Gallery

Union Discriminates Against Local AT&T Worker for Exercising His Right to Work | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

This gallery contains 1 photo.

Union Discriminates Against Local AT&T Worker for Exercising His Right to Work Union officials make an example of nonmember to discourage other workers from exercising their rights under Indiana’s Right to Work law Indianapolis, IN (February 12, 2013) – A local … Continue reading

Gallery

The Indiana Law Blog: Ind. Decisions – More on: Right to work law decisions in ND Ind. and 7th Circuit

Monday, January 21, 2013 IND. DECISIONS – MORE ON: RIGHT TO WORK LAW DECISIONS IN ND IND. AND 7TH CIRCUIT Updating this ILB entry from Friday re the 7th Circuit’s 2-1 opinion in Wisconsin Ed. Ass’n. v. Walker, here is a long AP story on … Continue reading

Gallery

Judge dismisses Ind. right-to-work law challenge – SFGate

This gallery contains 1 photo.

Judge dismisses Ind. right-to-work law challenge By TOM DAVIES, Associated Press Updated 3:55 pm, Thursday, January 17, 2013 INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by union members challenging Indiana’s right-to-work law that was enacted last year. Judge Philip … Continue reading

Gallery

Indiana adopts right to work | 2012-12-28 | Indianapolis Business Journal | IBJ.com

This gallery contains 1 photo.

It took less than a year for Michigan to follow Indiana’s lead in passing a right-to-work law. Indiana in February became the first state in a decade to pass such a law, and it was all the more significant because … Continue reading

Gallery

Right-to-work myths – Chicago Sun-Times

Right-to-work myths Bruce Rauner’s recent commentary [“Illinois next stop for labor reform,” Dec. 21] adds little to the debate about how labor law reform could attract new businesses and jobs to Illinois. Research shows that there is no connection between … Continue reading

Gallery

Judge hears arguments in right to work lawsuit – Post-Tribune

Attorneys for Indiana and a local union argued Friday afternoon whether a federal lawsuit aimed against the state’s right-to-work law should continue. The state argued that the lawsuit, filed at U.S. District Court in Hammond by the International Union of … Continue reading

Top NY court says town board authority supersedes union contract in disciplining its police

ALBANY, N.Y. — Officials in a Hudson Valley town have the authority to suspend, fire or otherwise discipline their police officers for misbehavior instead of turning cases over to an independent arbitrator under the terms of their union contract, New York’s top court ruled Thursday.

In a unanimous ruling that could affect municipal police departments statewide, the Court of Appeals concluded the 2007 local law adopted in Wallkill, putting police discipline cases before a hearing officer chosen by the Town Board, is based on a state statute adopted before New York’s Civil Service Law took effect.

“Accordingly, the subject of police discipline resides with the Town Board and is a prohibited subject of collective bargaining” between the town and the Police Officers’ Benevolent Association, the court said. The ruling was issued in a memorandum, without an individual author. It was approved by Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman and Judges Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, Victoria Graffeo, Susan Read, Robert Smith, Eugene Pigott Jr. and Theodore Jones Jr.

New York City’s authority to discipline police was established by the court in a 2006 ruling, along with Rockland County’s Orangetown, under other statutes that predated the state’s Taylor Law. That article of the Civil Service Law says police discipline provisions can be set by collective bargaining.

The 1995 agreement between the town and the Wallkill Police Officers’ Benevolent Association gave police the right to a disciplinary hearing before a neutral arbitrator.

Court papers cited more than 1,600 other towns, villages and cities that could be affected by Thursday’s ruling.

John Crotty, a lawyer for the Wallkill Police Benevolent Association, warned in arguments last month against upsetting public sector labor relations and union contracts established over decades under New York’s Taylor Law. He said he couldn’t overstate the significance. A call to Crotty was not immediately returned Thursday.

Joseph McKay, an attorney representing Wallkill, said Thursday’s ruling upheld municipal authority under New York’s Town Law from the 1920s. He said there is a nearly identical provision by the state’s Village Law. A midlevel court upheld the city of Middletown’s police discipline authority, and other cities with similar charter language should likewise have it, he said.

“This is a landmark ruling,” McKay said. “This makes definitively clear that the public policy in New York state is for towns and villages to maintain strong control over their police forces, and that trumps public policy under the Taylor Law concerning negotiation of police disciplinary issues.”

McKay said the ruling does more than give towns the authority, but says they must exercise it and not negotiate it with police unions, effectively voiding any such existing contractual provisions. “The towns should, I think must, enact some type of procedures,” he said, which could be existing arbitration or other approaches that have minimum due process guarantees, though they could no longer be negotiated.

via Top NY court says town board authority supersedes union contract in disciplining its police.

Government Unions are Different

With our various levels of government grappling with revenues falling short of expenses, there is a long overdue focus being put on the state of government labor.  The recent Chicago teachers strike should be seen as an example of the excesses of government unions.  Reporting lumps all unionization into one category, and there is no distinction expressed between private and public unions. Public sector unions are different from private unions in that they have no “Free Market” competition to keep their demands in line.  In addition, the cozy relationship between the Democratic Party and public unions create a conflict of interest for elected officials.

In the private sector there are market restraints on what a union can demand.  If UPS (union) workers demand too much in compensation as to render their company non-competitive with FedEx (non-union), they will lose business.  This puts a “real world” restraint on what these unions can demand in terms of compensation and benefits.  Corporations can go out of business, which obviously would hurt the union employees.  GM & Chrysler notwithstanding, this market mechanism works well.  Government has no competition, and is in effect a monopoly in terms of the services that it supplies.  Therefore, there is no similar control placed upon public sector union demands.  If government workers go on strike, where else can consumers go to get their drivers licenses?

With the lack of market forces, taxpayers must rely exclusively upon management to say no to costly demands.  The managers who are sitting on the other side of the negotiating table are elected officials.  There is a political party, however, that is beholden to the very government unions they are supposed to be negotiating with.  The Democratic Party receives an overwhelming amount of money in political donations from public sector unions.  In fact, their top 4 donors are various government unions.  Many candidates go to union sponsored events, and pledge their support for union causes.  If a candidate for office received a donation from a corporation, then after being elected, gave a lucrative no-bid contract to that corporation it would be called corruption. How is this situation any different?

Considering most government entities (other than federal) must balance their budgets every year, you would think that politicians would be restricted from offering paybacks to the unions. They can’t give what they don’t have, right?  The problem with this argument is that the official has the ability to promise, and get passed into law, retirement and health benefits that will be paid for in the future. This takes away any current budgetary restraint that may exist, and puts us in the situation we find ourselves today all across the nation.

Our country is reaching a tipping point with all of the debts we have built up, and there needs to be a sober national conversation on these problems.  Without market forces, and the taxpayer representatives beholden to the unions, what chance do we have?  Nobody wants to talk about cutting pay or benefits, but the costs have simply gotten out of hand.  The taxes that will need to be levied to support this kind of uncontrollable spending will hit all Americans.  This issue is at the core of what kind of country, and opportunities we will pass on to our children.

via Government Unions are Different.