Posts Tagged ‘unions’

I was setting working on the computer last night when there was a knock upon my door. It was none other than Ryan Silvey himself. Imagine my surprise! He was out working hard for his senate campaign.

After the initial awkward moment the conversation began. I figured what better opportunity to get some questions answered than on ClayCoMOPolitics’ own doorstep! To Mr. Silvey’s credit he was very respectful, but his responses to my questions only served to muddy the water and make me question him even more.

According to Ryan, Noel Shull is not a conservative, Mr. Hurlbert is. And according to Mr. Silvey, the reason that Mr. Shull is not a conservative is because he gave $650 to former County Commissioner Ed Quick. I asked Mr. Shull about this one time and found his answer to be acceptable. Mr. Shull donated $650 to Quick in 2006 because he was concerned about his opponent Jay Lawson. Mr. Lawson was a mediocre commissioner from 1990-2000. This is the same Jay Lawson who filed as a Democrat for Presiding Commissioner in 2010, but after he failed to file his personal financial disclosure he was thrown off the ballot. He then refiled as a Republican for Recorder of Deeds and ended up winning.

I never reported this, but I had a sit down with Mr. Quick before the election in 2010. I myself voted for Ed Quick against Pam Mason because of her absolutely ridiculous campaign she ran against him.

I’m not sure who died and appointed Mr. Silvey the arbiter of all that is conservative, especially when you look at his most recent MEC reports. Last time I checked, unions were not considered remotely conservative. As reported on his July MEC report, Mr. Silvey received $3475 from unions. The $1,000 he received from the Greater KC AFL-CIO is especially interesting.

Something for Mr. Silvey to think about. President of the AFL-CIO Richard Trumka stated in a recent op-ed in the Huffington Post that “conservatives not only don’t believe in freedom, but use the word as a cynical con job to dupe voters out of voting for their own interests.”

His reason for taking their money? They were part of his constituency. Oh… Yeah, they are, but it doesn’t mean you should take their money.

I asked him about Right to Work, and he said no, he would not vote for it in the senate. He really never gave a good reason either. You see, believing that a worker has the right to join or not join a union is a form of freedom. In a capitalist society I can think of few more important freedoms than the right to control the state of your employment. Last time I checked, conservatives were for freedom. Well, unless you ask Mr. Silvey’s buddy Richard Trumka. The data for Right to Work states is solid, they are growing. States that have forced unionism, like Missouri, are not. Right to Work is a big game changer, but with Republicans like this, don’t expect our economic situation to change.

Mr. Silvey believes that Mr. Hurlbert was wrongly accused, and the only reason that Mr. Hurlbert resigned is because he was trying to save the taxpayers money. I come back to the fact, if someone is doing something wrong you stand up to it. If Mr. Hurlbert was wronged then he should have stayed and fought. Remember he held an ELECTED office. After all, didn’t the people send him there?  Even if it is true, and he was trying to save money then once he was out of office he should have done everything in his power to clear his name.

Update 11:50 AM: Something else that I forgot to mention that ties in here. Mr. Hurlbert could have resigned in time to allow then governor Matt Blunt to appoint a conservative Republican to the seat he was vacating. Instead, he waited till after the 2008 election and allowed Nixon to appoint Sheila Ernzen. Now, I have supported Ms. Ernzen and have no problem with her. My point here is that we are told to believe that Mr. Hurlbert is a passionate consistent loyal conservative Republican. One would think, that if that was the case, Mr. Hurlbert would have at least shown some allegiance to his party and resigned to allow Governor Blunt to make the appointment. Once again, it’s not about party or principle, it’s just about ME.

One interesting part of the conversation was where I got Mr. Silvey to admit that it was Mr. Hurlbert who was commenting on this blog anonymously. Mr. Silvey’s response was “well, some people do some stupid things.” Hmmm…

Yes, they sure do.

What I find most ironic is that Mr. Silvey’s campaign slogan is “Building Consensus.” Now, consensus is a word that means general agreement. To build consensus means that you have to work with Democrats and people you may not agree with on issues. So, it’s not okay for Mr. Shull to build consensus with Ed Quick, but it is okay for Mr. Silvey to build consensus with unions. And that makes one less a conservative than the other. The reality is, I believe that Mr. Silvey, Mr. Hurlbert, and Mr. Shull are all somewhat conservative, just as I am. For anyone that has been following this blog knows my problems with Vic Hurlbert is more about ethics and character than conservative political positions. That’s the big problem here.

Advertisements

Unbelievable… James O’Keefe’s latest video. Union bosses seek funding for digging holes and filling them back in.

I received this through email yesterday and wanted to post it. Right to Work should have been presented to Gov. Nixon last year. When you look at the Republican majorities there are only two possible conclusions why it didn’t happen; there are union-label Republicans in Missouri that need primaried, or there are Republicans who lack a spine. It would be nice to see it happen this year.

Here are some fun Right to Work statistics I came across the other day.

  • The nine states with the greatest 2000-2010 gains in their college-educated adult populations all protect the Right to Work. 
  • The 22 current Right to Work states have gained 25 US House seats since 1990. 
I received the following from my good friend, Paul Hamby. Please call your House Rep and Senator that you want Right-to-Work passed and pass this along.

“Jobs Jobs Jobs”  We hear that battle cry every time the legislature convenes.

There is one change in Missouri that can lead to more jobs, but the legislature refuses to pass it.

Right To Work.  

The simple concept that you should not be forced to join a union as a condition of employment.

Next Tuesday, Right To Work bills will get a hearing in the Missouri Senate.  Please send in testimony or show up and testify if you can.  The Missouri Senate has 3 bills filed so far.  Senator Purgason’s bill is the best one.

Hearing schedule:

Committee: General Laws, Senator Jane Cunningham, Chairman
Date:  Tuesday, January 17
Time:  after 3:00 PM
Room:  SCR 1

 

SB 547 – Purgason
Bars employers from requiring employees to engage in or cease engaging in certain labor practices.
 

Here are 5 reasons why I support Right to Work;


H/T to Greg Johns for providing this research

1.  Household Income Higher in Right-to-Work States — $4,258 Higher = Right-to-Work “for more”.

A recent study by Dr. Barry Poulson, past president of the North American Economics and Finance Association, professor of economics at the University of Colorado, compared household incomes in133 metropolitan areas in Right to Work states with those of 158 metropolitan areas in non-Right to Work states.

Among other results, he found that the average real income for households in Right to Work state metro areas, when all else was equal, was $4,258 more than non-Right to Work state metro areas.

2.  Jobs and People are moving out of Missouri.

According to research done by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, Missouri’s manufacturing GDP has decreased by 12.9% from 2000 to 2009, while right to work states have had an average of 14.7% of growth.  http://www.nilrr.org

Another fact union bosses fails to address is the net out-migration of nearly FIVE MILLION people from forced-unionism states to Right to Work states over the 2000-2009 period.

That is, nearly five million more people moved out of forced-unionism states than moved into them.  If living standards were really superior in forced-unionism states, would this have happened?  The net migration of nearly five million people over 9.25 years is confirmed by the U.S. Census Bureau.

The net out-migration of young people from forced-unionism states consists disproportionately of young adults and their children.  That’s why, from 1998 to 2008, the number of people aged 25-34 increased by 16.0% in Right to Work states, but fell by 0.6% in forced unionism states.  (Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract, 2010 edition, Table 16:  1999 edition, Table 33.

3.  Missouri already has Right-to-Work protection for all city, county, and state public employees. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics -2010Union Membership in Missouri  – February 4, 2011

Total Missouri Work Force = 2,469,000

Represented by Unions = 274,000 – 11.1%

Total Missouri Work Force broke down “Private” & “Public” by %

Private Employees represented by unions = 174,000 – 7%

Public Employees represented by unions = 100,000 – 4%

37% to 40% of all union workers in Missouri are working under the protection of a RIGHT-TO-WORK LAW right now.  Most of these are Public Employees.

Private Employees do not have the protection of a RIGHT-TO-WORK LAW and are being forced to join a union or lose their jobs. The Private Workforce should have the same rights as the Public Workforce — the protection of a Right to Work law.                                                                                

4.  Major Polls show union members favor Right-to-Work laws –

and union members also want to know how their union dues are being spent.

Major Polls asking union members only.

Roper Poll — Are you in favor of Right to Work laws or are you opposed to Right to Work laws?

Union Members – Favor (58%)  Oppose (26%)

Opinion Research Poll — Are you in favor of Right to Work laws or are you opposed to Right to Work laws?

           Union Members – Favor (59%)  Oppose (29%) 

Frank Luntz Poll Oct, 2010 — Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the following statement: “Workers should have the right to decide whether to join a union.  They should never be forced or coerced to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment.”

Union Members — Net Agree (80%)  Net Disagree (14%)  Really Don’t Care  (6%)

Frank Luntz Poll Oct, 2010 — Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the following statement: “Union workers should have the right to know how their dues money is being spent.  The Department of Labor should disclose union spending on the Internet to ensure accountability.”

Union Members — Net Agree (89%)  Net Disagree (6%)  Really Don’t Care  (5%)

5.  Right-to-Work gives the Unions back to the Union Members.

Compulsory unionism gives union bosses more power over the membership.  They don’t have to worry about whether the union is being run to suit the members, because the members can’t withdraw without losing their jobs.

With compulsory unionism it’s easier for union bosses to “keep the membership in line,” and they are guaranteed that the dollars from dues and “special” assessments will keep rolling in.  They ignore the desires of involuntary members.

Right-to-Work will give the unions back to the union members.  If they have bad Business Agents that wouldn’t fight for their grievances – they can replace them.  If they have Shop Stewarts that aren’t doing their job – they can replace them.  Right-to-Work – lets the union members control and run their own unions.

The better way is for the union to do such a good job looking out for its members that the workers want to belong.  That means union members can have a real voice in union affairs.  And union bosses know that the union members don’t have to stay in and pay dues if they are not satisfied with the way things in the union are being run.

YES, Right-to-Work will give control of local unions back to the local union members.

When membership is voluntary, unions work better, are more democratic, and the union members will make sure their union is more effective for them.  If union members don’t like what their union agents are doing, they can fire them.

Greg Johns

Missourians for Right To Work

417-766-4001   iae@murlin.com  History is pretty clear.  Right to Work states have more manufacturing plants built,  lower unemployment and higher average wages.   Those are the kind of changes Missouri needs.  Please help get this bill passed in the Senate and then we will take the battle to the Missouri house and Governor.  It’s time to make Missouri politicians keep their promise to create Jobs Jobs Jobs by passing Right To Work

Please contact your Missouri Senator.

List of Missouri State Senators here

Tell your senator to support SB547 and make Missouri a Right To Work state.

If you would like to work on organizing for this issue, please contact Greg Johns (contact details above)

Thank you to Senator Chuck Purgason for filing SB547 and thanks to Senate Pro Tem Rob Mayer for making Right To Work a legislative priority.

For Liberty,
Paul Hamby
Missouri Campaign for Liberty

p.s.  check the Missouri Senate Calendar before traveling to Jeff City.  Hearing schedules sometimes change.

p.p.s  Please fwd this message to your friends.