Hjalmar

Sorry about that .. The above change is an easier way to get in

Union Corruption Purple Haze Union The Link: Go to google and type in "Interview with H J Finnamore"

What a joke!!! You're suggesting that the world would have stood still over the past 50 years had it not been for labour unions!

I hereby declare victory. Total silence means that what I have had to say here is obviously irrefutable. Time for this thread to die -- and on a high note at that. For the people onside here I say -- spread the message to our politicians and wake them up. Bye all.

Passing Right-to-Work legislation: the start of the economic boom Idaho became the nation's twenty-first Right-to-Work state in 1985, when the state Senate and the state House of Representatives overrode then-Governor John V. Evans's veto of House Bill 2. Idaho's status as a Right-to-Work state was immediately challenged by the state's labour unions, which obtained enough signatures to place the law on the 1986 general election ballot. Having run the gauntlet of numerous committee hearings, votes in both houses of the legislature, second votes in the legislature on overriding the Governor's veto, the idea of Right-to-Work was clearly popular. However, union officials in Idaho had US $1.3 million in forced union dues handed to them by the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) in Washington, DC, to spend on their drive to repeal the law. All in all, opponents of Right-to-Work had nearly twice as much money to spend as the supporters of the Right-to-Work law. By election day, last minute polls seemed to indicate a photo finish, but the Right-to-Work law was upheld by Idaho voters on November 4, 1986 by a surprisingly strong 54 to 46 percent margin. Since then, Idaho has enjoyed sustained economic growth-so much so that a recent publication by the Idaho Department of Commerce describes "six consecutive years of growth and stability that is the envy of many," beginning in 1987, the year Right-to-Work legislation finally took effect (Idaho Dep't of Commerce 1993). It is no exaggeration to say that the enactment of Right-to-Work laws has done more for the Idaho economy than has any other legislative measure in the last decade.

Synopsis of the evidence on Right-To-Work laws The so-called British Disease was imported into Canada and remains with us today... While Canada is still plagued with the disease, Britain reformed its labour legislation and is now enjoying the benefits of having introduced Right-to-Work laws. The research evidence gathered by the authors in this volume indicates that jurisdictions with Right-to-Work laws have outperformed jurisdictions without such laws by a significant margin... Following is a synopsis of the evidence. •In the United States, between 1947 and 1992, manufacturing employment increased by 148 percent in states with Right-to-Work laws. Over the same period, growth in manufacturing jobs was almost zero in states without Right-to-Work laws. •On average, manufacturing employment increases by one-third when one steps over the border from a state without Right-to-Work laws to a state with Right-to-Work laws. •Between 1986 and 1993, in the Pacific Northwest of the United States, states with Right-to-Work laws-Nevada, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming-saw their average manufacturing job growth rise by 26 percent, while states without Right-to-Work laws-Washington, Oregon, Montana and Colorado-saw an average growth rate of 7 percent. •Among the 20 states ranked as having the best climate for business, according to a major survey 19 of them are states with Right-to-Work laws. •Surveys show that half of all companies in the United States wanting to relocate will not consider a state without Right-to-Work laws. •Six years prior to the enactment of the Right-to-Work law, Idaho saw its manufacturing employment decline by 2.1 percent. In contrast, after the law was passed, between 1987 and 1995 Idaho's manufacturing employment grew by 36.2 percent. •While the number of construction jobs in non-Right-to-Work states increased by 5.5 percent between 1986 and 1994, construction jobs in Idaho increased by 105 percent. •While manufacturing productivity in Idaho grew by almost 5 percent between 1987 and 1992, in the neighbouring non-Right-to-Work state of Montana manufacturing productivity declined by 4.4 percent. •In the case of New Zealand, after the enactment of Right-to-Work laws in 1991, the unemployment rate fell from 10.0 percent in September 1991 to 5.9 percent in March 1996. •Between 1984 and 1991, annual labour productivity growth was 1.1 percent in New Zealand. Between 1991 and 1995, productivity has increased by 1.8 percent on an annual basis. •In New Zealand, GDP grew by 15 percent in the three years after it enacted Right-to-Work laws in 1991. This is as much as the economy grew in the whole decade between 1974 and 1984. •Working days lost due to strike activity in New Zealand have declined from 99,032 in 1991 to 23,770 by 1993. •Firms in Britain that rid themselves of the closed shop have higher levels of growth in productivity. •While Britain also saw its corporate profitability improve, profits continued to be lower in unionized workplaces. •After major labour reforms, Britain's unemployment rate has declined from 11.2 percent in 1983 to 6.9 percent in November 1996. •In Britain, there were 2,125 work stoppages in 1979. Since labour reforms were introduced, the number of work stoppages has declined to 205 in 1994.

CASE LAWS AROUND THE WORLD The evidence from around the world also suggests that freedom of association should be construed to include the freedom not to join a union; courts of law from many countries have issued decisions to this effect. United States As early as 1947, the Congress of the United States adopted the Taft-Hartley Act. Section 14( )of this Act reads: Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in labor organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by state or territorial Law. The Supreme Court of the United States declared the Taft-Hartley Act constitutional in 1949, when it heard Lincoln Federated Union v. Northwestern I and M; and in AFL v. American Sash Door Company... Since the 1940s, 22 states have adopted right-to-work laws and these are still in force today.... These states are now among the most prosperous in the United States and have some of the lowest rates of unemployment in the country.... Since 1949, hundreds of court decisions under the Taft-Hartley Act have confirmed that the freedom of association includes freedom from coercion to join a union and the freedom to pay or not to pay union dues, even in states that have not enacted right-to-work laws. Great Britain The British Parliament, when it adopted the Trade Disputes Act of 1906, included a provision for closed-shop unions... Seventy years later the closed-shop union was challenged in the famous case of Young, James, and Webster v. British Rail. In 1976, Young, James, and Webster, employees of British Rail, cancelled their membership in the Trades Union Congress and refused to pay union dues... They were promptly dismissed by British Rail and a court battle ensued... Five years later, in August 1981, the European Court in Strasbourg issued a judgment in which it ordered British Rail to reinstate the three claimants in their jobs and to pay them £145,000 in compensation for the damage they had suffered. This decision was a first step towards eliminating closed-shop union provisions in Great Britain... Employment Acts adopted by the British Parliament in 1982, 1988 and 1990 gradually outlawed the provision of closed-shop and mandatory union dues in Great Britain. Section 1 (1) of the Employment Act of 1990 states: 1 (1) It is unlawful to refuse a person employment: (a) because he is or is not a member of a trade union or () because he is unwilling to accept a requirement (i) to take steps to become or to remain or not to become a member of a trade union; (ii) to make payments or suffer deductions in the event of his not being a member of a trade union. Switzerland Section 356(1)(a) of the Code of Obligations adopted in 1911 and further amended in 1956 reads: The provisions of a collective agreement or of a private agreement that coerce employers or laborers to join an association are null and void. Belgium The closed-shop was outlawed in Belgium by a law adopted on May 24, 1921 and still in force. It reads: Sec. 1: The freedom of association is guaranteed. No employee will be forced to join a union nor hindered from joining a union. France Statute No. 56-416 enacted on April 27, 1956 reads: 1. No employer shall consider the fact that a candidate is a member or is not a member of a union nor that the candidate takespart or takes no part in the union in decisions pertaining to hiring, assignment of work, social benefits, disciplinary action nor dismissal. 2. Closed-shop provisions to coerce an employer to hire or maintain in employment only union members are null and void. Japan Neither the Labor Relations Act of Japan of 1946 nor any labour law adopted since by the Diete has authorized the closed-shop (International Labor Office 1980). The freedom to join a union is guaranteed by section 28 of the Constitution of Japan-1946 (Blaustein and Franz 1993: 15-22). Since 1946, the Japanese courts have consistently ruled that the freedom of association under section 28 includes the freedom from coercion to join a trade union. New Zealand Section 99.1 of the Industrial Relations Act of New Zealand reads: 99.1 Nothing in any award or any collective agreement or in any other agreement between one or more workers and an employer or employers or a union of employers or an organization of employers shall require a person: (a) to become or remain a member of any union . . . Eire The sections of the Constitution adopted by Ireland in 1937 that deal with freedom of association read: Sec. 40.3 The State guarantees in its laws to respect and, as far as practicable, by the laws to defend and vindicate the personal right of the citizens. Sec. 40.6 1o The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights subject to public order and morality: (iii) the right of citizens to form associations and unions. International charters South American Convention on Human Rights This convention (also called the Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica) was signed by Mexico, the countries of Central America, South America and states in the Caribbean-30 countries overall. Section 8.3 reads: 8.3 No one may be compelled to belong to a trade union. African Charter on Human and People Rights The African Charter on Human and People Rights was signed by 49 African countries in Liberia on July 20, 1979. Sec. 10(1): Every individual shall have the right to free association provided that he abides by the law. Sec. 10(2): No one may be compelled to join an association

Closed-shop and Charters of Rights and Freedoms [The Theriault and other interrelated cases] With respect to the legal aspects of closed-shop and Rand formula practices, the legal contention in the 17 cases pending before Superior Court, Hull Division, is very specific and quite straight forward.... Closed-shop provisions and the Rand formula violate the rights of employees regimented in unions against their will and "taxed" privately by the unions... The cases presented argue that these practices are blatant violations of the rights guaranteed to all Canadian citizens by the federal and provincial charters of rights and freedom. Section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of association as a "Fundamental Freedom." Further, the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedom provides the following basic rights: Sec. 10: Every person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedom without distinction, exclusion, or preference. Sec. 13: No one may in a judicial act stipulate a clause involving discrimination.... Such a clause is deemed without effect. It is important to recognize that the "freedom of association" of section 2(d) includes the freedom from compulsion to join a particular union on pain of losing one's job.... It is also important to recognize that the closed-shop involves the "discrimination, distinction, exclusion, [or] preference" prohibited by the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedom. There have been several decisions in which the Canadian courts have clearly considered the freedom of the individual more important than collective rights.

Closed-Shop Provisions Violate Canadian and Provincial Charters of Rights and Freedoms Roger J. Bedard Canada and Australia are now the only two developed countries that have not yet outlawed the closed-shop and mandatory union dues.... Every province in Canada has laws that authorize closed-shop unions and / or mandatory union dues and, under all provincial labour codes, exclusive representation means that workers are not free to decide as individuals whether or not to be represented by a union; nor can competing unions offer representative services to minorities. In this Foreword, I shall first describe briefly the 17 interrelated cases that we are currently arguing before the Superior Court, Hull Division.... We are contending that the "freedom of association" of section 2(d) of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes the freedom not to be forced to join a union, and that the practice of private union "taxers" of collecting mandatory union dues are a violation of the rights of Canadian citizens.... Second, I shall describe the way in which 101 countries around the world have outlawed closed-shop provisions altogether through legislation, court decisions, or international agreements... Finally, I shall raise a few questions about the silence of Canadian academics and journalists about the flagrant abuses of the closed-shop and of compulsory union dues.

Over the last 20 years, smart employers and corrupt union leaders have made unions irrelevant. Still today, unions enjoy many extraordinary powers and immunities created by legislatures and the courts... Unions claim to rely on the support of rank-and-file workers, yet they clamor to secure and expand their government-granted powers, including the powers to shake down employees for financial support and even to wage campaigns of violent retaliation against non-union employees. Here is a list of special privileges that reveals the extent to which unions have rigged our nation's labor laws in their favor: 1. Exemption from prosecution for union violence... The most egregious example of organized labor's special privileges and immunities is the 1973 United States v. Enmons decision... In it, the United States Supreme Court held that union violence is exempted from the Hobbs Act, which makes it a federal crime to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery or extortion.... As a result, thousands of incidents of violent assaults (directed mostly against workers) by union militants have gone unpunished. Meanwhile, many states also restrict the authority of law enforcement to enforce laws during strikes. 2. Exemption from anti-monopoly laws. The Clayton Act of 1914 exempts unions from anti-monopoly laws, enabling union officials to forcibly drive out independent or alternative employee bargaining groups. 3. Power to force employees to accept unwanted union representation.... Monopoly bargaining, or "exclusive representation," which is embedded in most of the country's labor relations statutes, enables union officials to act as the exclusive bargaining agents of all employees at a unionized workplace, thereby depriving employees of the right to make their own employment contracts.... For example, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, the Federal Labor Relations Act (FLRA) of 1978, and the Railway Labor Act (RLA) of 1926 prohibit employees from negotiating their own contracts with their employers or choosing their own workplace representatives. 4. Power to collect forced union dues. Unlike other private organizations, unions can compel individuals to support them financially.... In 28 states under the NLRA (those that do not have Right-to-Work laws), on "exclusive federal enclaves," (something the folks at Raytheon will have to cope with -- Guam's right-to-work law doesn't apply there) like them and in many states under public sector labor relations acts, employees may be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment, even if they reject union affiliation. 5. Unlimited, undisclosed electioneering... The Federal Election Campaign Act exempts unions from its limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, as well as some of its reporting requirements.... Union bigwigs can spend unlimited amounts on communications to members and their families in support of, or opposition to, candidates for federal office, and they need not report these expenditures if they successfully claim that union publications are primarily devoted to other subjects. For years, the politically active National Education Association (NEA) teacher union has gotten away with claiming zero political expenditures on its IRS tax forms! 6. Ability to strong-arm employers into negotiations. Unlike all other parties in the economic marketplace, union officials can compel employers to bargain with them.... The NLRA, FLRA, and RLA make it illegal for employers to resist a union's collective bargaining efforts and difficult for them to counter aggressive and deceptive campaigns waged by union organizers. 7. Right to trespass on an employer's private property.... The Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 (and state anti-injunction acts) give union activists immunity from injunctions against trespass on an employer's property. 8. Ability of strikers to keep jobs despite refusing to work. Unlike other employees, unionized employees in the private sector have the right to strike -- to refuse to work while keeping their job. In some cases, it is illegal for employers to hire replacement workers, even to avert bankruptcy. Meanwhile, union officials demonize replacement workers as "scabs" to set them up for retaliation. 9. Union-only cartels on construction projects.... Under so-called project labor agreements, governments (local, state, or federal) award contracts for construction on major projects such as highways, airports, and stadiums exclusively to unionized firms.... These practices effectively lock-out qualified contractors and employees who refuse to submit to exclusive union bargaining, forced union dues, and wasteful union work rules.... So far, just three states have outlawed these discriminatory and costly union-only pacts. 10. Government funding of forced unionism. On top of all of the special powers and immunities granted to unions, politicians even pour taxpayer money straight into union coffers.... Union groups receive upwards of $160 million annually in direct federal grants. But that's just the tip of the iceberg.In 2001, the federal Department of Labor doled out $148 million for "international labor programs" overwhelmingly controlled by an AFL-CIO front group.... Federal bureaucrats spend approximately $2.6 billion per year on "job training programs" that, under the Workforce Investment Act, must be administered by boards filled with union officials. That kind of power and priviledge has made many unions vulnerable to infiltration and corruption by organized crime.

What is a "Right to Work" Law? Section 14 of the Taft-Hartley Act, passed by Congress in 1947, reaffirmed the right of states to pass Right to Work laws. Under Right to Work laws, employees cannot be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Since compulsory dues are their life blood, unions fight ferociously to stop the passage of Right to Work laws. In Oklahoma, for example, unions spent $8 million on a media campaign to mislead the public about the merits of voluntary unionism.. One union went as far as questioning the constitutionality of Right to Work laws, even though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled more than 50 years ago that the laws are absolutely constitutional. Studies by economists show that living costs are lower and, consequently, real incomes are higher in Right to Work states when compared to states that don't currently protect employees from federally imposed forced unionism. Data released by the U.S. Department of Labor in 1998 showed that: Right to Work jurisdictions have had lower unemployment rates than non-Right to Work states in every year but four since 1978.... Since 1977, Right to Work jurisdictions have created non-farm jobs at a pace twice that of non-Right to Work states. In the heavily unionized construction industry, Right to Work states have created jobs at a rate almost one-third greater than non-Right to Work states since 1977. In the manufacturing sector, Right to Work states have gained over 800,000 jobs since 1977, while the compulsory unionism states lost almost 2 million jobs. Why does the right-to-work issue generate so much controversy? In part, because Americans still think of unions as they were in the 1930s -- a necessary weapon employees needed to protect themselves from abusive employers.

So what you are saying about the dangers of declining union membership is true -- but it is a danger for union workers only while all the rest of the population benefits. That could be perhaps 85% of the population when you factor in all non-union workers plus all the people that don't work, such as retirees etc. A plus for the majority as I see it.

A Higher Standard of Living in "Right to Work" States By James T Bennet Ph.D Professor of economics George Mason University Money income varies widely across states, regions, and cities, but so does tax burden which reduces family income, as do the prices of goods and services which are purchased with after-tax income. Before adjusting for taxes and cost of living, typical family income for the 129 SMSAs in states with RTW laws is $46,883, $6,747 less than the average for the 182 SMSAs located in states without RTW laws, $53,630. However, on average, families that reside in SMSAs in RTW states pay only $1,779 in state and local taxes, while families in non-RTW states pay $3,005. Thus, there is less difference in after-tax average family income between RTW and non-RTW states; average annual after-tax family income in states with RTW laws is $45,104, only $5,521 less than the average annual after-tax income of $50,625 of families in states without RTW laws. It is important to emphasize that these data include only state and local taxes; federal taxes also reduce the income that families have available for purchasing goods and services. Federal taxes are based on money income and are progressive, i.e., the tax rate rises with income. Thus, since average income is greater in non-RTW states than in RTW states, the federal tax bite should be greater in non-RTW states than in RTW states, and this would further narrow the difference in after-tax income between RTW and non-RTW states. Put another way, if it were possible to adjust for federal taxes, the difference in after-tax family income between RTW and non-RTW states would be smaller than $5,521. But the real difference comes after adjusting for cost of living. After-tax income buys much more in states with RTW laws because the cost of living is considerably higher in SMSAs in non-RTW states than for those located in RTW states. The average cost-of-living index for the 129 SMSAs in RTW states is 123.8 in comparison with 154.1 for the 182 SMSAs in non-RTW states. Stated in money terms, the same package of goods and services that can be purchased on average for $123.80 in RTW states would cost $154.10 in non-RTW states. Thus, on average, residents in SMSAs in states without RTW laws pay 24.5 percent more for food, housing, health care transportation, utilities, property taxes, and college tuition than residents in RTW states. After adjusting for the cost of living and the state and local tax burden, average after-tax income is then $36,540 in RTW states versus only $33,688 in non-RTW states. Thus, a typical urban family in a RTW state has $2,852 more in after-tax purchasing power than the same family would have in a non-RTW state -- a statistically significant difference.

Here are the cycles referred to in my previous post -- Commodity prices peaked in London in 1711. The South Seas Bubble burst in 1720. -- Depression followed. -- Producer Prices peaked in London in 1763. The London stock market crashed again in 1772. -- Depression followed. -- Commodity prices peaked in London in 1816. The London stock market crashed in 1825. -- Depression followed. -- Wholesale prices peaked in New York in 1864. A worldwide assets crash began in May 1873. -- Depression followed. -- Wholesale prices peaked in the United States in 1919. Wall Street crashed in 1929 -- Depression followed. --Commodity prices peaked in Tokyo in 1980. The Tokyo stock market peaked in 1989 and crashed in 1990. Span of the cycles: From 1720 to 1772 ----- 52 years From 1772 to 1825 ----- 53 years From 1825 to 1873 ----- 48 years From 1873 to 1929 ----- 56 years From 1929 to 1990 ----- 61 years Are we due for another depression soon?

History tells us that over the past 250 years we have had inflationary cycles lasting approximately 50 years and each one has been followed by a depression which has brought prices down to the level they were at before the inflation started. Do you wish to refute that eureka?