BREAKING: The Supreme Court Just Made A HUGE Move That Threatens Dem Campaign Cash

In a surprise move that could pose a major threat to organized labor — a key Democrat constituency that supports liberal candidates with vast amounts of campaign cash — the U.S. Supreme Court has just said it will hear a controversial case out of California. USA Today reports that the justices have agreed to consider the case of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, “challenging the requirement that teachers contribute to unions, even if they don’t join them or agree with their positions on issues.”

The USA Today article points out that, in the most recent case to come before the court in which the forced union dues have been challenged by people who don’t support what those dues have paid for politically, a sharply divided court ruled against the union policy.

“…the court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines that home-care workers in Illinois do not have to pay dues to public employee unions. The workers said the unions lobbied the government, often on issues the workers oppose — thereby abridging their First Amendment rights.”

In the California case that will bring the critical issue back before the Supreme Court in late fall, two lower courts have upheld the demand by the California Teachers Association that teachers contribute to the union, even if they don’t belong to the union or don’t agree with the group’s position of issues.

The Los Angeles Times article on the high court’s taking up the case notes just how important the eventual outcome of the matter could be to public employee unions and the causes, candidates and campaigns they support with massive amounts of money. What makes this pending decision even more critical is its timing as the 2016 election cycle moves into high gear.

The case is likely to be seen as crucial test of public employee unions, which have under political attack in several Republican-led states. The outcome may well have a political impact as well, because these unions have been reliable supporters of the Democratic Party.

The Times coverage notes just how much money the public-sector union collects from each member and non-member. “The lawsuit said full dues for teachers who join the union are about $1,000 a year, but non-members still have to pay about $650 on average for their share of the cost of collective bargaining….”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Missouri Legislature Passes Right-To-Work Legislation

The Republican-controlled Missouri General Assembly passed a bill Wednesday that would make the Show-Me State the 26th right-to-work state in the country.

The House voted 92 to 66 for the right-to-work legislation Wednesday, while the Senate voted 21 to 13 Tuesday. As The New York Times notes, the bill would forbid employers from making union dues or representation fees mandatory. The map below shows which states have comparable legislation:

National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation

National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation

“Freedom to work is necessary if Missouri wishes to regain a competitive standard with the states that surround us,” said state Rep. Eric Burlison, a Republican who sponsored the legislation. “It will encourage job growth and help unions become stronger.”

But the bill has a large hill to overcome, with a Democratic governor and the lack of a veto proof majority. 109 votes are needed in the House, while 23 are needed in the Senate. One Republican lawmaker asserts passing the bill this late in the legislative term was an ineffective move. “This symbolic gesture has killed all of our bills,” argued Republican state Rep. Kevin Engler. “Does this make any sense?”

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon (D) has signaled he would veto the bill. “Attacking workers and weakening the middle class will not create jobs,” he said in a statement Thursday:

In fact, rolling back the rights of working people would weaken our economy by lowering wages and making it harder for middle-class families to move up the economic ladder.

This bill also takes the extreme step of subjecting Missouri employers to criminal and unlimited civil liability, which would stifle growth and discourage investment in our state. At a time when our economy is picking up steam and businesses are creating good jobs, this so-called right-to-work bill would take Missouri backwards.

The Missouri GOP also has another issue to deal with. State House Speaker John Diehl resigned Thursday after the Kansas City Star alleged he had a sexual relationship with a college-aged intern, according to Talking Points Memo.

h/t: KCRU

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

In A Cop Culture, The Bill Of Rights Doesn’t Amount To Much

Police officers are more likely to be struck by lightning than be held financially accountable for their actions.—Law professor Joanna C. Schwartz (paraphrased)

“In a democratic society,” observed Oakland police chief Sean Whent, “people have a say in how they are policed.”

Unfortunately, if you can be kicked, punched, tasered, shot, intimidated, harassed, stripped, searched, brutalized, terrorized, wrongfully arrested, and even killed by a police officer, and that officer is never held accountable for violating your rights and his oath of office to serve and protect, never forced to make amends, never told that what he did was wrong, and never made to change his modus operandi, then you don’t live in a constitutional republic.

You live in a police state.

It doesn’t even matter that “crime is at historic lows and most cities are safer than they have been in generations, for residents and officers alike,” as the New York Times reports.

What matters is whether you’re going to make it through a police confrontation alive and with your health and freedoms intact. For a growing number of Americans, those confrontations do not end well.

As David O. Brown, the Dallas chief of police, noted: “Sometimes it seems like our young officers want to get into an athletic event with people they want to arrest. They have a ‘don’t retreat’ mentality. They feel like they’re warriors and they can’t back down when someone is running from them, no matter how minor the underlying crime is.”

Making matters worse, in the cop culture that is America today, the Bill of Rights doesn’t amount to much. Unless, that is, it’s the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBoR), which protects police officers from being subjected to the kinds of debilitating indignities heaped upon the average citizen.

Most Americans, oblivious about their own rights, aren’t even aware that police officers have their own Bill of Rights. Yet at the same time that our own protections against government abuses have been reduced to little more than historic window dressing, 14 states have already adopted LEOBoRs—written by police unions and being considered by many more states and Congress—which provides police officers accused of a crime with special due process rights and privileges not afforded to the average citizen.

In other words, the LEOBoR protects police officers from being treated as we are treated during criminal investigations: questioned unmercifully for hours on end, harassed, harangued, browbeaten, denied food/water/bathroom breaks, subjected to hostile interrogations, and left in the dark about our accusers and any charges and evidence against us.

Not only are officers given a 10-day “cooling-off period during which they cannot be forced to make any statements about the incident; but when they are questioned, it must be “for a reasonable length of time, at a reasonable hour, by only one or two investigators (who must be fellow policemen), and with plenty of breaks for food and water.”

According to investigative journalist Eli Hager, the most common rights afforded police officers accused of wrongdoing are as follows:

  • If a department decides to pursue a complaint against an officer, the department must notify the officer and his union.
  • The officer must be informed of the complainants, and their testimony against him, before he is questioned.
  • During questioning, investigators may not harass, threaten, or promise rewards to the officer, as interrogators not infrequently do to civilian suspects.
  • Bathroom breaks are assured during questioning.
  • In Maryland, the officer may appeal his case to a “hearing board,” whose decision is binding, before a final decision has been made by his superiors about his discipline. The hearing board consists of three of the suspected offender’s fellow officers.
  • In some jurisdictions, the officer may not be disciplined if more than a certain number of days (often 100) have passed since his alleged misconduct, which limits the time for investigation.
  • Even if the officer is suspended, the department must continue to pay salary and benefits, as well as the cost of the officer’s attorney.

It’s a pretty sweet deal if you can get it, I suppose: protection from the courts, immunity from wrongdoing, paid leave while you’re under investigation, and the assurance that you won’t have to spend a dime of your own money in your defense. And yet these LEOBoR epitomize everything that is wrong with America today.

Once in a while, the system appears to work on the side of justice; and police officers engaged in wrongdoing are actually charged for abusing their authority and using excessive force against American citizens.

Yet even in these instances, it’s still the American taxpayer who foots the bill.

For example, Baltimore taxpayers have paid roughly $5.7 million since 2011 over lawsuits stemming from police abuses, with an additional $5.8 million going towards legal fees. If the six Baltimore police officers charged with the death of Freddie Gray are convicted, you can rest assured it will be the Baltimore taxpayers who feel the pinch.

New York taxpayers have shelled out almost $1,130 per year per police officer (there are 34,500 officers in the NYPD) to address charges of misconduct. That translates to $38 million every year just to clean up after these so-called public servants.

Over a 10-year-period, Oakland, Calif., taxpayers were made to cough up more than $57 million (curiously enough, the same amount as the city’s deficit back in 2011) in order to settle accounts with alleged victims of police abuse.

Chicago taxpayers were asked to pay out nearly $33 million on one day alone to victims of police misconduct, with one person slated to receive $22.5 million, potentially the largest single amount settled on any one victim. The City has paid more than half a billion dollars to victims over the course of a decade. The Chicago City Council actually had to borrow $100 million just to pay off lawsuits arising over police misconduct in 2013. The city’s payout for 2014 was estimated to be in the same ballpark, especially with cases pending such as the one involving the man who was reportedly sodomized by a police officer’s gun in order to force him to “cooperate.”

Over 78% of the funds paid out by Denver taxpayers over the course of a decade arose as a result of alleged abuse or excessive use of force by the Denver police and sheriff departments. Meanwhile, taxpayers in Ferguson, Missouri, are being asked to pay $40 million in compensation—more than the city’s entire budget—for police officers treating them “‘as if they were war combatants,’ using tactics like beating, rubber bullets, pepper spray, and stun grenades, while the plaintiffs were peacefully protesting, sitting in a McDonalds, and in one case walking down the street to visit relatives.”

That’s just a small sampling of the most egregious payouts, but just about every community—large and small—feels the pinch when it comes to compensating victims who have been subjected to deadly or excessive force by police.

The ones who rarely ever feel the pinch are the officers accused or convicted of wrongdoing, “even if they are disciplined or terminated by their department, criminally prosecuted, or even imprisoned.” Indeed, a study published in the NYU Law Review reveals that 99.8% of the monies paid in settlements and judgments in police misconduct cases never come out of the officers’ own pockets, even when state laws require them to be held liable. Moreover, these officers rarely ever have to pay for their own legal defense.

For instance, law professor Joanna C. Schwartz references a case in which three Denver police officers chased and then beat a 16-year-old boy, stomping “on the boy’s back while using a fence for leverage, breaking his ribs and causing him to suffer kidney damage and a lacerated liver.” The cost to Denver taxpayers to settle the lawsuit: $885,000. The amount the officers contributed: 0.

Kathryn Johnston, 92 years old, was shot and killed during a SWAT team raid that went awry. Attempting to cover their backs, the officers falsely claimed Johnston’s home was the site of a cocaine sale and went so far as to plant marijuana in the house to support their claim. The cost to Atlanta taxpayers to settle the lawsuit: $4.9 million. The amount the officers contributed: 0.

Meanwhile, in Albuquerque, a police officer was convicted of raping a woman in his police car, in addition to sexually assaulting four other women and girls, physically abusing two additional women, and kidnapping or falsely imprisoning five men and boys. The cost to the Albuquerque taxpayers to settle the lawsuit: $1,000,000. The amount the officer contributed: 0.

Human Rights Watch notes that taxpayers actually pay three times for officers who repeatedly commit abuses: “once to cover their salaries while they commit abuses; next to pay settlements or civil jury awards against officers; and a third time through payments into police ‘defense’ funds provided by the cities.”

Still, the number of times a police officer is actually held accountable for wrongdoing while on the job is miniscule compared to the number of times cops are allowed to walk away with little more than a slap on the wrist.

A large part of the problem can be chalked up to influential police unions and laws providing for qualified immunity, not to mention these Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights laws, which allow officers to walk away without paying a dime for their wrongdoing.

Another part of the problem is rampant cronyism among government bureaucrats; those deciding whether a police officer should be immune from having to personally pay for misbehavior on the job all belong to the same system, all with a vested interest in protecting the police and their infamous code of silence: city and county attorneys, police commissioners, city councils, and judges.

Most of all, what we’re dealing with is systemic corruption that protects wrongdoing and recasts it in a noble light. However, there is nothing noble about government agents who kick, punch, shoot, and kill defenseless individuals. There is nothing just about police officers rendered largely immune from prosecution for wrongdoing. There is nothing democratic about the word of a government agent being given greater weight in court than that of the average citizen. And no good can come about when the average citizen has no real means of defense against a system that is weighted in favor of government bureaucrats.

So if you want a recipe for disaster, this is it: Take police cadets, train them in the ways of war, dress and equip them for battle, teach them to see the people they serve not as human beings but as suspects and enemies, and then indoctrinate them into believing that their main priority is to make it home alive at any cost. While you’re at it, spend more time drilling them on how to use a gun (58 hours) and employ defensive tactics (49 hours) than on how to calm a situation before resorting to force (8 hours).

Then, once they’re hyped up on their own authority and the power of the badge and their gun, throw in a few court rulings suggesting that security takes precedence over individual rights, set it against a backdrop of endless wars and militarized law enforcement, and then add to the mix a populace distracted by entertainment, out of touch with the workings of their government, and more inclined to let a few sorry souls suffer injustice than challenge the status quo or appear unpatriotic.

That’s not to discount the many honorable police officers working thankless jobs across the country in order to serve and protect their fellow citizens; but there can be no denying that, as journalist Michael Daly acknowledges, there is a troublesome “cop culture that tends to dehumanize or at least objectify suspected lawbreakers of whatever race. The instant you are deemed a candidate for arrest, you become not so much a person as a ‘perp.’”

Older cops are equally troubled by this shift in how police are being trained to view Americans—as things, not people. Daly had a veteran police officer join him to review the video footage of 43-year-old Eric Garner crying out and struggling to breathe as cops held him in a chokehold. (In yet another example of how the legal system and the police protect their own, no police officers were charged for Garner’s death.) Daly describes the veteran officer’s reaction to the footage, which as Daly points out, “constitutes a moral indictment not so much of what the police did but of what the police did not do”:

“I don’t see anyone in that video saying, ‘Look, we got to ease up,’” says the veteran officer. “Where’s the human side of you in that you’ve got a guy saying, ‘I can’t breathe?’” The veteran officer goes on, “Somebody needs to say, ‘Stop it!’ That’s what’s missing here was a voice of reason. The only voice we’re hearing is of Eric Garner.” The veteran officer believes Garner might have survived had anybody heeded his pleas. “He could have had a chance,” says the officer, who is black. “Butyou got to believe he’s a human being first. A human being saying, ‘I can’t breathe.’”

As I point out in my new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, when all is said and done, the various problems we’re facing today—militarized police, police shootings of unarmed people, the electronic concentration camp being erected around us, SWAT team raids, etc.—can be attributed to the fact that our government and its agents have ceased to see us as humans first.

Then again, perhaps we are just as much to blame for this sorry state of affairs. After all, if we want to be treated like human beings—with dignity and worth—then we need to start treating those around us in the same manner. As Martin Luther King Jr. warned in a speech given exactly one year to the day before he was killed: “We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented’ society to a ‘person-oriented’ society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: ‘Fight For 15′ To Protest McDonald’s Shareholder Meeting Later This Month

An organization whose sole purpose is pushing for a higher minimum wage announced they will be taking their message “straight to McDonalds HQ” during their annual shareholder meeting later this month.

McDonald’s, which has seen declining sales and market value, released a “turnaround plan” Monday which would be more customer-oriented, according to The Washington Times. “Today, we are announcing the initial steps to reset and turn around our business,” President and CEO Steve Easterbrook said in a statement Monday. The publication noted Easterbrook was hired in March to help boost sales for the burger giant.

As we look to shape McDonald’s future as a modern, progressive burger company, our priorities are threefold – driving operational growth, returning excitement to our brand and unlocking financial value.

The group Fight for 15, which advocates not only for a $15 minimum wage but also for union rights, announced they will be protesting at McDonald’s corporate headquarters during its annual shareholders meeting in Oak Brook, Ill., on May 21.

“Fed up with pay that drives them to rely on public assistance to support their families and angry over the publicity stunt disguised as a wage increase, McDonald’s workers will insist that the fast-food giant include in its turnaround plan a serious investment in the cooks and cashiers who make its billions in profits possible,” the organization said in a statement.

In a YouTube video for the organization, McDonald’s employee Adriana Alvarez said she and other protesters will be “armed with one million signatures from everyday Americans calling on McDonald’s to pay workers $15 an hour and respect their freedom to join together in a union.”

The five year veteran of McDonald’s showed her pay stub on camera and said she needed welfare to care for her three year old son. “I can’t pay my bills and support my son off the poverty wages that I make. That is why I am here fighting for $15 an hour – and union rights,” she added.

You can see the video here:


Alvarez was among the 139 protesters who were arrested at last year’s McDonald’s shareholder’s meeting, The Guardian reported. Fight for 15 led protests in several cities throughout the United States on Tax Day of last month, noted USA Today.

h/t: The Guardian

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Overcoming Stagnant Wages: Stronger Unions And Higher Minimum Wages Are Not The Answer

Recently, many economists and politicians have expressed concern about stagnant wages and rising income and wealth inequality. Such concerns prompted 20 states and the District of Columbia to raise the minimum wage this year. Some economists, such as former treasury secretary Larry Summers, also argue that steps should be taken to increase the number of workers who are members of labor unions so they can bargain for a greater share of corporate earnings. Strengthening unions and raising minimum wages, however, will do little to help low- and middle-income Americans, and will instead reduce job opportunities for young and inexperienced workers.

Progressive economists, such as Lawrence Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute, argue that low- and moderate-income workers’ wages have been held down by their lack of bargaining power, which is partly the result of reductions in the influence of labor unions and of minimum wages that have not kept up with inflation. The percentage of workers who are members of unions fell by more than half between 1973 and 2007. Union membership in the private sector declined even more. Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage is now 25 percent below its peak in 1968.

A higher minimum wage would affect more than 15 percent of the workforce directly and another seven percent indirectly. More than 10 percent of those who would be directly affected by an increase in the minimum wage are single parents, and more than half work full-time. If the minimum wage were raised, some workers who now earn more than the minimum wage would also be offered higher wages as firms try to hire them to replace minimum-wage workers.

Unions and minimum wages increase the wages of some workers, but at the expense of others.

Some evidence suggests that unions reduce wage inequality, but most of that reduction is within unionized firms. Higher union wages reduce the number of workers employed in unionized industries. Workers who are unable to find jobs in unionized industries will compete for jobs in other industries, pushing down wages in nonunionized firms.

There is nothing wrong with workers joining labor unions to enhance their bargaining power. The problem is that unions’ ability to bargain for higher wages is the result of laws and coercive practices that limit competition from nonunionized workers. This includes closed shop laws, which require all workers in unionized firms to pay union dues, as well as the threat of strikes, which all too often have been accompanied by violence against nonunion workers who cross picket lines during a strike. During the late 1970s, numerous deaths and millions of dollars in property damage resulted from union violence.

Labor unions have been granted a privileged position in the economy. They are immune from anti-trust laws and injunctions from federal courts. Unions have declined in the United States because many workers no longer agree with the agendas that unions are pursuing or do not think that the benefits of unions are worth the costs. In addition, growing competition, particularly from imported goods, has resulted in unionized firms losing market share and, in some cases, going out of business.

A study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reports that countries where unions and collective bargaining affect a large percentage of the labor force have higher unemployment rates. If enough workers belong to unions, unions can create an effective wage floor that works like a minimum wage, causing unemployment.

Because they apply to all workers, minimum wages cause unemployment if they are higher than what some workers would be paid in a free market. Firms will only employ a worker if the value of the additional output he contributes exceeds the wage he is paid. Thus, minimum wages result in fewer jobs for inexperienced workers with limited skills. Minimum wages also reduce the incentive of firms to train workers. Many firms will not be willing to spend much on training workers unless they can offset the cost of training by paying lower wages during the training period.

Recent improvements in technology make it easier for firms to reduce employment in response to higher minimum wages or higher wages that result from union bargaining. To avoid paying mandated higher wages, some firms are replacing unskilled workers with robots.

More important than reducing inequality is providing opportunities for the poor and middle class to improve their standards of living. The poor would have more job opportunities if minimum wages were lowered, not raised. Good job opportunities, especially for young and inexperienced workers, are more likely to be found in nonunionized industries, since unions tend to protect older, more experienced workers from competition.

Instead of more regulation of the labor market, entrepreneurs need more freedom to develop innovative arrangements that will offer opportunities, even for workers from disadvantaged backgrounds, to gain the skills and habits needed to succeed in a changing economy.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth