LaborPains.org

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters may have driven 1250 car-hauling union members right out of their jobs. The stalemate over contract terms and pay cuts has brought Performance Transportation Services, who delivers cars for such companies as General Motors and Ford Motor Company, to a standstill.  While union heads remain resolute in the strike, average union members are looking at the unemployment line:

Even a one-day strike could force the company to liquidate, [PTS Chief Executive Jeff] Cornish said. “The longer this goes on, the more chance the Teamsters are going to extinguish their own jobs and all the other jobs at PTS.”

While the strike is crippling PTS, it is failing to have any measurable impact on the industry:

The impact on the automakers has so far been minimal. Cornish said that union and non-union haulers were picking up PTS’ work.

Is a strike that is closing a company, losing union members’ jobs, and not having any measurable effect on the industry really protecting union workers?

Image from westbound.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and this one from PolitickerME.com is no exception:

A recent article posted on Forbes.com argues that the U.S. Supreme Court might be the last line of defense against labor unions’ Employee Free Choice Act powerplay:

Even if Democrats sweep Congress and the White House in November, the chamber and other business groups appear to have an ally in the Supreme Court.  In several cases last year, the court ruled in favor of business interests, including several decision that limit frivolous lawsuits against employers.

As early as next week, the court could rule whether a federal labor law pre-empts California’s prohibition against employers using state money to deter union organizing campaigns. With many winds in Washington blowing in Big Labor’s favor, business groups are hoping the justices come out on their side once again.

Wow! Check out this video of New Hampshire’s Democratic Senate candidate Jeanne Shaheen totally botching her response to a constituent’s question about labor unions’ plans to eliminate workplace democracy by destroying the 60-year-old tradition of electing unions by a private ballot election.

In addition to the passage of a resolution suggesting that current SEIU members will have to sacrifice pay raises for the “cause,” the SEIU had other signs of trouble at its convention. Specifically, SEIU local leader Sal Rosselli had a lot to say about the SEIU’s “Unity Resolution”:

Al Franken seems to have gone into hiding, a peculiar way to run for the United States Senate.  Despite his claim to be a man of the people, Franken has all but vanished from public appearances.

Oh sure, he’ll do media interviews, he might even show up at tightly controlled partisan Democrat events, or those of his very liberal supporters, but getting up close and personal with Minnesotans, not so much.

Beyond his well documented vulgarity troubles, which go far beyond what is appropriate for this family blog, Franken probably wants to hide because he’s so out of touch on so many issues.  He’s so beholden to liberal special interests that he just doesn’t want to face Minnesotans left behind by his left-wing agenda.

Take the issue of card check, the union power grab that will take away the right of Minnesota workers to have a private ballot in a union organizing election.  Franken’s salute to the 21 unions that have endorsed him has left Minnesota workers out in the cold.  If I had taken away such a fundamental right from Minnesota workers, a right that 95% of Minnesotans – that’s right 95% – support, I guess I might hide, too.

Meanwhile, when Franken receives the DFL Party endorsement on Saturday, how will he be elected?  By secret ballot.  The DFL Party apparently still believes in democracy, even if one of its primary constituency groups, Big Labor, and most of its candidates and elected officials, do not. 

Maybe after he’s endorsed – by private ballot – this weekend, Al Franken will come out of hiding and tell Minnesota workers why he wants to take away their fundamental right to a private ballot in union organizing elections.  Then again, I wouldn’t count on it.

Union bosses have a beef with free speech. They are trying to pressure Maine television stations to pull our ads. Apparently they don’t want Mainers to hear the truth about labor leaders’ history of harassment, politics, and forced dues.

Thankfully, one television general manager responded to the union leaders with a dose of chutzpa:

You write in your letter that Maine “… is a place where we honor each other’s right to freedom and liberty.” I agree with you, which is why these spots are airing. Defense of free speech is not dependent on whether or not I agree with the its content.