Category Archives: rights

Change the Subject

Posted on by
Reply

At the Federal level, Republicans in Congress are attempting to take national-level steps to curb union abuses of members and nonmembers. The particular abuse is union use of dues to fund a particular party’s candidates, whether the union members support that party or candidate or not for now, at least, the Congress is ignoring union states’ practice of collecting dues from non-union members—which the employees are required to pay as a condition of keeping their jobs—and using those coerced dues also for political work rather than union activities related to work).

The Employee Rights Act, introduced Monday by Senator Orrin Hatch (R, UT) and Congressman Tom Price (R, GA), would allow union members to tell their bosses they don’t want their share of dues going to certain candidates or causes, without fear of retaliation.

The response?

…Democratic strategists are accusing Republicans of ignoring the needs of hardworking union members, and instead just trying to re-route sizable campaign contributions.

Don’t address the subject of the bill. Talk about “rerouting.” Never mind that the bill doesn’t reroute a penny of union money.

Never mind, too, that the bill takes care of the “needs of hardworking union members,” particularly those hard workers who don’t want their dues to go to political causes they don’t support.

Projecting Again

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the union violence threatened and inflicted in Wisconsin when Governor Scott Walker (R) was working to break union strangleholds on the state government and local school districts.

Now, in nearby Illinois, we get this.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union sent a memo to its members expressing fear that in the face of union intransigence in negotiations with the State’s government, Governor Bruce Rauner (R) might use the National Guard and retired state workers to keep the government open should the AFSCME decide to strike.

Of what is the union afraid? That the work might actually get done, despite the union’s extortion attempt strike?

Or that the Guard might inflict violence on the strikers? If this, then it seems the union is projecting.

School Choice and Unions

Posted on by
Reply

There’s a contradiction in terms.

In January parents filed a petition to convert Palm Lane Elementary in Anaheim into a charter under California’s 2010 parent-trigger law, which allows a majority of parents in any failing school to force changes.

Naturally, the school’s district officials and teachers union demurred. Never mind that

Palm Lane had made the state Department of Education’s list of underperforming schools since 2003. Fewer than 40% of students scored proficient in English in 2013. About 85% are Hispanic, and most are low-income.

(Where is the Obama DoJ and disparate impact? Oh, wait…).

The officials and the unions went so far as to disregard California law as they dragged their feet and openly obstructed the conversion—and loss of union jobs and of income for the district officials’ use.

[U]nion even complained that signature gatherers were bribing parents with free iPads, a false allegation that the district superintendent repeated in a cautionary letter to parents.

Though more than 60% of parents signed the petition, the district threw out dozens of signatures that could not be “verified.” That is, the parents could not be reached between the hours of 8:30 am and 4:30 pm to confirm that they signed the petition. Maybe that’s because they were working.

Fortunately, and once again, a judge got one right.

Last Thursday Orange County Superior Court Judge Andrew Banks ruled in favor of the parents on all counts and rebuked the district’s conduct as “unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious and unfair.” He also scored district officials for violating their obligation under the trigger law to work in good faith with parents….

Judge Banks has ordered the district to accept the petition and allow parents to immediately begin soliciting charter school proposals.

Been all right, too, if the Judge also had ordered the district officials and the union to compensate the petitioners for their time wasted fighting these frivolous delays. Such an order might have given these officials pause as they plan their inevitable, time-wasting, delaying tactic of appeals.

Still, it’s a good ruling.

Freedom to Dissent

Posted on by
Reply

Four men already had been convicted of murder in southeastern China when a fifth person confessed to the crime. But when lawyers demanded to review case documents to clear the men’s names, the court stonewalled. So the lawyers unfurled banners outside the venue.

They protested for days, alongside social activists who insulted the top judge, and uploaded pictures online.
…
Authorities say these lawyers have strayed far beyond their professional role into illegal activism aimed at sabotaging the country’s legal system. …

Since late May, police across China have detained and called in at least 215 rights lawyers and social activists, most of them during the past week or so. State propaganda has kicked into high gear to denounce them as rabble-rousers, criminal gangs, profit-seeking opportunists.

Wisconsin’s John Doe persecutions have been struck by that state’s Supreme Court. We’ll see how long that lasts before our own Left starts up again.

In the meantime, our own national Left’s loudly protected IRS continues to persecute Americans: those who dare to speak contrary to the Left’s approved speech—all those exposures of personal and personal tax information, all those stonewalls of tax status applications for particular groups who would dare speak contrary to the Left’s approvals. The same IRS continues to refuse to return seized funds to those from whom the money was…confiscated…under patently false pretenses, even after this IRS said they would stop the confiscations.

Disparate Impact

Posted on by
1

Disparate impact is the racist theory that if practices result in an imbalance (as defined by disparate impact aficionados) in racial representation in this or that arena (see housing, for instance), than the practices must stop until—based solely on race—sufficient races are brought into the arena to achieve an acceptable balance of races. Notice that none of disparate impact has anything to do with the wishes of members of this or that race, already present or absent from the arena. By design, it has nothing to do, also, with the intent of the managers of the arena.

Consider, now, a case brought by

64 organizations alleging that Harvard uses de facto quotas to limit Asian-Americans on campus.

The case was brought to the Civil Rights division of the Department of Education—who promptly dismissed the case, ostensibly because of “pending litigation.” There is a case pending, but as DoE knows full well it’s unlikely to be finally adjudicated for another two or three—or more—years.

Never mind that

Asian-Americans need to score 140 points higher on the SAT than white students to be considered equal applicants on paper, and 450 points higher than African-Americans

and that they’re still underrepresented in Harvard admissions.

Never mind, either, how insulting that 450 point handicap is for blacks–the very group Harvard pretends to be wanting to help.  Or the insult of those 140 points for whites.  But that’s OK, whites have too much privilege; they need to be insulted every now and then.

Apparently, disparate impact is applicable only to certain government-favored groups of Americans. But then, such special treatment is at the very hearts of racism and of bigotry in general.