It’s Monday!

…and all the news that happened over the weekend is…or isn’t, being reported.

In case you haven’t heard, there was a First Amendment event in Garland, TX, over the weekend. A couple of RIFs decided to crash the event with gunfire and a carbomb. The event was an art show. Nice liberal ring to that event, wasn’t it? It was a collection of cartoons about mohammad.

The RIFs drove up, fired one shot that lightly wounded a security guard, and fifteen seconds later, according to some commentators, they were DRT. It seems that some heavily armed police was on site. Just waiting for trouble.

I guess it’s open season for RIFs in Texas. Perhaps those heavily armed police were trolling for terrorists? Whichever, it worked.

I’ve noted the MSM has yet to identify the two shooters as Islamic. One, it was announced over the weekend, had been on the FBI’s watch list for some time when he attempted to travel to the middle east for training as a jihadi.

The libs are blaming the organizer of the event, Pamela Geller, for the attack. However, she was a darling of the media when she presented an anti-mormon musical, called, The Book of Mormon. I guess the media is fine attacking religions as long as they aren’t islamic and don’t shoot back.

***

Ferguson, MO, is and has been in deep financial trouble. They can, however, afford to hire a $1330 an hour lawyer to defend the city against the upcoming DOJ lawsuit.

FERGUSON • In the days following a Department of Justice report accusing Ferguson’s police and municipal court of widespread abuses, the city made a series of conciliatory moves. Three employees involved in racist emails were forced out. The city manager stepped down. So did the police chief and municipal judge.

Less than a month later, on March 27, a City Council that’s been grappling with declining revenues voted unanimously in a closed meeting to hire one of the nation’s most distinguished and highest-paid trial lawyers to navigate what could be a prolonged and expensive reform process.

His name is Dan K. Webb.

The city of Ferguson is paying him $1,335 an hour. — St Louis Post-Dispatch.

I suppose funding priorities are fluid in Ferguson. As I said in a recent post, People get the government they vote for.”

***

The eastern GOP establishment is firmly back in power in Jeff City. Liberal ‘pubs filed a bill to increase the state’s gas tax another 10¢ a gallon. The bill passed in the senate along philosophical and geographic lines. The dems and the eastern GOP senators voted for it guided by GOP Senators Ron Richard and Tom Dempsey.

After passing the bill, they allowed an amendment to be added to convert I-70 to a toll road. In essence, the Dempsey, Richard and the dems would sell I-70 to a private group who would then charge taxpayers to use the road their taxes had built.

With the selection of John Hancock to the GOP State Central Committee, there is not a single ‘pub from the western side of Missouri in the party’s leadership. The bad old days of GOP crony politics has returned to the detriment of rest of the state. That the GOP would allow a tax increase is one sign of the return of GOP collusion with democrats that we had hoped would never return to Jeff City.

How do you like it now?

Obamacare is in force. Not surprisingly, there are…issues.  Yeah, let’s call them issues, it sounds so innocuous.

It seems some hospitals, attempting to use Obamacare, had problems. A surgeon, attempting to get permission to perform a surgery, spent hours trying to verify a patient’s insurance…and finally gave up.

Paperwork problems almost delayed suburban Chicago resident Sheri Zajcew’s scheduled surgery Thursday, but Dr. John Venetos decided to operate without a routine go-ahead from the insurance company. That was after Venetos’ office manager spent two hours on hold with the insurer Thursday, trying to get an answer about whether the patient needed prior authorization for the surgery. The office manager finally gave up.

“I’m not a happy camper,” said Nate Zajcew, the patient’s husband. The couple signed up for a Blue Cross Blue Shield bronze plan through the federal HealthCare.gov site on Dec. 16. — CBS News.

In other locations, people arriving for care at some ERs were left in frustration because the ER could not verify their insurance.

‘They had no idea if my insurance was active or not!’: Obamacare confusion reigns as frustrated patients walk out of hospitals without treatment — UK Daily Mail.

  • MailOnline spoke with patients who were told they would have to pay their bills in full if they couldn’t prove they had insurance
  • One was faced with a $3,000 hospital room charge and opted to leave the hospital after experiencing chest pains
  • ‘Should I be in the hospital? Probably,’ she said
  • Another, coughing in the cold, walked out without receiving a needed chest x-ray
  • Consumers face sticker-shock from medical costs under the new Obamacare system, made worse if they can’t prove they’re insured
  • As many as one-third of new enrollees’ applications have seen problems when the government transmits them to insurance companies

No, it’s not an auspicious rollout for Obamacare. In fact, it’s so bad, the rats are jumping ship. A second Obamacare official quit this week.

The man who led Oregon’s problem-plagued health insurance exchange has submitted his resignation.

Rocky King has been on medical leave since Dec. 2. His resignation is effective at the end of his leave, March 5.

The news came in a letter sent by King to the board of Cover Oregon on Wednesday. The board wrote to the agency’s staff on Thursday that it would begin looking for a permanent director.

King is the second official connected to the exchange to resign. He came under fire when the online enrollment system failed to go live in October. Technical problems with the exchange have been an embarrassment to the state and forced Oregonians to apply using paper applications. The state had to hire or reassign nearly 500 people to process applications by hand. — FOXNews.

Even for libs, it is not going well. A woman, an icon for publicizing Obamacare was astounded to discover she could not afford insurance under Obamacare as she assumed

Assumed. When I was in the Air Force, I was quickly taught the consequences of ‘assume’. It is a lesson I’ve never forgotten. Perhaps if this lib had spent a few days in boot-camp, she, too, would have learned the consequences of ‘assuming.’

PORTLAND, Ore. (CBS Seattle/AP) — One Oregon mother says that she is unable to afford health insurance for her and her 18-month-old son because it’s too expensive.

Kate Holly, 33, tells KOIN-TV that she originally championed President Barack Obama’s signature health care law because she thought it would help people in her situation.

“I’ve been a cheerleader for the Affordable Care Act since I heard about it and I assumed that it was designed for people in my situation,” Holly, a freelance yoga instructor, told KOIN. “I was planning on using the Affordable Care Act and I had done the online calculator in advance to make sure I was going to be able to afford it.”

Holly’s husband works for a non-profit organization that pays for his health care, but the couple is unable to afford to have her and their son covered under his plan. And she’s been told their combined income is too much to qualify for a subsidized health care plan under Cover Oregon.

“It wasn’t until I started the process and got an agent that I started hearing from them I wasn’t going to qualify for subsidies because I qualify on my husband’s insurance,” she told KOIN.

Holly is hoping things work out but she doesn’t know if she will have health care for her and her son.

“I guess I’m hoping that I will find out there’s a way around this, but I don’t know yet,” Holly told KOIN.

It’s always a wake-up call to libs when they discover their assumptions are nothing more than vapor. Reality bites.

Dualities

Throughout most current political commerce, the field of discussion is a duality of agendas. Conservatives have their agenda, liberals has theirs, the Ruling Class, which includes the establishment of both major parties, have theirs. The most obvious examples of duality is what legislation, action, regulation proposes and what those same actually do.

Let’s take a couple of examples, the SEIU effort to unionize the fast-food industry and Obamacare. In the former, SEIU has sold a bill of goods to workers telling them they can get $15/hr, more than doubling the current minimum wage. What SEIU is NOT telling those potential strikers is that they can be replaced—permanently, if they go on strike.

SEIU’s Fast-Food Strikers May Legally Be Replaced, Perhaps Even Permanently.

By making the rallying cry about wages, the SEIU and its cohorts put strikers’ jobs at risk

By: LaborUnionReport (Diary)  |  August 21st, 2013 at 09:00 PM  |

Fight For $15

They’re loud. They’re boisterous. They’re the SEIU…and they’re not as bright as they think.

The fast-food workers who are being pushed by the SEIU to take to the streets in a “nationwide” strike on August 29th, as part of the SEIU’s four-year old plan to collect union dues from the fast-food industry’s 3.7 million workers, have placed themselves in a precarious position legally.

As part of its battle strategy to unionize the industry, in its 2009 blueprint, the SEIU declared that economic issues (wages) would be its rallying cry:

Use a living wage as a vehicle to excite, build momentum, build worker lists/ID potential leaders and potentially support collective bargaining. We believe we will have enough traction with an ordinance to use as a legitimate tool for organizing and potentially as legislation to raise standards.

One of the campaign’s main websites also makes it clear that wages–and nothing else–is the key issue.

So, why is the fact that SEIU-backed strikers are pushing for higher wages important?

Very simply, for legal reasons, the fact that the SEIU–and now those who have become the SEIU’s ‘useful idiots‘ have now made their fight about “a living wage” or “Fight for $15″–is very significant.

In any strike, an employer has the right to replace (not fire) strikers. However, generally speaking there are two types of strikes: 1) Unfair Labor Practice Strikes, and 2) Economic Strikes.

In an unfair labor strike, while strikers can be replaced, they must be reinstated at the end of the strike.

However, due to a 1938 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, in an economic strike, strikers may be permanently replaced and only offered reinstatement when an opening occurs.

Here is what the National Labor Relations Board states [in PDF] about economic strikers.

Strikes for a lawful object. Employees who strike for a lawful object fall into two classes “economic strikers” and “unfair labor practice strikers.” Both classes continue as employees, but unfair labor practice strikers have greater rights of reinstatement to their jobs.

Economic strikers defined. If the object of a strike is to obtain from the employer some economic concession such as higher wages, shorter hours, or better working conditions, the striking employees are called economic strikers. They retain their status as employees and cannot be discharged, but they can be replaced by their employer. If the employer has hired bona fide permanent replacements who are filling the jobs of the economic strikers when the strikers apply unconditionally to go back to work, the strikers are not entitled to reinstatement at that time. However, if the strikers do not obtain regular and substantially equivalent employment, they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. [p. 10, emphasis added.]

Now, while it is doubtful that any of the fast-food chains have the testicular fortitude to actually exercise their legal rights, here is how the August 29th strike could play out:

8:00 am (in some city)–As the SEIU bus pulls up with its astroturf protesters, the morning shift at Mickie D’s walks off the griddles and out from behind the counters, picking up picket signs and beginning to parade around on the sidewalk in front of the store.

8:01 am–A separate bus pulls up across the street and new Mickie D employees in fresh Mickie D uniforms walk into the store and assume the abandoned work stations.

8:10 am–Mickie D’s attorneys have noticed delivered (on the sidewalk) to each striker notifying him or her that, as each striker is engaging in an economic strike, by 8:20, the employer will have permanently hired all of the temporary replacement workers it needs and, by 8:30, will be converting said temporary replacement workers into permanent replacement workers. Further, there will no longer be a need for the individual strikers’ services, however, should an opening occur, they will be eligible for recall based upon their date of hire and qualifications for said vacancies.

Now, again, it is unlikely that any of the fast-food employers are willing to do what they have the right to do but, if they did, it could be that easy.

And, what could the SEIU and its astroturf friends do? What would they do?

They’d scream and gnash their teeth for a while. They’d call for boycotts. They’d get Jesse Jackson to go on Al Sharpton’s MSNBC show and scream about the evils of corporate America…everything they are already doing, by the way.

However, does anyone in the public really care? Would people really stop scarfing Mickie D’s because someone got replaced in New York? Really?

Most of the Lefties supporting the SEIU’s cause aren’t Mickie D’s customers anyway. They’re the earthy, crunchy, vegan types. [Okay, granted, maybe Michael Moore will stop eating Big Macs…for a while.]

The point is, though, if Mickie D’s and the rest of the fast-food operators wanted to, they could follow Barack Obama’s modus operandi: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” And, if so, they could prevail in the long run.

That’s sage advice, by the way, from the President whom the SEIU put into office. Heck, the fast-food companies are already on the President’s Enemies List–or, at least his wife’s enemies list. So, no real loss there either.

If Mickie D’s or any other fast-food operator chose to do this, Mary Kay Henry and the SEIU (despite their cries) would have no one to blame but themselves.

It would be messy and it would be public…but, in the end, fast-food eaters the world over will still line up in the drive thru.

The article continues with the explanation that SEIU will continue following Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

What the union promised, is not what it can deliver if the fast-food companies resist. Those companies are caught in the middle—controlling costs and expenses (wages) while still being able to market a product (‘burgers) with a price that meets their customer’s demographics. The union tell the workers that customers will still continue to buy ‘burgers. The companies have extensive research that tells them the maximum price their customers are willing to pay.

The unions know this as well. They care not if their individual members remain employed. No, they’d rather have a much higher turnover because with each turnover, the union collects a fee—a fee that may exceed any revenue the union receives through membership dues. In short, the union is lying to their potential members; their agenda is not what is apparent.

The other example of duality is Obamacare. There are so many examples of liberal claims versus what they deliver. The current example in the news is Obama’s claim, “You can keep your existing healthcare!”

That, folks, was an out-right lie. This news item about the recent UPS announcement proves Obama’s lie.

UPS cuts insurance to 15,000 spouses, blames Obamacare

By Jose Pagliery  @Jose_Pagliery August 22, 2013: 7:13 AM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)

United Parcel Service is planning to drop 15,000 workers’ spouses from its health insurance plan, citing higher costs due to Obamacare.

In an undated memo to employees, UPS (UPS, Fortune 500) said it will discontinue coverage for all working spouses who are eligible for insurance with their own employer. That applies to about 15,000 spouses covered by UPS today.

The internal document was obtained by Kaiser Health News. UPS told the nonprofit news agency that the policy applies only to non-union U.S. workers. It hasn’t responded to questions from CNNMoney.

In the memo, UPS said it’s willing to take care of its own, but it won’t bear a burden that other companies can take on.

“We believe your spouse should be covered by their own employer — just as UPS has a responsibility to offer coverage to you, our employee,” the memo states.

Spouses of UPS employees who don’t work — or who are not offered coverage by their own employer — will get to stay on the UPS plan.

Most of the company’s workers, such as delivery workers and truck drivers, are unionized through the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and receive insurance under a different plan.

UPS blamed the move on several aspects of Obamacare, including mandatory coverage for dependent children up to age 26 and new government fees.

“We are making these changes to offset cost increases due to the [Affordable Care Act],” the memo states.

In the memo, UPS said its health care costs usually increase about 7% a year, but that it expects those costs to climb by 11.25% in 2014 due to Obamacare.

The company also said that 35% of companies intend to make the same changes to their plans, but didn’t cite specific market data.

A recent survey by consulting firm Towers Watson found that next year, 18% of employers will require that workers’ spouses buy insurance from their own employer before turning to the surveyed company for insurance.

The other impact from Obamacare is the growing practice of companies converting full-time employees to part-time. Employees who work 32 hours per week or less, may not receive benefits. If a company converts or replaces full-time employees with part-time workers, the Obamacare impact is reduced. There is no impact for those new part-time employees who are not eligible for company-provided health insurance.

We live in a world of dualities. Some of those dualities are unintended. Others, like the union and Obamacare examples above, are deliberate. In both cases, it is the dupes who allow those dualities to exist; who also fall for them. Later, perhaps, they, the dupes, will look back and wonder how foolish they were…and learn. Others, unable to admit their stupidity, will blame others. Not the ones who duped them, but the ones who disclosed the lies.

To paraphrase Dave Ramsey, “The stupid, we will always have with us.”

 

Wednesday’s Words

The big topic in the media these last few days is “immigration reform.” First let’s lay out the facts. It’s not about immigration and it’s not reform—it’s AMNESTY! It’s just another attempt to defraud the American public into believing more liberal lies—with the conscious assistance of some ‘Pubs, Marko Rubio for one.

Rubio made the conservative media rounds yesterday, Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin and others presenting his side of the issue.  The problem is that it isn’t Obama’s side. Rubio stated that security must come first. Good, I’m glad he said that. Unfortunately, it’s a fantasy. It doesn’t mean that border security will actually happen.  There was supposed to be an electronic fence built on the US/Mexican border. It, too, was a prerequisite in the last immigration reform bill. I’m still looking for that fence. From what I’ve been able to determine, only a few miles of the fence was ever built before the whole project was abandoned.

Rubio said the criminal immigrants would be excluded. Evidently he’s forgotten the definition of “illegal.” All those who are here illegally are criminals and they continue in that criminality by staying here. By Rubio’s logic that would mean that all aliens currently living in the US illegally would be excluded. I don’t think that is what he meant.

Legal immigrants, as a condition of being given a Green Card, sign a statement pledging that the immigrant will not accept any public assistance, nor public monies for a period not less that five years—no welfare, no Medicaid, no food-stamps, nothing.

Under Rubio’s plan, there are no similar prohibitions. The illegals would be given social security cards, driver’s license, and be eligible for welfare, food-stamps, Medicaid, plus—the Earned Income Tax Credit—a negative income tax if they earn below the poverty level. Many (most?) of these illegals do live below the poverty level. They will receive money from the government in the form of a tax-refund, a refund on taxes you, not the illegal, paid.

I’m against the whole plan. I would prefer we enforce existing law. We wouldn’t have to round up the illegals if we made it impossible, perhaps just difficult, for them to be parasites on the American public.  They’d soon leave for easier pickings. There is a reason why they are called ILLEGAL aliens.

Here is a LINK to other writers with opinions on this so-called immigration reform.

***

I just heard on the radio that a Missouri legislator is pushing for gun safety classes in schools. It is the NRA’s Eddie Eagle project. A number of Missouri schools already have Eddie Eagle classes. This legislator, Dan Brown, wants to make it mandatory for all Missouri schools. The radio newsitem triggered another memory from my childhood.

I previously blogged about guns in schools in my posts, PROTECTED, and MR. HELFRITCH. There was another instance when guns in schools was the topic of the day.

When I was in the third grade, as I remember, one of the local farmers shot himself in the leg with a .22 rifle while climbing over a fence.  It was the talk of our rural community. My father was on the school board and the incident was mentioned. One of the board members suggested that we have a gun-handling session for the schoolkids to make sure they all knew how to cross fences safely and were taught general gun safety procedures. Mr. Helfritch was nominated and after a quick phone call he agreed.

A week later, all the school kids, from the youngest in the first grade through those in the eighth grade, boys and girls, and all the teachers, gathered at the rear of the school yard where an old rusty fence separated the school yard from a field. It was a small school. There were only around 80 pupils in attendance in most years.

Mr. Helfritch taught three grades at a time showing how to check to see if the rifle was empty, how to unload it if it wasn’t, to empty and place the rifle on the other side of the fence before crossing and to only cross when those steps were finished.

Cooper’s Rules hadn’t been written at that time, but Mr. Helfritch wrote some of his own that closely matched those later created by Col. Jeff Cooper. He spent another hour with everyone reviewing his rules, why they are important and some examples of the consequences of failing to abide by those rules. There were some parents present during this class and I remember one saying that he’d learned some new things during that class.

I don’t know why the classes didn’t continue. Perhaps, with the exception of the incoming first graders, all the students had been trained. But time passed. Mr. Helfritch left for another teaching position, there was a new school board—my father didn’t run again and there was a new Principal with different priorities. I do know that none of those students trained by Mr. Helfritch ever had a gun incident or injury.

Hypocrisy

The news this morning is filled with items that the surviving NewTown students are going back to school at a new location. There will be armed guards at the school to insure their safety.  Too bad they didn’t think of that at their old school.

Newtown shooting survivors go back to school

MONROE, Conn. Classes resumed Thursday for the students of Sandy Hook Elementary School for the first time since last month’s massacre in Newtown, where a gunman killed 20 first-graders and six educators.

With their original school still being treated as a crime scene, the more than 400 students are attending classes at a refurbished school in the neighboring town of Monroe. Law enforcement officers have been guarding the new school, and by the reckoning of police, it is “the safest school in America.”

I seem to remember a few years ago, well a couple of decades ago, when drugs and gangs were problems in schools, there were armed officers assigned to schools then. I don’t know how many there still are. I believe they are now called “resource” officers.

That leads to the following question. Why is the NEA and AFT so strongly against armed guards in school? They don’t want armed, trained teachers, either? So what do they propose?

** crickets **

They have no solution and don’t want ours either. Perhaps they would be happier in a different area of employment? I wonder how RTW would affect their, the NEA and AFT, attitude, hmmm?

***

I see that our Senator Roy Blount was bragging that he voted for the new tax plan and “averted” the fiscal cliff. Now we’re told the Senate only had access to that plan for 3 minutes before it came to a vote and it’s filled with pork, new taxes and few, if any, spending cuts.

So, Senator Blount, you’re proud of voting for a bill that you did not read, knew nothing of its contents, raised taxes and did not cut any spending. Is that correct? Then why do you expect to be re-elected?

No bill would be better than more pork, more spending. If the bill isn’t passed, the government won’t stop. I don’t see you refusing Obama’s bribe—your pay-raise, either.

RINO.

***

Something is going on in Illinois. It appears the Illinois legislature is jumping on Diane Feinstein’s gun-grabbing plan. This notice from the Illinois State Rifle Association was sent to its members this week.

SPECIAL ALERT UPDATE– YOUR ACTION REQUIRED SENATE COMMITTEE APPROVES BILLS TO RUN RANGES OUT OF BUSINESS AND BAN 80% OF YOUR GUNS

MESSAGE FROM COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS: “Eliminating law-abiding gun owners is a good ‘first step’ towards a ‘civil society.’”

Votes on HB815 and HB1263 were split along party lines in the Senate Public Health Committee Wednesday night with the committee Democrats voting 6-4 and 6-3 to send the bills to the full senate. If these two bills become law, they will resulting most, if not all ranges in the state going out of business as well as the banning of ALL semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns as well as banning all pump shotguns and rifles.

In comments made during testimony, committee Democrats stated plainly that HB815 and HB1263 were “first steps” and that these bills have as their objective the creation of a “more civil society.” In other words, elimination of lawful gun owners is a required first step for creating a more civil society. Of course, there was no mention of the impact of eliminating criminals.

I’m sure these democrats are proud how well gun banning has worked for Chicago and Cook County.

***

Boehner is scrambling to save his Speakership. He’s trying to persuade GOP House members that he’ll be tough with Obama this year…all the while picking off lint from his suit where he rolled over for Obama and the dems.

Boehner tells GOP he’s through negotiating one-on-one with Obama

By Russell Berman – 01/02/13 05:04 PM ET

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is signaling that at least one thing will change about his leadership during the 113th Congress: he’s telling Republicans he is done with private, one-on-one negotiations with President Obama.

During both 2011 and 2012, the Speaker spent weeks shuttling between the Capitol and the White House for meetings with the president in the hopes of striking a grand bargain on the deficit.

Those efforts ended in failure, leaving Boehner feeling burned by Obama and, at times, isolated within his conference.

Or, perhaps it’s the hot breath of opposition to his role as Speaker of the House?

Eleventh Hour: Speaker Boehner Moves to the Right

by Matthew Boyle 3 Jan 2013, 1:36 AM PDT

The Speaker of the House will be elected today and some conservatives believe they have the votes necessary to oust John Boehner. In an appearance on CNBC, American Majority Action spokesman Ron Meyer said there are more than 20 House Republicans willing to vote for someone other than Boehner on Thursday when the 113th Congress convenes to elect a Speaker. Another source from a different organization has similarly confirmed that more than 20 have planned to oppose Boehner.

I don’t trust John Boehner. He’s a liar; a phony to the core interested only in his own benefit. A loyal member of The Ruling Class. The sooner we’re rid of him, the better.

 

 

The Truth about Right to Work

There has been a series of Face Book posts recently about passing Right to Work (RTW) in Missouri. There is also a small but very vocal group of people posting just as heavily against Right to Work. I’m in favor of Right to Work but until now I’ve stayed out of those arguments.

What is amazing to me is the disinformation being spread by those opposing RTW: RTW will outlaw unions (No, it won’t). RTW will force employers to fire union workers (No, it won’t). RTW will force union workers to leave the union (No, it won’t). RTW will prohibit employers from hiring union members (No, it won’t). The series of outright lies continues.

Right to Work is two concepts:

  • The end of the closed and union-only shop. Employees will not be forced to join a union against their will and will not be required to join a union as a condition of employment.
  • The end of forced payment of union dues. Non-union employees will not be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment.

Right to Work Law & Legal Definition

Right-to-work laws are state laws that prohibit both the closed and union shop. A right to work law secures the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union. However, employees who work in the railway or airline industries are not protected by a right to work law, and employees who work on a federal enclave may not be.

Under federal labor law and state right to work laws, which exist in slightly less than half of the states, you have the right to resign from membership in a union at any time. If you resign from membership, you may not be able to participate in union elections or meetings, vote in collective bargaining ratification elections, or participate in other “internal” union activities. If you resign, you cannot be disciplined by the union for any post-resignation conduct.

If you resign from union membership, you are still fully covered by the collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated between your employer and the union, and the union remains obligated to represent you. Any benefits that are provided to you by your employer pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (e.g., wages, seniority, vacations, pension, health insurance) will not be affected by your resignation. Howver, the union may exclude you from some “members-only” benefits. Although you may resign from union membership at anytime, you may be limited to a specific “window period” before you are able to end any automatic dues deductions.

Right to Work is supported by Federal law as noted above. It protected by the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947—a backlash of the Labor Relations Act, or as it’s also known, the Wagner Act of 1935. The Taft-Hartley Act defines what Right to Work is, and is not.

Union propagandists ignore these facts. They continue to claim that wages are lower in RTW states. This claim has been refuted in a 2004 study.

Nominal Wages evidence:

Opponents of Right to Work like to point out that the average wage in Right to Work states is lower than the average wage in non-RTW states.  For example, on the issue section of AFL-CIO’s website, they cite the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2001: “The average worker in a ‘right to work’ state earns about $5,333 less a year than workers in other states” (“RTW States Are”).  Proponents of Right to Work do not dispute the above statistic, but suggest that the statistic is overly simplistic, manipulative and misleading. 

On a nominal basis, wages are lower in Right to Work states, but proponents argue, and this paper confirms, that once the above statistic is adjusted for cost of living, real spending power is at least the same and perhaps higher in Right to Work states.  For example, when the National Institute for Labor Relations Research used The Economist Magazine’s data to adjust the poverty rate in 2001 for cost of living they found that this adjusted rate was 10.8% in states with Right to Work laws as compared to 12.9% for non-RTW states (“Independent Study”).

While some RTW states appear to have lower wage rates than some non-RTW states, the availability of jobs is much greater in the RTW states. Why? Because companies are moving from those union dominated states to RTW states where union power can’t break a company—like Hostess Brands.

Survival is a strong motivator. If you examine the wasteland of the Rust Belt and compare that with Texas, the South and the Central states, the economic divergence is astounding. Job and economic growth in the RTW states is increasing. Those same job and economic growth rates are falling in the non-RTW states.

The AFL-CIO likes to call RTW the Right-to-Work-for-less. That statement is meaningless if you don’t have a job.  All too many unemployed in those union controlled states would be happy to work for less—except they can’t. The unions are forcing jobs and companies to migrate to states where those companies can survive.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see which system—RTW and non-RTW works.

Plan B?

The news is filled with warnings and portents of the government running off the fiscal cliff. When you ask members of Congress the consequences, no one knows. Nor, does any seem to particularly care if it makes the other side look bad.

The dems want more—more taxes, more spending, more power, more debt. The ‘Pubs want…? I’m not sure what the establishment wants. We continue to see beltway insiders scream, “give the democrats what they want! Then we can blame them when it all fails!” It’s beginning to appear the real goal is to score points against the other side all the while the ones who are harmed are the taxpayers.

The Republican party is supposed to be for smaller government, lower taxes, less spending. John Boehner is for anything that will make him look good in the media…or at least less bad. He could not care less how his actions impact the taxpayers as long as he gets his portion of face time in the media and can blame someone else for his failures.

Pundits say the ‘Pubs should follow Plan B. Apparently Plan B is to give Obama what he wants.

If you believe that the best way to get a deal you want is to always negotiate from strength, then Republicans may just finally be coming to an adequate negotiating strategy on the fiscal cliff.  The New York Times reports that Republican leaders are considering giving President Obama what he wants on higher tax rates now while leaving the fight over entitlement spending till Obama needs to come to them for a debt limit hike early next year. —The Washington Examiner

Like the clashes over increasing the debt earlier this year, Boehner and McConnell are content to kick the can, once again, down the road. Anything as long as they don’t need to make a stand.

According to media sources, if the ‘Pubs follow Plan B, all they would be doing is to postpone any difficult decisions until we, once again, reach the debt limit. THEN! Then they would make Obama toe the line. It seems to me the last time Boehner and McConnell were in that position, we ended up with Sequestration. Never forget, Sequestration was McConnell’s brain-child. He mentioned it in a press conference and the dems jumped all over it.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Boehner caved on Obama’s demand to be allowed to raise the debt limit without Congressional authorization. When we have spineless, non-leaders in Congress, they will do anything rather than taking a stand for taxpayers. Why not? Taxpayers aren’t members of the Ruling Class. Taxpayers are there to be bled while Congress spends…more…and more…and more…without restraint.

One act the ‘Pubs “could” take to help stem this fiscal tide is to remove Boehner and McConnell from their power positions. I’ve suggested to a number of Congressmen that Paul Ryan would make an excellent Speaker of the House. Boehner should be reduced to the Chairman of the House Sanitary Committee. Perhaps then he can wallow in his favorite muck.

I urge you to call your Representatives and demand they vote against John Boehner for Speaker. We need a Speaker who is a leader and is willing to go head-to-head against Obama and the dems. Boehner has neither of those abilities.