Right to Work and Government Bankruptcy

[Foxfyre]

There are two major and interrelated issues bubbling just under the media radar but that will likely erupt fairly soon now.

ONE is consideration of a new federal law that would allow states to declare bankruptcy as municipalities can now do. Short of another massive federal bailout, which the nation cannot afford, this may be the only solution for a number of states drowning in red ink. A limited bankruptcy would allow states to reorganize uncumbered by union constraints that are sinking them.

According to Rasmussen, most Americans currently oppose this initiative.

THE OTHER is a GOP push, mostly led by Rand Paul, for a National Right to Work law that could effectively bust unions by making it illegal to require workers to join a union or pay union dues in order to get or keep their jobs.

According to Rasmussen, more than 80% of Americans favor this initiative.

So what say you?

 

[Foxfyre]

Excerpts of a mailer that is being circulated under Rand Paul's name:

They snickered when I said I came to the U.S. Senate to change Congress.

But their laughter stopped when I sponsored the National Right to Work Act to free U.S. workers from forced unionization and break Big Labor's multi-billion dollar political machine forever.

President Barack Obama and Big Labor allies in the Senate are now feverishly scheming to bury the National Right to Work Act without a vote.

So I have a question for you, ________

Will you be my sledgehammer?

As you know, the right to decide freely whether or not to join a union was taken away from American workers by Congress almost 75 years ago.

A result of back-room deals between union bosses and their tax-and-spend Congressional puppets, compulsory unionism provisions in federal law currently empower union officials to:
>>>Force nearly 11 million Americans to pay tribute to a union boss to get or keep a job ...

>>>Brazenly loot union treasuries to fund the election of their hand-picked political puppet candidates. . . .

>>>Terrorize workers and communities with violent strikes -- where they get away with beatings, arson -- even murder.

The National Right to Work Act strikes at the foundations of the union bosses' power.

. . . .All you and I have to do is force an up-or-down roll call vote on the National Right to Work Act ... And the American people will do the rest.

Many Democrats and more than a few Republicans elected with Big Labor's over $1 billion in forced-dues political cash cower in fear of casting a vote against the National Right to Work Act.

What will they do when forced to vote?. . . .

. . . .You see, the union bosses fear a vote on the National Right to Work Act more than just about anything else.

They know it's a losing proposition for them whether the bill passes or not.

The fact is for decades union officials have schemed to seize billions of dollars from their "members" and then used it to elect their candidates to protect these privileges.

The National Right to Work Act will turn this entrenched, corrupt Washington order on its head.

Every year Big Labor siphons over $8 BILLION from workers' paychecks; mostly from workers who, if they refused to pay, would be fired from their jobs.

Union bosses take this eye-popping heap of dough to feed a lifestyle of limousines, penthouses and raw political power.

And, my friend, Big Labor's political corruption costs all of us:
*Hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts and bloated government spending suck the life out of our economy, rewarding failed businesses like GM and letting union-boss featherbedding and rigged contracts rocket the cost of schools, hospitals and roads through the roof.

*Millions more good-paying jobs destroyed or driven overseas as union czars cripple America's bedrock industries with wasteful work rules, hate-the-boss propaganda and violent strikes.

*You and all Americans robbed of your wealth as the economy stays in recession and the price of cars, gasoline and groceries climbs upwards.

*Small businesses strangled with red tape and bureaucracy designed by greedy union flunkies to kill companies too small for so-called union “organizing.”

 

[Foxfyre]

I picked up the following from a blog but saw the op-ed piece yesterday. In the LA Times, Jeb Bush argued for limited bankruptcy for states that have no other way to get out of the current union entanglements and balance their budgets. So far the unions have not been willing to renegotiate or compromise on anything.

In op-ed that appeared in today's Los Angeles Times, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush made the argument that some cash-strapped states should be allowed to declare bankruptcy. The piece, co-authored with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, said the practice would relieve Washington, D.C., of pressure to bail states out.

During the 2008 financial crisis, the federal government reacted in a frantic, ad hoc fashion, tapping taxpayers for bailouts galore, running roughshod over the rights of bondholders and catching the American people unaware and unprepared. In contrast, we still have time to prepare for the looming crisis threatening to engulf California, Illinois, New York and other state governments.

The new Congress has the opportunity to prepare a fair, orderly, predictable and lawful approach to help struggling state governments address their financial challenges without resorting to wasteful bailouts. This approach begins with a new chapter in the federal Bankruptcy Code that provides for voluntary bankruptcy by states, a proven option already available to all cities and towns across America.

The figures for next year's budgets are staggering. California, which faces a $25.4-billion budget shortfall, will pay $100,000+ pensions to more than 12,000 state and municipal retirees this year. A Stanford study puts the state's unfunded pension obligations at more than half a trillion dollars. Illinois has a $15-billion budget deficit, prompting its governor and lame-duck Legislature to hike its personal income tax rate by 66%. New York, where 73% of the government workforce is unionized, is staring at a $10-billion deficit.

Jeb Bush: Let states declare bankruptcy | jacksonville.com

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, one more post and then if there isn't any response, I'll figure this one is of no interest to our USMB members.

The question to be answered here is: Do you want unions to be more powerful? Or do you want unions to be less powerful?

The folks at Redstate are raising eyebrows at a recent executive order by President Obama that they see having potential increase power of unions at all levels, most especially at the federal level:

…as the Executive Order expressly requires, agencies should also allow predecisional involvement with unions in all workplace matters to the fullest extent practicable, without regard to whether those matters are negotiable subjects of bargaining under 5 U.S.C. 7106. As stated in the Executive Order, “Management should discuss workplace challenges and problems with labor and endeavor to develop solutions jointly, rather than advise union representatives of predetermined solutions to problems and then engage in bargaining over the impact and implementation of the predetermined solutions.” Therefore, it is imperative that management immediately engage unions on an ongoing basis consistent with the spirit and intent of the Executive Order.

The term “without regard to whether those matters are negotiable subjects of bargaining” means there is almost no limit to what decisions and information union representatives—many of whom may not be federal employees—are both privy to and have the ability to influence.
Has an Obama Executive Order Put Federal Agencies Into Union Bosses’ Hands? | RedState

If the initiative to mandate right to work fails, many more of us could see our jobs being unionized and the unions having more power than ever.

 

[Madeline]

Sorry, Foxfyre, I didn't see your Op till now. Bankruptcy is worrisome to me but if we allow it, it should not be merely to permit states to escape union contracts. That is not even the source of most states' financial distress -- number one would be underfunded pension obligations. If the bankruptcies are permitted, every state obligation -- from unpaid salary to unpaid Medicaid -- should be up for grabs.

As for "right to work", well, many states (including Florida) already have such laws. They are not enough. IMO, no employee needs both civil service protection and union protection -- I would outlaw public employee unions altogether.

 

[Foxfyre]

Interesting Maddie.

The problem is that the unions will not--repeat will not i.e as flatly refuse--to even discuss much less see if there is a way to renegotiate unsustainable union contracts. And the federal law prohibits a state (or anybody else) from outlawing a union.

For those states billions in the hole, the only way out is:

1) the federal government bails them out again without correcting any of the root causes of the deficits - or -

2) the state would be allowed to declare limited bankruptcy that would allow them to reorganize and THAT would break the hold of the unions on the state budget.

I disagree that unions are not most of the problem. The evidence seems to show otherwise.

Further, our fearless leader's executive order seems bent on giving the unions even more power rather than management at the federal, state, municipal levels and in the private sector.

 

[Madeline]

I rather doubt "most" unions refuse to renegotiate, Foxfyre. That hasn't been the case here. I just don't think the problem is predominately high current salary and benefit levels....though I am sure they contribute. I think it's underfunded pensions.

But as you have pointed out, it's a serious problem and I do agree, the feds should not bail out the states.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Unions single largest "accomplishment" in the last 20 years is a great migration of labor to other countries.

 

[Foxfyre]

But why are the pension underfunded Madeline? That's the issue we're dealing with here. Like all entitlements they start out relative small and very manageable. You have so many more workers than retirees that you almost don't miss the small percentage of taxes taken to support the retirement fund and benefits. And the increase in benefits negotiated by the next candidate in return for union support is also so small that it doesn't seem to be worth fighting.

But over the decades, those tiny increments add up to big percentages plus you have more and more retirees in relation to the number of workers paying taxes. And one day the fund is paying out more than it is taking in even as those negotiated annual increases continue to accrue. And even as more corrupt politicians negotiate even more attractive and more expensive benefits for the unions in return for union support. And one day the state finds itself in a big hole and is still digging with no visible way out and the unions aren't willing to give an inch to help.

And that executive order the President just issued looks very much like he intends that the unions have the upper hand in ALL wage/hour/benefits negotiations now even in areas they used to not control.