LaborPains.org

In his syndicated column summarizing Congress’s “achievements” in 2007, writer George Will includes this round-up of what was done on behalf of organized labor:

Bruce Raynor, president of the union Unite Here, expressed organized labor’s compassionate liberalism when he urged sparing workers the burden of democracy: “There’s no reason to subject workers to an election.” The House agreed, voting for “card check” organizing that strips workers of their right to a secret ballot when deciding for or against unionization of their workplace. Senate Republicans blocked this, but the Senate Democrats voted to cripple the Department of Labor agency that requires union bosses to explain how they spend their members’ money.

Click here to read the whole depressing tale of a Congress “[h]ell bent on driving its approval rating into single digits.”

We came across an amusing blog post explaining “Santa Claus Is NOT a Teamster.” It seems that after weighing all possible evidence, and claims to the contrary, Santa would not side with the union of Jimmy Hoffa. In short, the blog Bob McCarty Writes says:

Cast aside any of the explanations above and one indisputable fact remains as to why Santa Claus would never join the Teamsters: He’s management!

That’s good for a laugh. But after investigation it turns out this is not all fun and games. Upon picking up a few new holiday CDs this year, we came across a troubling tune from the Barenaked Ladies, who have penned an Elf’s Lament about their working conditions. My goodness, it’s practically Billy Bragg rocking out for Elves rights! First, it seems troublemakers are complaining about Santa’s payscale:

Toiling through the ages, making toys on garnished wages
There’s no union
We’re only through when we outdo the competition

Of course, the Elves Collective will no doubt blame “the Chinese” for driving down wages. But the underlying problem centers around Santa’s Helpers feeling under-appreciated, and their rhetoric is ratcheting up quickly:

We know that we’ve got leverage, so we’ll hand the fat man a beverage
And sit back while we attack the utter lack of our enjoyment

But it’s not just about sticking it “the Fat Man” as the North Pole rabble rouser so rudely calls him. There is a threat to Christmas here, and it’s none too subtle:

It may be tough to swallow, but our threats are far from hollow
He may thunder, but if he blunders, he may wonder where the toys went

It’s pretty obvious the union is softening up Santa with an aggressive PR slime campaign. It will follow up shortly with a half-pinted salt who will make outsized demands, and then there will be union authorization cards and promises of “Double Egg Nog” and seniority schedules and … well, you get the idea. If union bosses can wreck Santa’s workshop, it will be a Yuletide eulogy for Christmas.

One of the Barenaked Ladies’ movement songs was captured here:

… is discussed at the Employer Report Blog.

Pretty low attacking a kosher company just to try to get more dues members. This from Kosher Nexus:

The Union that had called thousands of Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn and elsewhere with a fictitious claim (confirmed by USDA officials) that food produced by Agriprocessors in Postville, IA was unsafe was rebuffed by a federal appeals court. In another blow to the credibility of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) International Union, a federal appeals court has overturned a decision by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and ruled that Smithfield’s security personnel did not mistreat employees who worked for a cleaning contractor during a November 2003 protest at its Tar Heel, North Carolina plant. The union has been using the discredited NLRB decision to bolster its claim that Smithfield abused and assaulted employees at the plant. Smithfield Packing Co. is America’s leading pork producer.

When it rains, it pours: this follows another lawsuit filed against UFCW for its aggressive tactics and allegedly false claims during its attacks on business.

Always good to see democracy carried out on terms best for the body politic. In unrelated news, the Los Angeles Times reports this morning:

As Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez sought the endorsement of two major labor unions for his plan to overhaul healthcare in the state, he added several provisions to the legislation sweetening the deal for union members, including millions of dollars for better benefits and worker training.

The changes came soon after the unions donated more than $1 million combined to an initiative sponsored by Nuñez that would extend numerous lawmakers’ terms, including his own.

You knew the deal would benefit officials of the politically powerful Service Employees International Union, and the Times is sure to make note:

The legislation as approved gives unions unilateral authority to create and operate trust funds to provide employee healthcare, taking the power to negotiate away from the county agencies that employ the workers. The amendment was sought by the Service Employees International Union.

A taxpayer advocate was left, reasonably, dissatisfied:

“We were waiting for the payoff to show up,” said Jerry Flanagan, healthcare policy director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, a Santa Monica-based nonprofit that believes the Nuñez plan will be too expensive for some consumers. “It’s really remarkable, in terms of the express aiming of this money toward two particular unions.”

We’ve had plenty to say to about former Sen. John Edwards because we believe his current stance on stealing secret ballots from working Americans is just … plain … wrong. The folks over at Deceiver.com, a website that looks at celebrity hypocrisy, has some thoughts on Mr. Edwards. We send you there — to a post titled “Two Americas” (One You’re Married to, and One You Knock Up) — without comment.

For our purposes, it’s simply occasion to remember that in Edwards’ America, the “one America” won’t have the right to a secret ballot when deciding whether they want a union at their company.

Abuse by union bosses of their members tends to take the form of stealing money. But a longtime Teamsters official has been accused of directly harming his members by forcing them to work for him. The New York Times has the story:

The former president of a New York area Teamsters local was arrested on Tuesday on charges that he forced his union members to do work for him personally, including building a new roof on his country home, squiring his daughter to her yoga class and setting up a Christmas tree at his Manhattan apartment.

The onetime union leader, Anthony Rumore, extorted “personal services” from members of his union for nearly 15 years, officials of the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan said. According to a federal indictment handed up on Tuesday, the members complied with Mr. Rumore’s demands because they feared being fired from their jobs.

The details are sure to embarrass. Rumore is accused of making his members:

• Mow his lawn
• Clean his gutters
• Erect a tent for a family party
• Drive his daughter around before a wedding

Then there’s this reminder:

The charges against Mr. Rumore come as another labor leader, Brian M. McLaughlin, prepares to go on trial next year in the same Manhattan courthouse. Mr. McLaughlin, a former president of the New York City Central Labor Council, was charged last year with “illegally obtaining” $2.2 million from taxpayers, labor unions, contractors and even his own former Little League team in eastern Queens. 

As unions throw campaign cash around like it’s confetti, the New York Times‘ top labor reporter, Steve Greenhouse, makes an interesting point over at his blog:

If Mr. Obama wins in Iowa –­ and things are of course extremely fluid at the moment –­ many union leaders may say that they made the wrong bet just as many did after endorsing Dick Gephardt in 2004. He was trounced in the Iowa caucuses.

Yes and how many elections must one union lose, before you can it a union …