Mount Virtus

In today’s Rocky Mountain News, Colorado Democrat pollster Floyd Ciruli takes a cold, analytical look at Gov. Bill Ritter’s approval ratings — boiled down, the picture isn’t pretty for the potential one-term governor:

Surprisingly, new Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter may be in trouble. When compared with his Montana counterpart, Gov. Brian Schweitzer, in recent Rasmussen polls, Ritter’s job rating lags behind Schweitzer by 19 points. Only 45 percent of Colorado voters gave Ritter an excellent or good job rating, whereas 64 percent of Montanans rated Schweitzer as doing an excellent or good job.

Floyd Ciruli cites a litany of reasons for Bill Ritter’s sagging popularity, reasons that have been regular themes of this and other local new media sites:

• An unconstitutional property tax increase
• Do-nothing blue-ribbon panels
• New regulations on oil and gas drilling
• Pushing an unpopular severance tax initiative
• Legal troubles over misspent campaign funds
• Giving union leaders a gold-plated invitation to state government

Ciruli might also have mentioned starring in preachy, taxpayer-funded “green” commercials and signing the now infamous Senate Bill 200, aka the “bathroom bill.” (I’m sure I’ve missed a few.)

As the second half of Bill Ritter’s term approaches, the question remains whether Republicans can field a strong and viable challenger to unseat the increasingly vulnerable incumbent in 2010.

Another landmark yesterday in the fallout between Denver Public Schools and the Denver Classroom Teachers Association, reports the Post’s Jeremy Meyer:

Representatives of Denver’s teachers union and school administrators — embroiled in a contract dispute — met with a professional arbiter Wednesday to discuss next month’s mediation.

The two sides are at odds over compensation and time issues, particularly in regard to proposed changes to ProComp — the voter-approved performance pay system for teachers.

The story continues:

With mediation the week before the Democratic National Convention in Denver, there is concern of picketing during the event to bring national attention to the contract dispute.

The DCTA newsletter has declared teachers should be ready to strike. [DCTA president Kim] Ursetta downplayed that talk Thursday, saying teachers will be in classrooms teaching their students during the convention.

Actions, of course, speak louder than words. As I said before, this could make the DNC much more interesting for me.

It’s still early in the campaign cycle, but the political group known as Protect Colorado’s Future has already hung the banner of “Liar” around its neck. It’s hard to see how much more credibility the group will have as the election season heats up. Protect Colorado’s Future is overwhelmingly funded by a coalition of labor unions. The commercial it aired is designed to attack Right to Work (Amendment 47) and two initiatives that have yet to be certified on the ballot.

In the interest of full disclosure, one initiative (#53), aka Ethical Standards - designed to “prevent public payroll systems from collecting and bundling money to special interest groups that hire lobbyists and make campaign contributions” - has been supported by research from the Independence Institute, where I work.

9News did a “Truth Test” on Protect Colorado Future’s television ad (video link). A sample of the 9News analysis:

• “The sentiment conveyed here is opinion, but the fashion in which it’s conveyed is false.”
• “inaccurate”
• “Part of this statement is true and part is false.”

Then there’s my favorite about their claim that efforts to collect signatures for Right to Work, Ethical Standards, and Government Contracting Reform “have been described as fraudulent and deceptive”: Read the rest of this entry »

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), one of the biggest boys on the Big Labor block (they spent nearly $1 million in 2006 just on Colorado’s elections), has taken a one-two punch today. It doesn’t look good for them.

First, the Alliance for Worker Freedom (AWF) is urging the U.S. Department of Labor to investigate SEIU’s pension funding scheme. AWF’s Brian Johnson writes at National Review about SEIU’s pension hypocrisy:

Unions often champion themselves as protecting rank-and-file workers from corporate greed and malfeasance. Yet DB pension plans, managed by union officers, are often plagued by insolvency, threatening to leave members with little in retirement.

For example, the SEIU National Industry Pension Fund — which covers the majority of the union’s rank-and-file workers — has assets of about $2.8 billion, or $19,000 per participant. For the record, this amount will cover only 56 percent of more than $5 billion in current liabilities. In short, the plan is underfunded. Conversely, the pension plan for SEIU officers has a current funded liability of 108 percent, with assets of nearly $81,000 per participant. The great disparity between these plans exists despite the fact that both are invested in one combined master trust.

How can this be? For one, between 1996 and 2006, the SEIU paid investment advisors roughly $35 million to steer pension money towards projects requiring union-only contracts. The trust’s return on investment during this time was more than 200 basis points below that of the S&P 500, for a loss of more that [sic] $8,500 per worker.

SEIU leaders not only are looking out for themselves a lot better than they’re looking out for the members they’re supposed to represent, but also plan to inflict the same damage on an even wider scale by “taking back the economy”.

Yikes. Read the rest of this entry »

Do you ever wonder why there’s such skepticism about Big Labor’s support of legislation that attacks workers’ ballot privacy, not to mention Big Labor’s opposition to legislation that gives workers more freedom over their earnings?

Underreported news like this from the Alliance for Worker Freedom (AWF) would give a satisfactory answer. Here’s the letter from AWF to the Internal Revenue Service:

On behalf of the Alliance for Worker Freedom (AWF), and rank-and-file working Americans, I urge you to investigate the apparent incongruence contained within the 2005-2006 tax filings by the AFL-CIO.

According to their annual LM-2 financial disclosure form filed with the Department of Labor, the AFL-CIO spent $41,620,583 on political activities in 2006.

However, on the AFL-CIO’s Form-990 for July 1, 2005 – June 30, 2006, they report spending zero dollars ($0.00) on direct or indirect political expenditures.

If the AFL-CIO did not pay taxes on all or part of the $41,620,583 reported to the Department of Labor as political expenditures, then it can be assumed that they owe the IRS (and the American public) upwards of $14,000,000.

With the recent budget cut from the only government agency responsible for monitoring union financial activity (the Office of Labor Management Standards), every effort should be taken to ensure that rank-and-file union workers dues are not being mismanaged or misreported.

Tax evasion? Corruption? Misuse of workers’ funds? It’s not just the AFL-CIO that faces such scrutiny. For years, the National Education Association (NEA) has been under investigation for claiming zero dollars in political expenditures to the IRS while spending countless millions on political activities.

For the sake of fair elections and a level playing field, Big Labor should stop getting a pass.

Colorado’s mega-rich liberals Tim Gill and Pat Stryker have it in for conservative Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, who has represented northeastern Colorado since 2003. They have spent countless amounts of money trying to unseat her in the past two election cycles, and are committed to doing it again. This time they believe they have a winning candidate in Democrat Betsy Markey, someone to fulfill their obsession.

But this video clip of Betsy Markey trying to explain her position on the poorly-named Employee Free Choice Act shows that Tim Gill and Pat Stryker still have some work to do with their out-of-touch candidate:

As the Labor Pains blog points out, this is the same Betsy Markey who has sought to woo small businesses but struggles to explain why she supports Big Labor legislation that is unpopular, would needlessly harm business owners - and take away workers’ secret ballots.

It looks like Betsy Markey has just handed Marilyn Musgrave an easy talking point for part of a winning message, thus making a bigger bill for Tim Gill and Pat Stryker to pay if they want to overcome it and somehow find a way to win. It will be hard for Markey to paint her incumbent opponent as out of touch when she is so out of touch on the Employee Free Choice Act.

The Lefties might need to cut back their expectations for their 4th Congressional district darling.

Rocky Mountain Right has posted a video from last night’s Bill O’Reilly Show that demonstrates Colorado Governor Bill Ritter isn’t ready for primetime:

Bill Ritter recently was approached by a Fox News reporter asking a simple question about sex offender laws. Ritter proceeded to stammer, become visibly frustrated, and try to escape as soon as possible. Other Governors approached with the same question (Butch Otter of Idaho and Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming) performed far better and calmly responded.

The observation is correct: Bill Ritter sure doesn’t look ready for primetime in this video. But maybe there’s another explanation, or some sort of mitigating circumstances that haven’t been explored.

The stresses and frustrations could be mounting from his campaign scandals that have left legal defense fund victims in his wake. Or maybe Bill Ritter is getting nervous that the state supreme court has yet to come through with the “legal” fix on his unauthorized property tax increase.

In any case, Rocky Mountain Right certainly has a point:

If the Democrats are planning on showcasing a Western governor to the media during the convention they might want to see what Brian Schweitzer is doing instead and abandon any plans they might have to put Ritter in front of a camera.

Well-said. With each passing week, the Denver Post’s assessment that Bill Ritter may be the state’s first one-term governor in more than a generation makes more and more sense.

Liberal Denver Post editorialist Bob Ewegen wants readers to believe he is really concerned about the plight of the Republican Party, so he sends us this warning:

…[U]nions are enjoying something of a revival in Colorado, especially in the public sector, and they are a vital source of political volunteers and campaign funds.

That’s why spitting in labor’s face in the name of “right to work” may well awaken the sleeping giant of the Colorado union movement in 2008 just as it did a half-century ago — with similar woeful results to the GOP.

Bob Ewegen is cloaking his antipathy for workplace freedom in the garb of concern for the Grand Old Party’s political welfare. While it’s unclear how well Amendment 47 will fare at the ballot box (probably better than 1958), you can still color me skeptical.

Why? When last we found Ewegen tackling the topic of Right to Work, he misused statistics (also here) to make a weak case against emancipating workers from mandatory fees for union services.

Now, apparently, a phony plea for compassion toward Republicans is at the bottom of Ewegen’s anti-Right to Work ammunition cache. Brer Rabbit was more convincing.

Interestingly, though, to make his case, Ewegen admits how the landscape of Colorado campaign laws is tilted in the direction of labor unions:

But — ominously for Republicans’ legislative hopes — campaign finance laws have also changed, in a way that reinforces the still sizable clout of organized labor.

Amendment 27, the 2002 Colorado campaign finance law written by Common Cause and the League of Women Voters, allows labor unions to contribute up to $4,000 to candidates to the legislature. Businesses and private citizens are limited to one-tenth as much as unions can contribute, no more than $400 per election season.

That’s because Amendment 27 allows “small donor committees” to give politicians 10 times as much as any other person or group if they get only $50 or less per contributor. Unions are well positioned to exploit that loophole because, for example, the Colorado Association of Public Employees/Service Employees International Union, can deduct $4 a month from a member’s $15 monthly dues for political purposes and count the resulting $48 a year as a “small donor” contribution from a member who may not even be aware that she made that particular “donation.”

What an admission! The funny thing is the unknowing political “donation” to a union that Ewegen acknowledges also may come from a worker who never chose to join or to give money to the union in the first place. Right-to-work would solve that problem.

Any group that has Big Labor’s sort of privilege and clout doesn’t need its favorite local columnist to be shedding crocodile tears on its behalf - or on behalf of the Republican Party.

Monday morning, little time to write. As I get ready to head back for another week of work, I ironically find this posting for a job that probably isn’t in my future. Given my credentials, I doubt I would even get a phone call for an interview. Oh, well.

From the Denver Post’s PoliticsWest:

A heated labor disagreement over Denver’s teacher contract appears to be heading into late August and could reach a boiling point during the Democratic National Convention, reports Jeremy P. Meyer.

Teachers and the administration are at odds over changes to the district’s compensation system. It’s one of the issues that led union officials to warn teachers in their May newsletter to prepare for a strike.

Mediation with a professional arbiter has been set for Aug. 20-22, ending the Friday before the Democrats arrive for the convention.

This has the potential to be ugly. I will be keeping a close eye not only on the broader political ramifications but on what this potential clash could portend for education reform and labor relations in our own backyard.

A couple days ago I had the pleasure of pointing out the defects in Denver Post editorialist Bob Ewegen’s arguments against Right-to-Work. I wrote:

Even more telling than comparisons of static earnings are rates of growth. In both job growth and in overall economic growth, Right-to-Work states have performed better.

I therefore found it interesting that another insightful blogger only last week posted an analysis of new economic growth data. Here’s the chart Will Franklin produced showing just how much Right-to-Work states outperform states that allow union coercion:

Combined with the other flaws in Bob Ewegen’s argument, this interesting find only makes the case for Right-to-Work look even stronger.

In his weekend column, liberal Denver Post editorialist Bob Ewegen carried the water for Big Labor leaders who are working to undermine Colorado’s Right-to-Work initiative. Once you move past his weak attempt at irony, you find problems with the facts he chose to use to make his case:

If you’re lucky enough to find a job at all, the only right the Coors plan gives you is the right to work for less. Quite a bit less, actually. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that an average worker in the 22 states with right-to-work laws earns about $7,131 a year less than workers in free bargaining states ($30,656 versus $37,787). Nationwide, union members earn $9,308 a year more than non-union workers, $41,652 versus $32,344.

These facts aren’t in dispute. To be fair, however, there is considerable controversy among labor economists about whether right-to-work laws cause low wages or whether economic backwaters are more likely to pass anti-union laws. Probably, the truth is a mixture of both.

Right-to-work states have a poverty rate of 13.5 percent, compared with 12.2 percent in free bargaining states. The infant mortality rate is 7.94 percent higher and the uninsured population rate is 15 percent higher on average in right-to-work states. And they spend $1,680 less per pupil in elementary and secondary school.

Well, Bob Ewegen’s recitation overlooks some key points, among them:
Read the rest of this entry »

Gov. Bill Ritter’s November 2007 executive order at last has successfully completed the loop in unionizing state government in a very un-democratic fashion. Today’s Denver Post reports:

At least 22,500 secretaries, prison guards and other state employees will soon fall under a union contract following a vote tallied Wednesday, though the majority of eligible workers didn’t cast a ballot….

About 6,900 state workers from a pool of 22,500 who were eligible participated in the election, which gave them a choice between Colorado WINS [editorial comment: "Big Labor WINS, Colorado LOSES"] or no union representation. Of those, 5,481 supported the union.

That’s right. Fewer than one-quarter of eligible state employees voted to be unionized. This is a smaller number than the 30 percent who signed the union petition cards to hold the election in the first place!

Labor guru Mike Antonucci opts for the biting, cynical approach to characterizing the election returns:

In favor of unionizing - 5,481 (24.4%)

Against unionizing - 1,419 (6.3%)

Don’t give a crap - 15,600 (69.3%)

“Backroom” Bill Ritter opened the door to unionizing state employees without any sort of public debate, submitting a Friday afternoon executive order. More than six months later, the big election of state employees takes place, and at first glance it appears that most of them “don’t give a crap.”

We can only hope that Ritter lives up to his promise not to impose agency fees on non-union workers, because they might start caring then. Regardless of whether he holds to that promise or not, more and more Colorado taxpayers should start caring as the price of government services goes up.

Good news from the north. Fort Collins voters have overwhelmingly rejected the costly and ill-advised proposal to mandate collective bargaining and binding arbitration on city employees. Unions are on the move - they have the ear of our Governor “Backroom” Bill Ritter - but the people have spoken out clearly against the expansion of public employee unionism.

Meanwhile, a disturbing sidelight: a Fort Collins blogger points out that the local rag couldn’t bother to report on a local Republican candidate’s outspoken opposition to the measure:

Do you mean to tell me that the Coloradoan doesn’t believe it’s important for the citizens of Fort Collins to know where their candidates stand on public-employee unions? (This is, after all, a major statewide issue as well.)

There’s not a reporter over there on Riverside who even considered attending a press conference or asking some simple follow-up questions? (There was no Coloradoan reporter at the [Matt] Fries press conference.)

Is this neglect? Let’s hope so. Because the alternate explanation - that the Coloradoan is staying silent because they’re afraid of having to get Bob Bacon, John Kefalas and Randy Fisher on the record on this important issue - would be even worse. It would be inexcusable bias. After all, Bacon, Kefalas and Fischer would be forced to either come out against the union or against what in 2006 was 65 percent of the voting public of Fort Collins.

Well, we do have an idea where Bob Bacon may stand.

Union members in Colorado and across the nation stand to gain from newly proposed federal rules that would provide a clearer picture of how union leaders are spending their hard-earned dues money. If you’re a glutton for punishment, there’s the official 103-page document with the new rules.

For the rest of us, compliments of the Public Service Research Foundation, there is a layman’s version of the new pro-worker rules:

They require that unions specify the costs of benefits being provided to officers and employees.

Under the present system the cost of benefits is only reported as one big lump sum. The new regulations will allow union members to see how much they are paying in benefits for each officer and employee. This will discourage union officials from attempting to hide the cost of excessively generous benefits.

They also require that unions provide the identity of those to whom they sell assets.

This will allow union members to spot transactions where union officials are buying union assets at big discounts.

And, they require unions to report travel and entertainment expenses for union officers and employees that are paid “indirectly” by the union.

This will allow union members to get a much more accurate idea of how much the union is spending on this sort of thing and discourage union officers and employees from attempting to hide the cost of “business” meetings in luxurious resorts.

The public comment period is open through June 26. Whether you are a union member or just a concerned citizen you can find out how to share your comments on the PSRF webpage.

From my friends at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation …

Wouldn’t you like to see that during the break of your favorite television program?

Nowhere in Colorado is rank-and-file teacher dissent with the union so apparent as in the heart of Denver - for a multitude of reasons that cannot begin to be explored in this brief post. But an increasingly strained contract debate with the school board (Barack Obama alluded to it in his speech yesterday) - after the board offered a substantial raise as part of a progressive compensation system.

Now a new splinter teachers group with an online presence has emerged in Denver (H/T Alan Gottlieb). It would be great to see these teachers continue posting on the blog they started. Interestingly, the local union president hasn’t posted anything to her blog since this splinter group has emerged.

The National Education Association, to which the Denver union belongs, is a notably hierarchical organization. What will emerge from a group of rogue teaching bloggers in Denver therefore may provide an interesting case. Today’s public school system does not breed rugged individualism in its career educators, after all.

The realist in me says the splinter group will be snuffed out soon enough, but I have just enough curiosity to hope that a surprise or two may be in store. If so, I’ll let you know.

I have family that live near Grand Rapids, Michigan. And when it comes to teachers unions, you might say my research interests and writings have not exactly put me very high on their Christmas card list.

Take these two things together, and I found this story from last Friday rather interesting:

In Grand Rapids, the school board today took a no-confidence vote in the leadership of the district’s teachers union.

The board also said it will no longer deduct and transmit dues for teachers’ paychecks, effective May 30, the next pay period.

Ladies and gentlemen, for the uninitiated, please understand that union leaders surely view this action by the Grand Rapids school board as equivalent to a nuclear weapon detonation. Ending automatic payroll deductions dries up a major source of funding that subsidizes union coffers.

But if the teachers whose paychecks are affected overwhelmingly support the union, shouldn’t this be no big deal? Arrange for private banking or credit card transactions from members. A few minutes of paperwork. No cost, very little time. Union leaders should not have problems collecting from loyal members.

Maybe it’s the precedent that’s so frightening.

Regardless, Mike Antonucci has some terrific advice (see Item #2):

Note to local Grand Rapids news: Send TV crews along with the union reps as they perform this task. I promise excellent footage.

I look forward to seeing the footage on YouTube.