Unions are a legal “privileged class” to Democrats (our founders envisioned NO royalty of any kind!). Public employee unions were invented by Democrat “progressives”... as a permanent public money cash cow! We ordinary folks are told we must sacrifice, tighten our belts and pay higher taxes because the morbidly obese “1,000lb man” (public sector) can NEVER be asked to go on a diet! They are the WORST kind of greedy, they want MORE, MORE, MORE and want you to have LESS, LESS, LESS! Methinks now their cover be blown?
Anyone who supports this administration is an enemy of the state, IMO.
it pisses me off the gop in ALL states don’t go after public unions more. They’re using tax dollars to fund your opposition
We need to send this story to all our state lawmakers and demand that these unions be legislated out of existence.
This should become a MAJOR talking point for ANY Republican who is interviewed about this issue!
In WI, here is one example of union waste of 1/2 billion taxpayer dollars. How much went to the DP?
Here is a report from 2000 that shows the waste of WEAC of at least $ 50 million a year times 10+ years === 1/2 billion dollars.
This problem has been documented and known for a long time and the union refused to do anything..
There is a need to summarize the significant past problems in dealing with WEAC (teachers union). Everyone knows that the DP supports wholeheartly the teachers union and gives away taxpayer money to them. The union has an unfair power/leverage that increases taxpayer costs. Another issue is the unfair process of mediation/arbitration.
Here is a report from 2000 stating that WEAC controls 85% of the teacher’s health insurance without competition.
http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume13/Vol13no8.pdf page 20
The market for teachers’health insurance in Wisconsin is characterized by several traits. The health insurance is
determined through the collective bargaining process. The health insurance plans provided by the districts are rarely
put out to bid.37 The WEAInsurance Corporation, an entity affiliated with the state’s largest teachers union, provides
insurance coverage to roughly 85% of the districts. The peculiarities of this market suggest that competition between
insurers to write health insurance coverage is severely limited in most districts.
The current study reports the results of a statistical analysis that tested whether the WEAInsurance Corporation
charges more for health insurance coverage than other insurers. The analysis controlled for various factors believed
to be associated with the price of insurance coverage. The results suggest that the WEA Insurance Corporation does
charge more for its insurance product than other insurers. Possible explanations for this finding are that the WEA
Insurance Corporation provides more extensive insurance protection to those it insures, that it provides a higher level
of service to its customers, and that it derives market power from its affiliation with the WEA.
Reform that would foster competition in the market for teachers’ health insurance would serve the interests of
Wisconsin’s taxpayers and teachers. A model for reform is the health insurance pool for state employees. This is
administered by the Department of Employee Trust Funds (ETF), as is a similar pool available to Wisconsin public
employers. On a statewide basis, savings that could accrue to school districts through participation in the state
employee health insurance pool are estimated to be approximately $50,000,000 per year. If the savings were passed
to Wisconsin’s teachers, the average teacher in the state would receive a pay increase of $875.
Unions consistently commit treason on the level of releasing the Pentagon Papers, Wikileaks, and Saddam Hussein. Why are union members treated by so many conservatives as respectable people we can disagree with? Why are we not treating them as the enemies of the state that they are, and sponsoring leaders who will permanently shut down the unions by any means necessary?
This can be fixed in any state by passing Paycheck Protection - requiring unions to get explicit permission annually from members to use union dues for politics.
Arnold tried to get this done his 1st year in California with the special election proposition. It was crushed by the Nurses Union and Teachers Union drumming up opposition by the voters. What a shame. California would already have Paycheck Protection if this had passed, and the Democratic Party stranglehold would be severely weakened in California.
This needs to be raised again and PASSED.
No public employee unions, no Democratic party, quoting
JB Williams’ recent article at News With Views.
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
Not that I agree with a lot that FDR did...but he had this right.
"In 1962, JFK signed executive order 10988 allowing the unionization of the federal work force. This changed everything in the American political system. Kennedy's order swung open the door for the inexorable rise of a unionized public work force in many states and cities.
This in turn led to the fantastic growth in membership of the public employee unions—The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the teachers' National Education Association. "
This has led to an endless supply of money...Federal Tax Dollars...to enter into the campaign funds of the Democratic Party as well...against the will of many tax payers. IMO, this is unconstitutional. One can make a case that it is taxation without representation.