Trey Kovacs

Congress Must End Taxpayers Vulnerability to Government Waste

by Trey Kovacs on May 21, 2012 · 1 comment

in Labor, Politics as Usual, Regulation

Fraud and abuse continue to be a barrier to effective government. According to the Cato Institute’s 2009 report, fraud or improper payments in government amount to $100 billion per year. But since 1986, the Federal False Claims Act (FFCA) has given Americans incentives to help protect the government from fraud. Unfortunately, an alarmingly small amount, $25 billion over 26 years, has been recovered under the FFCA.

The dramatic discrepancy is due to limitations to the act itself.

The FFCA holds individuals or companies liable who deliberately submit false claims, or cause a false submission, for payment of government funds. The penalty is three times the governments damages, in addition to civil penalties of $5,500 to $11,000 per false claim. It imposes liability on any person or company defrauding the federal government.

Above all, the law includes a qui tam provision that allows people who are not associated with the government to file suit on their behalf. This whistle-blower provision enables individuals unveiling fraud to receive 15 to 25 percent of the amount recovered due to related costs and risks.

However, currently FFCA’s limitations outweigh its benefits. For example, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) may unilaterally settle for inequitable amounts or refuse to pursue cases of fraud against government. Of greater concern is government waste and mismanagement that are exempt from FFCA.

[click to continue…]

On May Day, Why Do We Still Have Unions?

by Trey Kovacs on May 1, 2012 · 0 comments

in Labor, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

Big Labor and Occupy are using May Day protests in hopes of reinvigorating their movements. Unions are digging up the same old talking points they trot out every Labor Day (in this case, the international Left’s version of Labor Day). To gain momentum, organized labor circulated propaganda around the Web. It reads, “On May Day, let’s hear it for Labor Unions: The folks who brought you the weekend, child labor laws, pension security, minimum wage protections, workers’ compensation…”

Big Labor’s message is misinformation. In the United States, only Congress has the ability to make law and that is what brought us the above stated “protections.” Further, Henry Ford brought us the weekend; Christian activists brought us child labor laws. As far as pension security, there is no such thing, unless you mean taxpayers paying for your early retirement. And minimum wage protections — protection from young people getting jobs, you mean? Worker’s compensation is a system ripe for abuse; insurance could do that job anyway.

 Even if Big Labor’s claims were true, that would just prove that unions have made themselves obsolete.

99% Spring: An Anatomy of Destruction

by Trey Kovacs on April 12, 2012

in Labor, Politics as Usual, Zeitgeist

The establishment left’s weeklong protest training, deemed the 99% Spring or Shareholder Spring, is an effort to train 100,000 activists in civil disobedience to achieve “social and economic justice” from the 1%. The goal of these left-wing activists is to attain their idea of justice through destruction of America’s social fabric by perpetuating social and economic class warfare.

The protesters’ target will be “the shareholder meetings of over forty corporations, including but not limited to Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Exxon Mobil, and Chevron.” In order to destroy America’s “unjust” economy, they seek to tarnish the reputations of the very corporations that create jobs Americans need and desperately want.

According to the 99% Spring website, its mission is to stop “the deliberate manipulation of our democracy and our economy by a tiny minority in the 1%, by those who amass ever more wealth and power at our expense.” This is an ironic stated aim; Big Labor sponsors of the 99% Spring such as the United Auto Workers (UAW), AFL-CIO, and Service Employee International Union are creating the very same problems they claim to be solving.

[click to continue…]

Department of Labor Companionship Rule Doesn’t Comply with Best Practices

by Trey Kovacs on March 26, 2012

in Features, Labor, Regulation

Post image for Department of Labor Companionship Rule Doesn’t Comply with Best Practices

Last Wednesday, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Administrator Cass Sunstein sent a memo to executive agency heads concerning the cumulative effects of regulation and offered best practices for rulemaking. The memo reveals the prominent federal agency responsible for workers does not meet the Obama administration’s standards. In particular, the Department of Labor’s (DOL) latest regulatory initiative, amending companionship and live-in worker rule, diverges sharply from Sunstein’s best practices.

The memo to agency heads is purported to reinforce President Obama’s Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” The memo and EO on paper request agencies to reach out and alert the potential affected parties (state/local governments, small business, industries, and individuals) of new or existing regulatory changes. In addition, regulators must consult and offer easy ways for the public to participate in calls for comments.

The regulatory guidelines set forth stress the importance of public involvement in understanding the cumulative effects of regulation: How to minimize administration costs, streamline duplicative rules, and harmonize and reduce excessive regulatory burdens. The memo’s objective, “The goals of this effort should be to simplify requirements on the public and private sectors… propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs.”

Unfortunately for workers, Mr. Sunstein’s memos must go directly to DOL Secretary Hilda Solis’s junk-mail folder. Despite OIRA and executive guidelines for rulemaking, DOL is looking to advance their rule to narrow the exemptions to the companionship and live-in worker regulation under the Fair Labor and Standards Act (FLSA). The congressional intent underlying the companionship exemptions is to make quality in-home care affordable and accessible. Not only does DOL’s proposed rule stray from FLSA congressional intent, but it is far outside OIRA’s suggestions for rulemaking.

[click to continue…]

Pension Funds are For-Profit

by Trey Kovacs on March 5, 2012

in Labor

California’s Constitution clearly states the California Public Employees’ Retirement System’s (CalPERS) singular motive is to make profits. I point this out in “Mixing Pensions with Politics” in The Orange County Register:

“California’s constitution entrusts the pension board members with “sole and exclusive fiduciary responsibility over the assets of the public pension,” and stipulates, “Assets shall be held for the exclusive purposes of providing benefits to participants in the pension.”

However, CalPERS board members are not content to merely try to maximize profits. Instead, CalPERS board orders account managers to deviate from the profit system in favor of environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) principles. Below is how CalPERS circumvents their fiduciary duties to pension beneficiaries:

“How do they get away with this? To mask their political and ideological investment agenda CalPERS board members use phrases like “triple-bottom line.” As The Institutional Investor explained in July 2011 the “triple bottom line” would “incorporate environmental, social and corporate governance concerns – so-called ESG issues – across the Sacramento-based plan’s entire $232.2 billion investment pool.”

CalPERS’ head of corporate governance, Anne Simpson, at a conference earlier this year hosted by the Investor’s Network on Climate Risk, reiterated enforcing ESG issues: “The theme of the day is how to move from warm words to action, to the realm of the practical, going to meetings and signing letters isn’t going to do anything unless we move the money.”

Past examples of ESG values influencing CalPERS investments highlight the dangers of alternative motives for investing other than profits. Prior to their “triple bottom line” strategy, in 2000, CalPERS and CalSTRS launched the “Double Bottom Line” initiative, which included social activist and tobacco-free investment policies. CalSTRS later revealed that its tobacco investment ban had lost the plan $1 billion in gains and in 2008 conceded that it “could no longer justify” avoiding tobacco stocks.”

[click to continue…]

Connecticut Government Focuses on Non-Union Worker Collective Bargaining “Options”

by Trey Kovacs on February 16, 2012 · 1 comment

in Labor

Yesterday, the next step toward Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy completing his scheme to force unionize personal care attendants took place. CTNewsJunkie.com reported:

The four-member Personal Care Attendant Working Group adopted a series of “options” Wednesday that will allow the state to move forward with plans to allow personal care attendants to collectively bargain for their salary and benefits. Personal Care Attendants take care of low-income disabled individuals through a Medicaid waiver system operated by the state.

The final report does not recommend a specific union or specific process for unionization. The daycare providers covered by Malloy’s executive order No. 9 have already voted to form a union. The personal care attendants have not.

That’s right, the government created another level of bureaucracy, the Personal Care Attendant Working Group, to issue “options” for collective bargaining to workers who are not unionized.

The Working Group’s report recommends:

The final report does not recommend a specific union or specific process for unionization. The daycare providers covered by Malloy’s executive order No. 9 have already voted to form a union. The personal care attendants have not.

The report, which no one had a copy of at the meeting, recommended that personal care attendants be covered by the State Employee Relations Act for the purposes of legislation. However, it said they would not considered state employees and would not have access to the state employee pension plan. Instead, a group would be formed to represent them in negotiations with the state.

[click to continue…]

Michigan SEIU Scam the Product of Government Collective Bargaining

by Trey Kovacs on January 30, 2012 · 1 comment

in Features, Health and Illness, Healthcare, Labor, Regulation

Proponents of government collective bargaining view it as a fundamental human right. The shameful actions of SEIU in Michigan, however, undermine this claim.

In 2005, Michigan lawmakers signed off to create the Michigan Quality Community Care Council (MQC3). MQC3 maintains a registry of homecare providers to assist Medicaid recipients looking for a caregiver. In reality, the primary function of MQC3 was to make 45,000 private homecare providers government employees and dues-paying union members.

In 2006, SEIU took advantage of Michigan law deeming homecare providers government employees. To gain exclusive representation SEIU organized a covert union campaign. The stealth-organizing tactic led to 20 percent voter turnout and SEIU won a landslide victory.

Soon thereafter, SEIU obtained a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the state. The events following the CBA expose the dangers of government union political influence and permanence of CBAs.

MQC3, acting as a “dummy” employer for homecare workers, created a mechanism for union dues to be siphoned off Medicaid checks. Not only is it illegal to unionize homecare workers who are private contractors, homecare workers already have employers: their Medicaid beneficiaries. Worse, the scheme wholly rejects the purpose of Medicaid by diverting funds from individuals who cannot afford medical care to Big Labor.

[click to continue…]

Celebrate National School Choice Week

by Trey Kovacs on January 23, 2012

in Personal Liberty

This week, a collaboration of over 200 organizations will hold the second annual National School Choice Week.

National School Choice Week highlights the need for effective education opportunities for all children. To highlight the importance of school choice and educational outcomes, numerous special events, activities, and media coverage are taking place to inform individuals of all educational opportunities available to students. The week allows a mix of alternative education groups to relay their message: allow individuals the freedom to choose the best educational setting to achieve success.

The Franklin Center is live blogging from around the country promoting National School Choice Week, highlighting states making inroads toward school choice.

The Association of American Educators (AAE) is premiering their teacher choice in action video in honor of National School Choice Week. On January 23 at the Columbia Club Indianapolis, AAE and Indiana Public Charters Associations will present the film. AAE’s film examines teachers who have taken the educational path less traveled. The video portrays teachers from a variety of settings: online, parochial, charter, and traditional schools. Here’s the promo:

To get involved with National School Choice Week, click here. Find participating groups to attend an event near you.

Big Labor Political Influence Does Not Make Union Bosses Labor Experts

by Trey Kovacs on January 11, 2012

in Odds & Ends

A well-known fact is Big Labor’s powerful political influence. According to Opensecrets.org, five of the top 10 all-time federal campaign political donors are unions. AFSCME ranks third overall and is the top union donor, contributing $46,380,898 since 1989, with 94 percent of funds going to Democrats.

However, Big Labor spending does not correlate to unions having a wealth of knowledge concerning labor law.

Today, Heritage Foundation Senior Policy Analyst James Sherk points out pro-union supporters’ primary argument against right-to-work is legally groundless. He provides an example of Big Labor ignorance of labor law, citing District 7 United Steelworkers Director Jim Robinson as an example of Big Labor ignorance of labor law:

Under a right-to-work law, people could withdraw from the union and wouldn’t have to pay anything. But we are still obligated by federal law to represent them like we would represent a member.

Sherk counters Mr. Robinson’s argument, referencing a Supreme Court ruling and federal law.

Federal law does not obligate unions to represent non-members. The National Labor Relations Act allows unions to sign “members’ only” contracts that apply only to dues-paying members. This is legally uncontroversial. In 1938, the Supreme Court expressly upheld union’s ability to negotiate only on behalf of members. As William Gould, chairman of the NLRB under President Clinton, wrote, “the law now permits members-only bargaining for employees” — unions can exclude non-members from their contracts.

They rarely do. Instead, unions typically negotiate as “exclusive bargaining representatives.”

[click to continue…]

Governor Dayton’s Baleful Influence on Labor Relations

by Trey Kovacs on December 21, 2011 · 3 comments

in Labor, Politics as Usual, Regulation

Minnesota State Senator Mike Parry (R-Waseca) recently caused a stir with strong accusations against Governor Mark Dayton. “It’s no secret that the labor unions helped buy the Governor’s Office for Mark Dayton… he began to return the favor, most recently by trying to help unionize some of Minnesota’s in-home, private child care providers,” said Parry in a fundraising letter.

Sen. Parry’s allegations elicited a strong reaction from Dayton, who called it “inaccurate and deeply offensive.” A review of the facts, however, shows that the real reason the governor is so upset: the truth hurts.

Unionizing Child Care Providers

Since 2005, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) have been trying to organize child care providers Minnesota. Associated Press found that AFSCME wrote a $125,000 check to Gov. Dayton’s Recount Fund once restrictive campaign contribution limits ceased. Combined AFSCME and SEIU PACs contributed $14,000 to Dayton during his campaign. The Minnesota Family Council calculates that Big Labor stands to gain up to $3.3 million a year in dues from unionizing child care providers.

On November 15, Gov. Dayton issued Executive Order 11-31, calling an election to unionize all licensed, registered, and subsidized child care providers in the state. In defense of his order, the governor claimed that holding a union election would ensure that union membership would be “voluntary” and that child care providers not eligible to vote for unionization would be unaffected. Opponents countered that union dues will be compulsory and costs will rise.

For the most part, child care providers are self-employed. So how could they be unionized? Dayton and the unions have a simple solution: declare them state employees because they receive state aid to serve needy children. Under their view, anyone who receives any form of state aid qualifies as a state employee.

To push back against this power grab, on November 28, a group of 11 child care providers sued to block Dayton’s executive order, arguing that it violates state and federal laws. The National Labor Relations Act and Minnesota Labor Relations Act do not allow employers to form, join, or assist labor organizations.

The Minnesota Labor Relations Act indicates that a union cannot gain exclusive representation of workers, unless a majority of workers choose union representation. Dayton’s mandate blatantly violates that provision, as it excludes a majority of child care providers from the voting process. Only 4,300 government-subsidized providers will cast ballots, but a vote for unionization could also force the state’s 6,700 non-subsidized child care providers into a union.

As a result of the suit, Minnesota District Court Judge Dale Lindman issued an injunction to postpone the union election. He stated that laws must be passed by the legislature and remarked that the order “strikes me as being very harmful to the parties that are involved.”

However, Judge Lindman’s injunction has not dampened Governor Dayton’s commitment to unionize Minnesota child care providers. Gov. Dayton vowed to continue his effort to unionize child care providers and to challenge the court injunction.

As it stands now, child care in Minnesota is among the least affordable and most heavily subsidized in the nation. The National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies study shows it can cost up to $12,900 to care for one infant per year in Minnesota.

Becky Swanson, a child care provider for 18 years and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, commented, “Despite the talking points from the governor and union organizers, unionization will affect all childcare providers, but only a select group of providers is being allowed to vote. Since Minnesota is a ‘fair share’ state, non-members can still be required to pay a portion of union dues.” The concerns raised by child care providers have not been answered by either the governor or the unions.

[click to continue…]

← Previous Entries