Wolf’s Union Agenda Loses Big in Court

SEPTEMBER 22, 2016  | by GINA DIORIO

David Smith and Donald Lambrecht were up against a powerful foe: Gov. Wolf and an executive order that granted a sweetheart deal to a union at their expense. In a huge win, the Commonwealth Court today issued a ruling invalidating Wolf’s executive order unionizing home care workers.

Shortly after he took office, Wolf handed down an executive order that would have let the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) unionize thousands of home health care workers in Pennsylvania—and take millions of dollars in union dues each year from their paychecks.

Most of these home health care workers are taking care of a family member or loved one. This order would have wreaked havoc on the relationships between recipients and providers—while padding union pockets.

We’ve shared the story before of Dave and his home care provider, Don. Homebound with muscular dystrophy, Dave has relied on Don for more than 25 years. Far beyond an employer-employee relationship, Dave and Don are like family. Wolf’s order would have forced Don to unionize against Dave, effectively stripping Dave of many of his rights as an employer.

With the help of the Fairness Center, Dave and Don challenged Wolf’s order in court. Today’s ruling, which is in a similar case challenging the same executive order, is a victory for Dave, Don, and thousands of other home care providers and recipients across the commonwealth.

Beyond the overreach of the order, the deal was particularly suspicious considering the cozy relationship between Wolf and the SEIU. As we noted in a previous blog:

Michael Brunelle, the former executive director of SEIU's PA State Council, is now special assistant to the governor and regularly collaborates with his former employer. Emails between Mr. Brunelle and union officials show the administration sharing news releases, talking points, and other documents before they are published.

…Most worrisome is the collusion over a controversial executive order.

SEIU officials helped draft an executive order that enabled SEIU and AFSCME (American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees) to rapidly unionize tens of thousands of home health care workers—and deduct union dues from their paychecks. These dues can be spent on political activity and lobbying to push the governor's agenda.

What’s more, AFSME and SEIU were two of Governor Wolf’s largest campaign contributors during the 2014 election cycle.

Wolf’s executive order was a stealth attempt to help the unions collect millions of dollars. Now, we can add one more court-approved word to describe the order: illegal.


RELATED : , blog_line

Flawed Arguments Drive School Funding Suit

SEPTEMBER 22, 2016  | by NATHAN BENEFIELD

As I pointed out earlier this week, Pennsylvania public school spending is at an all-time high. In fact, the state's per student spending is significantly above the national average.

James’ analysis adds that the latest state budget represents yet another increase in state funding for public schools, building on the all-time high established during the 2015-16 fiscal year.

Even the Secretary of Education recognized the commonwealth's education spending is highrelative to other statesand represents increases rather than cuts to funding levels. Detractors normally concede this point, but they respond with “it’s not the amount of funding, it is the inequality.”

They cite data showing a large gap in spending between wealthy (low-poverty) and poor (high-poverty) districts. Here’s the rub: That data shows Pennsylvania spends more per student in every category of districts. That is, even Pennsylvania’s high-poverty districts spend more than high-poverty districts nationally.

What does this mean? If greater “equality” is the goal, we could cut spending by wealthy districts (caps on local school property taxes would be a way to do this) and spend at the national average. These two changes would produce greater equality between districts.

 

 

Ironically, government unions, the school boards association, and their allies have lobbied against efforts to control property tax increases.

These statistics aren't meant to downplay or ignore the equity in education funding. As we've made clear in the past, Pennsylvania’s practice of “hold harmless” has created a vast disparity in state funding per student. Hold harmless is the practice of guaranteeing each school district at least the amount of state funding they received in the prior year—regardless of enrollment changes.

The result—over decades—is that districts with declining enrollments receive far more aid per student. Meanwhile, areas with growing student populations have not gotten increases to match their enrollment.

Phasing out the “hold harmless” formula so all state aid is distributed using the new student-based funding formula would fix this problem—without requiring a multibillion dollar tax increase.


RELATED : , blog_line

Podcast: Why Charter Schools - and School Choice - Matter

SEPTEMBER 21, 2016  | by DOUGLAS BAKER

In Pennsylvania, 130,000 kids attend public charter schools—about 5 percent of the state’s schoolchildren.

For many of these kids and parents, charter schools are a lifeline to a safer, better education. Unfortunately, demand for charters continues to far exceed supply, resulting in thousands of students languishing on waiting lists—subject to the whims of a lottery to determine their future.

In this week's episode of Commonwealth Insight, we talk with Nina Rees, president & CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, about why charter schools matter, what to do about failing charter schools, and the elements that bring success to a charter school.

Regarding charter school oversight, Nina says charters are, “given a degree of autonomy and freedom in exchange for accountability.” What level of accountability? “A charter can be closed if it doesn’t live up to expectations in its contract or attract enough students.”

The truth is, no one is forced to attend a charter school—they truly are schools of choice. The fact that thousands are lining up to choose them speaks volumes about the value parents see in these alternatives to local school districts.

Later in the podcast, James Paul, CF’s senior policy analyst and education expert, joins to discuss school choice in Pennsylvania—and addresses claims that choice drains resources from school districts.

“If you believe, as I do, that these funds belong to children and families, then any objections to draining funding simply don’t pass muster,” James says.

Indeed, the first goal of public education funding should be to serve the next generation of Pennsylvanians, not to simply maintain the status quo in an educational system or institution. When funds follow families, everyone wins.

Click here or listen below, and stay tuned for more by subscribing on iTunes, SoundCloudGoogle PlayStitcher, or via RSS.


RELATED : , , blog_line

Thorough and Efficient System of Public Education

SEPTEMBER 21, 2016  | by JAMES PAUL

"The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public education to serve the needs of the Commonwealth." So reads the Constitution of Pennsylvania under its section on Education.

As Nate mentioned earlier this week, a recent lawsuit seeks the Supreme Court to force the legislature to increase school funding by billions of dollars primarily on the grounds that Pennsylvania is failing to honor its constitutional mandate. Is it true that the commonwealth is failing to provide a "thorough and efficient system" of public education?

Hardly.

State support of public schools is at an all-time high in Pennsylvania, recently eclipsing $11 billion. Claims of "cuts" from state taxpayers are simply without merit. And remember: average per-student funding in the commonwealth exceeds the national average by more than $3,000. 


RELATED : , blog_line

How to Fix the Vape Tax

SEPTEMBER 19, 2016  | by BOB DICK

The House will return to session later today, with the Senate to follow early next week. The two chambers are in session for a total of nine days. This gives lawmakers a limited amount of time to address Pennsylvanians' priorities. 

The repeal of the 40 percent vape tax is one such priority. The tax is scheduled to go into effect on October 1, but it has already inflicted immense harm on the business owners, employees, and customers in the vaping community. Approximately 50 shops have shut their doors, according to industry experts. More closures are inevitable if lawmakers fail to repeal this punishing tax.

The 40 percent tax is levied on products purchased and on shop owners’ existing inventory. If a shop holds $100,000 in inventory, the owner would be required to cut the state a check for $40,000. Is this a reasonable demand?

The answer is no. And that's why entrepreneurs like Dori Odosso and Amy Crivella are speaking out. It's why Scottie Freeman had to close down his business, and why Chris Hughes is planning to do the same. These people—and countless others—have been adversely affected by Gov. Wolf’s insistence on raising taxes.

Fortunately, lawmakers have introduced varying pieces of legislation to prevent further harm. Here are the legislative options offered thus far:

  • HB 2339, which is sponsored by Rep. Joseph Petrarca, repeals the tax outright.
  • HB 2342, sponsored by Rep. Jeff Wheeland, repeals the excise tax and replaces it with a 5 cent-per-milliliter tax. Sen. Camera Bartolotta has announced her intention to introduce similar legislation in the Senate.
  • Sen. Thomas Killion has introduced SB 1362, which would delay the payment of the tax from 90 days after it takes effect to 180 days.

Complete repeal is preferable and practical. The tax itself is estimated to bring in just $13 million—a relatively small sum in the context of a $79 billion budget. Lawmakers could replace this revenue by cutting less than 2 percent of the current budget's $800 million in corporate welfare spending.

If lawmakers won't support spending reductions, creating an alternative tax structure that keeps vape shops open is the next best option. This solution was the subject of our Philadelphia Inquirer op-ed published just this morning. The issue is clearing gaining momentum. Now is the time to act.

Vape shop owners and their customers deserve a government than protects their right to do business—not one that tramples on it.


RELATED : , , , blog_line

Facts about the State Share of School Funding

SEPTEMBER 19, 2016  | by NATHAN BENEFIELD

Should the Pennsylvania Supreme Court order the Legislature to give billions more dollars to school districts? That's what a recent lawsuit demands. But to make their case to the public, the lawsuit's advocates are repeating the widely discredited myth that the state once—but no longer—funded 50 percent of public school spending.

In reality, the state share of education spending never reached 50 percent. Records from the Pennsylvania Department of Education show that it peaked at  44.7 percent in 1974-75.

While the state share declined from 45 percent to 36 percent of total school district revenue, this was not due to a reduction in state subsidies for education. State aid—adjusted for inflation—increased by 41 percent since 1974. The state “share” only declined because local tax revenue—also adjusted for inflation—increased 98 percent over that time frame.

Pennsylvania actually provides more state funding than the national average on a per-student basis. The “state share” as a percentage only appears low because Pennsylvania schools receive about $3,000 more per student from local revenue, and in total revenue, than the national average.

That is, if Pennsylvania reduced local public school taxes to the national average, the “state share” would reach this mythical 50 percent.

(Note: The charts below are interactive. Touch or click on the tabs at the top or the bars to see more information.)


RELATED : , blog_line

Teachers' Union Deceives on Dues Donations

SEPTEMBER 15, 2016  | by ELIZABETH STELLE

Last week, the Commonwealth Court ordered the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board to investigate Mary Trometter's allegation that the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) used her union dues to support Tom Wolf's run for governor.

That's illegal in Pennsylvania, according to section 1701 of the Public Employee Relations Act, but it hasn't stopped government unions from pouring dues money into politics.

PSEA spokesman Wythe Keever denied his union engages in politics, stating to the Associated Press:

“The truth is no dues dollars are contributed to political candidates or spent on public communications about candidates. Communicating with members and their families is not the same as contributing to candidates." 

But Keever's "truth" isn't as it seems. Union dues deducted from teachers’ paychecks go to local unions, the PSEA, and the National Education Association (NEA) via the PSEA.

Since 2013, the NEA has sent $36 million from union dues to the NEA Advocacy Fund (the NEA’s SuperPAC). This fund supports presidential candidates, like Hillary Clinton, and other SuperPACs, like Pennsylvanians for Judicial Reform—which ran multiple attack ads influencing last year’s Pa. Supreme Court race. The NEA Advocacy Fund also funded the political ads of America Works USA, an arm of the Democratic Governors Association.

National affiliates aside, the PSEA admits spending dues on politics and lobbying. Here's the fine print from their member magazine:

In 2015, PSEA reported sending $14,000 in union dues to Governor Wolf’s Inaugural Committee and about $85,000 to partisan and left-wing groups such as Keystone Progress and Keystone Research Center.

The PSEA Voice magazine also glowing endorses candidates, like Rob McCord and Tom Wolf, and union email correspondence consistently attacks legislative reforms that would benefit their members.

Based on their own reports to the U.S. Department of Labor, the PSEA and many other government unions use union dues for political activities:

Union members should know their hard-earned paychecks are being spent on political activities—without their permission. Voluntary PAC contributions are one thing. Forcing teachers to fund political causes they don’t support is another. It’s wrong, and it’s illegal. It’s time PSEA officials come clean about their abuse of teachers and taxpayers.


RELATED : , , blog_line

Teacher Shortages Haunt Philly Students

SEPTEMBER 15, 2016  | by ELIZABETH STELLE

Philadelphia's teacher shortage is making headlines, and city council is demanding the district solve the problem. A classroom without a permanent teacher is certainly unfair to students, yet Philadelphia teachers are regularly pulled out of classrooms to work full time for the teachers' union.

Each year, up to 63 district employees may be plucked from Philadelphia's classroom to do full-time union work on the taxpayers dime.

These employees, known as "ghost teachers," aren't unique to Philadelphia. Across the state, dozens of teachers and other school district employees are absent from the classroom. Instead, they work full-time jobs with the local teachers’ union. These teachers stay on district payroll, receive health benefits, amass pension credits, and accrue seniority, just as if they were actually teaching

There are about 84 vacancies in Philadelphia and 16 teachers on full-time union leave. Requiring ghost teachers to come back to the classroom is one way to quickly shrink vacancies.

Ultimately, lawmakers should end Pennsylvania's ghost teaching problem by passing HB 2125. The bill would ban ghost teaching with two exceptions: extended leave for statewide teacher union officers and 15 days of annual release time for all other teachers. This reform would also require the unions to reimburse every cent associated with the cost of absent teachers.

Students deserve more than ghost teachers who never show up for class, and taxpayers deserve more than paying for an empty teacher’s desk.


RELATED : , , blog_line

PA's Liquor Monopoly is in Red Ink Again

SEPTEMBER 14, 2016  | by ANDREW BECKER

The Failure of Government-run liquor stores

The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) is boasting about record sales again. But as we've pointed out in the past, that’s not much of a feat when you have a monopoly over liquor sales. And the claim is even less impressive when you realize the agency is $238 million in debt.

Like a private business, the PLCB now has to include pension liabilities on its balance sheet. These liabilities are in excess of the agency's assets, putting the PLCB (officially) in the red for the second year in a row.

Despite the agency's financial position, it's generated positive attention recently by allowing grocery stores to sell wine, but this is only a small step in the right direction. The most effective way to serve Pennsylvanians is to fully privatize the system. This is important for two reasons.

First, it eliminates any potential future bailout of the PLCB. Approximately 85% of PLCB’s revenue comes from taxes. That means the state will still collect revenue with a privatized system, but the $238 million debt will only grow as the pension liabilities rise. We should take the initiative to privatize the system before it becomes a bigger burden on taxpayers.

Second, privatization would benefit consumers. It would give consumers more choices, convenience and competitive pricing.

It’s time Pennsylvania joins the 48 other states that enjoy more efficient government and consumer convenience.


RELATED : , blog_line

Local Union Complains About Transparency

SEPTEMBER 13, 2016  | by BOB DICK

The school board and the local teachers union in the West Shore School District are in conflict. The two sides have been unable to agree on a contract for two and a half years, and now the negotiation process itself is in dispute.

In a nod to transparency, the school district decided to publicize its contract offer to the West Shore Education Association (WSEA). The union—upset with the move—accused the district of hijacking negotiations. The president of the WSEA claimed the district promised not to negotiate in public.

Ideally, all public-sector contract negotiations should involve the public. After all, the taxpayer is footing the bill. 

Instead, the typical collective bargaining process is conducted in secret, shutting out the very people who make the process possible.

To give communities a greater voice, Senator Pat Stefano introduced SB 645—legislation that would require public employers to provide public notice of collective bargaining agreements two weeks before they’re approved. Releasing the details before final approval gives taxpayers the ability to advocate for changes to contracts they deem unacceptable.

School boards could go even further, opening up negotiations to the public and providing a summary of each contract. Of course, the district should make it clear these steps will be taken before the process begins to avoid accusations of negotiating in bad faith.

Pennsylvanians are already benefiting from transparency over state contract negotiations. Lawmakers now have an opportunity to build on their good work.


RELATED : , , , blog_line

Total Records: 5833

Media contact:
media@commonwealthfoundation.org

(O) 717-671-1901

Who are We?

The Commonwealth Foundation is Pennsylvania's free-market think tank.  The Commonwealth Foundation transforms free-market ideas into public policies so all Pennsylvanians can flourish.