LaborPains.org

How low can you go? From the LA Times:

Labor unions representing California nurses are attacking key parts of a bill that would overhaul the state’s system for investigating and disciplining health workers accused of misconduct. The objections by the politically powerful California Nurses Assn., Service Employees International Union and groups for other health professions come days before a state Senate panel is set to vote on moving the bill forward. [...] Among the proposed reforms are safeguards that would bring California in line with other states, such as requiring that employers report workers who are fired or suspended for serious wrongdoing.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has made fixing the system a priority since ProPublica and The Times reported last July that dangerous and incompetent nurses were able to keep practicing for years despite accusations of misconduct, abuse or neglect.

I understand not having standards, because then what is there to be held accountable too? I am positive that the damning line in this story is this:

“Among the proposed reforms are safeguards that would bring California in line with other states, such as requiring that employers report workers who are fired or suspended for serious wrongdoing.”

Californians take pride in being “first”–much like Texans take pride in being “bigger.”  Sorry California.  On this particular issue, your unions don’t even want you to come up to speed.

The LA Times explains:

“Unions have taken particular aim at the mandatory reporting requirement, which would oblige employers to notify regulators when workers have been fired or suspended for serious problems. The nurses association, with a membership of 86,000, said the requirement could punish whistle-blowers unfairly dismissed by their employers. Many states already require such reporting.”

That even reads like a lame excuse. This isn’t an endorsement of the legislation. It’s more a “Hey, California Nurses Association, you are starting to sound an awful lot like a teacher’s union.” Now that’s saying something.

Image courtesy of Steve Rhodes.

The bad news? The teachers who occupied them still aren’t going to get fired anytime soon:

The centers house more than 600 teachers accused of misbehavior — ranging from educational incompetence to sexual abuse — who wait for hearings for months and years on end while doing nothing at full salary. …

Under the deal, teachers accused of lesser charges will now report to Department of Education administrative offices or schools to perform clerical duties, sources said.

The city will also hire more arbitrators and set a strict time limit on the length of investigations in order clear up the logjam in disciplinary hearings.

The city’s eight rubber rooms cost the city $40 million in salaries alone last year, according to the Department of Education.

The “rubber rooms” first came to national attention when the New Yorker profiled the Big Apple’s practice of paying teachers millions of dollars a year to literally sit around and do nothing. A taste:

The teachers have been in the Rubber Room for an average of about three years, doing the same thing every day—which is pretty much nothing at all. Watched over by two private security guards and two city Department of Education supervisors, they punch a time clock for the same hours that they would have kept at school—typically, eight-fifteen to three-fifteen. Like all teachers, they have the summer off. The city’s contract with their union, the United Federation of Teachers, requires that charges against them be heard by an arbitrator, and until the charges are resolved—the process is often endless—they will continue to draw their salaries and accrue pensions and other benefits.

While it’s a good move to get these teachers out of the rubber room and doing something mildly productive, it’s only the first step. Real progress won’t come until these teachers are removed from the school system — and the public teat — once and for all.

In Politico:

“We have no intention at the SEIU of making a threat and not doing something about it,” he said. Among the Democrats targeted for retribution are Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln, North Carolina Rep. Larry Kissell and Pennsylvania Rep. Jason Altmire. “I think Blanche Lincoln is ‘Example A’ of the frustration we feel about people who we don’t think represented Arkansan workers, Arkansan SEIU members and Arkansans about their issues,” he said. [...]

House and Senate Democratic leaders have appealed to Stern and other SEIU officials to reconsider their tactics, given the already poisonous political atmosphere this cycle. Stern said he understands “that’s their job,” but the union won’t budge. “We’re not lap dogs for a political party. We are watchdogs for our members,”

You did hear him right.

And is other weird news. Andy Stern mentions North Carolina’s Kissell as a target.  Well the local SEIU has taken action in the most realistic way possible. They’ve started their own political party.

You heard that right too.

It’s called “North Carolina First Party”, because I think that “SEIU First Party” was already taken.

Image courtesy of mickeymox.

According to Michael O’Brien over at The Hill:

Controversial “card-check” legislation won’t come up in the Senate this year, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said Wednesday.

McCaskill said that while senators were still negotiating the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), a controversial bill to reform union organizing rules, it was unlikely to even include the actual “card-check” provision itself, which has been the subject of heavy fire from conservatives and business groups.

“I don’t think that card-check is going to come up,” McCaskill said during a weekly conference call with Missouri journalists. “It has not come up, and believe me: If card-check, the way it was drafted, was going to come up, it probably would have come up early in 2009, as opposed to now.”

“Timing issues” regarding jobs and health care legislation, a list of Democrats with issues on the bill, and the elections this fall, are just a few of the reasons listed as to why Employee Free Choice Act will not see the light of day–on the Hill, that is.

New regulations pouring out of the National Labor Regulations Board– excuse me–the National Labor Relations Board is of huge concern, as the labor movement looks to fill the EFCA-sized, Andy Stern-shaped hole in their hearts.

The American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts has decided that their state doesn’t really  need the hundreds of millions of dollars being given away by the Obama administration in the latest round of Race to the Top funding:

The state’s second-largest teachers union organization, which represents teachers in Boston and other big cities, has decided to boycott Massachusetts’ application for the Obama administration’s innovative educational fund, possibly jeopardizing $250 million in grants.

The move, approved Saturday by the board of the American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts, stunned state education leaders, key legislators, and charitable organizations that work on education issues. …

“It’s shortsighted,’’ said Mitchell Chester, the state’s commissioner of elementary and secondary education. “It doesn’t do justice to the dedicated teachers we have in this state, including teachers in the AFT locals, who are in fact committed to reforms.’’

No word yet from the AFT on why they would essentially pull the plug on the state scoring hundreds of millions of much-needed dollars. It probably has something to do with the fact that the union has struggled mightily against enacting common sense reforms that would reward teachers who excel at improving the educational experience of their students. Got to protect those jobs even if that protection comes at the expense of the kids who could use that extra funding, after all.

Photo courtesy of Orange42

Colorado is yet another education battleground this week. From the Denver Post:

A battle began anew Monday as a controversial bill seeking to change teacher-tenure laws was introduced into the legislature — much to the ire of the powerful teachers union. […] The Colorado Education Association — the state’s largest union, which represents 40,000 educators — is opposed to the bill, calling it “too much, too fast,” said CEA president Beverly Ingle.

“We are lobbying heavily around this bill,” said CEA spokeswoman Deborah Fallin. “Our members, the more they learn about it, the more crazy they get. This is a very difficult piece of legislation, and they are concerned that we are going to end up with another bad evaluation system.”

Another bad evaluation system? What about just having an evaluation system in place that actually can….wait for it…..evaluate bad teachers? Oh wait, that’s what this bill is about.

Heartening news out of New York City:

Two Democratic state lawmakers have sponsored a bill that would give principals in New York City the power to choose who should lose their jobs if the city needs to lay off teachers because of budget cuts.

The bill is certain to raise the ire of teachers’ unions, which remain a powerful force in Albany. It could provoke also a new round of battles between the United Federation of Teachers and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who have had an icy relationship for months and are fighting over a new teachers’ contract. …

“Experience matters, but it cannot be the sole or even principal factor considered in layoff decisions,” Mr. Klein said in a statement. “We must be able to take into account each individual’s track record of success.”

Heartening in the sense that seniority will no longer cost excellent teachers their jobs while hacks who aren’t any good but have been around forever continue to draw a check. Obviously no one likes to see someone get laid off in these difficult economic times.

Still, if budget cuts mean that some teachers have to go, doesn’t it make sense to keep teachers around who may have less experience but are better at their jobs? Not only will it be better for students, it’ll be better for the state’s bottom line: Teachers with more seniority make more money.

Photo courtesy of roger.karlsson

In Washington, D.C., hypocrisy comes in many different flavors. My favorite flavor is “do as I say, not as I do.” From philandering social conservatives to ruthless labor leaders, it rarely fails to entertain me.

So, when I saw a Hilda Solis’ Department of Labor making waves about the illegality of unpaid internships, I knew there was more to the story.

Here’s what a DOL official told the New York Times:

“If you’re a for-profit employer or you want to pursue an internship with a for-profit employer, there aren’t going to be many circumstances where you can have an internship and not be paid and still be in compliance with the law.”

Now consider this job posting on Facebook for internships in then-Representative Solis’ Congressional office.