Justin's Political Corner
Today in union-hating by Dana Loesch: She is defending right-wing loon and The Dana Show regular Steven Crowder’s false accusations that the union member was “assaulting” him, when in fact it was the other way around.
DanaLoeschRadio.com:
It’s insane to allege that Crowder — who wasn’t standing near the union member, who appeared to trip over his own feet rather than was “pushed,” and who had his back turned and turned with hands up in a non-threatening manner — pushed the union member. Where is Dunnings’ evidence? Why didn’t the union bring charges? Because it’s a bogus assertion.
Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings said he didn’t obtain the full video until he got it from a far left group which is an absolute, outright lie as the full, unedited video was posted by Crowder when he posted the edited-for-TV video.The full, unedited video was always available.
Dunnings is simply protecting the union members behind the riot which saw them destroy property, put women and children in harm’s way, and assault those who were videotaped simply asking questions. It’s an embarrassment to the office in which he serves.
Dunnings did his job properly, and this is typical of her to demonize unions.
The Lansing State Journal, on the other hand, called out Crowder’s phony baloney:
It turns out that I was 100% correct. Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings III is not filing charges in the incident because Crowder provided him with highly-edited video and the full, unedited version shows that his “attacker” was simply defending himself.
Nice try Crowder. You’re a fraud and now everybody knows it.
Loesch and Crowder both are manipulative liars.
Extremist groups, right-wing politicians and their corporate backers want to weaken the power of workers and their unions through so-called “right to work” laws. Their efforts are a partisan political ploy that undermines the basic rights of workers. By making unions weaker, these laws lower wages and living standards for all workers in the state. By many measures, the quality of life is worse in states with “right to work” laws. Wages are lower, poverty and lack of insurance are higher, education is weaker—even infant mortality and the likelihood of being killed on the job are higher.
Lower Wages and Incomes
- The average worker in states with “right to work” laws makes $1,540 a year less when all other factors are removed than workers in other states.1
- Median household income in states with these laws is $6,437 less than in other states ($46,402 vs. $52,839).2
- In states with “right to work” laws, 26.7 percent of jobs are in low-wage occupations, compared with 19.5 percent of jobs in other states.3
Less Job-Based Health Insurance Coverage
- People in states with “right to work” laws are more likely to be uninsured (16.8 percent, compared with 13.1 percent overall; among children, it’s 10.8 percent vs. 7.5 percent).4
- They’re less likely to have job-based health insurance than people in other states (56.2 percent, compared with 60.1 percent).5
- Only 50.7 percent of employers in states with these laws offer insurance coverage to their employees, compared with 55.2 percent in other states. That difference is even more significant among small employers (with fewer than 50 workers)—only 34.4 percent of them offer workers health insurance, compared with 41.7 percent of small employers in other states.6
Higher Poverty and Infant Mortality Rates
- Poverty rates are higher in states with “right to work” laws (15.3 percent overall and 21.5 percent for children), compared with poverty rates of 13.1 percent overall and 18.1 percent for children in states without these laws.7
- The infant mortality rate is 15 percent higher in states with these laws.8
Less Investment in Education
- States with “right to work” laws spend $3,392 less per pupil on elementary and secondary education than other states, and students are less likely to be performing at their appropriate grade level in math and reading.9
Higher Rates of Death on the Job
- The rate of workplace deaths is 36 percent higher in states with these laws, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.10
H/T: AFL-CIO.org
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder announced on Tuesday that he has signed so-called “right-to-work” legislation into law.
“Both the public sector bill and the private sector bill have been signed,” Snyder told reporters at a press conference. “I have signed these bills into law.”
h/t: TPM LiveWire
Protesters are marching on the Michigan Capitol Building today, where lawmakers are expected to approve the final version of a so-called “right-to-work” law. Gov. Rick Snyder (R-MI), who had previously said he wouldn’t pursue such anti-union legislation, has indicated he’ll sign the measure.
During an interview on WWJ Newsradio 950, Snyder claimed that the law is necessary in order to boost Michigan’s economy. “This is about more and better jobs coming to Michigan,” he said:
“Michigan is not unique in doing this. Twenty-three other states are right-to-work states and they’ve been fast growing, in terms of their economic growth in relationship to other states… If you look at Indiana, Indiana’s had at least 30 companies accept offers from the Indiana Academic Development Corporation since they did this in February that are bringing thousands of good jobs to Indiana. And we could use those jobs here in Michigan,” he said.
And more jobs in Michigan is something Snyder said will benefit all the state’s residents.
“This is about more and better jobs coming to Michigan because a lot of companies do look at this as a major factor in their analysis. We’ll then be more competitive as a state and that’s good for all of us. It’s good for workers and good for unions, because it gives them more of an opportunity to grow themselves,” he said.
However, the economic research isn’t on Snyder’s side.
Instead, right-to-work laws simply result in lower wages and fewer benefits for workers, union and non-union alike. In Michigan (and across the country), as unionization rates fall, so does middle-class income. President Obama yesterday blasted right-to-work as “giving you the right to work for less money.”
The vocally anti-union activist Dana Loesch was in rare form today… by cheerleading for Michigan’s disastrous Right-To-Work For Less legislation that was passed by both the Michigan State House and the State Senate. That state’s Governor, Rick Snyder (R), is very likely going to be turning Michigan into yet another RTWFL state by signing the bill, possibly as early as tomorrow.
Loesch’s defense of RTWFL on her blog:
The President went to Michigan with the obvious purpose of throwing punches in the right-to-work battle. Interesting. Remember when Obama told a senator “I won” when questioned on his stimulus plan? Well, Republicans won in Michigan. Elections have consequences.
More importantly, the President’s argument makes zero sense. He presupposes that with right-to-work comes lower wages, which is categorically false.
From 2000 to 2010, employment in right-to-work states increased 2.3 percent, compared to a 4.0 percent decline in non-right-to-work states. Indiana saw employment decrease 6.9 percent over the same period. That means Indiana lost roughly 207,000 jobs over the past 10 years. In contrast, 1.2 million jobs were created in right-to-work states.
The President’s claim that RTW brings with it lowered wages is demonstrably false. It’s the statement of a politician working to save one of his biggest cash cows: union bosses.
Loesch further mocked unions in another blogpost:
Yet these are the same individuals who vote for a party whose mantra is “spread the wealth” and “pay your fair share” towards entitlements mostly used by 46% of people who don’t pay anything into the system via income tax. “Freeloaders,” as my caller would describe them.
It’s illogical and betrays the truth: it isn’t about workers’ rights, it’s about control. Maybe big labor should “spread the wealth.”
Amanda Terkel at the HuffPost has the details on Obama’s opposition to the RTWFL law in Michigan.
HuffPost’s Terkel:
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama weighed in on the contentious labor battle playing out in Michigan, condemning the Republican push to make Michigan a so-called “right-to-work” state as nothing more than a partisan maneuver that will hurt the working class.
“And by the way, what we shouldn’t do — I’ve just got to say this — what we shouldn’t be doing is trying to take away your rights to bargain for better wages and working conditions,” he added to loud applause from the audience. “We shouldn’t be doing that. The so-called ‘right-to-work’ laws — they don’t have to do with economics, they have everything to do with politics. What they’re really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money.”
Michigan is set to become the 24th right-to-work state, with Gov. Rick Snyder (R) poised to sign the controversial bill after it was fast-tracked by the GOP-controlled legislature. Thousands of union supporters protested at the state capitol in Lansing last week, and more protests are planned for Tuesday.
Michigan’s rules require that the House and Senate wait five days before voting on each other’s bills. The legislature is set to approve final passage of the right-to-work legislation on Tuesday, and Snyder could sign it the same day.
Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat in the Michigan State Senate who has likely statewide ambitions, correctly points out in a HuffPost editorial what Snyder and his GOP minions are doing is nothing more than a power grab to harm workers’ rights and to solidify his Teabagger and possible 2016 GOP Presidential Primary bona fides.
HuffPost:
Michigan Governor Rick Snyder rose to power in 2010 cloaked in the veil of a moderate. He appealed to voters by saying he was going to be “laser focused” on the policies that grow Michigan’s economy rather than get mired in the politics that have kept us off that track for too long. He promised he understood what it would take to prop up the middle class despite being a millionaire himself. He said time and time again that he would run Michigan like a business and forge bipartisan coalitions to end politics as we know it.
The one problem with that? It was all a lie.
Last week, in a press conference hidden safely away from the scrutiny of Michigan’s public, Governor Snyder removed any remaining shred of credibility as a moderate with a stunning about-face on “Right to Work,” a policy that he himself had recently declared “too divisive” and not something that was in Michigan’s best interest. Snyder said not only was he now going to sign Right to Work into law, but that he and his fellow Republican legislative leaders had already schemed to set the bills for a vote that same day, eviscerating the public’s right to input.
In a matter of moments, Governor Snyder did more than go back on his word to the people of Michigan, he exposed the “tough nerd” persona he rode to office in 2010 as a complete fraud. This was not a decision based on economics, it was one based on partisan politics driven by special interests at its absolute worst.
In the days since, the governor’s allies have defended his actions by saying that the legislation provides workers “freedom” and “choice.”
No matter how they try to spin it, Right to Work is solely about taking away the strength of workers as they collectively bargain for a decent wage, better working conditions and improved benefits. It’s anti-worker, anti-family, and the way they’re subverting the democratic process to pass it is simply anti-American.
The answer is simple. He lied.
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama weighed in on the contentious labor battle playing out in Michigan, condemning the Republican push to make Michigan a so-called “right-to-work” state as nothing more than a partisan maneuver that will hurt the working class.
“And by the way, what we shouldn’t do — I’ve just got to say this — what we shouldn’t be doing is trying to take away your rights to bargain for better wages and working conditions,” he added to loud applause from the audience. “We shouldn’t be doing that. The so-called ‘right-to-work’ laws — they don’t have to do with economics, they have everything to do with politics. What they’re really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money.”
Michigan is set to become the 24th right-to-work state, with Gov. Rick Snyder (R) poised to sign the controversial bill after it was fast-tracked by the GOP-controlled legislature. Thousands of union supporters protested at the state capitol in Lansing last week, and more protests are planned for Tuesday.
Michigan’s rules require that the House and Senate wait five days before voting on each other’s bills. The legislature is set to approve final passage of the right-to-work legislation on Tuesday, and Snyder could sign it the same day.
Snyder met with Democratic members of Michigan’s congressional delegation on Monday morning. They urged him to veto the bill or, at the very least, request that the state legislature delay its Tuesday vote. According to Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who attended the meeting, the governor said he would “seriously” consider their request.
The bill would ban automatic payroll deductions of union dues. Supporters of right-to-work laws say workers who don’t want to belong to a union shouldn’t be forced to pay dues. Opponents, however, point out that these non-payers will reap the benefits of a unionized workplace without paying their fair share.
While labor officials acknowledge there is little they can do to stop the Michigan bill from becoming law at this point, unions are essentially declaring an all-out war on politicians who back right to work — including raising the possibility of recalling them from office, as was attempted in Wisconsin.
Democrats won’t be able to overturn right to work at the voting booth, because Republicans turned it into a spending bill, which can’t be put forward as a public referendum. But Rep. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), who was also in the meeting with Snyder, said the governor and the legislature could get around that restriction.
LANSING — The Michigan House and Senate each passed controversial right-to-work legislation today, amid loud protests and a walkout by Democratic legislators.
The state House passed the first right-to-work bill late this afternoon in a 58-52 vote, but that bill can’t move on to the Senate until the next session day — possibly Friday, if a session is scheduled — because of a procedural move by Democrats who are asking that the vote be reconsidered. The state Senate voted 22-16 to pass a right-to-work bill. Four Republicans — Tory Rocca of Sterling Heights, Tom Casperson of Escanaba, Mike Nofs of Battle Creek and Mike Green of Mayville — joined with all the Democrats in opposing the bill.
The House and Senate bills are two of three separate right-to-work bills now in the Legislature that will eventually be consolidated into two bills. Both the House and Senate bills deal with private sector employees. The third bill deals with public sector employees, excluding police and firefighters.
That bill passed the Senate by a 22-4 vote this evening.
Democrats in the Senate walked out of the chamber before the vote was taken.
The mishmash of bills is creating head-crashing possibilities over when any of it will make it to the governor’s desk.
The quickest the Legislature can now pass the right-to-work bills through both chambers and send them on to Gov. Rick Snyder is five days from the next sitting, or session day, said Ari Adler, a spokesman for House Speaker Jase Bolger, R-Marshall. The next session day could be set for Friday, a day this weekend or Tuesday, Adler said. The five-day clock then starts after that.
The House vote on the bill followed a brief walkout by Democrats to protest refusal by police officials to open the Capitol doors. Right-to-work legislation was introduced in the state House just before 3 p.m., bringing loud protests from Democrats and protesters inside the Capitol building.
“You’re doing this in lame duck because you know next session, you won’t have the votes,” said state Rep. Brandon Dillon, D-Grand Rapids. “This is an outrage.”
Sen. John Gleason, D-Flint, said it was a “shameful day” in the state Legislature when a bill is allowed to be rammed through with no public hearings.
Democratic senators offered amendments to the bill that would: delay the implementation of the bill for one year; put the issue up to a vote of the people; remove an appropriation from the bill that would make the bill one that couldn’t be up for a repeal by voters, and tie the bill to repeals of same-sex benefits for the partners of state workers, the item pricing bill and the tax on retiree pensions. All failed.
“Here we are, less than a month after the election, and the choice voters made at the ballot box shows that voters don’t want this type of divisive agenda,” said Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing.
Snyder said at a news conference today that the bill is about freedom to choose and equality for Michigan workers.
h/t: Detroit Free Press
After insisting all last year that an anti-labor “right-to-work” law was not on his agenda, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) has changed his mind. This morning, he called on the state legislature to introduce and pass so-called “right-to-work” legislation and promised to sign it should it reach his desk.
Snyder was among the Midwestern Republican governors who leveled an assault on unions in 2011, but right-to-work, which effectively undermines union activities by allowing non-union workers to free-ride on union-negotiated contracts, is a new front in that fight. Indiana passed right-to-work legislation earlier this year, and by following suit, Michigan can remain competitive with its neighbor while also becoming a better place for workers, Snyder claimed in a video posted by The Detroit News:
Though Snyder refers to his agenda as “pro-worker,” a quick glance at studies of “right-to-work” legislation paints a different picture. According to the Economic Policy Institute, right-to-work laws have virtually no impact on job growth and have a negative impact on both union and nonunion workers, reducing wages by up to $1,500 a year. A Ball State University study conducted during Indiana’s push to pass right-to-work found that “no impact is likely” for job growth or wages in the manufacturing sector. Another EPI study suggests that right-to-work laws had a negative impact on Oklahoma’s economy and that right-to-work is “is ineffective as a strategy for increasing a state’s employment.”
The right-to-work experiment failed miserably the last time it was tried in the Midwest. Indiana originally passed right-to-work laws in 1957, but workers hated the new laws so much that they were repealed just eight years later.
Pro-business conservatives are pursuing an unprecedented assault on the rights of working families at both the national and state levels. Congress and no fewer than 37 state legislatures are pushing through right-to-work or related bills. Some of them are passing. Everywhere, though, the arguments supporting the laws are based on outright falsehoods, some of them, including phrases like ‘forced unionism’, are embedded in the names of the legislation. Organizations like the National Right to Work Committee use scary language, including threats of union violence and allusions to corrupt union bosses, and misleading or false propaganda to pursue their anti-worker agendaMovement conservatives at all levels echo these types of claims and use the army of talking points from the NRTWC and the Republican Party. The problem is that the talking points are just plain false. Here’s the reality about right-to-work (for less) laws:
Federal law already prohibits any American from being forced to join a union. Since this is almost the only argument that conservatives put forth in supporting right-to-work laws, and it’s 100 percent false, what is the real motivation for these laws? Right-to-work laws don’t grant any rights, they simply weaken unions Federal law also prohibits unions from using member or non-member fees from paying for activities that might violate the political or religious beliefs of the worker These laws allow workers who do not pay union dues to obtain the same benefits, including legal representation from unions, as union members without paying for them Workers (union and non-union) in right-to-work states make more than $5,000 a year less, on average, than in other states. States without right-to-work laws have healthier tax bases, which leads to better government programs and educational systems Because unions lead in the fight to ensure safety and health standards for all workers, laws that weaken unions also weaken these standards. The workplace death rate is 51 percent higher in right-to-work states Without strong unions to fight for benefits for workers, right-to-work states have 21 percent more people without health insurance The infant mortality rate in right-to-work states is 16 percent higher Without strong unions to fight for better wages for all workers, the poverty rate in right-to-work states is 2.3 percent higher Right-to-work states offer a maximum weekly worker compensation benefit $30 less than other states Right-to-work laws disproportionately harm women. Union women, on average, earn $149 more per week than non-union women The wage gap between men and women in the United States is 32 percent. it is only 5 percent between union men and women Right-to-work laws disproportionately harm people of color. Hispanic and Latino union members earn 45 percent more and African-Americans who are in unions see salaries 30 percent higher than African-Americans that are not in unions The more workers that are unionized, the higher the wages that employers will offer, even to non-union workers, since workers are less willing to accept substandard wages Higher wages mean more money is spent by working families, boosting the economy and leading to lower uneployment numbers Higher rates of unionism lead to increases in productivity in both union jobs and non-union jobs, as employers must bring in new technology, new techniques and better training in order to attract better workers Employers frequently offer higher wages to workers in order to prevent them from organizing a union, meaning that even the presence of unions and the possibility of their existence in a workplace increases wages Right-to-work laws undercut unionized businesses in the states where they exist because non-union businesses can offer cheaper goods and services by exploiting their workers Right-to-work laws interfere with empoyer-worker contracts by limiting what the two sides can engage in. These laws don’t encourage freedom, they restrain it for all involved, placing the ‘wisdom’ of conservative politicians over that of both empoyers and workers.
(via Travis Waldron at Think Progress Economy: Corporate Front Group Airs Misleading Anti-Union Ad During Super Bowl)
While Super Bowl XLVI will be remembered for its dramatic ending, the issue of workers’ rights and union representation also surrounded the National Football League’s biggest game. A labor dispute nearly cost the NFL its 2011-12 season, and in the days before the game, Indiana passed an anti-union “right to work” law that led to union and Occupy protests at Indianapolis’ Super Bowl festivities throughout the week.
But despite fears from sports columnists and right-wing blogs that the protesters would “ruin the Super Bowl,” the only visible advocacy for some of the game’s viewers came in the form of a misleading anti-union attack ad from a corporate front group. The Center on Union Facts, an organization that has run newspaper ads comparing unions to Kim Jong-il’s authoritarian North Korean regime and endorsed other ads comparing unions to Nazis, produced and paid for the 40-second ad, which ran in the Washington DC television market just before halftime ended.
The ad’s claim that just 10 percent of current union members voted to form the union may be true, but it is incredibly misleading. Federal law mandates that more than 50 percent of a company’s workforce must vote in favor of the formation of a union. Most current union members, however, join unions that were formed years before and know that the union exists when they take the job.
The ad’s implication that the Employee Rights Act — a national right-to-work law — would put money in workers’ pockets is also misleading. According to the Economic Policy Institute, right-to-work laws cost workers up to $1,500 a year and also lead to reduced pensions and health care coverage.
With a sweeping series of bills introduced Monday night in the state Senate, Republicans in Arizona hoped to make Wisconsin’s battle against public unions last year look like a lightweight sparring match.The bills include a total ban on collective bargaining for Arizona’s public employees, including at the city and county levels. The move would outpace even the tough bargaining restrictions enacted in Wisconsin in 2011 that led to massive union protests and a Democratic effort to recall Republican Gov. Scott Walker.
“At first glance, it looks like an all out assault on the right of workers to organize,” Senate Minority Leader David Schapira (D) told TPM on Tuesday. “And to me, that’s a serious problem.”
The bills were crafted with the help of the Goldwater Institute, a powerful conservative think tank in Phoenix that flew Walker to the state for an event in November. Nick Dranias, director of the institute’s Center for Constitutional Government, told TPM he sees Walker as a “hero” but that Wisconsin’s laws were “modest” compared to Arizona’s measures.
“In Arizona, we believe that the political will exists to do even more comprehensive reform,” Dranias said. “The environment, the climate that we face in Arizona is much more receptive to these kinds of reforms than Wisconsin is.”
Beyond a ban on collective bargaining, the bills would also prohibit state and local government workers from deducting money from their paychecks to pay union dues.
They would ban state and local governments from paying anyone to spend time doing union work, a practice known as “release time.”
And in another break from the Wisconsin model, the restrictions would affect every type of public union, including police and firefighters.
Arizona is a right-to-work state, which gives unions a much smaller role there than in states like Wisconsin. But laws still currently give labor groups a place at the bargaining table to negotiate pay and other benefits for their members. All of that would change under the proposed rules.
Schapira, who is also running for Congress this year, said he expects the laws to easily pass unless something major happens. Democrats in the Senate are outnumbered 21-9, so he said there isn’t much they can do to stop the bills on their own.
“I think it’s kind of an all-hands-on-deck thing,” Schapira said. “We’ve got to get people down here at the Capitol to talk to their legislators, to contact them by phone or email and if need be to actually spend a significant amount of time here protesting these bills.”
The restrictions are on top of a proposal that Gov. Jan Brewer made earlier this month, saying she would offer state employees their first pay raise in years in exchange for giving up certain protections.
He said the institute has told Arizona’s legislators the state will save as much as $550 million a year if they put an end to collective bargaining.
Jan Brewer is proposing a bill that makes Scott Walker’s, Mitch Daniels’s, and John Kasich’s bills look rational in comparison. Remember that Arizona was ALREADY a RTWFL state.
