Unions and their mouthpieces continually bombard us with the catch phrases about standing for “working people,” “working families,” and the poor, oppressed and exploited “working” classes. Truth is, unions represent a privileged minority, a politically connected class, the aristocrats of middle-class workers. And the mainstream of American workers, the real working people agree; it’s why only 6.9% of private sector workers are in unions and union membership overall has decreased from nearly one-third of all workers in the 1940s.

People understand that unions are about everything but work, because unions generally mean less work for everybody else. When unions go on strike, work stops, even for non-union workers. By demanding higher wages for less work they drive down productivity and the possibility of business growth and more jobs for everyone. Companies move to get out from under union pay scales that kill business – look at Detroit, the scene of Mr. Hoffa’s Labor Day rant and sadly, also the scene of the union movement’s greatest catastrophe, the dismantling of the American auto industry. Unions’ proclivities for killing jobs are illustrated their “concerns” that are holding up free trade agreements and could add 250,000 jobs to the economy. Additionally, Unions and their accomplices at the National Labor Relations Board are trying to kill thousands of  jobs under the dubious charges that Boeing broken the law by building non-union production lines in South Carolina.

Unions’ comfortable pay, sweet pensions, and gold-plated health plans are paid for by people – taxpayers in the case of public sector unions and consumers in the case of private sector unions – who in many cases do not enjoy the same pay and benefits that the union workers receive. Many true “working people” labor at two or sometimes three jobs, pay their own benefits, and get no pay for taking days off to protest or demonstrate.

Union members are in conflict with everyone and represent a narrow special interest that flourishes at the expenses of other workers and the economy at large. They are a monopolistic enterprise. They are adversaries to business-owners, other workers, consumers and taxpayers. Look at what has happened in states with traditions of strong unions and union support – Wisconsin voters have said enough to funding public-sector union workers who have better pay and benefits than their employers. Voters intuitively understand that unions are a drag on the economy and taxes; they benefit only themselves at everyone else’s expense.

(more…)

There was an open revolt this summer against a local a teacher’s union and its school board accomplices in left-wing Berkshire County, Massachusetts.  This is news that does not bode well for public employee unions and their beneficiaries nationwide.  The Berkshires are a liberal fantasy camp in the “Rachel Maddow Belt,”  Michael Barone’s name for the Massachusetts’ 1^st Congressional District. Made up of wannabe and former hippies, ornery Bush-hating Yankees, artistes and transplanted New Yorkers the District gave Obama 64% of its votes.  It’s a made to order liberal electoral stew that usually loves higher taxes and government largesse.  Not this time though. While the people who went all “Tea Party” on the union might not want to be identified as such, they achieved Tea Party goals, spurred by a small band of fiscally conservative citizens who sounded the alarm and stayed engaged.

Without confusing and boring the reader I will say the process for approving budgets for our Southern Berkshire Regional School District is migraine inducing. Five towns make up the district, and towns must separately approve the budget in an anachronistic town meeting format, then, if a Proposition 2 1/2 override is required (Prop 2 ½ is a Mass law that prohibits raising property taxes more than 2.5% without a override vote) to pay for a town’s share, a ballot initiative is also required. Four towns out of five must approve to pass a school budget.

That scenario happened three separate times this summer in a school budget tussle. The first school budget was larded with, among other items, retroactive raises for teachers – who hadn’t had the raises they were accustomed to in the previous two years and were trying to get them in addition to ones for the coming year. People at the town meeting were wondering aloud on what planet you get a retroactive raise in the worst recession in 60 years, when the people who you work for are unemployed, underemployed or suffering through a downturn in business. This is a school district with falling enrollments and above state average costs per student.

In my home town, New Marlborough, the budget was defeated in the town meeting and in the Proposition 2 ½ override ballot question a few days later was also voted down. The budget failed district-wide because one other town also voted against it.  In a contemptuous move, rather than cut the budget, the school board came back with a second budget identical to the first – in effect saying “screw you.” New Marlborough voted the budget down again in a second town meeting , and also on the override  ballot, this time by a 2 to 1 margin. The budget failed again district-wide with the help of  one other stalwart town. The third time the school board  decided to cut the budget by dipping into “rainy day funds.” Four of the five towns approved this irresponsible approach to funding a budget (which included teacher raises), thus passing it. New Marlborough, had to live with the budget because four other towns approved it. However, New Marlborough voted down the Proposition 2 ½ override which would have raised our taxes to pay for that budget and the raises.

(more…)