LaborPains.org

“When you first hear about it, it seems like, ‘Yes, this looks like an appealing way to generate a lot of revenue,’ but when you study it more it seems like there are some serious unintended consequences,” said Rep. Brian Baird of Washington, a member of a coalition of centrist Democrats who often play a deciding role on business and tax bills.

That’s from a front-page story in this morning’s Wall Street Journal and it refers to the union-driven plan to increase taxes on hedge funds. I didn’t want the day to end without noting it, because it’s an important reminder that a lot of propositions put forth by people at the very top of labor unions don’t always help the people at the bottom.

What do I mean? The Journal notes that, “Among other things, lawmakers say they worry a tax boost could take a bite out of public pensions’ investment returns” — and “Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell fears it could reduce returns for her state’s public-employee pension plan, which has reaped benefits from private-equity investments. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon says he would prefer to focus on more-comprehensive tax reform.”

Now may be a good time to recall just who has been driving the rhetoric to attack hedge funds and private equity groups — it was the honchos at the Service Employees International Union. SEIU, by the way, is the second-largest public services unions (“serving” the people whose pensions would reportedly be hurt by this move.)

A consequence not intended? Maybe. Slam to union members, pushed by union leaders? Absolutely.

The New Teacher Project (a teacher training and education reform non-profit whose founder just became Chancellor of D.C.’s nightmarishly bad school system) came out with an important new report yesterday on how Chicago Public Schools evaluates and transfers its teachers. The verdict for the Chicago Teachers Union (whose contract with the district is of course key to how schools are staffed) is mixed.

The good news first: the “dance of the lemons” has more or less ceased in Chicago. Contrary to common practice in union agreements, Chicago’s unionized teachers cannot transfer schools with impunity, “bumping” out less senior teachers, but instead both principals and teachers must agree on transfers. The result? “Teachers and principals across levels of school poverty agree that the current transfer and reassignment processes are effective” (from page 3 of TNTP’s study).

The district’s union-negotiated process for evaluating teachers, however, is a completely different story. As the Chicago Tribune put it, between 2003 and 2006 “[o]nly three of every 1,000 teachers in the school system received an “unsatisfactory” rating.” Fifty-six percent of veteran Chicago principals admitted to TNTP that they inflated teacher ratings, but the reasons why (page 48) are striking:

• 30% said the teacher’s tenure would prevent dismissal regardless of the rating;
• 34% said it wasn’t worth enduring the lengthy union grievance proceedings;
• 51% said that the union contract makes it difficult to lower the rating of a teacher that has previously received high ratings;
• and 73% said that the performance evaluation doesn’t actually evaluate performance.

It gets worse. TNTP found that “between 2003 and 2006, only nine teachers received two or more “unsatisfactory” ratings and none was dismissed.” Deeper in the report, TNTP’s survey of 464 Chicago principals determined that a staggering 83% of bad teachers with tenure are “rarely or never terminated” (page 49). The union contract looms large in principals’ decisions not to pursue a bad tenured teacher’s termination, with 55% of principals agreeing that “[t]he documentation required [to pursue a termination] is too time-consuming” (the top reason) and 34% agreeing that “[t]he risk of a cumbersome grievance process is too great.”

The Wall Street Journal‘s editorial page today highlights a political payoff from Democrats to their Big Labor patrons. The paper focuses on a Davis-Bacon requirement in the current farm bill. Says the Journal:

Because ethanol production would be significantly more expensive under Davis-Bacon — and because the government requires ethanol in gasoline — ordinary Americans would foot the bill for this union handout in the form of higher prices at the gas pump. That veto is looking more attractive by the moment.

• An op-ed in the Charleston Daily Mail says you can support unions and right-to-work laws which are more fair for all working Americans
• The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports: “A top Pennsylvania Teamsters official could lose jobs paying him more than $188,000 a year if he loses in a pending ruling by a Teamsters’ panel on charges he lied to the federal board that oversees the union.”
• Local AFSCME leader doesn’t hang up his cell phone after making mocking rant to rival, and hilarity ensues …
• Union bosses are still blocking a major development project in San Diego

Well, presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich certainly opened fire on Detroit, though his volley appears to be on target:

Gingrich blasted the city of Detroit, Detroit Public Schools, the United Auto Workers and Michigan’s unemployment rate during an interview on Fox News Sunday in which he talked about how he would transform Washington … 

Rick Tyler, Gingrich’s spokesman, said Monday that unions are to blame for many of the city’s and state’s woes, including the inability of the Big Three automakers to be competitive and the school system’s struggle to reform itself. Gingrich also cited Detroit’s massive population losses. 

“Of Glass Houses & Septic Tanks: AFL-CIO Negotiates Less-than-Living Wage Increase with its Unionized Staff” — read the whole thing.

Today’s New York Times carries an interesting article by the paper’s top labor reporter, Steven Greenhouse. The overall story is about presidential hopefuls’ race to woo Big Labor’s big bucks, but there was an interesting reflection by one of the nation’s most politically powerful union leaders.

The Times reports:

Gerry McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, acknowledges having learned a lesson in endorsing Mr. Dean.

“We made a big error,” Mr. McEntee said. “The error was that to a large extent it was a leadership decision made without a deep enough effort to see how our members really felt.”

Hmm … yes … I suppose getting member input on how their money and voice is used would be a good thing. It’s interesting to note that the lesson was only learned after abusing those members’ trust — and it doesn’t appear anything has formally changed in the interim. It’s still up to the union bosses …