Unions & Labor Policy

CF’s labor policy work centers on protecting workers’ rights by ending the special privileges and coercive power government grants to unions.  Union membership should be voluntary; unions should collect their own dues; no one should be forced to support a union’s political agenda; and workers should not be coerced to give part of their pay to a union or lose their job.  Moreover, taxpayers should not be forced to support unions, either directly or through special carve-outs for government contractors which benefit certain unions.

PA Government Unions

Government Unions' Political Spending

April 8, 2014 | Commentary by Commonwealth Foundation

Currently, state and local governments, including school districts, use taxpayer-funded payroll systems and public employee time to collect union campaign contributions to candidates as well as union membership dues, a portion of which is used for political activity.  Government unions spend dues money on a variety of political activities, including get-out-the vote drives, election mailers in support of candidates, lobbying of legislators, TV and radio ads, and fundraising for political action committees (PACs).

Contract Transparency Still Critical

JUNE 29, 2015

PA State Union Contracts

Harrisburg is abuzz as the budget battle continues. With high profile legislation on liquor privatization, pension and education reform receiving much attention, it's easy to lose sight of a fundamental issue: contract transparency.

Contract transparency is critical to giving taxpayers influence over a process often captured by special interests.

Here is a short summary of the two transparency bills aimed at improving the collective bargaining process:

  • SB 644, sponsored by Sen. Mike Folmer, empowers the Independent Fiscal Office to provide the public with cost estimates on state public sector union contracts prior to ratification.
  • SB 645, sponsored by Sen. Patrick Stefano, requires public sector collective bargaining agreements to be posted on state, school district, or local government websites two weeks prior to signing.

By making union contracts and their costs available to the public before they are implemented, taxpayers will have a chance to offer their input on the terms of the deals. If they feel the terms are unfair, they can demand changes to the contracts.

The current collective bargaining process provides no such recourse. As my colleague Nate pointed out last week, new union contracts were ratified more than a month ago, but we still aren’t privy to the contracts' terms. However, thanks to a story from Capitolwire, we do know the contracts will make government more expensive.

In writing about the budget process, Chris Comisac details why a few appropriations bills needed to be amended (paywall):

During the meeting, House Appropriations Committee Minority Chairman Joe Markosek, D-Allegheny, noted some of the bills have been amended with larger appropriation amounts. Markosek explained those increased figures – which have been agreed to by legislative leaders – represent the additional costs associated with the new collective bargaining agreements (emphasis mine) reached by Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration and the various state employee labor unions.

The new union contracts negotiated by the Wolf Administration—with some of his largest campaign contributors—will increase the cost of government by millions of dollars. This is the result of a process played out entirely in secret. No debate. No accountability. No transparency.

As Gov. Wolf likes to say, the status quo is unacceptable. Let’s upend it.

posted by BOB DICK | 02:16 PM | Comments

An Update on Union Contracts

JUNE 25, 2015

PA State Union Contracts

Earlier this week, the House State Government Committee moved SB 644 and SB 645—bills which would provide taxpayers greater information about contracts with government unions—to the House floor. Why do these bills matter? 

On April 21, Gov. Tom Wolf reached a one year contract agreement with AFSCME, the largest union of state workers.  

On May 19, the Secretary of Administration announced the ratification of AFSCME and UFCW (which represents liquor store workers) contracts by the unions’ members. The Administration told Charles Thompson of the Patriot News the two deals would cost around $23 million in additional costs next year.  

On June 9, the Administration announced a one year contract with SEIU (representing about 10,000 state workers). Estimates of the contract's annual cost weren't provided.  

To date, none of these contracts have been posted online, nor is a detailed summary or cost estimate available.

To be clear, it is now 65 days (more than 9 weeks) since the first report of a proposed agreement, 37 days (more than 5 weeks) since the announcement of AFSCME and UFCW contract ratification, and 16 days since the SEIU announcement. Yet, taxpayers and legislators still don’t have access to the details.

These examples show why contract transparency legislation is so very needed. Both examples demonstrate why critics are wrong to suggest two weeks is too long a time to have proposed contracts online. They claim transparency will "slow down the process." But as the last few months make clear, such objections are red herrings. 

Click here for more background on effort to shed a light on union contract negotiations. 

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 11:43 AM | Comments

Government Union Puts Politics Ahead of Teachers

JUNE 18, 2015

One government union is putting its political preferences and self-interest above the interests of public school teachers. Now, teachers are fighting back.

Jane Ladley, who recently retired from teaching after 25 years, Chris Meier, who teaches in the Penn Manor School District, and Linda Misja (pictured), a language teacher at Apollo-Ridge High School, are suing the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) to win back control of their own money.

We brought you Jane and Chris's story last year, but here's a quick synopsis: In Pennsylvania, if public employees demonstrate a bona fide religious objection to compulsory unionism, as Jane, Chris and Linda have, they are not required to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Instead, they can send their dues to an IRS approved charity.

But there's a problem. The PSEA is hijacking the religious objection process, and the Fairness Center (TFC), which is the group representing Jane and Chris in their lawsuit, explains why:

Now, the PSEA is telling Jane and Chris that it has a “policy” against allowing religious objectors to send their money to charities that they choose. According to the PSEA, Jane’s educational charity was too “political,” and Chris’s charity was a conflict of interest” because it represented teachers in separate, unrelated lawsuits against the PSEA.

Chris and Jane are currently waiting for a decision to be handed down by Common Pleas Court. Meanwhile, TFC filed a similar lawsuit against the PSEA today on behalf of Linda Misja, charging the union with the same transgression. Here's the background on Linda's case:

...Linda objected on religious grounds in 2012, the PSEA refused to let Linda send her money to a pro-life pregnancy center that, among other things, provides support to teenage mothers. Then the PSEA refused to allow her to send her money to the National Rifle Association Foundation, the 501(c)(3) charitable arm of the larger organization, which supports firearm safety education across the country.

In these three instances, the PSEA anointed itself the arbiter of what is political and made a calculated decision to put its self-interests ahead of public school teachers. Their intransigence has led to not only two lawsuits, but legislation to protect teachers' rights in the religious objection process.

House Bill 267, sponsored by Representative John Lawrence, would give religious objectors the freedom to choose a charity for their donation. After all, the money belongs to Jane, Chris, and Linda, not the PSEA.

posted by BOB DICK | 05:29 PM | Comments

Union Contract Agreements Bolster Case for Collective Bargaining Transparency

MAY 20, 2015

The Wolf Administration finalized contracts with two government unions yesterday, perfectly encapsulating the failings of the current collective bargaining process.

In a terse press release, the Wolf Administration announced contract agreements with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 13 and the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 1776.

According to the Wolf Administration, the contracts generally maintain the status quo, which isn’t a promising revelation for public employees or taxpayers who have no interest in subsidizing union politics.

Additionally, a 2.25 percent pay increase was agreed to for employees with at least one year of continuous service. Charles Thompson of PennLive reports the pay increase will cost Pennsylvanians $23 million in the coming fiscal year.

Even if the public does not approve of these new contracts, there isn’t much they can do to prevent implementation. The agreements were hammered out behind closed doors, and the details were only released after both Gov. Wolf and two of his campaign contributors agreed to the deals.

Is there a better example of a process in need of transparency?

Had the Senate’s trio of transparency bills been codified, the process would have been different. Taxpayers could have watched the contract negotiations play out, and they would have been provided the contracts and their costs before ratification, giving them an opportunity to weigh in on the deals.

Fortunately, lawmakers still have time to make the collective bargaining process transparent. The wishes of government unions to keep the process secret should not prevent lawmakers from giving Pennsylvanians a seat at the table. 

posted by BOB DICK | 02:00 PM | Comments

Audio: Bills Shine Light On Union Contract Negotiations

MAY 13, 2015

Public sector union contracts are a huge cost for the state government, and they have also become a conflict of interest for Gov. Wolf. He will be negotiating contract deals with 16 unions­–which contributed millions of dollars to his gubernatorial campaign–behind closed doors, but some legislators want to open these doors to the public.

CF’s president & CEO Matt Brouillette recently spoke with Dom Giordano on Talk Radio 1210 WPHT in Philadelphia about several transparency bills that passed in the state Senate.

As Matt points out, SB 644, would put "a price tag on what the governor and the unions have negotiated” by empowering the Independent Fiscal Office to estimate the costs of public sector union contracts prior to ratification.  

The second bill, SB 645, requires public sector collective bargaining agreements to be posted on state, school district, or local government websites two weeks prior to signing–giving the taxpayers a chance to see government union contracts before they have to pay the bill.

Listen below or click here for the interview. 

The Dom Giordano Show airs every weekday from 9 am – 12 pm. 

Read Matt's op-ed Wolf Negotiates Billions with Unions Who Gave Him Millions for more.

posted by JONATHAN REGINELLA | 08:28 AM | Comments

A Transparent Win for Taxpayers

MAY 6, 2015

Today the Senate took a significant step to make state government more transparent and accountable by approving SB 644 and SB 645. Here’s a brief description of the bills now heading to the House:

  • SB 644, sponsored by Sen. Mike Folmer, empowers the Independent Fiscal Office to provide the public with cost estimates on state public sector union contracts prior to ratification.
  • SB 645, sponsored by Sen. Patrick Stefano, requires public sector collective bargaining agreements to be posted on state, school district, or local government websites two weeks prior to signing.

Please click here to send an email to thank the following Senators for voting yes: Alloway, Argall, Aument, Baker, Bartolotta, Brooks, Corman, Eichelberger, Folmer, Gordner, Greenleaf, Hutchinson, McGarrigle, McIlhinney, Mensch, Pileggi, Rafferty, Scarnati, Scavello, Smucker, Stefano, Tomlinson, Vance, Vogel, Vulakovich, Wagner, Ward, White, and Yaw.

The current collective bargaining process permits the governor to negotiate billions of dollars in contracts with public sector unions behind closed doors. In Governor Wolf’s case, he’s negotiating contracts with some of his largest campaign contributors—an immense conflict of interest.

Moreover, taxpayers are barred from reviewing and weighing in on these union contracts they’re required to pay for. Acknowledging this unfairness, the Senate voted to give taxpayers a seat at the table.

The quest for transparency now moves to the House. If the House approves, the governor’s spokesman has indicated Gov. Wolf may sign both pieces of legislation, a move consistent with his promise to augment government transparency.

posted by BOB DICK | 04:13 PM | Comments

Judge Halts Stealth Unionization Scheme

APRIL 23, 2015

A Commonwealth Court judge has issued a preliminary injunction to stop full enforcement of Gov. Tom Wolf's executive order to stealthily unionize home healthcare workers.

For folks like Dave Smith and his care provider Don Lambrecht, the injunction is wave of relief. The two men have lived together for years and they have no interest in a union dictating their working relationship.

The unionization drive by the United Home Care Workers of Pennsylvania (UHWP) will continue. However, even if UHWP is selected to represent workers, the state cannot get involved in collecting dues from individual paychecks until the full court addresses the legality of Wolf’s executive order.

The union’s goal is to skim 2 percent of home care workers’ salaries from their pay, which would be up to 8.4 million each year if dues were collected from all 20,000 homecare workers under this order. Not a bad return after UHWP backers AFSCME and the SEIU contributed heavily to Gov. Wolf’s election campaign.

Dave and Don aren't the only ones concerned with the governor's overreach. On Monday, President Pro Tempore Scarnati and Speaker of the House Turzai filed an Amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Fairness Center’s lawsuit. The leaders noted;

Executive Order 2015-05 is a blatant attempt by the Governor to circumvent the constitutionally-granted legislative authority of the General Assembly. The executive order should be declared invalid.

The Senate Republican Majority Caucus also issued a motion to intervene on the same day. And yesterday members of the Senate Health and Public Welfare Committee pressed acting-secretary Ted Dallas on the necessity of the order (paywall).

David Osborne, general counsel for the Fairness Center, notes, "No one—Republican or Democrat—should be comfortable with their governor issuing unconstitutional executive orders."

Click here for more background on Wolf’s executive order.

posted by ELIZABETH STELLE | 04:05 PM | Comments

Pro-Taxpayer, Pro-Transparency Bills Move Forward

APRIL 22, 2015

Government union contract negotiations—long shrouded in secrecy behind closed-door meetings—are one step closer to openness and transparency. Today, a series of bills passed the Senate State Government Committee that will inform taxpayers about the contracts they are ultimately responsible for financing.

  • SB 643, sponsored by Sen. Ryan Aument, requires public notice and open meetings when public sector collective bargaining agreements are negotiated.
  • SB 644, sponsored by Sen. Mike Folmer, empowers the Independent Fiscal Office to estimate the costs of public sector union contracts prior to ratification.
  • SB 645, sponsored by Sen. Patrick Stefano, requires public sector collective bargaining agreements to be posted on state, school district, or local government websites two weeks prior to signing.

In addition to enhanced transparency, these bills would protect taxpayers against the conflict of interest that exists when politicians accept government union campaign donations before engaging in secret negotiations with those same donors. Gov. Wolf, for example, accepted $2.6 million from six unions whose contracts he is negotiating or will soon be negotiating—including more than half a million dollars from the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the largest state employee union in Pennsylvania.

Coincidentally, at the same time lawmakers in the Senate are promoting open-government legislation, Gov. Wolf appears close to a one-year agreement with AFSCME. The AFSCME contract is typically the basis for other state contracts. If the AFSCME deal is applied to all union contracts expiring this year, it represents approximately $76 million in additional taxpayer costs.

Should the transparency bills be signed into law, Pennsylvania would join 11 other states that have pursued similar good-government legislation. It's time to follow the trend and shine a light on this significant expense.

posted by JAMES PAUL | 02:45 PM | Comments

PA is One Step Closer to Outlawing Harassment

APRIL 22, 2015

Stop Union Violence

Sarina Rose, VP of Development for Post Brothers Apartments, knows firsthand what its like to be harassed. She was verbally berated and threatened in a Philadelphia restaurant. But because the abuse occurred during a labor dispute the harassment was deemed legal and the judge dismissed the case.

That would change under legislation passed in the House yesterday. HB 874 would close a deplorable loophole in Pennsylvania's Crimes Code. The loophole allows an individual to harass, stalk, and threaten the use of a weapon of mass destruction IF these aggressive acts are carried out during a labor dispute.

Neither management nor union employees should be harassed, stalked, or threatened with impunity. While both groups have a constitutional right to express their opinions about business practices, they should not have a license to be violent.

HB 874 now heads to the Senate.

Click here to see how your representative voted.

posted by BOB DICK | 01:30 PM | Comments

This Unionization Scheme is About Money

APRIL 20, 2015

I am angry.

As my colleague Dawn pointed out last week, ballots were mailed to home health care workers asking them whether or not they want to be represented by the United Home Care Workers of Pennsylvania—a self-described “union” and joint project of two other government unions, AFSCME and SEIU.

Most of these homecare workers are taking care of a family member or friend, and have no need or desire for a union to get in between them and those they care for. Yet, if just a majority of those voting check 'yes,' United Home Care Workers will have a union monopoly over all homecare workers.

This stealth unionization scheme was made possible by an executive order from Gov. Tom Wolf. The Wolf administration denies this is a unionization effort. According to Gov. Wolf’s press secretary, these ballots to elect a union are “not a union ballot.”

This despite a mailer sent to homecare workers highlighting “a special message about our union election” and urges home care attendants to get involved “by forming our union.” (Emphasis added)

UHWP mailer image 3

UHWP mailer image 4

Here’s what this unionization scheme is about: money. SEIU and AFSCME want to skim union dues off the top of Medicaid payments to homecare providers. Already, the union has sent out forms to authorize paycheck deductions which will total an estimated $8.4 million in additional revenue for SEIU and AFSCME coffers.

UHWP mailer image 2

Gov. Wolf would also benefit. AFSCME and SEIU contributed more than $1.5 million to Gov. Wolf’s campaign in 2014, while spending hundreds of thousands more in independent expenditures and “SuperPAC” contributions—directly from union dues—to support his election.

Our latest policy memo provides a background on Wolf’s executive order and the lawsuits filed to stop this stealth unionization scheme and dues skim.

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 04:42 PM | Comments

Total Records: 308

Media contact:

(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.