Today in the Legislature, union-owned Assemblyman Charles Calderon, D-Whittier, expressed outrage at Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, after Grove stated the obvious -- that Democratic legislators are owned by organized labor. The impetus was a union-backed bill that would make it more difficult for Wal-Mart to open stores in California, which drew the ire of Republicans who called it a "job-killer." On Wednesday, Democrats essentially blasted Republicans as racist for supporting a resolution calling on the federal government to reimburse the state for the cost of illegal immigration. That wasn't out of line, apparently, but the Dems are angry -- and insisting that Grove broke Assembly protocol -- over the thought that anyone would criticize how beholden they are to the labor unions. There's lots of huffing and puffing from both sides, but how can Democrats even muster faux anger over this one?
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://www.publicsectorinc.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/445
2 Comments
Join the conversation
Related Entries:
- Do unions give members their money's worth?
- Public sector unions and the fiscal cliff
- Michigan introduces right-to-work legislation
- NJ tells towns, school districts to start sharing costs
- Voting on the right to privatize
- What explains California's wimpy business leaders?
- Tough nerd gets no love
- The GOP and the cities
- Charter cities could lead the way to reform
- They can't be serious
- Another sign of California public sector excess: nearly six-figure meter maids
- Competence is a more appropriate standard for public servants than excellence
- Judge rebukes unions' attack on voting rights
- Oakland will gladly pay you Tuesday for a public pension today
- Project labor agreements on the rise in Massachusetts
How ridiculous. If every Democratic Assemblyman who (a) accepted campaign contributions from the Unions AND (b) voted favorably for Union-supported pensions were excluded from the Assembly .... there would be ZERO Democrats in the Assembly.
The question should not be whether the Democratic Assemblymen are in the Union's pocket, but WHY this quid-pro-quo .... accepting campaign contributions and election support in exchange for favorable votes on pay, pensions and benefits is not criminal bribe-receiving.
With the Central Falls,Ri. Chap 9 cutting all pensions,including retirees, by up to 50%,the public unions will be screaming for blockades to Ca. cities filing for Chap 9. Also,the new Calpers 100% plus penalty for a city to terminate from Calpers,will cause hundreds of citys' to seek the Chap 9 option. So we will see which legislators let cities hang in the wind?