LaborPains.org

Here at Labor Pains, we often talk about the political clout of unions, how they funnel millions upon millions of dollars into elections, the vast majority of which goes to Democratic candidates. But it’s not often that a union makes a power play this blatant:

A government studies teacher at Washington Irving High School in Manhattan is making his first run for elective office by taking on an incumbent who angered the teachers’ union. Twenty-year veteran teacher Gregg Lundahl says he entered the Democratic primary because East Side Assemblyman Jonathan Bing introduced a bill this year to get rid of the “last hired, first fired” policy in the event of teacher layoffs.

That’s right: A union-backed, union-approved, union member is running for office in an effort to roll back reforms and maintain the status quo for teachers unions.

It’s one thing for teachers unions to donate money. The American Federation of Teachers, for example, has donated $27.7 million to political campaigns over the last two decades, $27.4 million of which went to Democrats. In other words, literally 99 percent of their political donations went to Democratic candidates. The National Education Association isn’t much better: They have donated $30.6 million in the same timeframe, $28.5 million of which went to Democrats. That’s “only” 93 percent; compared to the AFT, they’re paragons of bipartisanship.

Still, there’s a difference between funding a candidate and putting one of your own on the ballot. One wonders what the voters will make of this situation.

The recent kerfuffle over the Los Angeles Times releasing scads of data on LA’s teachers has provided some interesting insights into how defenders of teachers unions think. The head of the LA teachers union, for example, said he was “outraged” that the Times would publish data revealing which teachers were effective and which teachers weren’t making the grade. The head of the American Federation of Teachers, meanwhile, said she was “disturbed” that teachers might now be held accountable by the public at large.

The Times has now released the entire database, and reactions from teachers have been mixed. Though a few thanked the Times for revealing that they needed improvement, others dug in their heels. “Guilty as charged,” wrote Elizabeth Ellen Snyder, one of the teachers who was evaluated. “I am proud to be ‘less effective’ than some of my peers because I chose to teach to the emotional and academic needs of my students.”

This comment is, at best, ludicrous, and, at worst, an indicative insight into the mindset of bad teachers and the unions that protect them who think they are above being judged based on their performance. It’s possible that Ms. Snyder has been unfairly maligned, but if she were truly teaching to the academic needs of your students, she wouldn’t have been rated poorly. Second of all, while her commitment to the emotional well-being of your charges is admirable, she shouldn’t use it as a crutch to explain your poor performance. Finally, why couldn’t she follow the footsteps of your fellow teachers who said that their ranking showed they “have more room for improvement,” as Monica L. Petit did?

It’s easy to see why teachers unions are fighting tooth and nail against the implementation of value-added analyses; they don’t want to show how many of their members are as stubborn as Ms. Snyder. But don’t the parents of our children deserve to know the quality of education their kids are receiving?

What have we been saying at the Center for Union Facts for years? Rules that prevent incompetent employees from being dismissed are bad, because employers need to have flexibility to fire underperforming individuals. It’s good for consumers, it’s good for businesses, and it’s good for the economy.

We’re glad to see that the United Federation of Teachers agrees! But we’re sad to see that they only think they should have the ability to fire poor workers and that nobody else should:

In a move of stunning hypocrisy, the United Federation of Teachers axed one of its longtime employees — for trying to unionize the powerful labor organization’s own workers, it was charged yesterday.

Jim Callaghan, a veteran writer for the teachers union, told The Post he was booted from his $100,000-a-year job just two months after he informed UFT President Michael Mulgrew that he was trying to unionize some of his co-workers. …

“I told him I want to have the same rights that teachers have,” said Callaghan, 63, of Staten Island. “He told me he didn’t want that, that he wanted to be able to fire whoever he wanted to.

“Stunning hypocrisy” is right. Given the evidence that there are few things more detrimental to the development of a child than having a bad teacher, it’s imperative that school districts be given wider latitude to get poor-performing educators out of the classroom and away from our kids — the same kind of latitude that Mulgrew covets for his massively bureaucratic organization.

It’s pretty basic economics: When an organization grows too large to live within its means, it has to either a.) contract to a sustainable level, or b.) find new sources of revenue. Consider, for example, school districts: They have massively expanded the number of teachers in recent years — despite increases of only 22% in enrollment between 1990 and 2007, the number of teachers has risen 44% — and given their employees incredibly rich benefits (the average health care plan for a teacher costs Milwaukee $23,000, for example). And this doesn’t even begin to take into account pension plans and other retirement benefits.

In other words, school districts have promised too much money to too many people. They — and we, the citizens who fund them — simply don’t have the money to sustain this kind of largesse. So the school districts should shrink, right?

Wrong! Just as unions were being forced to think about making some minor concessions — like, say, giving up the Viagra in their health care plans — the federal government came along and bailed them out. Instead of having needed layoffs or reductions in benefits, the feds pumped billions of dollars into the system. The result?

In some cases, unions have prevented state and local governments from making needed cuts in their budgets. For example, earlier this year the Milwaukee School Board announced that it was laying off 428 teachers due to budget shortfalls. The average Milwaukee teacher receives only $56,000 per year in salary, but also gets a generous $40,000 in benefits, including a health care plan that costs $26,000 per family, compared to $14,500 for private employees. The school board sought to cut costs and to keep the teachers by implementing cuts in benefits. A proposed health care plan would have instituted co-pays expected to yield $47.2 million in savings, more than enough to save every teacher’s job. The union refused to bargain, instead opting for layoffs.

Why opt for layoffs when you know that your cronies on Capitol Hill and in the White House will just bail you out and keep the money flowing? Why make concessions when the feds will step in any time you run into a little bit of trouble? It’s impossible to bargain with unions when they have the unlimited backing of the federal government and legislators in their pocked who don’t care a whit about running up the national deficit.

There have been several times when I’ve discussed the alternate means of implementing some of the key tenets of the Employee Free Choice Act, like HERE and HERE. It’s just nice to have the President blatantly confirm this agenda in his speech to the AFL-CIO.  Basic story? EFCA will be a challenge in the lame duck session, but no worries, we’ve got other ways of making it happen. From the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Obama reiterated that the administration will put its weight behind it. “We are going to keep on fighting to pass the Employee Free Choice Act,” he told the 54 executive council members and others in the room. “We also know what and who is standing in the way of progress,” he said, adding that it will be “tough” to get the bill through the Senate and will take time to reverse the impact of “at least eight years in which there was a profound animosity toward the notion of unions.”

Mr. Obama also reminded the labor officials of the ways in which the administration has already supported unions, in part by wielding executive powers for actions that don’t require legislation.

“There’s a reason why we nominated people to the National Mediation Board that would ensure that folks in the rail and air” industries can organize, said Mr. Obama, referring to the board’s overhaul in May of a decades-old rule that had made it harder for airline and railway workers to unionize. He also cited the Democrats he nominated to the National Labor Relations Board to “restore some balance” to the group, which supervises union elections and referees disputes between private-sector employers and employees.

That’s not a typo. Not only did she call it the “Employer Freed Choice Act,” which is embarrassing enough, but she told the Communications Workers of America that EFCA ought soon be the “law of the land.”  They applauded.

From the CWA:

As cities across California and moreover, the entire state face financial obligations they can’t meet, the city of LA was on the cusp of reducing costs when the SEIU stepped in to bully another union.

Heaven forbid that the city of LA should be able to reign in employment costs and that another union be able to accept a deal the SEIU isn’t happy with.

According the the LA Times:

“Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and his top budget advisers thought they negotiated a labor contract last week that would begin to address the steadily rising cost of employee healthcare benefits. But that deal, reached with the 4,800-member Engineers and Architects Assn., has come under attack from members of another civilian employee union, which contends that the agreement contains “unprecedented and dangerous” concessions and should be rejected.

With the Engineers and Architects voting on the tentative agreement this week, organizers with Service Employees International Union Local 721 have begun warning that the proposed pact is part of a larger effort to “divide and conquer” the city’s civilian employee groups.”

The head of the beleaguered union says that behind the SEIU’s interest in the deal is their ongoing attempts to raid his union. So much for the “new directions” under Mary Kay Henry:

“Any move by one union to interfere with the negotiations of another union will ultimately backfire,” Szabo said, “because the city is likely to impose these healthcare provisions and more on those who opt out of the deal.” Michael Davies, interim executive director of the Engineers and Architects, said the Service Employees International Union is opposing the deal as part of its push to raid his union’s membership. Last fall, nearly 2,000 workers from his organization moved to the SEIU.

The SEIU and UNITE-HERE have settled up. Made peace. Cut ties.

According to the press release from the SEIU:

“The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Workers United and UNITE HERE today announced a settlement agreement on behalf of the unions’ members and elected leadership that will bring to a close the protracted dispute between the unions. [...]

The agreement provides clarity and resolution to a divisive issue in labor, and at the same time, enables each union the opportunity to increase its focus and resources on addressing the larger problems faced by members and workers who have no union.”

The equally generous statement (with a side of smarmy) John Wilhelm:

I am pleased to report we have reached a binding agreement with SEIU that brings an end to nearly two years of hostilities. I credit new SEIU President Mary Kay Henry for personally devoting her energy to making this agreement.  For the sake of workers and the labor movement, I hope that this is the first step in making SEIU the great Union it can be under her leadership. [...]

And it restores to UNITE HERE the bulk of the financial assets that have been tied up in federal court, including the Manhattan real estate. UNITE HERE and SEIU agreed to seek approval from federal regulators to transfer ownership of the Amalgamated Bank to SEIU-affiliated Workers United.

The Amalgamated Bank, which UNITE brought to the table so willingly six years ago when merging with HERE was probably the grand prize in this labor war, and the SEIU won. Some would say that acquiring it was the goal along. Just ask Bruce Raynor, who according to Mary Kay Henry was integrally involved in the negotiations.