The Census Question

As the Supreme Court deliberates on whether or not people living in America should be asked if they are citizens, Michelle Malkin provides some perspective on the issue at The Jewish World Review.

In an article posted yesterday, Michelle Malkin notes:

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the Trump administration can include a citizenship question on the high-stakes 2020 Census questionnaire. Thank goodness, the conservative majority indicated support for allowing it. There’s already such a question on the annual American Community Survey administered by the Census Bureau. It was asked in long-form questionnaires sent to a sample of households in 2000. And it was regularly asked in historical census forms from 1820-1950.

…Remember: The Census is used to divvy up seats in the House as a proportion of their population based on the head count. The redistribution of power extends to presidential elections because the Electoral College is pegged to the size of congressional delegations. More people equal more seats. More illegal immigrants equal more power. Indeed, the Center for Immigration Studies determined that in the 2000 election cycle, the presence of noncitizens (illegal immigrants, temporary visitors and green card holders) caused nine seats in the House to switch hands. California added six seats it would not have had otherwise. Texas, New York and Florida each gained a seat. Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin each lost a seat. Montana, Kentucky and Utah each failed to secure a seat they would otherwise have gained.

Our Founding Fathers explicitly warned against the perils of foreigners manipulating representation by overwhelming the country. Immigration scholar and author Daniel Horowitz points to Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story’s prophetic admonition: “If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges.”

The article reminds us:

During the last census under President Barack Obama, with $300 billion in federal funding at stake, social justice groups from Soros-funded ACORN to Soros-funded Voto Latino to the Soros-allied SEIU were enlisted to count heads and help noncitizens feel “safe.”

The Census boondoggle has become a tax-subsidized national future Democratic voter outreach drive. Soros’ operations, along with 77 other liberal foundations, have invested $30 million to make illegal immigrants count. The Open Society Institute’s grantees and partners on coopting the Census for Democrat gains include the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, Miami Workers Center, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Southwest Workers Union, New York Community Trust, New York Foundation, Center for American Progress, People for the American Way and the Funders Census Initiative. A recently leaked internal board document revealed that the Soros network has coordinated efforts for the past four years to “influence appropriations for the Census Bureau” and add new racial and ethnic categories.

There is no logical reason to avoid asking people living in America if they are citizens. If they are citizens, they are entitled to be represented in our government. If they are not citizens and they want to be represented, they need to become citizens to obtain that representation. Fix the immigration process to make it easier for people who want to contribute to America to become citizens. Meanwhile, our government needs to represent Americans.

Forgetting Why You Were Originally Formed

Unions in America were formed to give working people a voice in their negotiations with their sometimes unyielding employers. Most of the demands unions were created to pursue are now covered by government regulations, and the role of unions in the life of the everyday worker is not what it originally was. Union workers pay their dues, and union officials live very well. Somehow I don’t think that was what the original intention was.

The Washington Free Beacon posted a story today about how the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) spends its money. For those of you who believe that big corporations provide the money in politics, some of this may come as a surprise.

The article reports:

Labor giant Service Employees International Union spent $60 million on politics and lobbying as well as $19 million on the Fight for 15 movement in 2016, and now finds itself laying off headquarters staff.

The union’s federal filing to the Department of Labor reveal that it experienced marginal growth in 2016, adding about 15,000 members from 2015. However, that increase did not correlate with financial growth as revenue fell by $17 million, fueling a $10 million budget deficit.

The union, which represents healthcare and public sector workers, spent $61.6 million on political activities and lobbying in 2016, roughly 20 percent of its $314.6 million budget, according to the filing.

However, those figures may underestimate its political spending. The union spent $19 million on activist groups and public relations consultants to assist with the Fight for 15 campaign, which has successfully pushed for dramatic minimum wage increases in New York, California, and Washington, D.C., according to an analysis from the Center for Union Facts.

Who represents those union members who don’t support the causes and candidates that the union leaders decide to support? Do union members ever get a chance to vote on the causes or candidates the union will support?

The article further reports:

“The SEIU has transformed from a labor union into a subsidiary of the Left, spending millions of dues dollars on left-wing causes unrelated to collective bargaining,” Berman (Richard Berman, executive director of the Center for Union Facts) said. “Instead of fighting for workplace benefits, the union is going behind their members’ backs to bankroll Democrats and liberal advocacy groups.”

The International Franchising Association, a trade industry group whose members have been targeted by the Fight for 15 movement, said that political agitation and the expansion of membership ranks among fast food workers does little to benefit dues-paying members.

“Perhaps SEIU should spend more money helping workers it represents and less money attacking corporations and a business model like franchising that actually successfully lifts people out of poverty and gives them a ladder of opportunity to advance in their career,” spokesman Matthew Haller said.

I have no problem with unions spending money on political activities as long as the members of the union have a vote in which activities to support. Also, as long as unions are free to spend the kind of money they spend on political action, corporations should be equally free to do so, again at the discretion of their stockholders.

 

Americans Are Learning to Fight Back

The Washington Free Beacon posted a story today about home healthcare workers in Illinois who are fighting for their right not to be part of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

The article reports:

Home health aides in Illinois are fighting to recoup $32 million that was taken out of their paychecks in a coercive unionization scheme that the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional.

More than 80,000 home healthcare workers were forced to pay Service Employees International Union (SEIU) hundreds of dollars each year under a policy devised by the now-imprisoned Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Illinois declared that the aides, many of whom were caring for disabled relatives, were public employees since their compensation came through state Medicaid funds.

Pamela Harris, who provided care to a severely disabled daughter, sued the state and union arguing that the arrangement wrongfully deducted money from her check. The Supreme Court ruled in her favor in Harris v. Quinn, declaring the arrangement unconstitutional in 2014.

Some of the healthcare workers in Illinois have filed a class-action suit to get the money that was taken from them returned.

The article further reports:

Workers in Illinois stopped paying SEIU following the suit and now some are waging a class action lawsuit to make the union return deducted cash. Lawyers from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which argued Quinn v. Harris before the Supreme Court, have now taken the battle to federal appeals court. National Right to Work Foundation president Mark Mix said failing to return the money to the aides would set a dangerous precedent, incentivizing unions to continue pushing for forced dues collections.

“If SEIU bosses are not required to return the money they seized in violation of homecare providers’ First Amendment Rights, it will only encourage similar behavior from union officials eager to trample on the First Amendment to enrich themselves at the expense of tens of thousands of homecare providers,” he said in a release.

SEIU, which did not return request for comment, has said that it should not be required to pay back the workers because not all workers opposed union representation. A district court judge ruled in June that individual plaintiffs could recoup several thousand dollars paid to the union beginning in 2008, but nixed the class action status filed on behalf of all the home health aides.

The union is arguing that many of the workers did not object to the arrangement and would have paid the dues if they had been given a choice. So why then weren’t they given a choice? Hopefully the healthcare workers who had their money stolen will be able to get it back.

But I Didn’t Think That Law Would Apply To Me!

Yesterday the Washington Free Beacon reported that Media Matters is forcing its employees to make the vote to unionize under the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) a secret ballot. This is amazingly ironic. Media Matters is a liberal organization headed by David Brock, a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton.

The article reports:

It is unclear why Media Matters did not opt to allow its employees to organize through a card check campaign, in which a union submits signed petitions from employees expressing their interest to join the union. MMFA, its attorneys, and the SEIU did not return requests for comment.

Media Matters has a long record of slamming Republicans and conservatives who want to protect secret ballot union elections.

The organization published multiple pieces celebrating the Democrat’s so-called Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for unions to organize through card check campaigns and prevent employers from forcing a secret ballot election.

Media Matters researcher Meagan Hatcher-Mays took to the organization’s blog to criticize “a wave of Republican anti-union legislation [that] has placed obstacles between workers and union representatives and disrupted opportunities for workplace productivity.”

It is becoming very obvious that the best way to illustrate the problems with the liberal agenda is to ask liberals to abide by their own laws.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Whole New Meaning To Thanksgiving Turkey

Breitbart.com reported yesterday that the Los Angeleslabor unions have decided to hold a protest at Lost Angeles Airport on Wednesday, the biggest travel day of the year. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is leading the charge.

The article reports:

What exactly is SEIU protesting for? They say that an airport contract is breaking the city law on living wages – which, of course, is nonsense, since that would be prosecutable. They also say that the contractor has eliminated “affordable healthcare” for over 400 workers. Which is, again, bull. After all, can’t the SEIU just rely on Obamacare?

Sometimes I truly wonder what the SEIU actually wants.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Unionization of Home Based Family Care Providers In Massachusetts

The following letter is reprinted with the permission of the writer. It originally appeared in the Community Advocate which covers Hudson, Marlboro, Northboro, Southboro, Westboro, and Shrewsbury.

Dear Editor,

I’m writing to set the record straight about the recently passed legislation forcing family care providers into a state employee union if they accept one child on a state voucher.

Rep. Carolyn Dykema has claimed that is untrue. As a family care provider who is living with the situation, Dykema is wrong. We are home based businesses that care for children. We are the ultimate small business.

For the past eight years, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has tried to recruit us into their union. No one joined. That should be an indication that we don’t want to be part of a union. Unfortunately, the legislature did not pay attention to what we wanted and they passed the bill anyways.

Dykema will say there were hearings and testimony. The people who testified were connected to the SEIU. The rest of us were working managing our small business. How were we supposed to know about this legislation being forced upon us?

Unlike the big corporate centers which are exempt from being forced into a union, we don’t have a lobbyist. We are just normal people trying to run a home based business. We expect that our legislators will protect us not betray us for a big powerful labor union.

Dykema will also say that this legislation was passed to help us providers get an increase in our reimbursement rates from the state. That’s untruthful as well. The legislature can increase those rates without forcing us into the union. The Senate took a vote on increased rate in July and it was rejected.

If this can happen to home-based family care providers like us, then it can happen to your business. I urge voters to hold Rep. Dykema accountable for this very anti-small business vote.

Kathy D’Agostino
Kathy’s House Family Child Care and PreSchool
Watertown

Just for the record, Marty Lamb is opposing Carolyn Dykema in the 2012 House of Representatives election in Massachusetts. He does not support this legislation.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

What The Supreme Court Said Yesterday

Investors.com posted an article yesterday explaining the Supreme Court decision regarding the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). I will admit that when I first heard the ruling I did not understand exactly what was involved. I am grateful to Investors.com for their clear concise explanation.

The article explains:

In ruling that workers who choose not to be union members must be able to object immediately to unexpected fee increases or similar levies required of all employees in closed shops, the high court touched a nerve in the conflict between Big Labor and the right-to-work movement.

…The union’s gall in this specific case in underlined by the fact that it was taking money from nonmembers to defeat, in 2005, California’s Proposition 75, which would have prohibited the SEIU from using dues or fees for political contributions without employees’ written consent.

“Thus, the effect of the SEIU’s procedure was to force many nonmembers to subsidize a political effort designed to restrict their own rights,” Justice Samuel Alito noted.

There has been a lot of complaining from the left side of the political spectrum about the Citizen’s United ruling of the Supreme Court. That ruling prohibited the government from restricting spending either by corporations or unions. The left objected to the fact that corporations were now able to get into the election funding game. At least corporations are spending their own profits and are answerable to their stockholders. The use of union dues to fund political campaigns without the consent of those paying the dues is questionable at best. At least now non-union members have some control over the money they are asked to pay the unions.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Somehow I Think The Unions Have Lost Their Way

If you belong to a union, I am sure that you are grateful for the job protection and voice that the union gives you. I am sure you appreciate the benefits your union has bargained for and won for you. But have you ever thought about the seamy side of unions?

On Monday the Washington Examiner posted the following:

Something questionable is going on when a state chapter of the Service Employees International Union advertises on the SEIU national website a “Lead Internal Organizer/Home Care (LiA)” position paying up to $65,000 a year for somebody with the following qualifications:

• Train and lead members in non-violent civil disobedience, such as occupying state buildings and banks, and peaceful resistance.

The article lists some of the other qualifications. It does talk about planning takeovers of capitols and banks.

The article further reports:

…what SEIU is looking for is somebody who has no qualms about joining with other union-trained cadres and like-minded people from other organizations to invade government buildings such as state buildings and private banks — and getting arrested (“peaceful resistance”) in the process. We’ve already seen the kind of thuggery SEIU has in mind. Remember two years ago when 14 busloads of leftist demonstrators from SEIU, National Peoples’ Action, MoveOn.org, and other activist groups converged on the private home of a bank executive in the Maryland suburbs of the nation’s capital?
 
It seems as if the unions have forgotten what their original purpose was.
 
The article relates the story of the union convergence on the private home of a bank executive in Maryland. It is worth reading for the report on the incident. I personally encountered a political example of union thuggery during a primary election debate for a Massachusetts seat in the House of Representatives. One of the candidates in the debate was supported by local unions. Union thugs showed up early for the debate and blocked off the parking lot from supporters of the other candidates. They then proceeded to line up in an intimidating manner in front of the doors leading to the debate hall. This was followed by a series of actions designed to create an incident that would be covered by the press. The funny thing about the whole exercise was that the audience in the debate was generally over the age of fifty and not likely to respond to the taunting and intimidation.
 
However, there are enough examples of union thuggery in recent years to cause us to rethink the role (and the amount of money involved) of unions in our society.
Enhanced by Zemanta