LaborPains.org

It’s a slow news day:

Marriott, on whose board Mitt Romney sat until earlier this month, has decided to remove adult content from its in-room movie options–a decision that would appear to have little to do with electoral politics, except that Romney was blasted by some social conservatives in 2008 for his connection to Marriott, in light of the soft-core in-room offerings. …

“When it comes to folks who actually work for a living–and negotiating on their wages, benefits, etc–we always hear the mantra ‘we must maximize revenue and value for the shareholders,’” AFL-CIO spokesman Eddie Vale wrote in a mass e-mail to reporters today. “Interesting how this pillar of corporate philosophy seems to have gone right out the window when it comes to helping their billionaire buddy’s presidential campaign.”

It’s not that the AFL-CIO likes porn on its own merits, according to Vale; rather, it’s the “hypocrisy” of cutting a revenue stream that could be spent on higher wages. UNITE HERE, an AFL-CIO member, represents some Marriott workers.

We’re pretty sure the AFL-CIO doesn’t want to get into a shouting match over the merits of appeasing politicians or spending money on things unrelated to worker wages. (Does 171.5 million on the 2010 election ring a bell?) But we think this begs a greater question: Does the AFL-CIO have to weigh in on everything?

Time for some more union mythbusting. Today’s lesson centers on an old union chestnut about right-to-work laws, which forbid unions from collecting dues without the employee’s individual consent. Such laws, which are on the books in 22 states, are despised by unions. No surprise there. So it is also no surprise that Indiana AFL-CIO President Nancy Guyott is fretting about a proposed right-to-work law in her state, painting an apocalyptic picture for us in the Indianapolis Star:

Wages for all workers are driven down. Both union and non-union workers in states with these laws make an average of $5,538 less a year than those who live in states without the law. …

Overall quality of life declines. In addition to the decreased buying power of those in right-to-work states, the infant mortality rate is 16 percent greater while the poverty rate for all people is 19 percent higher and is 26 percent higher for children. Seven of the 10 poorest states are right-to-work states.

The notion that right-to-work laws lead to lower wages and more poverty is cited constantly by labor leaders. The AFL-CIO calls right-to-work “right-to-work-for-less”.

These claims are transparently preposterous. Guyott does nothing to prove that right-to-work laws actually cause lower wages. All her statistics prove is that right-to-work laws tend to be more popular in the conservative South and West, which are generally poorer than, say, the Northeast.

Causation is always difficult to prove for an issue like this. But as long as we’re trying, a far better indicator than wages or the poverty rate is overall economic growth. And here the numbers are clearly in favor of right-to-work laws. Americans for Prosperity looked at the data and found that right-to-work states had 1.3 percent higher productivity growth, 8.7 percent higher job growth, and 8.1 percent higher economic growth between 1997 and 2007. AFP also found that unemployment tended to be lower in right-to-work states. (And unions are all about creating jobs, right?)

But organized labor knows this. The AFL-CIO studied the figures from 2000 and 2009, and found that income dropped an average of 3 percent in right-to-work states and 5 percent in union shop states. Funny how that never made it into a Richard Trumka stump speech. Not good news for anyone, but worse news for union shop states.

Politifact Wisconsin consulted several economists on this issue. They generally agreed that right-to-work states had higher income growth, though they disagreed over the extent of causation.

What we do know is that right-to-work laws protect worker freedom and make it harder for unions to siphon money from employees. “Right-to-work-for-less”? More like right-to-ignore-the-facts.

Image courtesy of Icky Pic.

This just might be our favorite story of the year so far:

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley is facing her first big lawsuit after saying the state would try to keep unions out of the Boeing Inc. plant in North Charleston.

The lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Charleston by the International Association of Machinists and AFL-CIO asked for a court order telling Haley and her director of the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation to butt out and remain neutral in matters concerning union activities.

“There’s no secret I don’t like the unions,” Haley said when asked about the litigation. “We are a right-to-work state. I will do everything I can to defend the fact we are a right-to-work state. We are pro-business by nature. I want us to continue to be pro-business. If they don’t like what I said, I’m sorry, that’s how I feel.”

We can’t decide what’s best about this. Is it Haley fearlessly standing up to organized labor? Or is it the comical gumption of the unions who think they can sue someone for expressing an opinion? Actually we have decided: it’s the former. A spokesman for Haley went on to say that if “the machinists are offended that the Governor doesn’t think unions are a good thing in South Carolina, they’re just going to have to get used to it.”

South Carolina has found its very own, personal Chris Christie.

With the economy still struggling, we imagine you’ve never thought to yourself, “What does Richard Trumka think of all this?” Well, you don’t have to.

Trumka shared anyway in his speech at the National Press Club yesterday. There were plenty of highlights from his tirade, but one of our favorites was his conspiracy theory about The Campaign to Destroy Workers:

Trumka continued, “I am talking about the campaigns in state after state, funded by shadowy committees created in the wake of Citizens United, aimed at depriving all workers—public and private sector—of the basic human right to form strong unions and bargain collectively.”

“This attack is fueled by the enthusiasm – and the financial support — of people like Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, and Rupert Murdoch, the billionaire publisher behind Fox News,” Trumka said, “both participate in a committee formed to raise business funds to attack public employees, based on the proposition that firefighters and nurses and medical orderlies are overpaid.”

We also enjoyed Trumka’s seminar on economics:

Trumka blended a sense of patriotism and a desire to continue American economic superiority with warnings of a “kind of 21st century peonage to the lords of finance and energy and global supply chains.”

Yikes. Time magazine pointed out Trumka’s most obvious contradiction: calling for the political rhetoric to be toned down two weeks ago, and using phrases like “crushing” workers’ rights and “destroying” institutions in his speech. Trumka also declared, “We can’t count on the political process here in Washington to get the job done.” Despite his anger at Washington, we can say with confidence that we don’t think this means an end to the AFL-CIO’s big-spending on behalf of the Democratic Party? The Democrats are all they’ve got.

Should you feel compelled, you can watch the full speech here.

Image courtesy of Jobs with Justice.

It’s day two of the new Republican House of Representatives and unions are already pulling their hair out:

The GOP’s decision to drop “labor” from the name of a House committee is being interpreted by some union officials as the curtain-raiser to their efforts to pressure the Obama administration on workplace laws and regulations.

Several labor leaders contacted by The Hill said changing the name of the House Education and Labor Committee to the House Education and the Workforce Committee shows that a new boss is in town, and one not friendly to unions.

There’s a pretty big chasm between changing a committee name and spitting on workers’ rights, but that’s union rhetoric for you. This move is purely symbolic, but organized labor (er, workforce) is right to fret. The congressional GOP has spoken favorably about requiring workers to opt in for political spending, overhauling public-sector pensions, exercising oversight over the Department of Labor, and investigating union leaders. These are all much needed reforms and, at least for the time being, Republicans look serious about enacting them.

Image courtesy of kevindooley.

It’s being called a “one-sided report” by the AFSCME. The AFL-CIO says it “could have been written by anti-worker, anti-union New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.” As far as we’re concerned, those are fantastic reviews. The report in question is a 60 Minutes piece from Sunday that broke through the union spin and told the truth about how public-sector unions are helping bankrupt states across the nation via pensions plans and more.

The video is a little long, but a must-see. Click here to watch.

The AFL-CIO links to a blog post by left-wing watchdog Media Matters that attacks 60 Minutes for never mentioning the words “tax cuts” in regards to New Jersey’s pension woes. (Because we all know what a low-tax haven New Jersey is.) The post quotes a New York Times article mentioning that tax cuts enacted in New Jersey in 1995 diverted money from the state pension fund.

But as is also stated in the Times article, New Jersey more recently raised pension benefits 9 percent and lowered the retirement age to 55. These giveaways were so absurd that the Securities and Exchange Commission later charged New Jersey with fraud for falsely claiming it had the resources to fund its generous pensions. (Pensions were later curbed a bit when it became evident a crisis was looming.) Oddly, these details never made it into the Media Matters report.

Also overlooked by the left: New Jersey has the highest tax burden in the nation. And yet the state’s pension system was so unsustainable that even those tax rates couldn’t prop it up. New Jersey’s pension system is underfunded by more than $170 billion, or 44 percent of New Jersey’s gross state product, according to the Mercatus Center. How exactly are state taxes supposed to fill such a massive gap?

Media Matters concludes by accusing 60 Minutes of having a “conservative framing.” But there’s nothing conservative about it. The fact is that the pro-union, big-government position on pensions is such blatant political spin that it’s not worth reporting.

Image courtesy of joiseyshowaa.

Wherever there are wage freezes, there’s hysterical reaction by union leaders. And wherever there’s hysterical reaction by union leaders, there’s Richard Trumka. President Obama recently proposed a two-year pay freeze for employees of the federal government. Naturally, Trumka and his fellow labor leaders aren’t very happy.

“Today’s announcement of a two-year pay freeze for federal workers is bad for the middle class, bad for the economy and bad for business,” said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. “No one is served by our government participating in a ‘race to the bottom’ in wages. We need to invest in creating jobs, not undermining the ones we have. The president talked about the need for shared sacrifice, but there’s nothing shared about Wall Street and CEOs making record profits and bonuses while working people bear the brunt. It is time to get our nation back on track, but we should not do so by placing an even greater burden on the middle class.”

“This proposal to freeze federal pay is a superficial, panicked reaction to the deficit commission report,” stated AFGE National President John Gage. “This pay freeze amounts to nothing more than political public relations. This is no time for scapegoating. The American people didn’t vote to stick it to a VA nursing assistant making $28,000 a year or a border patrol agent earning $34,000 per year.

We saw similar sturm und drang among New Jersey teachers unions when Governor Chris Christie proposed a pay freeze for teachers. But if union leaders are outraged over Obama’s plan, they should take a look at what’s happened in the private sector. In the first quarter of 2010, less than 42 percent of America’s personal income came from private sector wages and salaries, down from almost 45 percent when the recession began. About 8.5 million jobs have been shredded in the economic whirlwind of the past two years. And yet, according to a USA Today analysis, the number of federal employees making $100,000 or more has jumped 5 percent since the beginning of the recession. The average salary for federal workers is currently $71,206. The average salary for their private-sector counterparts? About $40,331. And that money comes from the very private-sector taxpayers who are struggling to make ends meet.

But public sector unions need more government workers and higher salaries to boost their membership and most importantly, membership dues. Unions see their future in public sector jobs. To put it mildly, it’s a cash cow. Here’s an idea for labor leaders. Instead of crusading against a measly pay freeze, how about returning the $171.5 million that they spent on mostly failed attempts to reelect Democrats in 2010 to their members?

Image courtesy of Ferdi’s – World.

In the past decade has heralded a new role for organized labor. Suddenly, the weapon of choice for unions is no longer the clipboard, but the lobbyist. Smaller groups have consolidated into mega-unions like the SEIU that boast deep pockets and an even deeper desire for political power. While it’s no surprise, it bears repeating: that power is getting exercised exclusively on behalf of one political party.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka hasn’t even been trying to hide this since the election. Instead he and his flacks have been barnstorming from microphone to microphone, boasting about how many members voted the “right” way.

West Virginia

“Union members provided the margin of victory for this race,” said AFL-CIO spokesman Eddie Vale, who said that 65% of union households had supported [Democrat] Mr. [Joe] Manchin, compared with just 47% of non-union households who had supported the two-term governor.

Delaware

The AFL-CIO also said it was influential in Delaware, where it calculates union members represent about 15% of the vote. The federation said union members helped Delaware Democrat Chris Coons beat Republican Christine O’Donnell, whose Senate run had the backing of tea party groups and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, among others. About 63% of union members supported Mr. Coons in his race, the AFL-CIO said.

Connecticut

In Connecticut, where union members number more than 300,000, 60% of those voting union members supported longtime [Democrat] Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, the winner of a highly competitive Senate race against the multimillionaire Republican former wrestling executive Linda McMahon, the AFL-CIO said.

Nevada

“We did our job,” Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, told the Huffington Post. “No matter what demographic, you look at our membership, we had large margins for progressive candidates approaching 30, with [Democrat] Harry Reid it was higher. We voted 69 to 29 for him which is a 40 percent margin.”

Does this sound like a workers’ interest group or an arm of the Democratic Party? Can you even begin to imagine the outrage if Walmart CEO Michael Duke spent his time after the election bragging about how many employees voted Republican?

The AFL-CIO spent millions in worker dues donating to Democratic candidates, airing commercials attacking Republicans, and sending mailers demanding that members vote left. And yet in most states, 30% to 40% of union members didn’t vote Democrat.

It’d sure be nice if the AFL-CIO decided to represent those workers too.