Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Unione Europea

Sindacati verso la estinzione. In Europa -13.9% iscritti in meno.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-19.

Brüghel il Vecchio. La parabola dei ciechi.

Lo European Trade Union Institute ha rilasciato il seguente documento:

Bleak prospects: mapping trade union membership in Europe since 2000

«This report details shifts in trade union membership and density in 32 European countries since 2000, with a particular focus on the age structure within trade unions. The report uncovers substantial variations in unionisation rates, with the least unionised countries in the 2000s having largely stayed at the bottom of the ‘unionisation league’ in the 2010s and countries with higher incidences maintaining their positions further up. Overall, however, membership and density rates are declining in most countries, particularly Central and Eastern Europe, and they are also ‘greying’. With the loss in membership going hand in hand with a decrease in revenues, it remains to be seen how and to what extent trade unions will address the membership and generational challenges.»

*

«Membership of trade unions has dropped

13.9 percent across Europe since 2000»

Molti sono i moventi di questa decrescita. In Europa stanno diminuendo a vista d’occhio i grandi stabilimenti industriali, sede tipica della sindacalizzazione. La piccola e media industria è decisamente meno sindacalizzata, e moltissimi lavoratori cercano di evitare l’iscrizione per sottrarsi al pagamento della quota.

Poi, i classici collegamenti che intercorrevano tra sindacati e partiti di sinistra stanno venendo a meno con la disaffezione dell’Elettorato versi queste componenti politiche.

La situazione è riassunta bene nel seguente Report:

Will trade unions survive in the platform economy? Emerging patterns of platform workers’ collective voice and representation in Europe

«Via a non-exhaustive mapping of various examples in Western European countries, this Working Paper explores to what extent the collective representation and voice of digital platform workers are being shaped by current dynamics in the platform economy. The argument is developed that currently emerging patterns hint at a possible co-existence or combinations of mainstream trade unions and other unions and union-like organisations defending platform workers’ needs and interests. Patterns in representation forms reveal a demarcation between the logic of membership and the logic of influence. Though not new, this demarcation has become more exposed, prevalent and salient since the platform economy, also in highly institutionalised labour markets. The Working Paper also emphasises that any meaningful analysis of the representation and voice of platform workers should consider the diversity of platforms and the associated variance in the power resources of platform workers.»

*


EU Observer. 2019-05-15. Trade union membership drops 13.9 percent in Europe

Membership of trade unions has dropped 13.9 percent across Europe since 2000, according to a new study from the European Trade Union Institute. Some 24 of the 32 countries surveyed showed a drop, with the biggest being Slovakia, at 43.7 percent, followed by Estonia, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia, and Latvia. The biggest increases came in Iceland (10.9 percent), Italy, Norway, Malta and Belgium.

Annunci
Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Unione Europea

Macron. La polizia indagata sulle violenze del 1° maggio.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-07.

Macron Merkel Parigi

«French authorities are investigating riot police over three incidents of alleged violence towards May Day protesters in Paris.»

*

«Videos taken during clashes between police and protesters have been circulating on social media»

*

«One appears to show an officer insert a truncheon into a protester’s trousers on the Boulevard du Montparnasse.»

*

«In another an officer is seen slapping a protester while a third shows an officer hurling a paving stone.»

*

«Inspectors are investigating each incident at the request of Paris police chief Didier Lallement»

*

«Interior minister Christophe Castaner said “there will be punishment” if any officers are found to be at fault. He has himself faced calls to resign, after critics said he had spread “fake news” in accusing protesters of an “attack” on La Pitié-Salpêtrière hospital in Paris.»

*

«When Mr Castaner accused protesters on Thursday of attacking the hospital, hospital managers also spoke of staff having to block protesters at the door of the Pitié-Salpêtrière intensive care unit»

* * * * * * * *

Sono oramai molti mesi che i Patrioti scendono in piazza a dimostrare contro la Presidenza Macron.

Nell’ultimo sondaggio YouGov di fine aprile, solo un modestissimo 26% degli Elettori approva l’operato di Mr Macron: tutti gli altri lo disapprovano.

Oramai è da tempo che Mr Macron ha terminato il suo giro per la Francia per raccogliere i cahiers de doléances. Ma nessun provvedimento pratico è stato ancora preso.

La piazza non la si combatte a manganellate.

In piazza ci sono Cittadini Patrioti, nonché Elettori.

Se è logico che un governo intenda mantenere l’ordine pubblico, altrettanto logico sarebbe che il governo cercasse almeno di rimuover i problemi che hanno trascinato in piazza persone inferocite dal malgoverno.

«Macron responds to gilets jaunes protests with €5bn tax cuts.

President recognises protesters’ demands but vowed to still liberalise the economy.

Emmanuel Macron has vowed to make his style of politics more “humane”, but insisted he would press on with his project to liberalise the French economy and overhaul its welfare state despite five months of demonstrations by gilets jaunes (yellow vest) anti-government protesters.

In his first press conference in two years as president, Macron promised €5bn (£4.3bn) worth of cuts to income tax for lower and average earners as well as pension rises for the poorest and vowed no more schools or hospitals would be closed during his presidency, as he responded to protests. ….» [The Guardian]

Troppo poco, troppo tardi.

Gilets jaunes : gifle, pavé lancé… Des policiers mis en cause, quel acte 25 ?

Non ci si lamenti di manifestazioni troppo vivaci: ci si lamenti invece dell’incuria di questa presidenza che privilegia esclusivamente i ricchi.


Bbc. 2019-05-04. Paris May Day protests: Riot police probed over ‘assault’ videos

French authorities are investigating riot police over three incidents of alleged violence towards May Day protesters in Paris.

Videos taken during clashes between police and protesters have been circulating on social media.

One appears to show an officer insert a truncheon into a protester’s trousers on the Boulevard du Montparnasse.

In another an officer is seen slapping a protester while a third shows an officer hurling a paving stone.

Inspectors are investigating each incident at the request of Paris police chief Didier Lallement, reports say.

Interior minister Christophe Castaner said “there will be punishment” if any officers are found to be at fault.

He has himself faced calls to resign, after critics said he had spread “fake news” in accusing protesters of an “attack” on La Pitié-Salpêtrière hospital in Paris.

What the videos show

The videos were filmed as riot police were faced with May Day protests on Wednesday that involved gilets jaunes (yellow-vest) protesters and far-left “black-block” militants as well as traditional union marchers.

Journalist David Dufresne, who has highlighted allegations of police violence since the gilets jaunes protests began last year, posted the footage on his Twitter feed.

In one video, filmed on the Boulevard du Montparnasse, a protester is surrounded on the ground by CRS riot police and one appears to insert his truncheon inside the back of his trousers.

In another incident, a man is slapped twice in the face by an officer while a woman with him is pushed around.

Why is minister under pressure?

When Mr Castaner accused protesters on Thursday of attacking the hospital, hospital managers also spoke of staff having to block protesters at the door of the Pitié-Salpêtrière intensive care unit.

Paris May Day protests: Shock over hospital break-in

Macron unveils yellow vests reforms

Yellow vest violence returns to Paris

Who are the ‘gilets jaunes’?

The large teaching hospital is in the 13th arrondissement (district) in central Paris, near Place d’Italie, where police used tear gas to disperse demonstrators on Wednesday.

The minister said on Thursday that “black block” anti-capitalist militants were responsible for an “attack” on the hospital, where Princess Diana died in 1997.

On Friday, Mr Castaner accepted he “should not have used the term” attack but maintained that protesters did enter the hospital, and instead called it a “violent intrusion”.

“I have no problem recognising that I misspoke,” he told reporters.

Edouard Philippe told reporters he had “confidence” in Mr Castaner, saying he was “right” to correct his initial statement.

What really happened at the hospital?

Hospital director Marie-Anne Ruder told French media on Thursday that protesters – including some with masks and some gilets jaunes – were “violent and threatening” when they entered the hospital’s grounds.

Videos show protesters rushing through the gate closely followed by police. Some climb the outdoor staircase towards the intensive care unit amid an atmosphere of panic, as nurses shout “this is intensive care”.

“It was more like they were fleeing something,” said nurse Mikael Matos, who insisted none of the protesters wore a mask.

“We didn’t feel attacked or in danger,” Gwenaëlle Bellocq told Le Figaro, adding that while their arrival came as a surprise, the group listened to the medical team very quickly.

Police arrested 32 people, all of whom have now been released while investigations continue.

Traditionally a union-led day of action in France, the 1 May event was marked by clashes in which protesters smashed shop windows and threw projectiles at the more than 7,000 officers deployed in Paris.

They echoed the weekly “yellow-vests” protests that have swept France since last November, shaking the government of French President Emmanuel Macron.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Sindacati pubblici, democratici, annientati. Ridotti del 90%.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-04-12.

Supreme Court

Trump. La Suprema Corte libera i lavoratori dalla malversazione dei sindacati.

La Suprema Corte degli Stati Uniti di America aveva rilasciato la sentenza 16-1466.

Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees

«The State of Illinois’ extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment; Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209, which concluded otherwise, is overruled.»

*

«Illinois law permits public employees to unionize. If a majority of the employees in a bargaining unit vote to be represented by a union, that union is designated as the exclusive representative of all the employees, even those who do not join. Only the union may engagein collective bargaining; individual employees may not be represented by another agent or negotiate directly with their employer. Non­members are required to pay what is generally called an “agency fee,” i.e., a percentage of the full union dues. Under Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209, 235–236, this fee may cover union expenditures attributable to those activities “germane” to the union’s collective-bargaining activities (chargeable expenditures), but may not cover the union’s political and ideological projects (nonchargeable expendi­tures). The union sets the agency fee annually and then sends non­members a notice explaining the basis for the fee and the breakdown of expenditures. Here it was 78.06% of full union dues.»

* * *

In breve, i sindacati americani avevano imposto a tutti i dipendenti, non solo agli iscritti, il pagamento di una tassa a loro favore. Questa decisione era stata giudicata legale e costituzionale dalle Corti di livello inferiore, per cui la questione è stata alla fine sottoposta al giudizio della Suprema Corte, che ha rigettato simile procedura, giudicandola non costituzionale, oltre che ‘iniqua’.

«Two dozen states have required agency fees. The ruling means that the estimated 5 million non-union workers for state and local governments who have paid these fees can stop»

*

«Here it was 78.06% of full union dues»

I sindacati si spendevano allegramente quelle cifre per finanziare i loro piani politici, che coincidevano con quelli dei liberal democratici, trattenendo non poco per finanziare le loro misere tasche.

«[to] cover the union’s political and ideological projects (nonchargeable expendi­tures).»

* * *

In sintesi, i sindacati introitavano illegalmente cifre da capogiro che poi spendevano per la campagna elettorale dei liberal democratici.

La Corte Suprema ha messo fine a codesta manfrina illegale.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Nel breve volgere dei sei mesi è successo quello che doveva succedere.

«The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees saw a 98 percent drop from the prior year»

*

«The Service Employees International Union lost 94 percent of their agency fee payers»

*

«The Mackinac Center is one of several conservative groups running campaigns urging public employees to consider dropping out of their unions»

*

«These agency fees represented 70 to 80 percent of union dues and were forcibly removed from the pay checks of public workers who wanted nothing to do with far-left unions that spend billions of dollars every year to elect Democrats»

* * * * * * *

I sindacati american restano ancora una grande potenza ed una macchina elettorale a favore del liberal democratici.

Però questo colpo è davvero duro.

Se ne sono andate molte più persone di quanto loro si fossero aspettati. Quasi tutti.

*


Mass Exodus of Public Union Fee Payers After High Court Ruling

– Supreme Court forbade mandatory nonmember fees

– Unions, opponents eye effect on membership rolls

*

Two major public sector unions lost nearly 210,000 agency fee payers combined in 2018, according to recently filed reports showing the impact of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that prohibits forcing nonmembers to pay for collective bargaining and other nonpolitical expenses.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees saw a 98 percent drop from the prior year, leaving 2,200 agency fee payers. The Service Employees International Union lost 94 percent of their agency fee payers, reducing the number of agency fee payers to 5,800.

The disclosure reports filed with the Labor Department last week provide an early snapshot of ramifications of the high court’s June 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, which said mandatory agency fees in the public sector violate nonmembers’ First Amendment rights. Agency fees typically amount to 75 to 85 percent of full union dues.

The two main public teachers unions similarly lost their fee payers following the ruling, according to government reports and union representatives.

While the immediate and near total exodus of fee payers from public sector unions was expected, the long-term impact of the Janus decision will likely be measured in how many members quit. The ruling allows public employees in unionized workplaces to benefit from collective bargaining without paying anything.

“Most agency fee payers left,” said Patrick Wright, vice president for legal affairs at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a conservative advocacy group. “The big question going forward is how many full members are going to join them.”

The Mackinac Center is one of several conservative groups running campaigns urging public employees to consider dropping out of their unions.

The early returns show little change in AFSCME and SEIU membership numbers. AFSCME gained by more than 9,000 non-retired members in 2018, about a 1 percent gain over the previous year. The SEIU lost nearly 4,500 non-retired members, which represents a 0.3 percent drop. …..

*


Nolte: Public Unions Lose over 90% of Non-Member Dues After SCOTUS Ruling

Two powerful, left-wing public unions lost over 90 percent of non-member fees after the Supreme Court ruled against forcing non-members to pay union dues.

In other words, until June of 2018 we lived in a country where public sector workers who chose not to join their respective unions were still forced to pay union dues, which are called agency fees.

These agency fees represented 70 to 80 percent of union dues and were forcibly removed from the pay checks of public workers who wanted nothing to do with far-left unions that spend billions of dollars every year to elect Democrats.

The Supreme Court ruled that these mandatory union dues violated the free speech of non-members, who had been forced through these un-American agency fees to contribute to political campaigns they wanted no part of. ….

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo

Sindacati. I numeri veri e quelli falsi della disfatta.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-09-11.

2018-09-08__Sindacati__001

I sindacati hanno svolto un ruolo storico che sembrerebbe essersi avviato all’esaurimento.

Come tutti i fenomeni sociali può essere valutato da differenti punti di vista: ciascuno individua alcuni punti concretamente reali, e nessuno potrebbe essere considerato del tutto esaustivo del fenomeno.

Prima di cercare di darne qualche interpretazione logica, sarebbe opportuno disporre di qualche numero.

* * * * * * *

Premettiamo che i dati relativi al numero degli iscritti è un dato finora secretato. Poi, circolano i numeri più disparati: talora ingigantiti per millantare un peso politico che non si ha più, oppure sminuiti per cercare di minimizzare le stime degli introiti percepiti dalle quote sindacali esatte sia su stipendi sia su pensioni.

La Confederazione Sindacati Autonomi Lavoratori, Confsat, ha pubblicato il Report

Quanti sono gli iscritti al sindacato in Italia? Sono oltre 3 milioni quelli fantasma.

«Quando la stampa e gli enti di studio e di ricerca nazionali e internazionali vogliono illustrare degli articoli sui temi del lavoro e sui sindacati in Italia danno in genere la cifra complessiva di 14,8 milioni, somma degli iscritti dichiarati da Cgil, Cisl, Uil e Ugl. Questa cifra è, a oggi, quella ritenuta ufficiale. Ma è una cifra sbagliata per due motivi: anzitutto, non tiene conto di altre forze sindacali esistenti che, se in parte sono numerose e di piccole dimensioni, in parte si sono irrobustite e organizzate diventando vere e proprie confederazioni. E’ il caso della Confsal che oggi presenta i dati sulla consistenza della propria rappresentanza e rappresentatività. Il secondo motivo per cui la cifra è sbagliata è che, procedendo a un semplice ragionamento con i dati certi di cui disponiamo, a cominciare da quelle degli iscritti ufficialmente dichiarati, i conti non tornano, e non di poco: si tratta di oltre 3 milioni di iscritti in più, limitandoci a considerare le 5 confederazioni Cgil, Cisl, Uil, Ugl e Confsal. Vediamo.

Iscritti dichiarati dalle 5 confederazioni (2010)

CGIL 5.748.269

CISL 4.542.354

UGL 2.377.529

UIL 2.184.911

CONFSAL 1.818.245

TOTALE 16.671.308

PARZIALE

Altri sindacati 3.176.639

Totale 19.847.947».

*

Se questo dato fosse corretto sarebbe inesplicabile, essendo la forza lavoro totale in Italia di circa ventitre milioni (22,903,000), lavoratori autonomi compresi.

«Il tasso di sindacalizzazione in Italia

Per proseguire il ragionamento va tenuto presente che il tasso medio attuale di sindacalizzazione in Italia è del 33,8 per cento (fonte “Corriere della Sera”, articolo di Sergio Romano, maggio 2011, con dati Cnel).

A questo punto, togliamo dai 22.903.000 lavoratori attivi i lavoratori del pubblico impiego ottenendo la cifra di 19.650.000 (vedi Tabella C), che rappresenta il numero complessivo dei lavoratori del privato. Come si vede nella tabella, applicando il tasso del 33,8 per cento su questo numero otteniamo il valore massimo di lavoratori del privato iscritti al sindacato: 6.641.700. Ma gli iscritti del privato dichiarati dalle sole 5 confederazioni risultano essere, come da Tabella B, 8.623.585 rappresentando – sempre in rapporto ai 19.650.000 totali – il 43,8 per cento, come valore minimo.

C’è un 10 per cento di differenza, che sui 19.650.000 lavoratori attivi del privato significa 1.965.000 lavoratori in più!

Ora, se sommiamo 1.275.051 pensionati iscritti eccedenti, precedentemente calcolati, a questo 10 per cento in più sui lavoratori attivi del privato abbiamo ben 3.240.051 iscritti dichiarati in più.»

* * *

Facendo però riferimento alla Tabella pubblicata, qui riportata in fotocopia, gli iscritti ai sindacati sarebbero 16,671,308, dei quali 6,967,126 pensionati, anche se Inps ne certifica solo 5,682,075. Il numero degli iscritti pensionati sarebbe quindi (100 * 6,967,126 / 16,671,308) = 41.79% del totale.

Ma se come affermerebbe l’Inps il tasso di sindacalizzazione dei lavoratori fosse del 30%, ci si aspetterebbe un numero totale di iscritti al sindacato di poco superiore ai sei milioni, non certo diciassette milioni.

Come sempre succede in questi casi, il vero oggetto del contendere è solo questione di vilissimo quanto bramato denaro.

Come conseguenza di codesto chaos si è arrivati, faticosamente, al Testo unico sulla rappresentanza, sottoscritto da Confindustria, Cgil, Cisl e Uil il 10 gennaio 2014, in base al quale spetta solo all’Inps il computo del numero degli iscritti ai sindacati.

* * *

Questa situazione kafkiana trova alcune spiegazioni pensando agli interessi di vile bottega, due dei quali sono auto evidenti.

– la legittimazione a negoziare contratti collettivi nazionali di categoria viene riconosciuta alle organizzazioni sindacali che raggiungono la soglia minima di rappresentatività del 5%, determinata sulla base della capacità associativa (totale degli iscritti) e della forza rappresentativa (tra tutti i lavoratori anche non iscritti) di ciascuna organizzazione sindacale;

– l’iscrizione ai sindacati comporta una trattenuta per quota associativa su stipendi e pensioni. Cifre a nove zeri.

*

Senza aver gonfiato il numero degli iscritti ben pochi sindacati potrebbero lecitamente sedersi a tavoli di trattative, pur essendo la quota minima stabilita al 5% di rappresentatività.

Infine, cinque milioni e mezzo di pensionati continuano a versare la quota di iscrizione detratta dalle loro pensioni. È una cifra totale che è riferito raggiunge e supera i seicento milioni all’anno: una gran bella cifra. Ben si capisce come l’Inps abbia avocato a sé il compiuto del numero esatto degli iscritti.

* * * * * * *

I sindacati dei lavoratori dovrebbero meglio chiamarsi i sindacati dei pensionati, rappresentando questa categoria il 41.79% degli iscritti. Non a caso la oramai flebile voce dei sindacati difende a spada tratta i pensionati e con grande morigeratezza gli iscritti ancora attivi.

*

Demoskopica ha rilasciato un interessante report: La mappatura regionale della rappresentanza sindacale.

Essendo il testo coperto da copyright e regolarmente commercializzato, lo segnaliamo per senza citarne i contenuti, dei quali terremo però conto nell’esposizione che segue.

Faremo quindi riferimento alla stampa citabile.

In fuga dal sindacato: -450mila iscritti in 2 anni

Il sindacato italiano continua a registrare un calo del consenso. In soli due anni, le principali organizzazioni sindacali hanno perso complessivamente circa 450mila iscritti. Una contrazione, che poteva manifestarsi in forma ancora più allarmante se non fosse per la Uil che ha fatto registrare, al contrario, un incremento, seppur non particolarmente rilevante. I numeri non lasciano spazio a dubbi: dal 2015 al 2017, i tesserati hanno subito una contrazione di 447mila persone, di cui ben 293mila residenti nelle realtà regionali del Mezzogiorno.

E’ quanto emerge dall’Indice di appeal sindacale (Ias) ideato dall’Istituto Demoskopika che, analizzando il periodo 2015-2017, ha tracciato una classifica delle regioni in relazione all’attrattività delle principali organizzazioni dei lavoratori sul territorio. Due gli indicatori utilizzati: gli iscritti ai sindacati di Cgil, Cisl, Uil e le persone di 14 anni e più che hanno svolto attività gratuita per un sindacato. È la Cgil a registrare il maggiore decremento con un calo di ben 285mila iscritti, seguita dalla Cisl con meno 188mila tesserati. Per la Uil, andamento in controtendenza: circa 26mila iscritti in più nell’arco temporale osservato.

Piemonte, Valle d’Aosta e Campania si collocano in coda alla graduatoria delle regioni ‘più sfiduciate’ dalle organizzazioni sindacali. Al contrario, sul podio delle regioni a maggiore appeal sindacale si posizionano Basilicata, Toscana e Sicilia. Circa 574mila italiani over 13 anni, pari soltanto all’1,2% della popolazione di riferimento, infine, hanno dichiarato di aver svolto attività sociale gratuita per un sindacato nel 2016 con un decremento di oltre 9 punti percentuali rispetto all’anno precedente.

* * * * * * *

Cerchiamo di tirare delle conclusioni.

Il declino dei sindacati segue di pari passo quello dei partiti della sinistra.

Non riescono ad attrarre i giovani lavoratori e la loro base pensionata va incontro alla naturale dipartita.

Sono oramai non più a lungo idonei come forza politica.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. La Suprema Corte libera i lavoratori dalla malversazione dei sindacati.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-06-28.

2018-06-28__Trump_Sindacati__001

La Suprema Corte degli Stati Uniti di America ha rilasciato la sentenza 16-1466.

Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees

«The State of Illinois’ extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment; Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209, which concluded otherwise, is overruled.»

*

«Illinois law permits public employees to unionize. If a majority of the employees in a bargaining unit vote to be represented by a union, that union is designated as the exclusive representative of all the employees, even those who do not join. Only the union may engagein collective bargaining; individual employees may not be represented by another agent or negotiate directly with their employer. Non­members are required to pay what is generally called an “agency fee,” i.e., a percentage of the full union dues. Under Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209, 235–236, this fee may cover union expenditures attributable to those activities “germane” to the union’s collective-bargaining activities (chargeable expenditures), but may not cover the union’s political and ideological projects (nonchargeable expendi­tures). The union sets the agency fee annually and then sends non­members a notice explaining the basis for the fee and the breakdown of expenditures. Here it was 78.06% of full union dues.»

2018-06-27__Trump_Suprema_Corte__002

* * * * * * *

I sindacati americani avevano imposto a tutti i dipendenti, non solo agli iscritti, il pagamento di una tassa a loro favore. Questa decisione era stata giudicata legale e costituzionale dalle Corti di livello inferiore, per cui la questione è stata alla fine sottoposta al giudizio della Suprema Corte, che ha rigettato simile procedura, giudicandola non costituzionale, oltre che ‘iniqua’.

I liberal democratici sono impazziti di rabbia impotente.

Il motivo è semplice, semplicissimo, e ben poco ha a che fare con ideali altisonanti.

«Two dozen states have required agency fees. The ruling means that the estimated 5 million non-union workers for state and local governments who have paid these fees can stop»

In poche parole, i sindacati leveranno circa tre miliardi in meno.

Ma questa cifra rappresenta il 78.06% delle entrate sindacali.

«Here it was 78.06% of full union dues»

Ma allora, per quale motivo un così assordante urlo di dolore dei liberal democratici?

Semplice, elementare.

I sindacati si spendevano allegramente quelle cifre per finanziare i loro piani politici, che coincidevano con quelli dei liberal democratici, trattenendo non poco per finanziare le loro misere tasche.

«[to] cover the union’s political and ideological projects (nonchargeable expendi­tures).»

Il fatto che la sentenza scriva

“to cover the union’s political and ideological projects”

è una mazzata nei denti dei voraci liberal.

*

«Neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a nonmember’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay»

* * * * * * *

Quanto il colpo sia arrivato diritto e secco al mento dei liberal è testimoniato dallo scomposto quanto irato editoriale del The New York Times.

«If you wanted to measure just how different the Supreme Court is with the addition of Neil Gorsuch instead of Merrick Garland — who should be sitting in Justice Gorsuch’s seat but for the outrageous machinations of Senate Republicans — read the court’s Monday ruling in Epic Systems v. Lewis.

The case involved claims by workers at three companies that their employers underpaid them. The companies’ employment contracts required their workers to pursue any pay disputes in arbitration rather than in a regular court, and to do so individually — which is prohibitively expensive for most workers.

Following a line of business-friendly decisions involving arbitration, the court ruled 5 to 4 for the employers and their bars against class actions even in arbitration. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, joined by the four other conservatives.»

Denominare:

«outrageous machinations of Senate Republicans»

l’operato del Senato degli Stati Uniti, liberamente eletto in libere elezioni, condensa tutto l’ideologia liberal, rivoluzionaria, sovversiva, tirannica, di giacobina ascendenza. Sono una stirpe da estirpare.

*

Mr Trump sta ottenendo una serie impressionante di successi.

Anche i lavoratori derubati dai sindacati vanno a votare.

The Supreme Court Did Workers a Favor. [Bloomberg]

«On its surface, the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Epic Systems v. Lewis, handed down Monday, looks like a significant defeat for workers. In ruling that companies can require employees to resolve contract disputes through arbitration, rather than class-action lawsuits, the Court limited the ability of workers to band together in court to pursue overtime and other statutory claims. Yet Epic Systems may well prove beneficial to workers, a qualified blessing in disguise.

Class actions enable lawyers to bring suits on behalf of large numbers of similarly situated claimants. The Epic Systems decision, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, rejects a 2010 attempt by the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency dealing with union organization and collective bargaining, to prohibit non-union employers from using so-called “class action waivers” in employment contracts»

*

The Supreme Court Sticks It to Workers, Again [The New York Times]

«If you wanted to measure just how different the Supreme Court is with the addition of Neil Gorsuch instead of Merrick Garland — who should be sitting in Justice Gorsuch’s seat but for the outrageous machinations of Senate Republicans — read the court’s Monday ruling in Epic Systems v. Lewis.

The case involved claims by workers at three companies that their employers underpaid them. The companies’ employment contracts required their workers to pursue any pay disputes in arbitration rather than in a regular court, and to do so individually — which is prohibitively expensive for most workers.

Following a line of business-friendly decisions involving arbitration, the court ruled 5 to 4 for the employers and their bars against class actions even in arbitration. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, joined by the four other conservatives.»

*

Supreme Court delivers blow to organized labor in fees dispute [Reuters]

«WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday dealt a blow to organized labor, ruling that non-members cannot be forced in certain states to pay fees to unions representing public employees such as teachers and police, shutting off a key union revenue source. ….

The 5-4 ruling, with the conservative justices prevailing and the liberal justices dissenting, overturned a 1977 Supreme Court precedent that had allowed so-called agency fees that are collected from millions of non-union workers in lieu of union dues to fund non-political activities like collective bargaining.

The court ruled that forcing non-members to pay these fees to unions whose views they may oppose violates their rights to free speech and free association under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

“This case was nothing more than a blatant political attack to further rig our economy and democracy against everyday Americans in favor of the wealthy and powerful,” public-sector unions including the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the union directly involved in the case, said in a statement.

Two dozen states have required agency fees. The ruling means that the estimated 5 million non-union workers for state and local governments who have paid these fees can stop. Agency fees do not involve federal employees or private-sector workers.»

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Unione Europea

Francia. Macron. Scioperi delle ferrovie.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-04-05.

2018-04-03__Macron__001

Odoxa ha pubblicato un interessante sondaggio sulla popolarità del presidente Macron.

Se il 54% dei francesi considera che il Presidente Macron non sia un buon Presidente della Repubblica, la stratificazione dell’opinione è davvero singolare.

2018-04-03__Macron__002

Solo il 3% di quanti si riconoscono nel partito del presidente Macron non lo considera idoneo, ma uno schiacciante 96% ne approva appieno il comportamento politico. È questo un risultato molto raro nella storia dei sondaggi politici.

Il giudizio è negativo quando si considerano gli Elettori dei partiti di opposizione, ma un buon 36% dei simpatizzanti della sinistra ne condivide la politica economica.

*

Macron. Gran bella mazzata le elezioni di Pontoise.

Macron. Tra il dire ed il fare ci sono di traverso 180 scioperi annunciati.

«France’s rail network has been severely disrupted, as a wave of strikes against President Emmanuel Macron’s labour reforms gets under way»

*

«The unions say some of the plans to overhaul the heavily indebted SNCF would pave the way for its privatisation»

*

«If the strikers are to be respected, the millions of French people who want to go to work, because they have no choice, because they want to go to work, must also be respected»

* * * * * * * *

Questa ultima frase riassume e sintetizza molto bene il dramma degli ultimi decenni, per non dire secolo.

È difficile, molto difficile, affermare che un sistema sia effettivamente democratico quando ad una quota numericamente ed economicamente marginale di esso è consentita la potestà di bloccare il funzionamento di tutta la nazione. È un puro e semplice atto dittatoriale, a matrice rivoluzionaria: una piccola minoranza impone con la violenza la propria volontà alla maggioranza.

Adesso assistiamo al braccio di ferro tra sindacati e Presidente Macron.

Una cosa sembrerebbe però emergere.

Mr Macron potrà dire e fare ben poco nell’Unione Europea fino a tanto che non avrà assunto un controllo politico ragionevole della Francia.


Bbc. 2018-04-03. France strike: Rail misery as three-month action tests Macron

France’s rail network has been severely disrupted, as a wave of strikes against President Emmanuel Macron’s labour reforms gets under way.

The start of the strike has been dubbed “Black Tuesday”, but the action will spread over three months, affecting two days in every five.

Staff at state railway SNCF are leading the strike, but the energy and waste collection sectors are also affected.

The unrest presents Mr Macron’s biggest challenge since his election last May.

The unions say some of the plans to overhaul the heavily indebted SNCF would pave the way for its privatisation.

But Prime Minister Édouard Philippe denied this, saying the proposals aim to change the status quo that was “no longer tenable”.

In parliament, he added: “If the strikers are to be respected, the millions of French people who want to go to work, because they have no choice, because they want to go to work, must also be respected.”

SNCF warned that major disruptions were expected on Wednesday.

How is the strike taking hold?

With the four main rail unions observing the strike, services have been severely curtailed. Some 77% of SNCF drivers were believed to be on strike. The company said 34% of its staff overall were striking.

Commuter lines into Paris have also been slashed and bus services have been hugely overcrowded. Some stations were crammed for the few trains available, others were deserted.

The website that measures car traffic around the capital recorded about 420km (260 miles) of jams at rush hour.

How this could affect your train journey (in French)

International services are more sketchily affected. Eurostar has 75% of trains running and the Thalys services to Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany are almost normal, but there are no services to Spain, Switzerland or Italy.

Employees of Air France, who are demanding a 6% pay rise, are into the fourth day of industrial action. The airline is operating 75% of its flights.

Travellers across Europe suffered more disruption as up to 15,000 flights across the continent were facing delays due to a technical problem.

Eurocontrol, which runs the EU’s air traffic system, said the fault in the system had been identified and that moves were under way to return the situation to normal.

Unions have also called out all rubbish collectors, to push for the creation of a national collection service and better retirement options. Workers blockaded some waste treatment plants.

Energy sector unions have also called strikes to demand, among other things, an end to the liberalisation of the energy markets and a review of deregulation.

Thousands of students are also reportedly taking part in the strikes, in opposition to the toughening up of university entry regulations.

——

Can Macron face down the strikers?

Analysis by the BBC’s Hugh Schofield in Paris

There are three reasons why President Macron feels relatively optimistic about the rail strike.

First, unlike in the last massive (and successful) general strike in 1995, this time there can have been no mistaking the government’s intention to reform. Neither the public nor SNCF staff can pretend the planned changes come out of the blue. They are clearly part of the broad reform agenda for which Mr Macron was elected.

Second, there is far less automatic sympathy for the SNCF than there used to be. The level of rail services has declined sharply, especially for commuters, who are as a result more open to calls for reform.

Third, new options have opened up for commuters. There is home-working; car-pooling; expanded coach services. This should make it easier for workers to get round the inconvenience.

All that said, these will be tense weeks for the government. Nerves are going to fray. People will get angry. Daily life will not be easy. In these circumstances, plans can go badly awry. A wrong move and public opinion could easily shift back behind the strikers.

——

What is the strike about?

SNCF workers enjoy generous conditions, including automatic annual pay rises, early retirement, 28 days of paid annual leave and protection from dismissal. Their close relatives are also entitled to free rail tickets.

The Macron government wants to phase out the special SNCF contracts, proposing to put new hires on contracts like those that apply elsewhere in industry.

The aim is to open up the state railways to competition from 2023, in line with EU requirements. SNCF has €46.6bn ($57.5bn; £40bn) of debt.

French unions strike over labour reforms

Macron launches overhaul of labour laws

Macron’s meteoric rise – in-depth analysis

The rail unions also feel their action goes beyond rail workers’ conditions and marks a major test of union clout.

Just over 11% of the French workforce is unionised – one of the lowest levels in the EU – but the unions traditionally punch above their weight, economically and politically.

“We’re defending the French public service, not just rail workers,” said Emmanuel Grondein, head of union Sud Rail.

Mr Macron’s Republic On The Move party also feels the strike has wider connotations. “We need to rid this country of its strike culture,” spokesman Gabriel Attal said.

Opposition to Mr Macron’s agenda was shown on 22 March, when tens of thousands of teachers, nurses and other workers joined rail staff on strike.

The BBC’s Lucy Williamson in Paris says many union members see Mr Macron as the man who wants to break the power of the unions.

But strikes in September failed to stop Mr Macron passing laws that make it easier for firms to hire and fire, and the majority of the public are opposed to industrial action this time.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti, Trump

USA. Suprema Corte libera 5 mln di lavoratori dai contributi forzosi ai sindacati.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-02-26.

Supreme Court

I liberal democratici stanno versano lacrime dense di disolfuro di allile. I sindacalisti americani invece aggiungono alle lacrime il diallil tiosulfonato: sono sempre più raffinati dei politici.

La Suprema Corte di Giustizia degli Stati Uniti ha fermato la pratica per cui i sindacati imponevano il pagamento delle quote anche a quanti non fossero iscritti.

Cinque milioni di lavoratori taglieggiati. Cinque milioni di voti in più per i Repubblicani.

Manco a dirlo, i giudici liberal avrebbero voluto mantenere questa norma.

*

Nel dare il mesto annuncio, Reuters chiama in perfetto stile liberal i giudici della suprema corte:

«Conservative Supreme Court justices»

*

Orbene. Quando la Suprema Corte era a maggioranza liberal democratica aveva approvato ogni sorta di nefandezza giuridica sul diritto familiare, legalizzando ogni possibile depravazione come cosa buona e santa.

Allora le sentenze emesse erano sacre ed inviolabili: chi le avesse criticate era un anti-democratico, come minimo.

Adesso che la Suprema Corte ha mutato indirizzo le sue sentenze sono miserabili soprusi.

*

«Depriving unions of agency fees could undermine their ability to spend in political races. They typically back Democratic candidates over Republicans.»

*

«In a case that could weaken the finances and political clout of organized labor, conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday indicated strong support for stopping millions of dollars in fees that non-members are forced to pay annually to unions representing public employees.»

*

«But the justice whose vote is likely to decide the case, President Donald Trump’s appointee Justice Neil Gorsuch, remained silent throughout the one-hour argument. His reputation as a staunch conservative suggests he will join his fellow conservatives in an eventual 5-4 ruling against the unions.»

*

«The court’s liberals expressed sympathy toward retaining the so-called agency fees. Workers who decide not to join unions representing police, teachers, firefighters and certain other state and local employees must pay the fees in two dozen states in lieu of union dues to help cover the cost of non-political activities such as collective bargaining. »

*

«Roughly 5 million public-sector workers pay such fees. A Supreme Court ruling disallowing these fees would deal a setback to an already-diminished American organized labor movement, taking away a vital revenue stream from unions and undercutting their ability to attract new members.»

* * * * * * * *

Hanno ben donde al pianto i liberal democratici.

Se anche assassinassero domani il Presidente Trump, tanto questi ha preso alcuni provvedimenti dai quali sarebbe ben difficile tornare indietro.

Con la nomina di Sua Giustizia Gorsuch la Suprema Corte per almeno trenta anni sarà a maggioranza repubblicana.

Poi:

Trump. I liberal democratici pagheranno la riforma fiscale federale.

Trump. Il piano infrastrutturale da 1,500 mld Usd.

Trump il Grande. Il Senato approva il taglio delle tasse.

Trump il Grande. La riducendo le tasse aumentano stipendi, pensioni ed investimenti. 2,800 miliardi.

Trump il Grande. Adesso nel collimatore c’è il deep state.

Quale politico si azzarderebbe mai a reintrodurre 1,500 miliardi di tasse?


Reuters. 2018-02-26. Conservative Supreme Court justices take aim at union fees

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – In a case that could weaken the finances and political clout of organized labor, conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday indicated strong support for stopping millions of dollars in fees that non-members are forced to pay annually to unions representing public employees.

But the justice whose vote is likely to decide the case, President Donald Trump’s appointee Justice Neil Gorsuch, remained silent throughout the one-hour argument. His reputation as a staunch conservative suggests he will join his fellow conservatives in an eventual 5-4 ruling against the unions.

The court’s liberals expressed sympathy toward retaining the so-called agency fees. Workers who decide not to join unions representing police, teachers, firefighters and certain other state and local employees must pay the fees in two dozen states in lieu of union dues to help cover the cost of non-political activities such as collective bargaining.

Roughly 5 million public-sector workers pay such fees. A Supreme Court ruling disallowing these fees would deal a setback to an already-diminished American organized labor movement, taking away a vital revenue stream from unions and undercutting their ability to attract new members.

Dumping the fees would require the Supreme Court to overturn a 41-year-old precedent that allowed the payments.

Lawyers for Mark Janus, the Illinois state child-support specialist who is the plaintiff in the case, argued that forcing non-members to pay these fees to unions whose views they may not share violates their rights to free speech and free association under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. A lower court ruled against Janus, setting up the Supreme Court showdown.

Conservative justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito were particularly forceful in questioning the lawfulness of the fees, based on the notion that collective bargaining is in essence a political activity. Unions argue that their political activities are separate from negotiating contracts.

“If you do not prevail in this case, the unions will have less political influence. Yes or no?” Kennedy asked union lawyer David Frederick.

“Yes, they will have less political influence,” Frederick said.

“Isn’t that the end of this case?” Kennedy said.

Kennedy suggested that negotiations between states and unions at the bargaining table have a direct impact on public policy, which can include bigger government budgets, increased public debt and higher taxes.

“Doesn’t it blink reality to deny that that is what’s happening here?” Kennedy asked.

Alito focused on the right of non-members not to be forced to subsidize speech they disagree with, calling this a more serious problem than restricting speech.

“When you compel somebody to speak, don’t you infringe that person’s dignity and conscience in a way that you do not when you restrict what the person says?” Alito said.

Liberal Justice Elana Kagan stressed how disruptive a ruling against the unions would be, leading to thousands of labor contracts being renegotiated, striking down laws in various states and affecting “the livelihoods of millions of individuals.”

“When have we ever done something like that? What would be the justification for doing something like that?” Kagan asked.

SIMILAR CASE IN 2016

The justices heard a similar case in 2016, and had appeared ready to throw out the fees and overturn the high court’s 1977 precedent that allowed them. But the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia then left the court with an even split of conservatives and liberals, and its 4-4 decision in March 2016 failed to settle the legal question.

Republican President Donald Trump’s appointment of Gorsuch last year restored the Supreme Court’s 5-4 conservative majority.

A ruling is due by the end of June.

Unions contend that mandatory agency fees are needed to eliminate the problem of what they call “free riders” — non-members who benefit from union representation, for example through salary and working conditions obtained in collective bargaining — without paying for it.

Janus, the plaintiff, opted not to join the union that represents employees like him, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and sued the union over the fees.

Federal employee unions cannot collect agency fees. A ruling against the unions would not directly affect private sector unions.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared to favor the argument made by unions and states defending the fees that the government has a compelling interest in allowing unions to represent workers, in part because it provides a mechanism for labor disputes to be resolved.

“Why isn’t that a compelling interest?” she asked.

Depriving unions of agency fees could undermine their ability to spend in political races. They typically back Democratic candidates over Republicans.

Dueling groups of protesters gathered outside the white marble courthouse ahead of the argument.

Union-backed protesters held signs saying “America needs union jobs,” while those supporting the challengers had signs saying “stand with Mark,” a reference to the plaintiff in the case, Illinois state worker Mark Janus.