The Future Of Big Labor’s Central States Pension Plan Precarious, At Best

Posted on April 5, 2013 by WFI Staff

By WFI Staff

Credit Suisse reported in 2012 that multi-employer pensions managed by union bosses in 2012 were just 52 percent funded.  According to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Board (PBGB), in 2012, there were well over 150 union-managed funds classified as “critical” or “endangered.”  What all this means is that the funds lack the cash to pay promised benefits and may have to cut them threatening the retirement security of millions of  American workers.

Thomas Nyhan is the executive director of  one such fund, the Teamster’s Central States Pension Fund.

Nyhan admitted in a recent The Wall Street Journal interview that “[t]here is a reasonable possibility that this plan could run out of money in about a dozen years.”

Central States is the second largest multi-employer pension plan in the nation with $18 billion in assets.  One of its contributing companies  Republic Services, Inc., a waste management business, bravely bit the bullet recently and bought itself and its workers out of the fund.  Republic finalized a deal with three Michigan-based Teamster unions to pull 800 of its sanitation workers out of the Central States fund limiting the company’s future risk and protecting its workers.

Writes Michael Corkey in The Wall Street Journal: “With just 60 cents of assets for every $1 in obligations, the Teamsters pension fund is considered in ‘critical’ status by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., the federal agency that backstops failed pensions.  The price for exiting from the fund is steep.  Republic estimates it must pay a ‘withdrawal liability’ of as much as $146 million to cover the company’s share of Central States’ unfunded liability.  This amount could go up if the company stays in the plan and the funding level deteriorates.”

In the meantime, some allege that the Central States, founded by legendary union leader Jimmy Hoffa, is a money trough for union bosses who regularly dip into it for their own political and personal objectives.  According to a 2009 Wall Street Journal article (“Union Pensions in the Red,” July 29, 2009) the lack of liquidity in union pension funds began well before the crash of 2008.  For example, Unite HERE’s National Retirement Fund was 115% funded in 1998, but dropped to 83.4% in 2007.  The article concludes, “Poor management probably deserves some of the blame for the union decline but the exact causes are a mystery.”

Hopefully other employers will be able to afford to buy themselves and their workers out of the terrible bind poor financial management on the part of the nation’s union bosses has put them in.

###

Posted in Big Labor Bailout, Big Labor Bosses, Congress, NLRB, Politics, Unions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

U.S. House Ready To Act On Obama Labor Board

Posted on April 4, 2013 by WFI Staff

By WFI Staff

Congress is gearing up for a showdown on the fate of the controversial National Labor Relations Board.  The U.S. House is set to vote next week on H.R. 1120, the Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act.  After three hours of passionate debate,  the House Education and Workforce Committee voted  the bill  out of committee.  Now, it undergoes the ultimate test in the People’s Chamber.   The full House will decide  whether  to keep the rogue board that is continuing to issue decisions despite the DC Circuit Court’s ruling that it is without authority to do so in its current state.

The Board’s defiance of the DC Circuit has created enormous uncertainty in the labor-management community.  The Board’s mission has  been compromised by  President Obama’s so-called “recess” appointments which the Court found were  unconstitutional. Since then, legal experts have questioned the legitimacy of the Board actions and a multitude of appeals have been filed in Circuit Court’s through-out the country asking that the Board’s decisions be set aside as unlawfully rendered.

Businesses, struggling to improve in our uncertain economy, are unsure if they should comply with NLRB decisions.  They are anxiously awaiting a resolution to the matter.

Writes The Hill’s Peter Kasperowicz, “The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.), would immediately freeze all activities of the NLRB that require a full quorum. It would also prevent the NLRB from taking actions to enforce any rule it has adopted since January 4, 2012, when Obama made the appointments. The legislation would no longer have any effect once all members of the NLRB are confirmed by the Senate or if the Supreme Court issues a decision on the constitutionality of the recess appointments.”

Posted in Congress, NLRB, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 15 Comments

Representative Miller’s Misleading Defense Of Obama Labor Board

Posted on April 2, 2013 by Fred Wszolek

By Fred Wszolek

Congressman George Miller, Ranking Member on the U.S. House Education and Workforce Committee issued an inaccurate and incomplete press release earlier today.  It said, in part: “While this battle [over the National Labor Relations Board’s authority to issue decisions] garners headlines inside the beltway, often overlooked is how attempts to shut down the NLRB is impacting Americans it is tasked to protect.  Since the NLRB is the only place where workers can go to have their rights enforced (they cannot go directly to federal court), some interest groups and Washington Republicans have obstructed the NLRB’s mission through the courts and blocked appointments to the board.”

With all due respect to Congressman Miller, the courts are not obstructing the NLRB, they are protecting the public, workers, employers and unions, from arbitrary, capricious and unlawful agency action.  The courts have properly halted implementation of the Board’s notice posting rule, stopped the Board’s “quickie” or “ambush” election rule and overturned case after case which were incorrect on the facts or the law.

Furthermore, the commotion in labor law over the question of the NLRB’s authority to act is a direct result of President Obama’s abuse of his recess appointment authority.  He made three so-called “recess” appointments to the Board, while the Senate was in session.  The President made these appointments only days after he nominated them – they clearly were not blocked – and before the nominees had time to respond to a routine but important Senate questionnaire inquiring into their backgrounds.  One of these recess appointments is Richard Griffin, who was named a few months ago in a civil racketeering law suit.  While we believe in one’s innocence until proven guilty, workers, employers and unions have the right to have members on the NLRB who have been properly vetted and are above reproach.  Questions as to Mr. Griffin’s integrity should have been asked and answered before he was placed on the Board, not in independent litigation taking place after.

The Congressmen is plain wrong when he accuses the other party of “block[ing] appointments to the Board.”  The only Obama nominee to the NLRB who was not allowed to advance was Craig Becker, whose nomination was defeated by a bipartisan Senate filibuster because of views which were considered outside the mainstream.  And extreme they were.  He participated in decisions that stripped workers of their right to challenge with a secret ballot election their employer’s voluntary recognition of the union by card-check and he was the architect of a decision that authorized the creation of “micro-unions” which threaten to balkanize the workplace and undermine collective bargaining to the detriment of all who are regulated and protected by the Board.

But where was Congressman Miller when the Senate Democrats blocked President Bush’s nominees to the NLRB and refused to recess preventing him from making recess appointments?  For 28 months the Board was kept at two members who were unable to issue a major decision, and there were a slew of major decisions pending before the Board that were four, six and eight years old.

Furthermore, the Congressman uses his words carefully but nevertheless somewhat misleadingly when he writes “hundreds of past recess appointments would be deemed unconstitutional under the court’s unprecedented test.”   The D.C. Circuit Court decision, if upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, will not be made applicable to other presidents or their recess appointees.  The Supreme Court does not permit parties to go back and raise such collateral attacks.

Finally, the court’s test is only as “unprecedented” as the U.S. Constitution is “unprecedented.”  The Framers did not give unilateral appointment authority to the President, it is shared with the Senate.  And the President’s recess appointment authority is strictly limited, it is the exception to the general rule of how appointments are to take place.  This was to prevent a presidential spoils system and the appointment to high office of “unfit characters,” persons whose only qualification was a political contribution to the President or their family’s wealth or connections or ties to organized labor for that matter.

Posted in Big Labor Bosses, Congress, NLRB, Politics, Unions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Unions tarnish selves subverting right to work

Posted on April 1, 2013 by WFI Staff

By Peter Schaumber (originally appeared in the Detroit News)

Unions are rushing to circumvent Michigan’s right-to-work law before it takes effect using new long-term contracts that lock workers into paying union dues for as long as ten years. This rush to obstruct the law works against the public interest.

For the state legislatures that pass them and the governors who sign them, right-to-work laws that prohibit requiring the payment of union dues as a condition of employment are all about jobs. From 2001 to 2010, employment grew 8.2 percent in right-to-work states and declined 0.5 percent in non-right-to-work states, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, whose state was the 23rd state to pass a right-to-work law, said that on the day the law was passed his “phone began literally ringing…with companies wanting to come to our state.”

Pressuring employers to enter into long-term contracts that deprive their employees of the choice the law provides suggests that unions consider collecting dues to be more important than creating jobs. This unfortunate message threatens to further erode public support for unions, which fell 17 percent from 2007 to 2010, according to the Pew Research Center.

The Taylor Federation of Teachers, a local of the American Federation of Teachers, recently convinced the Taylor Public School Board of Education to agree to a highly unusual union security agreement. The agreement requires teachers in the Taylor School District to pay union dues for the next 10 years or be fired. The parties deleted “union security” — a standard provision in collective bargaining agreements in non-right-to-work states — from the party’s four-year collective bargaining agreement and placed union security as the sole provision in a separate stand-alone agreement.

The union’s president, Linda Moore, insincerely claimed that the new agreement “absolutely had nothing to do” with the state’s new right-to-work law. Moore’s accusation is absurd, particularly for a union that has been singularly unsuccessful in the classroom.

According to the Taylor School District’s Annual Education Report for 2012, only 55 percent of Taylor sixth-graders were proficient in English and only 19.8 percent of Taylor sixth-graders were proficient in math. Each of these proficiency ratings, and others, were below the already dismal proficiency numbers for public schools statewide.

In his highly acclaimed documentary, “Waiting for Superman,” director and co-author David Guggenheim, faults the teachers unions for this lack of performance and what he calls the “academic sinkholes” and “drop-out factories” in U.S. public schools. The film details how the unions’ demands for early teacher tenure and rigid, difficult-to-implement, multi-step evaluation processes make firing an incompetent teacher all but impossible.

In their heyday in the 1950s, when 35 percent of the private sector work force was unionized, the U.S. economy ruled and American business was able to accommodate unions’ demands for still “more.” But the 1950s have been replaced by a highly competitive global marketplace.

As long as private sector unions continue to insist on conditions that undermine a business’ ability to perform, right-to-work laws will be for private sector unions what non-union charter schools have become for the public sector.

And an increasing number of states will turn to them.

Peter Schaumber is a former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board.

Posted in Big Labor Bosses, NLRB, Politics, Right to work legislation, Unions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Big Day For Michigan As It Transitions To Right-To-Work

Posted on March 28, 2013 by WFI Staff

The rubber finally meets the road in Michigan today as the state’s recently passed right-to-work law goes into effect.  It will be a major test for the 24th state to accept right-to-work as all eyes will be on Michigan in the wake of a vicious and divisive backlash from union bosses and their supporters who stormed the state capital back in December.

Cooler heads have since prevailed, although Big Labor continues to sweat over its diminishing numbers – even in a state touted as the birthplace of a once vibrant labor movement.  Still, polls had showed that a majority of Michiganders favored the law and some resented the meddling of union bosses who appeared to get in the way of economic progress in a state with unemployment above the national average.

However, recent indicators suggest businesses could be reacting favorably to the new law, as the state added more than 26,000 jobs from December 2012 (when the law was passed) to January 2013.

“Michigan has had contact from multiple companies that have taken an interest in locating here as a result of (right to work),” Kurt Weiss, spokesman for Governor Rick Snyder noted, “but those are discussions best kept private as we continue to work with those companies.  I think it’s important to keep in mind that it’s one tool that is part of our entire tool box designed to improve our business climate and encourage job growth.”

Posted in Big Labor Bailout, Big Labor Bosses, Politics, Right to work legislation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Illinois Law Must Outlaw Stalking, Not Encourage It

Posted on March 28, 2013 by WFI Staff

By Katie Packer Gage (originally appeared in the State Journal Register)

I was very troubled to learn recently that despite having made stalking illegal in Illinois, elected officials in the state have afforded union bosses an exemption.

Yes, that’s correct; during labor disputes, Illinois’s law against “aggravated stalking” does not apply to union organizers (Public Act 097-0468). This leads to a simple and logical question: is it ever acceptable to engage in stalking? Apparently, the answer in the Land of Lincoln is yes.

For anyone who engages in aggravated stalking in Illinois, it is a Class 3 felony with a “second or subsequent conviction” serving as a Class 2 felony. The penalty for the crime is serious and it should be. That’s what makes the exemption for organized labor — a special interest — so outrageous and inexcusable.

But unfortunately, Illinois is not alone; it is joined by California, Pennsylvania and Nevada. These states have placed the interests of Big Labor bosses above the safety of average citizens.

As a woman, the notion that the law protects the rights of union organizers to intimidate and harass me instead of protecting my right to live free from fear and torment is stunning. As an American, I believe this violates very basic and core tenets this nation was founded upon.

Recently, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce issued a report titled “Sabotage, Stalking & Stealth Exemptions: Special State Laws for Labor Unions,” which describes Illinois’s exemption.

The report states, “But Pennsylvania, and other states with a significant union presence (e.g., California and Nevada), carve out an exemption from the crime of stalking, in the case of Pennsylvania by noting the prohibition on stalking ‘shall not apply to conduct by a party to a labor dispute.’ Illinois has created an even arguably broader exception to stalking when the action is related to ‘any controversy concerning wages, salaries, hours, working conditions or benefits … the making or maintaining of collective bargaining agreements, and the terms to be included in those agreements.’”

The attention this law in Illinois is now receiving in conjunction with recent actions by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seem to suggest there is a pattern present. In each case, the rights and freedoms of workers are being traded away in an effort to allow organized labor to grow its ranks and increase its numbers of dues-paying members at any costs.

Just last year, NLRB Chairman Mark Pearce told a media outlet that the federal agency wanted to “requir[e] businesses to hand over lists of employee phone numbers and emails to union leaders before an election.” Clearly, the only purpose this serves is to allow labor organizers to bully and coerce workers into forming collective bargaining units. But it doesn’t stop there.

President Obama’s Labor Board has undertaken other initiatives that place employees in compromised positions. It is considering a form of computerized card check by allowing electronic off-site voting, which would expose a worker’s vote on the formation of a collective bargaining unit to the scrutiny of union organizers. The NLRB has also sought to expedite organizing elections so significantly that employees would not be afforded the opportunity to hear from both labor and employers; once again, injecting anxiety into the process.

The chief responsibility of both the Illinois and federal government is to protect its citizens. Yet, in Illinois, state government has sanctioned “aggravated stalking.”

Those elected to represent the citizens of the Land of Lincoln should step forward and address this egregious stalking exemption at once and send the message it is never tolerable or permissible to mistreat anyone.

Katie Packer Gage is a spokeswoman for the Workforce Fairness Institute in Washington, D.C., and a former deputy campaign manager for Mitt Romney for president.

Posted in Big Labor Bailout, Big Labor Bosses, Campaigns & Elections, Politics, Unions | Tagged , , , , , , , | 26 Comments

NLRB To D.C. Circuit: You Are “Profoundly Mistaken” & Will Be Reversed

Posted on March 26, 2013 by Fred Wszolek

By Fred Wszolek

In a brief filed by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) the rogue three member Board told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that it was “profoundly mistaken” in Noel Canning by finding that two of its members were unconstitutionally recess appointed by President Obama and that the Circuit Court’s decision will ultimately be reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

The Board’s brief was filed in a case known as Flex-N-Gate Texas LLC v. NLRB.  The Board first argued that the appellant, an employer, waived its right to raise the constitutional issue because it did not argue the issue in its initial brief to the court.  The Board then became unglued.  It told the court that if it were to render a decision on the issue it “should reject Flex-N-Gate’s challenges based on Noel Canning.”

This seemingly contradictory statement was explained in the Board’s accompanying footnote.  There it points out that the Board, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Justice, has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari from the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision in the U.S. Supreme Court.

In short: stay your hand because the Supreme Court’s decision in Noel Canning will reverse yours.

Professional appellate practitioners would have told the court they “respectfully disagree with its decision in Noel Canning and respectfully request that the court not act on the employer’s appeal until the Supreme Court has either denied the Board’s petition or addressed the recess appointment issue.”

But then again for a Board that defies the D.C. Circuit Court and continues to issue decisions without even waiting for other circuit courts to weigh in, it is not entirely surprising they have conducted themselves in such a shameful manner.  Were it not for its arrogant unprofessionalism, we would dismiss the Board’s brief as tactless chutzpa.

Posted in Big Labor Bailout, Big Labor Bosses, Congress, NLRB, Politics, Unions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Perez Is the Wrong Choice for Labor

Posted on March 25, 2013 by Fred Wszolek

By Fred Wszolek (originally appeared in Real Clear Policy)

The expectation for President Obama’s nominee to the U.S. Department of Labor was never particularly high among those in the business community. After four years with former Congresswoman Hilda Solis – an early and ardent supporter of the Employee ‘Forced’ Choice Act (EFCA) – at the helm, most people expected the [resident to nominate another ally of union bosses and antagonist to employers. But even I was surprised by the selection of Thomas Perez, a Justice Department lawyer working within the Civil Rights Division.

It doesn’t take very long to review Mr. Perez’s biography and come to the conclusion that he is woefully ill-equipped to – among other things – “advance opportunities for profitable employment” as stated in the Labor Department’s mission. Outside of being incredibly controversial on a number of fronts, even playing a prominent role in a 258-page report by the agency’s inspector general that the media described as “harsh,” it seems Perez’s main calling card for a cabinet-level appointment is that he previously headed Maryland’s Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation and spent some time as a Montgomery County councilman.

The truth is Perez’s stances are deeply troubling and his resume is devoid of any experience which will sensitize him to the real-life needs of American businesses. His resume does not scream of someone who is prepared to shrink, much less manage, an oversized agency with nearly 18,000 employees that plays an important role in forming and implementing policies that directly impact America’s economy.

The facts speak for themselves: since President Obama took office, labor force participation rate has declined from 65.7 to 63.5 percent. Currently, more than 20 million Americans are unemployed, underemployed, or have given up seeking employment altogether. The number of people in our nation seeking jobs stands at more than 12,000,000 and nearly 8,000,000 individuals are working part-time largely due to a stagnant economy.

These are not statistics that inspire confidence, and if President Obama was true to his word that his priority is getting America’s economy back on track, he would do better than Perez. America’s employers are operating in an environment of uncertainty, and as any economist or business expert can attest, doubt does not lead to more jobs and greater growth, yet that’s what Perez’s selection communicates.

With issues such as the persuader rule, which would require employers addressing labor issues to disclose to the government and presumably union bosses which lawyers and consultants they hire, and the Labor Department rolling back laws requiring public disclosure by union bosses that have uncovered fraud and misuse of worker dues, there is little reason for job creators to be hopeful that a Labor Department under Perez would be any more welcoming than the agency under the stewardship of his predecessor.

In fact, there is plenty of reason to be concerned about Perez’s nomination. For instance, The Detroit News recently reported, “[President] Obama praised Perez for his stint as secretary of Maryland’s Department of Labor from 2006-2009, where ‘he helped implement the country’s first statewide living-wage law, because he understood that a minimum wage should be a wage that you can live on.’” In truth, fewer people in Maryland have any wage at all because minimum wage laws increase unemployment – especially among youth. Maryland’s living wage law mandates government contractors pay $11.30 an hour – an amount well above the national $7.25 minimum wage. It has hit young workers especially hard. Youth unemployment in the state is over 20 percent, with black youth unemployment over 40 percent.”

For those of us who have been in the trenches battling against this administration’s efforts at every turn to reward Big Labor bosses who spent 1 billion dollars electing President Obama and his allies, we are just pleased Richard Griffin, the disgraced member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) who was recently named in an embezzlement and racketeering suit for his possible role in a cover up, was not named as the nominee for labor secretary. But the truth is that Perez isn’t much of an improvement, with a record that is shallow in issues germane to the job and that can only be described as extreme in other areas, even when speaking generously.

The problems confronting our nation are serious, and that is particularly true in relation to an economy that has failed to make substantive and meaningful gains since the Great Recession. Instead of making political selections, the president owes it to Americans to appoint people who have proven track records of delivering in their area of jurisdiction. In this case, it certainly appears President Obama fell short. Once again, the employees and employers struggling to survive in a difficult economic environment are likely to pay the price for his poor choices. While it is comforting to know Richard Griffin won’t be in the White House Cabinet Room any time soon, the thought of Perez being there is disconcerting, to say the least.

Posted in Big Labor Bailout, Big Labor Bosses, Department of Labor, EFCA, Hilda Solis, NLRB, Politics, Unions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment