Tom Precious of the
Buffalo News reports that
2006 has proven to be an unusually good year for labor unions in Albany, even when the state's infamously union-friendly standards are considered: Albany gave unions about $1 billion in election-year presents.
Organized labor in New York will remember June 2006 as the month they ruled the State Capitol.
Unions long have enjoyed great friends in the State Legislature. But nothing can compare to the victories they won during the final weeks of this year's session, according to government officials, lobbyists and representatives of school boards and local governments.
The election-bound state legislators unleashed more than $1 billion worth of benefits to unions, which provide the most reliable source of cash and field-operation assistance during political campaigns.
In addition, the unions were handed broad, new powers to use in contract talks with local governments and school districts across the state. These advantages will end up costing local taxpayers for years to come, the school and government experts say.
"It really is a breathtaking list of union giveaways, with zero action to reduce taxpayer costs," Robert Ward of the Business Council of New York said of the more than 100 union-backed bills that passed both the Senate and Assembly.
The bills may be perfect timing for Gov. George E. Pataki. After cozy relations with labor, Pataki now has a chance to look tough on unions - as he burnishes his conservative credentials for a national audience - by vetoing some bills. Aides said he was still studying the newly passed legislation.
Most of this legislation benefits public service unions, and several measures were seen as weapons for negotiations and union organizing.
One bill forces into effect the last wage offer a union makes - presumably more generous to workers - if a government employer negotiates in bad faith. Critics say that legislation will only encourage protracted contract talks.
Another measure gives every worker in a union a 1 percent raise if, during contract talks, the government employer refuses to talk in good faith. No such penalty exists for the unions. The immediate costs to taxpayers total $300 million, according to fiscal notes, memos and interviews with lawmakers, staff members and lobbyists. Much of that is just the first-year costs. And that number does not include dozens of bills for which lawmakers assigned no costs or the added union protections to the state's Taylor Law that carry potentially huge costs for governments down the road.
The numbers grow. Add in what even state officials say is the true, long-term cost of one bill - boosting pay for certain workers at not-for-profit agencies - and the price tag leaps to $1.1 billion.
The story notes that state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer was generally coy on how he'd react to the bills if he were Governor.
Spitzer, endorsed by the AFL-CIO last week, declined to say whether he would veto any of the more than 100 measures if he were governor. Pressed on the issue, the only bill he criticized was one to permit more than 50,000 day care workers at private agencies to join state worker unions.
There's much, much more.
More criticism of Albany's union giveway bills: A brief editorial in the
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle criticizes one of the union giveaway bills, which would give unions an advantage in negotiations if they think management is "stalling."
Critics say that these pieces of legislation, sponsored by Sen. Joseph Robach, R-Greece, will cost taxpayers "hundreds of millions of dollars." Mayors and school board members from around the state are being urged to write to the governor telling him to veto the two bills.
Unions scramble to defend their gifts from Albany. For example, there's a letter in the Albany Times Union,
defending the state Legislature's attempt to create 52,000 new state workers. The author is one of the Legislature's intended beneficiaries.
And the head of the state's powerful teachers' union writes to the Albany
Times Union to
defend the state's infamously union-friendly Taylor Law, arguing with a straight face that it benefits school boards more than teachers' unions. A more realistic picture of the law is available
here.
Here's
another union guy's letter in which he suggests that the Taylor Law is so awful for unions that he'd rather give up its protections. We doubt most labor leaders really want to give back the protections of the Taylor Law.
But: Aother letter in the
Buffalo News offers a different perspective on public-employee unions.
. . . . How sad and revealing it is to know that many of the legislators do not think for themselves but simply take union money to stay in power and then pass resolutions and laws that drive businesses and private jobs out of Western New York, just as has been done for decades.
What is apparently not recognized by a majority of the Legislature Democrats is that New York state and Erie County have created an atmosphere where private business is suffocated. Politicians back their campaign trucks up to the large war chests of politically powerful and influential unions, create vast blocs of votes for themselves by adding to the public sector work force and force the rest of us to either suffer through some of the highest taxes in the country, or to leave our homes for a better economic future elsewhere.
How union influence can stultify growth: A case study. The
Buffalo News reports on
the lingering negative effects of an oppressive labor environment in Niagara County years after reforms were enacted to address the problem.
From a law enforcement standpoint, the federal crackdown on labor racketeering in Niagara Falls seems to be a success.
Laborers Local 91 no longer beats, vandalizes or makes death threats to settle scores with rivals, according to police and construction officials.
But so far, the crackdown has not sparked a major resurgence of development in struggling Niagara County. Some new projects have started, but developers are not stampeding to build in the county.
The casino-related projects of the Seneca Nation have flourished. The Senecas used union labor for their projects and reported no problems. But there has been little spinoff development near the Seneca Niagara Casino.
Some contractors - mostly those who hire non-union workers - say they are still reluctant to work in Niagara County, largely because of past incidents of intimidation involving Local 91.
"We are seeing more developers who are willing to at least look at doing projects here," said Thom Kraus, president of the Niagara USA Chamber of Commerce. "But there are still some hangover effects from labor problems in the past."
"The crackdown was needed, and I applaud the federal government for doing it, but it should have happened 20 or 30 years earlier," said Ted Van Deusen, a longtime construction manager who lives in Niagara County but works in Erie County. "Because of problems they've had in the past, a lot of contractors and developers still stay away from Niagara County."
Over the past decade, Van Deusen has been one of the most vocal critics of Local 91. He said he worked in the 1980s for a non-union construction company that left Western New York because of the local's strong-arm tactics. After he began speaking out publicly against the union, Van Deusen bought a $1 million life insurance policy "for the financial protection of my wife and children."
There's more.
More outrage: From an
essay in the
Amherst Times of western New York:
In a disgraceful attempt to secure re-election, Albany has handed out gobs of money it doesn't have to homeowners ? in a one-shot deal, went further in debt by passing out billions to state cities, municipalities and school districts to lower their tax liabilities, and now will hand out $1 billion in giveaways to public sector unions and propose measures that will strengthen their bargaining powers.
Whereas the general public and business were looking for real tax relief, Albany has opted to support organized public service workers with passage of costly negotiation, job and retirement gains.
Albany just pulled the trigger of the gun they have held to taxpayer and business heads in adding to the $60 billion state debt in support of spending money for services we cannot afford. They have once again refused to act ethically and/or aptly in the best interest of New York State residents.
Just this past Thursday, political columnist Brian Ackley wrote about the futility of the City of Buffalo's financial control to get Albany to understand the merits of making changes to the Taylor Law and other policies that critics say hurt the communities.
Ackley stated: ?It is clear there is no repair possible. So at this point, there is only one thing left to do. Give the unions all they want. Give it all to them, and then some. There's no sense in further fighting the organization which as we all know, but are afraid to admit, holds all the power.?
Ackley facetiously suggested the unions be given 2, 20, 200 seats on the control board. ?Whatever they want,? declares Ackley. ?In the last 15 years, we have lost the equivalent of the entire population of Lancaster. In the last 5 years, more than 22,000 people have left the area. With the unions in control, surely we could at least double that number in the second half of the decade.?
It's worth noting that the author appears generally favorably disposed to unions.
Albany has once again acted to appease the unions because their support is magnified threefold. It has been estimated and reported that each union member influences three votes. Union influence is further entrenched by their campaign contributions to politicos supporting their agendas ? regardless of political party affiliation.
There is no question that there is a need for organized labor in America to ward off exploitation by corporate America and to assure living wages and a safe working environment. I support their position on attempting to organize labor in such anti-union entities like Wal-Mart and to make such companies of size and profitability pay $3 per hour toward insurance policies to stop them from encouraging their workers to take advantage of state entitlements at taxpayer expense.
However, the New York State public unions and their Albany cronies have gone too far and will alienate taxpayers who have experienced personal economic declines and are expected to pay for more lucrative union contracts.
Are unions throwing their weight around again? A reader commenting on
this New York Times blog entry suggests that Democrat Joe Morelle, a long-time member of the Assembly representing parts of the Rochester region, may have lost the endorsement of the union-driven Working Families Party.
Remember, unions unleashed a volley of attack ads on Morelle and state Sen. James Alesi (R-Monroe County) after they sponsored a bill to reform workers' compensation and the state's infamous Scaffold Law. That prompted a regional business group to respond with its own radio advertisements defending the legislators and their reform ideas. We took note of all this
here and
here and
here.
Another Assemblyman voices supports on workers' compensation reform: In an essay in the
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, a member of the state Assembly
voices support for Morelle, Alesi, and workers' comp reform.
As chairman of the Statewide Task Force on Manufacturing, this issue is one of the top three issues citied by manufacturers and small businesses across our state that needs to be addressed by state government.
Currently, New York ranks first in the country as the highest cost for workers' compensation coverage as well as one of the lowest in weekly benefit payments to injured workers.
For the AFL-CIO to portray state legislators who support changing this system as shills for the insurance industry is disingenuous and is an outright distortion. If anyone wants to know why businesses and jobs are exiting New York, excessive workers' compensation costs are a prime reason. As legislators working to help our economy grow, we are not enemies of organized labor, in fact, the proposed change would increase the weekly benefit for an injured worker by 37 percent.
. . . .
Attacking Senator Alesi and Assemblyman Morelle is absolutely short-sighted and the wrong approach. The thrust should be to assist those who are actually trying to ensure New York state has an environment where businesses can be competitive in the global economy, ultimately creating more jobs for our state.
WalMart Lite? Erik Kriss of the
Syracuse Post-Standard writes that
The "Fair Share for Health Care" bill died in the state Legislature this year, but lawmakers approved another measure that Fair Share supporters predict will supply the ammunition they need.
The Fair Share bill would have taxed companies that didn't spend at least $3 per hour on health benefits for each employee.
The bill that will head to Gov. George Pataki requires that workers who apply for government health care or request uncompensated hospital care disclose the name and address of their employer.
The state labor commissioner would be required to identify companies with more than 25 employees receiving public health care and estimate the cost to state taxpayers.