Tag Archives: politics

Corporate Greed, Political, Union

Right-to-work goes down in flames in Illinois House with zero yes votes

Gov. Bruce Rauner’s desires to have right-to-work in Illinois went down in flames in the House on Thursday, gaining zero yes votes in a fiery debate Democrats aimed squarely at the governor.

The vote tally was 0 yes votes, 72 no votes and 37 voting present, offering a blistering rebuke to Rauner’s anti-union agenda. A handful of Republicans went for a walk during the vote, not publicly falling on one side or another.

Republicans dismissed the vote as political theater even as Democrats pit workers’ rights against corporate greed and called Rauner “divisive” for touring the state and essentially asking local towns to kick unions out.

“Don’t be afraid, stay with us, vote no!” state Rep. Jay Hoffman, D-Belleville, said.
Illinois House Republican Leader Jim Durkin, R-Western Springs, lambasted Democrats for moving what he said amounted to “sham bills” in the House. The legislation voted on Thursday was not drafted by the governor’s office. Last week, Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan had urged Rauner to give him language for a bill, needling Rauner that he had talked about right-to-work for 100 days.

“What’s happening today, what happened last week really is a disservice to this body, to this chamber and to this building,” Durkin said. “I’m embarrassed to be part of this process today. I think this is a very dark moment in this body’s chamber.”

Rauner’s office countered that Madigan and Democrats were walking away from the negotiating table by plucking out controversial issues and voting them down. In the Capitol on Thursday, Rauner dismissed the notion that a vote on right-to-work was meant to embarrass the governor, who has made it his marquee issue since he was sworn into office in January.
head to Springfield)

Asked whether the vote on right-to-work — which essentially allows people to work in union jobs without paying union dues — was meant to embarrass him, Rauner said: “Difficult negotiations in government often involve political theater. That’s a little bit of what that is. I don’t take it that way. This is just part of a political process. We’re working together and we’ll get through it. . . . There’s a lot of pressure from special-interest groups who don’t want to change. We are in a long slow decline we need to grow pretty strongly . . . we are encouraging Republicans to stay strong together. We’re a super-minority.”

Action, Corporate Greed, Political, Union

If It’s Pushed By the Republicans, It’s Not Good For The Working Man

Thom’s blog
Why Unions Are the Seeds of Democracy
Thom plus logo
Scott Walker has struck another blow against democracy.
On Monday, the Republican Wisconsin governor signed into law a bill that made Wisconsin the nation’s 25th right-to-work-for-less state. For Badger State workers, this is nothing short of a disaster. Contrary to what you might hear on Fox So-Called News or read in The Wall Street Journal, right-to-work-for-less laws are not a recipe for economic success.
In fact, according to the Economic Policy Institute, “8 of the 10 worst states in terms of quality of life are [right-to-work] states.” And that’s not even the worst of it.
Studies also show that workers in right-to-work-for-less states make less money, get skimpier health benefits, and are more likely to die on the job than workers in Union Security states. Republicans, of course, like to argue that all this doesn’t matter because right-to-work-for-less states have lower unemployment rates.
But that claim doesn’t really hold up to much scrutiny.
So whatever way you look at it, right-to-work-for-less laws like Wisconsin’s are a raw deal, both for workers and the states they live in. They also pose a mortal threat to a democratic workplace, and that’s arguably a much bigger problem. That’s because the real purpose of right-to-work-for-less-laws isn’t to lower wages or gut health benefits – although those are some nice side benefits as far as corporate America is concerned.
No, the real purpose of right-to-work-for-less laws is to totally gut the negotiating power of unions, the most important check we have against concentrated wealth and power.
Retirement, Union, UPS

Can They Grab Your Pension?

Clawbacks become more common as plans discover they overpaid recipients

by Carole Fleck, AARP Bulletin, March 2015
Millions Could See Cuts

Tucked into the massive budget bill passed by Congress in December was a provision permitting certain financially troubled multiemployer pension plans to cut existing benefits potentially to hundreds of thousands of retirees who are under age 80.

Shifting burden

That 11th-hour provision toppled 40 years of protections for retirees already receiving benefits and may alter the course of the U.S. retirement system, retirement advocates say. “Congress has placed the burden of rescuing underfunded multiemployer plans on the people who can least afford it — retirees and surviving spouses who rely on their pensions for food, medication and other necessities,” says Karen Friedman, executive vice president at the Pension Rights Center in Washington, which fought against the legislation along with AARP and other groups.

Multiemployer plans — there are about 1,400 in the U.S. — are group pensions that several companies within a single or related industry pay into, mostly to cover union workers. But shrinking union membership, market declines and other issues have put some 150 to 200 plans — covering about 1.5 million people — in peril.

Out of money

Those plans could run out of money within 20 years, according to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., which insures private pensions up to certain limits when employer plans go bankrupt. Retirees won’t see immediate cuts to their pensions because it’s a complex process to modify benefits.

Vote on cuts

For example, plans with at least 10,000 workers and retirees must permit all participants to vote on cuts before they’re implemented. Even if a majority oppose it, the Treasury secretary could override the vote and uphold trustees’ decisions to reduce payouts, in order to prevent insolvency. Under the provision, retirees ages 75 to 79 likely will see smaller cuts than those 74 and under. Pensioners in single-employer plans won’t be affected.