RSS FEEDS
Recent Research
OCTOBER 27, 2011 | Commentary by CARA DOCHAT, PRIYA ABRAHAM
Government Unions Steal Worker Freedom
Pennsylvania is one of 28 states in which workers can be compelled to give part of their paycheck to a union just to keep their job. Moreover, even non-membership is costly. Those able to evade union coercion are still compelled to pay hundreds of dollars in fair share fees, or agency fees, to cover their supposed share of benefits
OCTOBER 27, 2011 | Policy Points by COMMONWEALTH FOUNDATION
Pennsylvania's Government Unions
Pennsylvania is a forced union state, meaning that workers can be forced to join a union or pay a "fair share fee" just to keep their job. Most government units in Pennsylvania are "agency shops," with a specified union to which workers must pay a fee. When state and local governments automatically deduct dues and fair share fees from g
JUNE 21, 2011 | Policy Points by COMMONWEALTH FOUNDATION
Pennsylvania State Government Union Contracts
On June 30, 15 of the state's 19 government union contracts expire, with two more expiring in August. These 19 public sector unions represent 62,271 state employees, whose compensation from taxpayers exceeds $4.6 billion.
Recent Blog Posts
JANUARY 3, 2012
Teachers' Union Dues at Leisure
A full-time teacher and member of the Pennsylvania State Education Association pays $654 a year in union dues to state, national and local affiliates of the union. While part-time teachers and other school workers such as janitors and secretaries pay less, nearly all must pay "fair share fees" to keep their jobs.
So how does the PSEA spend its members' hard-earned money? By valiantly defending our teachers, right?
Well, only if you count golf outings, ski trips and luxury getaways as fighting for the little guy. The pie chart below on the PSEA's 2010-11 spending shows 18 percent went to "union administration"—including the aforementioned junkets, which frequently appear as "leadership conferences" in the union's annual report. A further 21 percent went to overhead costs. A reported 6 percent went to lobbying and political activities.
In other words, almost 45 percent of PSEA's expenditures simply went to running the union, lobbying and leadership meetings, while union bosses devoted a mere 14 percent to "representational activities" that are meant to directly benefit rank-and-file members.
Here's a sampling of the luxury outings the PSEA took around the state (and beyond) last year, according to its annual report:
- $29,000 at Eden Resort Inn in Lancaster, for a "region house of delegates meeting."
- $31,000 at Liberty Mountain Resort in Carroll Valley, for a "region leadership conference."
- $8,000 at Pinecrest Golf Club in Lansdale, for another "region house of delegates meeting."
- $48,000 at Seaview Dolce Resort on the Jersey Shore (with golf club and spa), for a "regional continuing professional education conference."
- $30,000 at Seven Springs Mountain Resort in Champion, for another "regional continuing professional education conference."
- $26,000 at Bear Creek Mountain Resort in Macungie for a "region meeting."
posted by PRIYA ABRAHAM | 04:13 PM | 0 comment
DECEMBER 7, 2011
Educrats Fight for System Not Kids, Taxpayers
The Sharon Herald posted an article Sunday about anti-voucher signs popping up around the Sharon, Sharpsville and Greenville areas in Mercer County. I've seen these signs in Western Pa. before, but I was surprised to learn where some of them are coming from.
Blue-and-white yard signs have popped up in the last month, signs distributed to school districts by the Pennsylvania School Board Association. And during at least two local school board meetings, superintendents displayed the signs and asked board members to take them and display them.
The signs read: "Support public education. Stop budget cuts. Say no to vouchers."
While all the superintendents assure the Herald that taxpayer money wasn't used to purchase the signs, it is taxpayer dollars that pay for salaries of these administrators. Administrators—like Sharon Superintendent John Sarandrea, who e-mailed school employees, "inviting them to buy a sign for $5"—using their taxpayer-funded time to decry a program that would allow thousands of Pennsylvania school children to escape violent, failing schools.
Instead of working against school choice, perhaps Sarandrea and other area administrators should be working to make their districts full of schools of choice. Unfortunately, in 2010-2011, Sharon City Schools saw 34 violent incidents (almost four a month), while 35 percent of its students are below grade level in reading.
It's a shame that some school district administrators are using their positions, time and school's property to sway teachers and residents against a program that would use taxpayer dollars more efficiently, improve public schools through competition and expand EITC scholarships for students throughout the state, giving students a lifeline and parents true choice.
EDITORS NOTE: The PSBA denies having created, distributed, or otherwise been involved in the design of signs, as was attributed in the Sharon Herald article.
posted by DAWN MELING | 08:15 AM | 0 comment
NOVEMBER 11, 2011
Common Cause: Gas Political Money Can't Match Unions
The third or fourth report by Common Cause PA on political spending (campaign contributions and lobbying) by the natural gas industry reveals nothing new. According to Common Cause, the Political Action Committees, employees, and shareholders of natural gas companies—not the companies themselves, though the report fails to make that clear—spent $6 million in campaign contributions to Pennsylvania candidates from 2001 to 2011.
That sum is dwarfed by campaign spending by union PACs—more than $20 million each election cycle. Union PACS spent at least $23 million in 2009-10 and $27 million in 2007-08. Unions outspend the gas industry, and its supporters, by more than 10 to one.
Why hasn't Common Cause studied union political spending? Or for that matter, where is the study of political spending of "alternative energy" interests that advocate not only for freedom to operate in the state, but for taxpayer subsidies and mandates to buy their product?
While Common Cause tries to claim this report shows the need for campaign finance restrictions, their proposed solution is to mirror federal limits. This is odd, since their national affiliate released a report decrying too much money in federal politics (and even at the federal level, unions dominate political spending). You won't get "money out of politics" as long as politicians determine who gets all the money.
Rather, Common Cause stood by with several other groups that advocate not for "good government" but for redistribution of wealth from gas drillers to other special interests.
By solely demonizing one industry, which is a small player in political money, and overlooking the failure of campaign finance laws to limit big government, Common Cause is simply embracing "Frack-a-phobia" to advance a redistributionist political agenda.
posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 10:55 AM | 0 comment
