Who’s freezing your raise?
May 17, 2012 at 9:12 pm in Accountability, GAN, House, John B.T. Campbell III, Marco Rubio, News, Senate, Todd Rokita by Greyson Peltier 6 Comments
If you’re part of a union, the collective bargaining agreement may be tying your employer’s hands.
Have you ever wondered why the guy in the cubicle next door gets paid the same as you for lower quality work? According to James Sherk of The Heritage Foundation, collective bargaining agreements were originally designed to keep employers from paying too little to their employees, not from paying more to better performing ones. But, he claims, the agreements often contain provisions that prevent employers from giving individual workers increases in pay.
The Rewarding Achievement and Incentivizing Successful Employees Act (RAISE Act) was introduced by Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN) in the House and Marco Rubio (R-FL) in the Senate. RAISE prohibits CBAs and federal union regulations from creating provisions that stop employers from giving individual employees increases in pay. According to Rokita the bill would not allow employers to discriminate based upon union membership in giving those raises, per existing National Labor Relations Board rules. If passed, the law would only apply to new CBAs and CBAs renewed after the RAISE Act is enacted.
“The denial of raises to deserving employees goes against our American tradition of individual achievement. Since our country’s founding, our free enterprise system has encouraged a unique work ethic by allowing people to be rewarded for doing good work. The distortions caused by labor agreements and backed up by lopsided federal regulations have created an uneven playing field for millions of American workers,” said Rokita in a Washington Examiner op-ed column.
The bill has over 50 co-sponsors, all of whom are Republican. North Orange County Conservative Coalition Co-Founder Desare Ferraro questions why no Democrats have co-sponsored the RAISE Act. “Isn’t it utterly hypocritical of the Left-wing Dems not to support this bill? They are constantly claiming to be the voice of fairness for the average worker.”
In contrast, Frying Pan News editor Steven Mikulan says the bill has not gained traction on the Democrat side due to a lack of crises. “You can gauge just how urgently this bill is needed by asking yourself when was the last time you even got a Christmas bonus, let alone a raise on the down-low.”
Co-sponsor Rep. John Campbell (R-CA) says that unions see this as a loss of control and thus will not back it. “If labor bosses supported giving workers more opportunity to increase their earnings, they would have done so through collective bargaining.”
Campbell believes the bill will not only increase business productivity and help workers, but also increase the quality of public services. “The principles inherent in the RAISE Act are very applicable to the public sector. A performance-based pay system that rewards deserving employees would serve as motivation for higher quality and more efficient work.” Ferraro agrees, adding “There may be no better social experiment to demonstrate the adverse effects of union pay agreements than what has been done to the profession of teaching. Once inspired individuals with a desire to educate our children, teachers are now forced into this system of Collective Bargaining. It often removes any ambition or motivation to perform beyond average, acceptable standards.”
To contact Rep. Campbell, call 949.756.2244 or visit http://campbell.house.gov.
Greyson Peltier covers Representative John Campbell for Government Accountability Network, he can be reached at greyson.peltier@tppjournalism.org
This looks like bully policy. It makes it much easier for bosses to single out employees without fear of reprisal. The very reason collective bargaining exists is to empower the work force to air its grievances against an unfair employer. Besides, the raises aren’t coming because George W spent like a drunken sailer while he was in office, committed us to two expensive wars, and cut taxes rather than raise them. Any student of history knows that during World War II taxes where very high for the wealthy, because the capital the country was producing needed to be used for the common good. Now the capital is being used by private interests to divide us. Workers need not feel they should compete at their jobs, but feel secure in their job. If that is not your goal, then you care little for your fellow citizen.
Thank you for your comment. I just wanted to point out that, as stated in the article, the law does not allow employers to cut pay or change worker treatment practices (including those related to termination) stipulated in the CBA. The only change is the ability to offer employees who perform better than others financial consideration for doing so.
It is also worth noting that the USA already has higher taxes than most other countries but the funds, in our opinion, are being squandered to the point where we can no longer trust that they are being used to promote the common good.
As a drunken sailor I take offense to this comment. I only spend money that I have earned. I have never spent someone else’s hard earned cash on my partying. Obama has spent more money in 3 years then bush spent in 8. I am so sick of people turning a blind eye when there guy does the same thing as the other guy they couldn’t stand, all because the have a D or an R at the end of there name.
Like the song goes….. “meet the new boss…same as the old boss”
$250,000 and above 1,699 1.50% 98.50% (from US Census) earn in excess of $250,000.
It is not the rich it is Congress. The Senate and House are some of the highest wage earners. The reason the US is broke is because of over spending by Congress and the Presidents in all areas. There are 1699 people making over $250,000 a year. We just have too many laws and regulations period. We need a fair tax which everyone pays.
Unions were first organized to improve dangerous working conditions not as collective bargaining tools for increase guaranteed pay.
there is a slight flaw in your logic Bob. While the numbers from the census may be accurate, what the census data does not show are the numbers of persons earning over 250K who use the tax code to their advantage, and pay less than those who work just as hard, and make less than 250k. Because they are not business owners, and do not have the same tax advantages, these persons who make under the 250k levels actually do PAY OUT more in taxes than do those who make over 250K. It’s a fact of life, and one that I can’t say I blame those who make over 250k for taking advantage of. I’m sure that if those who made under the magical 250K number could take advantage of the tax breaks that are available to business owners, they would. This is the reason that many fiscal conservatives realize that the only real equitable tax system is a flat CONSUMPTION tax. It is fair and equitable because it closes loopholes that allow those who earn more to pay less. It also eliminates penalizing those who are more productive. Those who are more productive get to keep the rewards of their productivity rather than loose the rewards to increased taxation. Taxes based on products consumed are more equitable because they spread the taxation out based upon what is used. Those who earn less naturally consume less. Those who earn more and have more disposable income purchase more consumer goods, It balances the burdens more evenly.
Oh yeah and spending increased under Reagan at rates higher than any president before him.