This morning, i.e. the day that institutions bury news, the White House released the “Annual Report of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class“, which had some nice things to say about EFCA. Among the pro-labor policies touted in the report on the “Middle Class,” starting on page 23 is a page plus on the importance of EFCA and the values it embodies. The report calling for EFCA does not mean it’s less dead, it’s just that the Administration has a responsibility to stay positive on the party line.

What’s funny is whose cited in the report.  The EFCA section of the White House report cites the Economic Policies Institute, a union-founded and funded group. According to the New York Post, it is a “creature of the national AFL-CIO.” What’s even more ridiculous is that it cites a report from EPI by none other than Jared Berstein and friends, entitled “The State of Working America 2008/2009.”

So who is Jared Bernstein? Why today he’s the Chief Economist and Economist Policy Advisor for Vice President Biden, who just happened to release this enlightening report. He says elsewhere he is the Executive Director of the task force. Yes my friends….Bernstein quotes himself.

Hallmarks of the middle class that raised millions into the middle class over the last 50 years were basically ignored.  “Unions” or “unionization were mentioned 34 times, by my count. By contrast,”small business(es)” were mentioned just 8 times. The word “entrepreneur” is never even mentioned in the report. Heck, even the Great Depression got mentioned twice.

What’s that old Chinese proverb?

“There are many paths to the top of the mountain, but the view is always the same.”

No matter whether the Administration does it through a jobs bill, by reanimating a very dead EFCA, by NLRB rule changes, or executive orders, they have to find a way to give something to their loyal big labor constituants.  The Administration is currently considering something known at the “High Road Procurement Policy.” And for your information, it doesn’t take the proverbial “high road” on it’s way to handouts for big labor–and it gets labor unions exactly what they want.

From the New York Times:

The Obama administration is planning to use the government’s enormous buying power to prod private companies to improve wages and benefits for millions of workers, according to White House officials and several interest groups briefed on the plan. [...]

Although the details are still being worked out, the outline of the plan is drawing fierce opposition from business groups and Republican lawmakers. They see it as a gift to organized labor and say it would drive up costs for the government in the face of a $1.3 trillion budget deficit. [...]

The Daily Caller, a conservative Web site, reported Feb. 4 that the plan would “heavily favor government contractors that implement policies designed by organized labor.”

From the AP:

Documents obtained by The Associated Press show the plan under consideration would examine the wages and benefits — such as health insurance, retirement benefits and paid leave — a company pays its employees as a factor in the contract award process.

Image courtesy of Jakob Montrasio.

Yesterday, SEIU Local 26 became the latest local in the country to create a local protest, highlighting big bank’s profits.

From the SEIU blog yesterday:

“To symbolize this loss, 14,000 little monopoly houses were dropped by “Mr. Moneybags” at the action site. [...] Both actions are part of a continued effort to demand that big bank executives–like US Bancorp and Wells Fargo–do the right thing to fulfill their responsibility to the taxpayers that bailed them out by supporting better jobs and a green future, and helping keep working Americans in their homes.”

So you can watch the video here, but otherwise, trust me when I tell you that the image to the right is the floor of the Wells Fargo once the protesters were done with the place. They throw monopoly game piece houses everywhere and printed up thousands of “Minneapoly” bills which were thrown out of money bags. Here’s their self-congratulatory post today on SEIU.org.

I hope no small children walked in during the protest given the choking hazard of those little houses. The SEIU should have a sign: “SEIU Protests and Rallies: Unsuitable for employers and children under the age of 8.”

I find this whole thing ironic because while they probably don’t mind that they created work for their SEIU compatriots who clean Minneapolis, the amount of trash they created–littering with paper and little plastic houses– doesn’t really gel with the SEIU’s other major agenda point in Minneapolis: Being environmentally friendly. Did you catch the “green future” quote?

It should not come a s surprise that the SEIU’s “green” agenda is more about additional things to hold against employers during negotiations and less about actually caring for the environment.

In December, I wrote that “[c]aring about the environment and conservation is great (a nice change from how unions used to be), and workers safety is paramount, but for the SEIU, it is also a REALLY convenient thing to use as a trump card in negotiations.”

I have a problem with a protest trashing a place of business, but like I said, I imagine unionized workers actually did have to clean up the mess. If the 300 janitors who marched in December for greener work places want to speak out for the environment, maybe they should say something about yesterday’s protest.

Sometime there’s just a great sentence that comes along and captures the essence of what you are trying to say. From Daniel Griswold at CATO in the Washington Times:

“Unions are rapidly becoming an economic anachronism. In recent decades, barriers to international trade and investment have fallen, and domestic markets, including transportation, energy and telecommunications, have been largely deregulated. U.S. industries, on the whole, have accepted and even embraced the more competitive environment. Sectors such as steel, textiles and sugar continue to demand protection from foreign competitors, but they are now the exceptions and not the rule. But leaders of organized labor, on the whole, do not accept the new, more competitive environment.

A return to the era of more closed and regulated markets should be strongly resisted. Although it may be seen by labor leaders as a golden era, it extracted a heavy price on Americans in the form of lost consumer welfare, product innovation and freedom. The preferable policy alternative is to allow competition to work in labor markets just as it has been allowed to work more fully in product markets.”

Out of place, out of good ideas, and out of time, unions are indeed as anachronistic as they come.  At times it seems that unions are the Luddites at the tech convention, imploring everyone to replace their iPhones with a union made CB radios and their iPads with clipboards.

Image courtesy of Kenn Wilson.

Today the Center for Union Facts expressed puzzlement and disbelief following the Washington Post report that Service Employees International Union (SEIU) President Andy Stern may be nominated to President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.

“Putting Andy Stern on a debt reduction commission is the equivalent of putting a tax cheat in charge of the Internal Revenue Service, but crazier things have happened in Washington” said J. Justin Wilson, Managing Director of the Center for Union Facts. “Stern and his unions know a thing or two about government debt, as they do their fair share to contribute to it. The SEIU has single-handedly driven more than a few states to the edge of fiscal insolvency. We can’t let him do the same to the rest of the country.”

The rumor that Stern will sit on the budget panel should not come as a surprise, given his long history of thwarting states’ attempts to balance their budgets. Stern’s SEIU, and other unions that represent state employees, have blocked many attempts to renegotiate state employees salaries and benefits.

For instance, as California struggles to avoid bankruptcy and close a $20 billion dollar budget deficit, unions including the SEIU have fought tooth and nail against any effort by legislators to save money. California also faces $100 billion in unfunded pension liabilities in the next five years, but unions have vowed to reject any attempt to fix the pension crisis—and therefore any effort to address the state’s financial meltdown.

Equally entangled in their own budget crisis of unions’ making, New York State is working to close a $7.4 billion dollar deficit.  Last month, Governor Paterson stated that the public sector unions were “thumb[ing] their nose at the public’s face.”

“Stern’s self-serving brand of ‘deficit reduction’ would likely increase taxes on everyone to pay for the pensions and wages of a few—without regard for our nation’s fiscal future,” Wilson continued.

Guess how long it takes for a public school teacher in California to be granted tenure?  Prepare to be shocked:

It takes two years, without so much as a substantive review.

Facing enormously powerful teacher’s unions, Governor Schwarzenegger’s efforts to change the tenure rules (extending the tenure threshold to five years) have–to date–been resoundingly defeated.  Unions like the California Teachers Association have spent millions to keep the two-year tenure rule in place.  The Wall Street Journal took time to count the cost of this today:

“Even when bad schools close, which happens all too rarely, teachers from those schools take jobs at replacement schools or are sent to work at other schools in the system. And union contracts typically allow those with seniority to bump younger colleagues from other schools, even if the younger teachers are getting better classroom results. […]

It’s not impossible to get rid of bad teachers, but it’s extremely hard and expensive. A report this month in LA Weekly noted that in the past decade the Los Angeles Unified School District “spent $3.5 million trying to fire just seven of the district’s 33,000 teachers for poor classroom performance.“

The result? Four were fired, two others were paid large settlements and one was reinstated. The paper also reported that 32 underperforming teachers were initially targeted for removal “but then secretly paid $50,000 by the district, on average, to leave without a fight.”"

So as governors across the country look for areas to cut their state budgets, they need look no further than the seemingly innocuous line item “Education”.  Turns out, education’s budget has nothing to do with children (at least according to the teachers unions).

As it is, the California Teachers Association is asking everyone to save the date (March 3th) and “Stand up for Schools.”  “It’s time everyone paid their fair share,” opines their plea that students and parents not let the state cut education funding.

We agree that it’s time for everyone to pay their fair share. It’s just that teachers who shouldn’t even be in a classroom are paying no price at all. And California’s children and their parents are paying the full price.

Image courtesy of DonBuciak.

William Forbath, professor of law and history at the University of Texas and author of Law and the Shaping of the American Labor Movement, used his most recent Politico piece to call for Craig Becker’s appointment by President.  He doesn’t come right out and call the Administration (and the Hill, for that matter) cowards–but he gets pretty close.

His motivation for pushing the Democrats so hard to support labor? To quote the absent minded professor here: “Unions are on the verge of vanishing.” From Politico:

“The Becker nomination offers President Barack Obama a more important opportunity, what he likes to call a teachable moment. […]

But unions are on the verge of vanishing. If the Democrats won’t even go this far to halt the battering unions have been taking, then Democrats and the nation will be the losers. For soon, we won’t have any institutional player to do the heavy lifting, to provide the serious money the Democrats need to campaign for job creation, health care reform and financial regulation. McCain and company have demonized Becker simply because he’s a union lawyer. Obama should stand up to them.”

Did you catch that? Unions are the “institutional player” that do the “heavy lifting” and pays the bills in the house of card check.

Image courtesy of Veebl.

Turns out that labor leaders have been doing a little cost-benefit analysis behind our backs.

Labor leaders balked when they discovered that many unionized employees were eligible for increased taxes in the Senate’s health care bill. At the time, a deal was reached that would make collectively bargained jobs exempt from the tax until 2017; and threshold for family insurance raised from $23,000 to $24,000.

Unions agreed to the whole thing when they thought that the benefits of a comprehensive bill outweighed the potential cost of the excise tax. [Mind you, the labor unions collective "cost" was offset by sweetheart deals, $10 billion to assist unfunded pension liabilities, and exemptions from the excise tax.]

But with a comprehensive bill pretty much off the table, unions see the excise tax in a whole new light–and they are backing off their support. According to The Hill.

“But labor leaders have grown wary that the Obama administration and Congress are scaling back their ambitions for healthcare reform despite the president’s insistence that he has not. Losing union support for the healthcare effort would be a damaging blow. Organized labor has been one of the staunchest proponents of finishing the job on healthcare reform.

“”It appears that the administration and Congress will be taking a much more modest approach to healthcare reform. The cost and value of such reform would not justify using an excise tax,” Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America, told The New York Times. The communications union has been among the most vocal labor organization in its opposition to the tax.

The story ran in The New York Times, citing union leaders faulting Massachusetts as their canary in a coalmine on the excise tax:

“But as a practical matter, labor leaders said, the excise tax was killed by the election in Massachusetts, where the Republican candidate, Scott Brown, won the Senate seat long held by Edward M. Kennedy. [...] Michael A. Podhorzer, deputy political director of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., said Massachusetts should be a warning to Democrats, like “a canary in a coal mine.”

“Fully 42 percent of voters believed the health care bill would tax employer health benefits, and these voters supported Brown by two to one,” Mr. Podhorzer said.

With comprehensive health care reform–or reform of any type–unlikely, unions have more to gain complaining to Democrats than not. It’s just one more failed thing that labor leaders can torture Democrats with in November, hopefully leveraging their sympathy (and need for campaign money) to push the labor movement’s policy priorities.

Image courtesy of BULLETSAYS’.