Amazingly, Congress is trying to Force Union Contract Rules like this onto States and Localities

The New York – New Jersey Port Authority (NYNJPA) union contract with the NYNJPA’s police union provides that officers suspended with and “without pay” will still be paid for unearned overtime during their suspension.

Amazingly, Harry Reid and congress are trying right now to force this type of workplace lunacy onto states and localities through the Police Fire Fighter Forced Unionism bills (S. 3194 & H.R. 413).  If passed this will bring union officials one step closer toward mandating forced unionism for every state and local government employee.  Take Action now and let congress know that you oppose this expansion of forced unionism through federal fiat.

(more background available after the bump)

Background regarding the NYNJPA No-Work Overtime Provision

The New York Posts’ Carl Campanile writes:

Port Authority cops have an unbelievable perk that other workers can only dream of — they can collect overtime for not working.

The bizarre benefit applies to officers suspected of misconduct who are suspended with pay and later cleared or found guilty of an infraction carrying a penalty that’s short of dismissal. Suspended officers can claim overtime if no formal charges are filed within 120 days.

The theoretical overtime these cops would have made during their suspensions is based on a formula in their union contract. [see video]

According to the contract, if an officer suspended with or without pay is not dismissed, then they will receive overtime for the period that they were suspended without pay using the formula below.

The Port Authority union contract overtime formula: 

where “a” is the average overtime earned per pay period by the suspended Police Officer during the seventy-eight (or the actual number if less than seventy-eight) pay periods immediately prior to the pay period during which his suspension commenced;

“b” is the average overtime earned per pay period per Police Officer during those seventy-eight (or the actual number if less than seventy-eight) pay periods at the Police Command to which the suspended Police Officer was assigned during that period. If the Police Officer was assigned to more than one Police Command during that period, then the average overtime for the period shall be determined by using average overtime earned per Police Officer at each Police Command to which the Police Officer was assigned during that period for the pay periods he was assigned to that Police Command;

“c” is the initial estimate of the Police Officer’s missed overtime earned per pay period to be determined, and

“d” is the average overtime earned per pay period per Police Officer at the Police Command to which the suspended Police Officer is assigned during the same pay periods of the Police Officer’s administrative suspension.

Upon determination of “c”, that amount shall be multiplied by the number of pay periods that the Police Officer was on administrative suspension, provided that any pay period during that suspension in which the Police Officer was absent due to sickness or injury incurred in the line of duty on at least half of his scheduled work days shall not be used in that multiplication. Then, from that amount shall be subtracted all overtime, if any, earned by the Police Officer during the suspension. The resulting balance shall be paid to the Police Officer as and for missed overtime.

If a Police Officer who is suspended without pay is changed to administrative suspension or returned to full duty he shall receive payment of his full pay for the period during which he was suspended without pay except payment for missed overtime opportunities. If such Police Officer is not dismissed from employment the calculation of missed overtime opportunities shall be made in accordance with the method set forth in paragraph j (ii), above, except that the period of suspension shall include the period during which the Police Officer was suspended without pay. [Emphasis added]

In 28 states across the U.S., unionized workers can be forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. If workers refuse to pay the union, the union can order them to be fired from their jobs.

However, since 1947, the so-called Taft-Hartley Amendments to the National Labor Relations Act (passed over Pres. Harry Truman’s veto) enabled state legislatures to enact “Right-to-Work” laws which outlaw forced unionism. Currently, there are 22 “right-to-work” states…Unless Congressman Brad Sherman gets his way.

It’s not the first time he’s pushed it.  In 2008, he actually introduced a bill that went nowhere.  However, this time union-bought backed Democrat Congressman Brad Sherman’s effort to end Right-to-Work laws must be take a little more seriously.

On Monday, Rep. Sherman sent a letter to colleagues encouraging them to join his efforts to force workers to pay union dues by ending Right-to-Work laws.

With nearly $700,000 pumped into his campaign coffers over his career by Big Labor (12 out of his top 20 contributors are unions), there’s little wonder why the California Congressman would want to reward his backers.  After all, California, (with all its fiscal issues) owes a lot to its unions.

Note: California is not a right to work state but its neighbors Arizona and Nevada are.

Download: 

Contributor	Total	Indivs	PACs
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers	$75,000	$0	$75,000
American Assn for Justice	$73,000	$0	$73,000
Credit Union National Assn	$71,819	$6,250	$65,569
Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union	$71,500	$0	$71,500
Teamsters Union	$68,000	$0	$68,000
National Assn of Realtors	$67,750	$1,000	$66,750
Carpenters & Joiners Union	$67,500	$0	$67,500
United Auto Workers	$66,000	$0	$66,000
American Institute of CPAs	$62,500	$0	$62,500
American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees	$59,000	$0	$59,000
Operating Engineers Union	$58,000	$0	$58,000
Laborers Union	$55,000	$0	$55,000
United Food & Commercial Workers Union	$52,500	$0	$52,500
Time Warner	$51,400	$38,900	$12,500
Specialty Merchandise Corp	$48,200	$48,200	$0
American Federation of Teachers	$44,031	$0	$44,031
Grobstein, Horwath & Co	$43,533	$43,533	$0
Deloitte & Touche	$41,750	$750	$41,000
National Education Assn	$40,000	$0	$40,000
Service Employees International Union	$37,200	$0	$37,200

If Sherman and his colleagues succeed in getting a bill passed that ends workers’ right to work, President Obama would likely sign it and millions of Americans could be forced to pay a union or be fired if they become unionized.

This is why….

Elections have consequences

Get out and vote in November.

hat-tip: Alliance for Worker Freedom

cross-posted on RedState

This past September Lisa Snyder, a 35 year old Michigan mother,  made the news when she received a disturbing letter from the Michigan Department of Human Services.  In it, the letter warned her that she was in violation of the law.  Her offense?  Watching a handful of neighborhood kids  each morning for about 20 minutes as they waited at the end of her driveway for the school bus to arrive, with the blessing of their parents. State law in Michigan prohibits the home supervision of unrelated children for more than four weeks in a year without a child care provider license.  Turns out a neighbor had complained and the Michigan Department of Human Services, the watchdog for home child care licensing, intervened by sending the warning letter.  In Michigan, state employees for the DHS are represented by the United Auto Workers (UAW) labor union.  Coincidentally, the union that represents the state’s home child care workers?  Also the UAW.

AFSCME: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
FCC: Family child care   |   FNN: Family, friend and neighbor
” Building a Union of Family Child Care and FFN Providers”
by SEIU & AFSCME members to the National Women’s Law Center

So, are these the unintended consequences of, as Michigan Rep. Brian Calley described it, “agency officials interpreting a 36-year-old statute regulating day care centers more broadly than necessary”? Or intended consequences that UAW is the union that represents both the home child care workers  AND the government agency that serves as its enforcer and watchdog in the first place?   Let me point out that in 15 out of the 16 states in its home child care organizing strategy, SEIU designates the organizing lead either to itself or to its collaborating partner union, AFSCME – Michigan is the only state in which they deviate and incorporate UAW.

Also in Michigan, a story of three women who run their own independent businesses out of their homes, caring for neighborhood children. They each recently  received a letter indicating that they are now dues-paying members of the Child Care Providers Together Michigan union – a complete surprise to them.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

After a 2006 Executive Order by the Michigan Governor awarded the union (a partnership of UAW and AFSCME) bargaining rights for home child care workers, all it took for the union to convert all 40,000 child care workers to dues paying members was 5,900 signed union authorization cards.  That left some independent home child care workers, who’d for years considered themselves self-employed, feeling dismayed and stunned. Such began cries of forced unionism and initiated a lawsuit against the Michigan Department of Human Services.  The lawyer for the plaintiffs, Patrick Wright from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, explains that the whole arrangement -

is nothing more than “a government ’shell corporation‘ designed to get around possible political and constitutional obstructions to the arrangement”.  Wright offers a detailed backgrounder on this case and a fantastic explanation of the scheme behind the actions.

So, was this an instance of unintended consequences that were simply unforeseen by the state of Michigan and its representatives working with the unions?  Or was unionizing 40,000 child care workers under the quiet cover of an apparently under-advertised vote by mail campaign an intended consequence for AFSCME and UAW?  More importantly, why is SEIU’s part in this production so downplayed?  Their joint documents clearly indicate that SEIU is driving the national movement to unionize home child care workers all across the country.  Not to mention SEIU’s “Kids First” program, which is both the beneficiary and the business driver behind all of these new home child care union members, in concert with AFSCME’s efforts.

Some of these examples seem to be reminiscent of other SEIU unionization efforts.

Most recently, there is the case of the National Union for Healthcare Workers (NUHW), an independent union that was formed by the democratically elected Executive Board members and stewards of SEIU United Healthcare Workers-West (SEIU-UHW), the result of Andy Stern’s two year hostile takeover of the union before it became SEIU-UHW. Fellow BigGovernment contributor, Publius, wrote about their recent struggles with SEIU in the post, “Union and Whistleblower Complaint Documents SEIU Ballot Fraud”. On the heels of that post comes another titled “Whistleblower Video Reveals SEIU Ballot Fraud“, which exposes scandalous video of SEIU’s typical unionizing tactics from a June 2009 union election against the NUHW, which I’ll reference here for convenience (but be sure to read the full post above!):

There are of course countless articles that recount  the landmark 2005 action by former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich when he issued an executive order that gave home-based child care providers the freedom to form a union for the first time ever in the state’s history. One of many unintended consequences of that decision was the empowerment of SEIU to visit workers at their workplace – their homes.  This opened up the door for similar problems in a number of states.

And stories of unintended consequences abound in California, not just in reference to the struggles of what has since become UHW, but also on the struggles that existed between SEIU and other labor unions, such as the California Nurses Association (a struggle that still remains) and for a time in multiple states, even labor union partner AFSCME.

A great, detailed timeline of SEIU’s history of attacking other labor unions, including its own, is maintained by UNITE HERE’s specialty website that issues an open call for SEIU to change its course.

But why is SEIU so eager to carry out its strategy to turn all of these home child care workers into state employees and unionize them?  AFSCME answers it well in their own talking points:

“By employing millions of independent providers across the country, states are undercutting public employee wages and conditions, and threatening our jobs. AFSCME must organize independent providers to fight for decent wages and benefits, and to prevent the erosion of our own living standards.“

Click to view flyer

There’s also the benefit of billions and billions of dollars in state and federal aid that goes not only to the care providers (for nutritious food and expenses), but to the unions for education and research and various other things. And when you have independent home child care providers who, given the choice to unionize and receive government food subsidies, would prefer to give up food subsidies if it meant remaining independent and self-employed, why would you deny them that?  Why place that burden on the state and federal taxpayers when it does not need to be there?

Well, that simply solidifies the next benefit, which is the benefit of thousands of additional dues-paying union members at a time.  And with more members of course comes more power and leverage.  In fact, it’s worth pointing out what others have also noticed tucked away inside the Senate health care bill.  SEIU’s leverage would seem rather evident in a few key sections:

The Personal Care Attendants Workforce Advisory Panel, one of a multitude of new bureaucratic agencies created in the bill, will help dictate how many workers staff our health care facilities and home workers, along with their benefits and wages, etc.

SEIU will also benefit from a likely appointment on the National Health Care Workforce Commission (Page 1279), a commission of 15 members to be appointed by the Comptroller General to include individuals  with national recognition for their expertise in health care labor market analysis, including health care workforce analysis, in addition to health care workforce education and training, among other expertise.

It’s not so much the workers’ rights that anyone really takes issue with – unions of course have every right to make recommendations for the best wages and benefits on behalf of their members.  And it’s not so much the notion that labor unions would have input to the analysis and education of health care workers that some might take issue with.

The real issues at hand are those of unintended consequences:

• As states negotiate their health care, home care and child care contracts and turn more of them over to labor unions like SEIU, the universe of unionized health care workers expands.  Add to that the government-run option, and that universe expands exponentially – to an unbalanced level. It’s hard to imagine there would be any private health care workers left in a few years. (Especially when the union repeatedly assaults any defense of the free market system and capitalism).
• With the recent behavior of SEIU and its incessant attacks on companies and individuals they perceive to be “too wealthy”, will a union with so much power granted to it by the government take it upon itself to determine to whom and how care is delivered?  Rather than boycott advertisers, will they refuse care if they don’t like what you say or how much you make?
• Will SEIU’s notoriously aggressive tactics in negotiating contracts seep into our personal health affairs?  Think about it – this is a union that has allegedly harassed its own affiliates, stalked home care workers and nurses at their homes for not electing SEIU to represent them, forced home child care workers into unionism, and broken into people’s mailboxes to steal their voting ballots.  What will its leaders do when health care workers’ contracts don’t go the way they’d like?  Will they go on strike and leave patients stranded?
• How many other “babysitter” laws will be added into legislation or their interpretation stretched to fit the needs of growing SEIU’s membership?
• What else will SEIU try to somehow attach to health care, in an effort to embed itself into every facet of our personal care?  Aside from actual health care workers, SEIU currently ties the following workers, all SEIU members, to health care:  Cafeteria Workers, Laundry Service Workers, Janitors, Building Service Workers, and others.
• If state governments like Michigan can unionize workers who happen to receive public subsidies as part of their private business operations, how will this apply in the arena of health care with a government-run plan?  Will SEIU seize this as an opportunity to step in and unionize any facility or provider receiving subsidies?  And what about individuals?  The government and SEIU enforce this logic for business bailouts.  Government also  uses the same logic to enforce mandatory participation in the Green for All weatherization programs in states like NJ.  What’s to say the same logic won’t be applied to individuals in the public option?
• With a monopoly on the health care workers in the country, what kind of “Justice for All” plan of accountability will the SEIU launch after their “close the wealth gap” issue isn’t achieved?  Will they embark upon a “close the health wealth gap” instead?
• Once SEIU has expanded to all of health care, what’s left?  Will they come after your union next?  Or try to unionize you?  Perhaps they’ll unionize private consultants, accountants, home caterers, writers, Joe the Plumber, homemakers and moms.

Will we conveniently chalk it all up to the law of unintended consequences? Or will anyone in Congress or average American citizen voters have enough sense to start looking for intent in such consequences?