it has the constitutional right to 'speak for the people on matters of significant public concern.'" No doubt the ruling will further irritate organized labor's man on top, Barack Obama. Recall last December when he said, "These so-called right-to-work laws, they don't have to do with economics; they have everything to do with politics. What they are really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money. ... We don’t want a race to the bottom."
   It was a cute choice of words coming from the man who claimed to have saved Detroit. As HotAir's Erika Johnsen observes, "[U]nion clout is one of the major factors that pushed the city of Detroit into bankruptcy and helped the nation to realize what a 'race to the bottom' really looks like." But the fight isn't over -- unions still retain the right to appeal, and we have no reason to expect them to give up. But for now, as Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette affirms, "public sector employees will receive the same freedoms and choices as private sector employees. Everyone will be treated equally."

o Teachers unions' alliance with Democratic Party frays By Seema Mehta, Los Angeles Times - Public efforts toward school reform have some Democrats questioning the party's support of guarantees that school districts have made to teachers for decades. ...Teachers unions have been the Democratic Party's foot soldiers for more than half a century, providing not only generous financial backing but an army of volunteers in return for support of their entrenched power in the nation's public schools. But this relationship is fraying, and the deterioration was evident Monday as Democrats gathered here for their national convention. A handful of teachers and parents, carrying large inflated pencils, picketed a screening of "Won't Back Down," a movie to be released this month starring Maggie Gyllenhaal and Viola Davis as mothers, one a teacher, who try to take over a failing inner-city school.  

The plot is ripped from the headlines: California has the first "parent trigger" law in the nation, which allows parents to petition for sweeping changes to improve low-performing schools. The first parent trigger attempts have occurred in Compton and Adelanto; the former failed, and the latter faces numerous obstacles. Parent triggers, along with other emerging efforts, have some Democrats questioning their party's longtime support of guarantees that public school districts have made to teachers for decades. Those efforts also include merit pay, charter schools, weakening the tenure system and evaluating teachers partly based on their students' performance on standardized tests.

...Obama enjoys great support from teachers unions, and there are no signs that they will desert him en masse in this election. But he has angered them, notably with his "Race to the Top" competition that rewarded states financially for making moves unpopular with labor, such as increasing access for charter schools and encouraging states to use standardized testing as one way to measure teacher effectiveness. This has prompted a vociferous response at times. When a leader of the overhaul movement was hired to be Obama's spokeswoman for California, the California Federation of Teachers told state Democratic officials that if she was not fired, the union might not "participate" in Obama's reelection effort. The spokeswoman remains on the Obama team. 

o Union Money in Elections By Amy Payne - This election year, millions of Americans will donate to the political candidates and initiatives of their choice at the local, state, and federal levels. But for unionized workers, union dues come out of their paychecks and go to political causes—and they aren’t consulted on where that money will go.
In July, The Wall Street Journal’s Tom McGinty and Brody Mullins published an eye-opening report that “Organized labor spends about four times as much on politics and lobbying as generally thought.”

They broke down the unions’ political spending from 2005 to 2011: $1.1 billion “supporting federal candidates through their political-action committees, which are funded with voluntary contributions, and lobbying Washington, which is a cost borne by the unions’ own coffers.” But that was only the beginning. Add to that another $3.3 billion for political activity from “polling fees, to money spent persuading union members to vote a certain way, to bratwursts to feed Wisconsin workers protesting at the state capitol last year.” Who pays for this? The workers, McGinty and Mullins report: “Much of this kind of spending comes not from members’ contributions to a PAC but directly from unions’ dues-funded coffers.”

Despite findings that 60 percent of union members object to their dues being spent on political causes, this practice continues. Why? In the 27 states without right-to-work laws, many unions are able to put clauses in their contracts that allow them to fire workers who do not pay union dues. If a worker wants to work for a unionized firm, he or she is forced to join the union and pay the dues, which can run from several hundred to several thousand dollars a year. In a new paper, Heritage’s James Sherk gives an example of this rule at work: “The United Auto Workers (UAW), which organized General Motors’ Michigan factories in 1937, is a case in point. Michigan does not have a right-to-work law, so union-represented workers must pay the union’s dues or get fired.” Notice the year there—1937. The workers coming on the job in 2012 are bound by a vote taken by their ancestors, essentially. “General Motors’ current employees never had the chance to vote for or against the UAW. UAW representation was a non-negotiable condition of their employment.”

o Source of school bullying ID'd – it's the teachers union! By Dave Tombers - If you're poor and your children are getting a lousy education in C-, D-, or F-rated Louisiana schools, there's hope for you. Or, there was until the teachers union, in a fit of voucher rage, decided to resort to intimidation. ...The threatening letter sent to private schools across the state gives each school until this weekend to opt out of accepting funding for low income students, or be sued by the teachers union. “The LAE union threatens to initiate litigation against individual schools if they do not pledge – in writing … to cease participation in the Student Scholarships for Educational Excellence (SSEE) program,” says the American Federation for Children. “The letter comes despite a judge’s ruling two weeks ago that dismissed a union attempt to get an injunction stopping the program,” officials said. ...The letter can be read on the Louisiana Department of Education website, which released the letter to the public along with their statement denouncing it.

o Letter from FDR Regarding Collective Bargaining of Public Unions written August 16, 1937. - All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.

o Why Unions Want Higher Taxes By James Sherk and David Weinberger - No one likes tax increases, right? Not quite. Government unions do. In California, government unions recently postponed their contract negotiations until after a vote on an initiative that would hike taxes. The unions support the initiative, and they don’t want their new contracts to cause Californians to vote no. Their concern is understandable. Heritage senior policy analyst Jason Richwine estimates that on average government employees in the state make 30 percent more than their private sector counterparts. The minimum retirement age for most government employees in California is 50. To maintain this, unions want—and need—more taxes. Similarly, in Nevada, government unions are spearheading a ballot initiative that would hike business taxes. ...Raising business taxes in a weak economy costs private-sector jobs—but that does not deter government unions. Higher taxes still means more for them. In Massachusetts, unions are pushing for a $1.37 billion tax hike. They want to raise the state income tax to almost 6 percent. As the spokesman for a coalition of government unions complained, Massachusetts does “not have a revenue system that is bringing in enough revenue.” But has a government union ever concluded that a tax system brought in too much revenue? Government employees in Massachusetts, of course, can start collecting pensions at age 55. Tax increases hurt the economy. They cost jobs. They take money out of taxpayers’ pockets. But they (usually) mean more money for the government—where most union members now work. Small wonder, then, that the union movement campaigns so heavily for them.

o UnionFacts.Com Vital Statistics - Recent attacks by unions have them accusing corporate America of being "greedy" resulting in slow job growth and a stifled economy. When you look at the facts is it corporate America that's greedy or the self-serving unions? A recent poll had over 90% of respondents stating that unions are bad for America.

Financial Information
- Annual Dues Paid to Unions:$8,217,838,676
- Total Union Assets: $8,804,794,935

Total Spending
- Representational Activities:$4,081,097,858
- Political Activities: $579,624,489
- External Contributions: $321,121,214
- Overhead: $3,905,927,269
- Unions that fail to pass Department of Labor audits: 92%

Union Officials
- Total union officers and staff members:173,503 people
- Total compensation paid to union officials and officers: $1,141,540,980
- Total compensation paid to union employees: $2,562,757,481

o The State of Union Paybacks By Fred Wszolek - President Obama started 2012 as he began 2011, by making one of his first official acts a handout to Big Labor bosses bankrolling his campaign. The president issued non-recess appointments for Richard Griffin and Sharon Block to the NLRB in spite of the fact they had only been nominated for a weeks and hours before the Senate concluded it business for the holidays even though the upper chamber continued to convene in pro forma sessions. Griffin was the general counsel for International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) and will continue to receive pension payments from the union while on the Board, which is a clear and evident conflict of interest. Block worked for Labor Secretary Hilda Solis who is one of the most ardent supporters and defenders of labor bosses in the entire country. All of this unfolds as news outlets report that labor bosses, the top beneficiary of the president’s signature “achievement” in his first term – ObamaCare – have received the overwhelming majority of waivers from the health care law totaling more than 500,000 workers.

o A Primer on What Unions Do to the Economy - Unions create a substantial distortion within a market-driven economy. To raise their members' pay unions must control the supply of jobs in a company or an industry. Unions must prevent employers from hiring anyone without their permission. If they can do this, they can expect the laws of supply and demand to work in their favor. Holding down employment drives up union members' wages. In other words, successful unions are job cartels, says James Sherk, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

- Unions restrict competition for labor by limiting employers' hiring options. Because unions often incorporate political efforts by forming interest groups and lobbying, they often employ government regulations and red tape to restrict market access to union-friendly businesses.
- The union wage premium amounts to between 8 and 12 percent -- this pay differential over market rates reduces the total number of workers a business can hire (average businesses hire 5 to 10 percent fewer after unionization) and passes on higher costs to consumers.
- Unions act as an anchor on corporate investment: because they tend to demand higher wages when businesses do well, businesses are less likely to allocate resources to investments that would lead to that end. This results in a 15-percent loss in physical capital, and research and development.

Fortunately, the market inefficiencies that are introduced by unions are under constant attack from an increasingly communicative and competitive global economy.
- Within the United States, competition between states to attract employers, specifically between largely unionized states in the north and right-to-work states in the south, has caused a gradual migration of jobs towards the south.
- Just as foreign imports damaged the United Auto Workers' stranglehold on American car manufacturing, increased international trade creates competition that undermines unions.

This growing competition offers only marginal comfort, however, because government-employed unions are largely unaffected by competition.  Government services do not face the same competition pressures that the private sector does and have significantly deeper pockets provided by tax revenues.  Until public-sector unions disappear, taxpayers and consumers will continue to pay the price.

Source: James Sherk, "The Union Difference: A Primer On What Unions Do To The Economy," Capital Research Center, January 3, 2012.
For text: http://capitalresearch.org/2012/01/the-union-difference-a-primer-on-what-unions-do-to-the-economy/#more-10005 

Crowder Has Gas... and Obama Wants to Tax It National Center's Comedic Filmmaker Blows Up Obama's Plan to Impose New Federal Gas Tax  - "President Obama wants Congress to quickly pass an unconditional extension of the federal gasoline tax... set to expire on September 30," says Crowder, who serves as Media Fellow at the National Center. "The tax has been 18.4 cents-per-gallon since 1993, annually amounting to 32 billion dollars, which is then given back to the states for road services, repairs. etc."

"What does [the gasoline tax] mean for the consumer? Not only higher gas prices, but more expensive milk, toilet paper, bananas, bottled water and anything else that would ever have to be transported to our ungrateful selves," says Crowder. In the video, Crowder displays a pie chart showing where each consumer dollar currently spent on gasoline is used by the oil companies: 32 percent to cost of crude, 17 percent to refining and marketing, 3 percent to profits and 32 percent to taxes. Crowder adds that the federal gasoline tax results in higher unemployment, because businesses cut back in other areas to cover transportation costs.

"Folks," Crowder says, "things don't just show up at your house, delivered by magic beans and happy thoughts." In his video, Crowder also looks at the relative size of political contributions made by oil companies, which is small relative to other corporations and labor unions. He also notes that not renewing the federal gasoline tax would give states more financial flexibility and eliminate a federal regulation that states must use exclusively labor union labor on state highway projects. In fact, Crowder concludes, the wishes of labor unions have everything to do with why President Obama and the liberals are fighting conservative efforts to let this tax on consumers expire: "When people want to tell you that elections are bought and paid for, don't jump the gun and go straight to Big Oil or Big PhRMA. Think Big Unions."

‘Forget About the Law’ Union Bosses & White House Advisors Bob Park & Rich Trumka Admitting They Are Overriding US Law & Sovereignty With The International Labor Movement

In a stunning federal overreach, the Obama-appointed National Labor Relations Board has ruled that Boeing cannot build an assembly line in the right-to-work state of South Carolina, instead mandating it remain in Washington state.

Indiana Democrat Fleebagger’s Hotel Bill Completely Paid for by Unions By Warner Todd Huston - A recent campaign finance report was released that shows that the entire $84,953.70 hotel bill at the Comfort Suites Urbana was paid for by unions. That’s right, unions. This expense report seems to have turned Indiana Democratic State Chairman Dan Parker into a bit of a liar. OK, a full blown liar. You see, at the end of February, Parker told reporters that he was paying for the bill himself. As Hoosier Access so aptly says, “we now have it on record who the Indiana Democratic Party actually works for. Let the record show that it isn’t the people of Indiana.”

Thanks for Raising My Taxes -- What Else Can I Do for You? By Ann Coulter - In 2010, three of the five top campaign contributors to the Democrats were public sector unions. Service Employees International was No. 2 at $11.6 million in campaign contributions to Democrats, the National Education Association was No. 3 at $8 million, and the American Federation of Teachers was No. 5 at $7 million. ... Liberals don't love big government because they think it's efficient, compassionate, fair or even remotely useful. They support big government because they are guaranteed the support of nearly everyone who works for the government. Public sector employee contracts are written by the union and rubber-stamped by Democrats -- and the taxpayers only find out years later that public school teachers are allowed to get a full year's pay for 30 days' work over three years after they retire -- as is the case in Green Bay, Wis., where one out of every 12 teachers retired this year to take advantage of the 'emeritus' scam. This is what all the commotion is about in Wisconsin. Republican Gov. Scott Walker isn't even trying to eliminate collective bargaining for government workers' salaries. He only wants to eliminate collective bargaining over their conditions of employment, which has led to massive inefficiencies.

Big Abortion and Big Labor - Another Democrat money laundering operation is in trouble.  By John Hayward - An unusual rally was held over the [last] weekend in Wisconsin, in which the AFL-CIO acted to protect government subsidies for Planned Parenthood. ... Unions are the primary conduit for converting taxpayer money into Democrat campaign cash. Big Abortion is a smaller, but not insignificant, pipeline. Both organizations harvest political power from people who support them for idealistic reasons, and neatly package that power for delivery to their chosen political party.

Political Incest by Paul Hollrah - The eighty-five percent of Wisconsin voters who are not members of labor unions may soon have an opportunity to show that they understand the nature of the relationship that exists between Democrats and public employee unions, and that what is at stake is the monopoly power of high-salaried union bosses... that, and nothing more.

…In short, when members of the same political family (Democratic elected officials and their brothers and sisters in the labor movement) are allowed to sit down across the table from each other for the purpose of divvying up other people’s hard-earned money, that comes very close to defining the term “incest.” It is precisely why labor icons such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and AFL-CIO president George Meany were so outspoken against public employee unions.    
 
…A very crude old joke says, “Incest is best; love begins at home.” Not true. Most incest occurs when Democratic elected officials and public employee unions gather behind closed doors to divide up the spoils of a corrupt political system. Is it any wonder that Wisconsin now has more government jobs than manufacturing jobs?

Democrats Lead Ranks of Both Union and State Workers State workers have greatest Democrat-Republican party gap by Frank Newport, Dan Witters, and Sangeeta Agrawal -- Union members, whether they work for the government or the private sector, are more likely than nonunion workers to be Democrats than Republicans. The gap is greatest among unionized state government workers, who are twice as likely to be Democrats. State workers are also more likely to be Democrats than are federal, local, or nongovernment workers, regardless of union status. (Gallop Poll results at link.)

Uncivil Unions by - Ann Coulter Democrats use taxpayer money to fund a government jobs program, impoverishing the middle class and harming the people allegedly helped by the programs -- but creating a vast class of voters who owe their jobs to the Democrats.

Public Unions Force Taxpayers to Fund Dems by Michael Barone - Unions, most of whose members are public employees, gave Democrats some $400 million in the 2008 election cycle. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the biggest public employee union, gave Democrats $90 million in the 2010 cycle. Follow the money, Washington reporters like to say. The money in this case comes from taxpayers, present and future, who are the source of every penny of dues paid to public employee unions, who in turn spend much of that money on politics, almost all of it for Democrats. In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party. So, just as the president complained in his 2010 State of the Union address about a Supreme Court decision that he feared would increase the flow of money to Republicans, he also found time to complain about a proposed state law that could reduce the flow of money to Democrats.   

Collective Bargaining 101: When union leaders claim that collective bargaining is a right, Heritage is here to provide the facts. Our new video is a helpful primer on the rise government unions and the monopoly power given to them through collective bargaining.