(From Representative Dwayne Alons “Capitol Comments”)
In the recent hearing at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Neal K. Katyal, the Acting Solicitor General, made several shocking statements in defense of ObamaCare’s outrageous intrusion into private citizens’ affairs. Those admissions will doubtless play a major role in the court’s decision at this level and, eventually, at the United States Supreme Court.
The first oral arguments challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) were given at the federal appeals level. Matt Staver, representing Liberty Counsel, was up against Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice (DOJ) and their virtually unlimited resources.
In arguments that this so-called health insurance “reform” law redistributes wealth among private parties to achieve an alleged humanitarian ideal at an unacceptable cost and is not authorized by the Constitution, the DOJ’s response was, “The federal government can mandate anything it wants!” The Acting Solicitor General, also, acknowledged that the law was unlike any other law in American history. He also admitted that he believed Congress COULD force individuals to buy certain kinds of food, for instance, wheat! By the government’s own admission, if ObamaCare is upheld Congress would no longer have any limitations on its regulatory power. Today it is health insurance, but tomorrow it could be food, transportation, housing, or whatever! Truly astonishing and CHILLING!
This would be socialism for America, at its worst, with Big Government as the CEO of every business and the dictator of all private choices. Hopefully the courts will be able to uphold the Constitution on this massive legislation because our divided government at the federal level does not seem to be able to move in that direction.
(From Representative Dwayne Alons “Capitol Comments”)
Debbie Winsteen was the 2008 Teacher of the Year in a western state! In 2009, she was laid off because she didn’t have enough seniority to keep her job during a lay off period. Wait a minute….the “Teacher of the Year” and the school board wasn’t allowed to consider her abilities, successes, and impact with students when deciding who would be laid off. The only tool for the school board was a seniority system that measured how many days she’d been teaching or how many days she’d been a member of a collective bargaining unit? Understandably, seniority many times is the key quality of a great teacher, although it should be called “experience.” I feel experience should be weighed with abilities, results and other measureable attributes.
How much should employees pay as their share of health insurance premiums? The amount currently paid ranges from zero $$ to hundreds of dollars per month. During our investigation we found one category of workers that paid no premium for their health insurance. With very few exceptions, city workers, county workers, teachers and private sector employees all paid something, many paying up to 30% of the cost, so they would not be impacted by this bill. It was determined that 84% of Iowa’s state employees paid zero (including state legislators). It seemed reasonable to ask those employees, and all government hierarchy to pay at least $100 per month. The total premium for a government offered family plan can reach $17,000 – $22,000 each. My healthcare plan currently costs the state $872.56/month as an individual plan.
Another issue was “ability to pay”. “Ability to pay” means that arbitrators can no longer agree to contracts that would force the school district or local government to raise taxes or reduce services in other areas in order to pay for new employment contracts. The arbitrator must NOW consider the “ability of the government entity to pay” with the amount of money they have available, and not force them to raise property taxes.
Union members have said for years, “We shouldn’t have to represent members that get the benefit of our union negotiations, yet they do not pay union dues. The bill provided that these non-union employees could become Free Agents, which would completely sever them from union benefits and protections. The Free Agents would be 100% at-will employees, and would survive on their own merit.
There were many ideas offered for discussion, but the issues listed above were the driving issues for HSB 117, later numbered HF 525, but always called “The Chapter 20 Bill”. The issue was volatile, emotional, and could have been very political. Very often, Iowa’s discussion was compared to Wisconsin. Here’s how Iowa was different than Wisconsin:
· The Labor Committee changed the date of the subcommittee hearing so it would occur on the same day as the labor protest at the capitol, so those labor union members would have a chance to voice their opinion and talk directly to legislators who were drafting the bill.
· The Labor Committee debated the bill from Thursday afternoon through Friday morning Feb. 25 at 6:15 a.m., reviewing over 50 amendments to the bill.
· The Iowa House held a public hearing where over 50 Iowan’s took the opportunity to share their concerns with legislators.
· The bill was debated on the House floor on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday morning, Mar 11.
Wisconsin eliminated all collective bargaining items; Iowa law allows bargaining for wages, hours, vacations, insurance, holidays, leaves of absence, shift differentials, overtime compensation, supplemental pay, seniority, transfer procedures, job classifications, health and safety matters, evaluation procedures, in-service training, lay-off procedures, and other matters mutually agreed upon. This bill removed ONE provision; “lay-off procedures” from the mandatory bargaining items from Iowa law…ALL other bargaining topics remained!
Although there were many headlines, news casts, protests, debates, emails, and phone calls…what important things did we learn?
In Iowa, when we disagree, we defend our position, but we’re different than Wisconsin because both sides talk to each other, share information, show respect and neither side ran to Illinois to hide from this discussion.
On Monday, March 21 Northey will be speaking to High School students in Ag Education Tours hosted by Dordt College in Sioux Center at noon and then host a town meeting in Rock Rapids at 3 at Farm Bureau. On Tuesday, March 22, he will speak to members of the Farmers Co-op Society in Sioux Center and Sheldon — at the Ridge Golf Club in Sioux Center at 9:30 and then at the Sheldon Community Center at 1:30.
Northey, a corn and soybean farmer from Spirit Lake, is serving his second term as Secretary of Agriculture. His priorities as Secretary of Agriculture are promoting the use of science and new technologies to better care for our air, soil and water, and reaching out to tell the story of Iowa agriculture.
(pasted from www. KIWA radio.com)
Independent Accreditation of Non-public Schools
Iowa is the only state in the union requiring state accreditation of non-public schools. House File 583 makes accreditation voluntary just like 18 other states and would allow non-public schools to be accredited by non-public accrediting bodies. The state education board will maintain a list of at least five approved accrediting agencies, which shall include:
1. The North Central Association Commission on Accreditation and School Improvement
2. The Independent Schools Association of the Central States
3. The Association of Christian Schools International
4. Christian Schools International
5. The National Accreditation Commission of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod
Independent accreditation does not excuse a non-public school from complying with statutory health and safety requirements. The bill passed in the House with a 56-33 vote. Senate action uncertain?
Driver’s Instruction by Teaching Parents
House File 584 allows a parent teaching a student under competent private instruction to teach driver’s education to the student over which they have custody and control. The course of instruction must be approved by the department of transportation and must meet at least the standards taught in public and private schools. Applying for an intermediate license requires a signed form designed by the department showing evidence of completion of the course. Regular requirements apply as far as a driving test for an intermediate license and full licensing is concerned.
After defeating several amendments that would have added additional burdens on home schooling parents, the bill was passed on Wednesday afternoon with a 57-35 vote. Now it is off to the Senate.
This week the House approved a number of substantive education bills, several of which help increase opportunities for homeschooling families, as well as provide choice and local control in the public school system. The first bill acknowledges that we have many good nonpublic schools in Iowa. We are the only state where accreditation for these schools can only be approved by the state department of education. House File 583 allows these schools to seek accreditation from nationally recognized nonpublic accrediting bodies. The state department of education would have to acknowledge that accreditation. I heard from many patrons of nonpublic schools in northwest Iowa who were in favor of this bill, and I was happy to vote for it.
Another bill attempts to deal with the fact that Iowa has among the poorest and most restrictive charter school laws in the country. House File 585 amends the charter school and innovation zone school chapter of Iowa code. It separates the approval process for the two types of schools by allowing charter schools to be approved by the local school board, as opposed to the state board of education. Innovation zone school applications are still to be approved by the state board. It allows more entities to apply to create a charter school, including community colleges, regents universities, nonpublic schools, private colleges, and nonprofits. Current code only allows for a principal, teachers, or parents to apply for converting an existing school into a charter. The bill also allows for the charter to be established in a new building and not just an existing attendance center, as allowed in current code. The bill eliminates the requirement that charter and innovation zone schools comply with Iowa Code chapters 20, collective bargaining, and chapter 279, which deals with the powers and duties of a school district, instead allowing them the option to comply, should they choose. My view is the more freedom infused into the educational system the more creative professionals will be in creating educational opportunities for students.
House File 588 allows parents providing home school education to their children to also teach students that are not related. The bill limits enrollment to no more than four unrelated students. Independent private instruction is exempt from all school-related statutes and rules except compulsory attendance. Additionally, independent private instruction must provide private or religious based instruction as its primary purpose and must provide enrolled students with instruction in math, reading, language, science, and social studies. This allows a way for more than one family to share resources in educating their children.
Finally, House File 584 allows a parent that is home schooling their children to teach driver’s education to their children, as well. The course of instruction must be approved by the department of transportation and meet at least the standards taught in public and private school driver education courses. But some requirements established in the bill are actually at a higher level. For example, the amount of student driving time doubles from 20 hours to 40 hours when the parent is teaching driver’s education.
One more major bill to mention this week is important to our agriculture industry. House File 589, which passed with bipartisan support in the Iowa House, is an effort to modernize offenses related to Agriculture Production Code chapter that was enacted a decade ago. The primary concerns this bill seeks to address are the biosecurity of our animal and crop industry, and the well-being of animals. The bill protects livestock and crop operations against unauthorized destruction, killing or injuring of stock, or disruption of agricultural or biotechnical operations on an owner’s premise. Additionally, it makes it unlawful to produce, posses, or distribute an unauthorized recording at an animal or crop operation created under fraudulent pretenses. Finally, this measure creates a fraud provision to address situations where access to an animal or crop facility are granted by the owner or keeper of the facility on the basis of deceptions that hide the true intent of the person seeking access. This bill does not seek to protect operators who mistreat or neglect their animals, but rather promotes reporting these instances through the proper channels as defined in Iowa law. These channels involve reporting concerns to local, state, or federal authorities which then allows trained investigators to enter the facility unannounced during normal business hours and conduct an investigation that is biologically safe. This is a good bill that protects our vitally important agriculture industry from those who seeks to do it harm.
Track what is going on at the legislature by going to http://www.legis.state.ia.us/ Contact me any time in the Iowa House by calling 515-281-3221 to leave a message, or by e-mail at royd.chambers@legis.state.ia.us Royd Chambers of Sheldon represents House District 5, which consists of O’Brien, Osceola, the rural parts of Clay, and 4 townships in Sioux County.
Royd E. Chambers
Under sunny and warm skies, Tuesday’s 2011 Marriage Rally was a success! Over 500 people assembled on the west steps of the Iowa State Capitol to celebrate marriage, and to call on Iowa Senators to pass HJR6 (the Iowa Marriage Amendment), as approved by the Iowa House in February. Many more prayed and lobbied inside the Capitol.
Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, supported so far by all his Democrat colleagues, continues to block the proposed constitutional amendment, instead of letting the people of Iowa decide. The crowd heard from several outstanding speakers including Pastor Cary Gordon, Reverend Keith Ratliff, Bob Vander Plaats, and former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore. You can listen and watch their presentations at www.TheFamilyLeader.com.
We all need to keep praying, and urging Democrat Senators to “Let us Vote!” Please let your voice be heard now—the Senate “funnel” date is the end of March, so they need to bring HJR6 out of committee in the next 2 weeks. You can find their contact information by clicking here.
This is a tale of two teachers.
Everybody knows a Teacher A and a Teacher B.
Let’s introduce you to hypothetical Teacher A and B, both 4th grade teachers who appear in classrooms all across Iowa.
Each has 15 students in their respective classrooms and have taught ten years with bachelor’s degrees as required by Iowa code. The students in each of their classrooms are from similar backgrounds with comparable abilities. Iowa students, while becoming increasingly more diverse, are still some of the most homogeneous and teachable as compared to anywhere else in the nation.
Teacher A is very dedicated to her profession and students and she recognizes that for them to succeed, they need to develop and master the fundamentals of math, science, reading and social studies. Teacher A utilizes tried and true methods that are responsible for Iowa’s noteworthy heritage in education.
A is very responsive to the needs of the students, often staying after work to help students who have questions and prepare lessons for the days ahead. A is usually available by telephone at home in the evenings and on weekends and identifies struggling students who need extra attention. Teacher A gives routine feedback to the students and parents about academic progress.
Teacher B, while following recommended curriculum, shows movies in class, goes on many field trips and allows students to deviate from the fundamentals to pursue fun activities.
Teacher B is out the door as soon as the bell rings and does not arrive at school until shortly before the first bell in the morning. Teacher B spends weekends pursuing his or her own credentials and exploring the newest untested education fads.
At the end of the year, Teacher A has finished teaching students the fundamental skills and all of her students demonstrate at least one year of academic growth. They are now at 5th grade level and are ready to do 5th grade work.
Teacher B’s students, on the other hand, have not mastered the fundamentals and on average show only about a half of a year’s worth of growth. These students will not be ready for 5th grade material and will only continue to fall behind their peers.
So when it comes time to reward pay raises, how many believe Teacher A will get more money and benefits?
If this were in any other sector of the economy – private sector companies, insurance, small businesses, manufacturing, community banks and others – not only would B be not be awarded with the same pay and benefits, B’s employment status would likely be in question.
But Iowa’s education system is much different.
Since both teachers are represented by union bosses, they get the exact same pay raise no matter how students perform.
Unfortunately, Iowa’s education system is becoming increasingly unfair to both our outstanding teachers and students and threatens the economic strength of our sons, daughters, granddaughters, grandsons.
Because of this system, many of our best teachers become frustrated and quit and it is virtually impossible to remove an underperforming teacher from the classroom.
Iowa’s system has not discouraged the chasing after every new educational fad. We have spent billions of new dollars adopting the latest fads, provided generous teacher bonuses, increased teacher salaries and added technology into the classroom only to see Iowa’s once proud heritage slip because of stagnant or declining student achievement.
It is time to change course and begin to reward teachers based on whether their kids are learning rather than by tenure or credentials bargained for by union bosses.
Not only is it time to pay our best teachers handsomely, it is time to remove teachers from the classrooms who are not performing.
Additionally, we must put the focus back on classroom teachers and eliminate positions not directly dealing with student achievement. We must get back to the true definition and purpose of education.
Iowa’s education system needs dramatic reform, a serious attitude adjustment and a major effort to clean up its act – and soon!
Senate Republicans will continue to work to make changes to our education system, but it is also time for the good teachers of this state, the ones who truly do care, to rescue their noble profession from the union bosses and out-of-touch education elite.
The very kids we are supposed to be educating today – the future of our communities, state and nation – are counting on each and every one of us. It would be a tragedy to let them down.
Paul McKinley
Senate Republican Leader
The House passed a new preschool plan on Tuesday by a vote of 55 to 45. The plan would replace the current preschool plan that has been in place since 2007 and is the result of collaboration between the governor’s office and the department of education.
Debate on the bill carried on for nearly four hours as both sides passionately defended their position. Opponents of the new plan made several claims as to the effectiveness and the popularity of the current preschool plan. It was stated repeatedly that school districts, teachers, and parents who have used the program and received “free preschool” for their children were big fans of the program. It would make sense for those directly benefiting from the program to be fans of it.
But what is being ignored is the fact that over the past three years, as the state has invested over $150 million dollars in preschool, the state has failed in its obligation to fund the other 13 grades that make up primary and secondary education in this state to the sum of $450 million. The governor and the majority party agree the current program is providing some positive results. What they are concerned with is the unsustainable financial course that the current program is on. Without changes the annual costs will soon rise above $100 million per year.
As parents of preschoolers who have benefited from the program and teachers and school districts receiving state money for the program proclaim their approval for the current program, those who are indirectly affected by the program, the taxpayers have recently had their voice heard as well. A poll in the Des Moines Register last week found that while 80% agree that preschoolers should have access to quality preschool, 57% do not believe the state can afford the current plan right now.
The new plan that passed the chamber this week is a fair and balanced middle ground for the preschool program. It continues ensuring quality by using much similar language to the existing program, including some further standards such as requiring participating preschools to meet the quality guidelines of Head Start, the National Association for the Education of Young Children, or Iowa’s Quality Public Preschool Standards. But it ensures this quality while only providing money for those most in need of assistance.
One of the things the bill does is to take the funding off automatic pilot, which is currently funding preschool at 60% of the current state amount per K-12 pupil. This currently equates to $3,529 per child, or nearly $400 per month for 10 hours of instruction per week. Many superintendents felt they could administer the program with less funding, and many private preschools currently charge on average about $150 per month. The new annual appropriation will be determined by the legislature, not by the allowable growth formula. The needs of the program could be assessed yearly and adjusted accordingly. Other states vary wildly on their preschool funding and results. Oklahoma spends nearly $8,000 per child per year on preschool, yet continues to struggle nationally in their K-12 assessment scores. Florida, on the other hand, spends around $2,200 per child, with many attending private preschool programs resulting in continually rising national assessment test scores.
Contrary to debate talking points, the new bill will not lower quality, will not reduce access to preschool, and will not throw out all of the work already done. It still accounts for quality and requires providers to meet minimum standards, requires teachers with bachelor’s degrees and early childhood certification, requires an assessment to track progress, and requires collaboration with other agencies and entities providing early childhood services.
Under the current plan, if a school district chooses not to participate (34 opt out now), then four-year-olds in that district do not have the option to participate in the state’s program. The new program will allow any preschool in a district to make that decision, not just the public school. This will help cover four-year-olds in every district. The new program will enroll preschoolers on a sliding scale of assistance up to 300% of poverty or a $67,000 income for a family of four. The new program will not force private providers to compete with the state at the school district’s discretion. It is a program that gives assistance to those most in need, allows parents a choice of the eligible providers in the district and allows private preschools a stronger voice in the system. The bill goes to the Senate for approval.
Long Overdue Collective Bargaining Reform
House Study Bill 117 is the collective bargaining reform bill that seeks to restore the balance in bargaining between the taxpayer and public unions. Of course, unions and the democrat party claim this is an attempt to end collective bargaining in Iowa, which is not true. This bill leaves alone the vast majority of items that can now be bargained. The list that can still be bargained for includes: wages, hours, vacations, holidays, leaves of absence, shift differentials, overtime compensation, supplemental pay, seniority, transfer procedures, job classifications, health and safety matters, evaluation procedure, in-service training, and other matters mutually agreed upon.
I will try to describe the majority of proposed changes. For example, when negotiations go to arbitration, current law allows an arbitrator to only consider the employer position or the union position without consideration of the taxpayer burden. Among the changes the bill proposes is allowing an arbitrator to choose a position in between the two positions, not just an either-or scenario. One of the biggest fears of management, and the reason to avoid arbitration is the very real perception that, given what an arbitrator is currently allowed to consider, management is likely to lose. I think this is reasonable when the taxpayer is paying the bill.
In addition, the bill proposes that negotiations exclude insurance from collective bargaining. This would allow the state to make all decisions concerning the insurance it provides and the portion for which the state pays. Iowa is one of few states that provide free insurance to its employees. Eighty-four percent of state employees pay no premiums for their health insurance! (That number excludes most K-12 teachers, who do pay substantial amounts for their insurance, and are not “state” employees, just to clarify.) But in the case of state public employees, the taxpayer is forced to pay for what most people in the private sector pay for themselves. The state should be allowed to provide an insurance plan that strikes a balance between fair coverage and taxpayer cost.
Another proposal concerns procedures for staff reductions. This would give the ability for management to make the best decision about who the best employee is and not have to make decisions solely based on seniority.
The concept I am most excited about is the proposed creation of a ‘free agent employee’. This would be an individual who decides that he/she does not want to be represented by a union and would like to bargain their contract individually. When the current collective bargaining law was adopted back in the 1970’s, unions agreed that they would represent ALL employees in a bargaining unit, even if that individual is not a union member. Democrats attempted to force these non-union individuals to pay a ‘fair share fee’ in recent years claiming the union should be paid for services. This bill provides an opportunity for those who do not wish to be represented by a union, to go it alone and waive rights to any representation by the union. This should solve the problem for unions who do not like to bargain for non-union workers. Of course, unions don’t like this because it would destroy their monopoly on bargaining powers.
As the bill moves to the House floor, a public hearing has been scheduled for Monday evening, March 7 at 6:00 p.m. The two-hour hearing will hear from both supporters and those in opposition to the bill.
More Tax Relief for Small Business passes the House
Senate File 209, which couples Iowa tax law to the Federal tax code for changes made between January 1, 2008 and January 1, 2011 passed the House with a vote of 64-34. The Legislature, which has chosen not to couple the past few years, has been a source of frustration not only for taxpayers but for tax preparers as well.
The Federal changes include the repeal of the limitation of itemized deductions, expands the child and dependent care credit, maintains the student loan interest deduction and increases limits on Section 179 expensing for business. In addition, teachers can take a deduction for classroom supplies.
The original Senate File only allowed individuals and corporations to couple with the federal tax code beginning January 1, 2011. The House amended the bill to allow individuals and corporations to couple with tax years beginning on January 1, 2010. In addition, the House amended bill allows businesses to take enhanced bonus depreciation for tax years 2010 going forward.
Enhancing bonus depreciation encourages firms to accelerate otherwise planned investment spending forward – thus giving the economy a much needed boost. Businesses will get deductions for machinery, equipment, software and other items to grow their business. This will help spur job growth all over the state at all income levels. With over 100,000 Iowans still out of work this bill delivers a $311 million lift to the Iowa economy over the next three years. The bill, which also contained appropriation provisions, heads back to the Senate.
(From Heritage.org)
With Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker attempting to rein in the unbalanced power of government unions, and given the fierce stranglehold that union members have on their ever-increasing taxpayer-provided benefits, now is a crucial time for Americans to understand the difference between private-sector and public-sector unions. Collective bargaining in the private sphere—where companies face competition—is a world away from collective bargaining in government—which faces no competition, and where unions have a legal monopoly. Heritage Foundation labor expert James Sherk explains why it is time to restore voter control over elected government, and how it can be done.
Collective bargaining by unions takes place very differently in government than it does in the private sector. Private-sector unions have competitors and bargain over the profits they help create. The government earns no profits. Government unions have a legal monopoly and bargain for a greater share of tax dollars. Collective bargaining in government means that voters’ elected representatives must agree on tax and spending decisions with union representatives.
Collective bargaining also politicizes the civil service. Government unions negotiate contract provisions that force workers to join and subsidize their fundraising. These subsidies have made them the top political spenders in the country. They use that money to lobby for higher taxes and protect their inflated compensation.
America can no longer afford these special-interest subsidies. State and local governments should:
- Restore voter control over government spending by ending collective bargaining with government unions.
- Restore a nonpartisan civil service by ending subsidies for union fundraising and giving workers the choice of paying union dues. Voters should tell the government how to spend their money, not the other way around.
Collective Bargaining: The Process
Under collective bargaining, a union is designated as the employees’ “exclusive bargaining representative.” The employer must negotiate with the union over pay, benefits, and work rules. The employer may not employ workers for anything other than the union-negotiated terms. This gives the union a monopoly on the labor supplied to an employer. Even if other workers would take the job, the employer may not hire them for anything other than union rates.
The Private and Public Sectors. The labor movement grew out of the difficult working conditions of the industrial revolution. The founders of the labor movement saw unions as a way to prevent employers from exploiting workers. They also believed that labor and capital were opposed to one another. They believed that workers and management fought to divide the profits they mutually created. Labor leaders wanted monopoly bargaining power to gain clout to win more of those profits. Competition moderates union demands in the private sector. Unions know that excessive pay makes their employer uncompetitive and puts their jobs at risk.
The government operates very differently. Government employees need not fear exploitive bosses. Since the late 1800s, public employees have enjoyed the protection of civil service laws. The government also creates no profits over which to bargain. Government unions bargain for a greater share of taxes to go to their members. Since the government has no competitors and no profits, unions have little reason to restrain their demands and government has little incentive to resist them. Taxpayers, not government leaders, bear the cost of concessions.
The arguments for unions in the private sector do not apply to government. Up through the 1950s, the union movement recognized and agreed with this analysis. Movement supporters believed, as AFL-CIO president George Meany did, that “It is impossible to bargain collectively with government.”[1] President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who signed the National Labor Relations Act, had the same view. In his words, “the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.”[2]
Strikes Paralyze Public Services. Private businesses have competitors. Consequently, private-sector strikes have a limited effect on the general public. Consumers can buy from another company during a strike. A strike by the United Auto Workers against General Motors does not shut down the auto industry—Americans simply buy cars from Ford or Toyota instead.
The government generally has no competition. The public cannot purchase alternative police; alternatives to public education and mass transit are not accessible to everyone. A monopoly on essential services gives government unions tremendous leverage to force concessions from the public. Unless the voters’ elected representatives give in, they can grind large parts of the economy to a halt.
Unions are willing to use this leverage. Detroit public school teachers went on strike illegally in 2006. The teachers union ignored the Michigan law prohibiting teacher strikes. As a result, 130,000 students started the school year late while the union pressed for concessions.[3] The final contract gave the Detroit teachers raises. In December 2005, New York City transit workers went on strike over a proposal to increase their contributions to their pension plans. The strike paralyzed New York City during the busiest shopping days of the year and cost the city an estimated $400 million a day.[4] The government ultimately agreed to a new contract that did not increase pension contributions.
President Roosevelt deplored the possibility of strikes if government bargained collectively: “A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”[5]
(Read more at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/02/Time-to-Restore-Voter-Control-End-the-Government-Union-Monopoly