LaborPains.org

The Daily News ran an editorial making similar arguments that I’ve made here about how the SEIU’s conflict with other unions is exactly why EFCA cannot be passed.

The SEIU is asking for the federal government to intervene against the NUHW, charging that signing a petition is not a good indication of what workers actually want. Hmmm, does that sound familiar?

Here’s what The Daily News had to say:

The SEIU’s argument for federal intervention is particularly ironic. It maintains that the nearly 100,000 California members who signed cards indicating their wish to be represented by the National Union of Healthcare Workers may have been subject to intimidation by NUHW organizers. This is the same reasoning used by opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act. They contend that elections by secret ballot are necessary because workers can be pressured by union activists into signing authorization cards.

The rest of the editorial goes on to point out the flaws with EFCA. It’s good to see that others are starting to pick up on the amazing display of hypocrisy by the SEIU as it continues to fight with the NUHW and UNITE HERE.

I noted that the UNITE HERE convention would provide a good picture of what to expect from the UNITE HERE-SEIU conflict.  It appears, based on Randy Shaw’s reporting, that the rest of the labor movement is coalescing around UNITE HERE in its fight against the SEIU.

Day One featured a who’s who of labor bosses denouncing the SEIU:

In a dramatic blow to SEIU’s efforts to raid UNITE HERE members and jurisdictions, 15 of the nation’s leading unions pledged Monday to provide UNITE HERE with “material and moral” support. Before a wildly cheering and upbeat crowd of 700, AFSCME President Gerald McEntee denounced SEIU for the “poaching” of UNITE HERE, and for engaging in “piracy on the high seas of organized labor.” Laborers President Terrence O’Sullivan described SEIU’s conduct as “deplorable,” and said “we didn’t join Change to Win to raid and hijack another union’s members.” Change to Win leaders James Hoffa of the Teamsters and Joe Hansen of the United Food and Commercial Workers also pledged support, while Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers (one of the only two international presidents that SEIU claimed back its position) now supports UNITE HERE.

You know a gathering of labor bosses would provide some colorful moments. They did not disappoint:

Terrence O’Sullivan gave the impression that he was willing to enlist in defensive actions against SEIU right after leaving the podium, while Gerald McEntee led a chant describing SEIU’s behavior as “Bullshit!”

Based on the heated words hurled at the convention, it appears that the UNITE HERE-SEIU conflict has turned into most of labor versus the SEIU. What this actually means remains to be seen. If labor bosses are to be taken at their word, expect to see far worse things than what we’ve already seen between the two unions.

Oh, and for good measure, Laborers President Terrence O’Sullivan had this to say in response to the SEIU’s call for binding arbitration:

“There is no goddamm way I’d ever agree to binding arbitration when it comes to the future of my core jurisdiction”

I couldn’t agree more. And I’m sure most of America’s workers and businesses would say the same.

Talks appear to continue to stagnate between management and unions representing BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) workers, increasing the potential for a strike. California sent state mediators – four, an unprecedented number, according to a BART spokesman – to help resolve the situation, but efforts appear to be unsuccessful so far.

BART is attempting to close a $250 million deficit over the next four years, but have been stymied by unions’ demands for a three percent wage increase, despite the fact that the “union on average $114,000 a year in wages and benefits.” As BART spokesman Linton Johnson said, “This is not a good time to be asking for a raise.” Furthermore, Johnson pointed out that ” [t]his is our first time that we’ve asked the unions to dig into their pockets,” and that “[t]he riders have already dug into their pockets.”

A MediaNews editorial (which owns various Bay Area newspapers) takes the unions to task for its exorbitant pay and benefits, which increases labor costs and contributes to the  high price of utilizing public transit. The editorial notes some of the unions’ more generous provisions that they enjoy:

Most BART workers who retire at age 55 with 30 years of service will collect an annual pension equal to 60 percent of top salary. Most who retire at age 63 with 40 years of service can collect 97 percent of top salary.

Meanwhile, BART workers don’t contribute a dime to their pensions. The district pays the employer’s share, 10 percent of salary, to the pension plan. And it picks up the portion that’s typically paid by the employee — in this case, about 7 percent of salary.

Then there’s health care. BART’s employees and retirees choose from about five different health plans. The cost to the employee or retiree is $82 a month, no matter how many family members are covered or which plan is selected. BART pays the rest of the premium, costing the district as much as $1,868 a month. It’s a deal generally unmatched by private-sector employers.

With these kinds of benefits, it’s hard to imagine why anyone would go on strike. Yet the unions seem to find an excuse for it. Never mind the fact that not getting that three percent raise to pad that $114,000 income outweighs the burden and inconvenience of a strike for the more than 350,000 Bay Area residents who utilize BART.

As UNITE HERE opens its national convention today in Chicago, there is still considerable tension and uncertainty in its ongoing battle with Andy Stern and the SEIU.

Labor activist Randy Shaw observes that “[t]he convention should illuminate how other unions view this fight, and whether SEIU will soon find itself not just opposed by UNITE HERE but by much of the labor movement.” He also points out that although Stern has publicly called for UNITE HERE’s John Wilhelm to settle this dispute through binding arbitration (which Wilhelm has vehemently rejected), most of the major union bosses have not backed Stern’s call and will actually speak at the convention.

Shaw notes a particular statement from Stern’s letter to Wilhelm that indicates a far more incendiary fight between the feuding unions may be in store:

What’s most significant about Stern’s letter is that it argues “while to this point we have stood down, if this isn’t resolved by the end of June, we are prepared to respond vigorously to UNITE HERE’s recent hostile actions and defend our union.”

In other words, Stern is saying that if UNITE HERE thought that SEIU was attacking them for months, than that was actually its “stand down” mode — and that all hell could break loose by the end of this week.

That sounds a lot like a threat.

Given the SEIU’s actions against UNITE HERE and other unions (NUHW anyone?) in recent months, it’s hard to imagine at this point what the SEIU has in store if it is “prepared to respond vigorously” to defend itself. What is said (or perhaps, not said) this week at UNITE HERE’s convention may be a good indicator of what is to come.

The Los Angeles Times‘ featured an article examining the “curiously close” relationship the SEIU enjoys with the Obama administration.

According to the Times, Andy Stern visits the White House at least once a week and enjoys nearly unfettered access to top administration officials on policy issues ranging from healthcare to immigration.

The SEIU enjoys unparalleled opportunities to help shape and mold policy in the Obama Administration. When the President met privately with the healthcare industry’s top leaders, “Stern and a second Service Employees International Union official were the only labor representatives in the room.”

Stern has successfully placed current and former SEIU officials throughout the Administration in key posts:

Stern can boast that union officials are scattered throughout the Obama administration. White House political director Patrick Gaspard is a former executive at an SEIU local based in New York. No other union has placed anyone at such a high level in the White House. Anna Burger, SEIU secretary-treasurer, was appointed to Obama’s economic recovery board. And union associate counsel John Sullivan was named to the six-member Federal Election Commission.

Don’t forget that the SEIU managed to get the White House involved in its dispute with the state of California over pay cuts for home healthcare workers:

The SEIU’s access to the White House also has left California officials unsettled. Earlier this year, the Obama administration invited the SEIU to take part in a conference call centering on a dispute over pay cuts to home healthcare workers represented by the union. State officials said the union’s involvement in a government-to-government conference seemed inappropriate.

The Times‘ piece never reaches the point of overtly criticizing the SEIU’s relationship with the White House, but these examples should be unsettling for anyone concerned with labor’s disproportionate influence on policy. It’s not just the SEIU who enjoys such an advantageous relationship; recall that the Administration rolled back union transparency requirements as requested by the AFL-CIO.

Meanwhile, President Obama famously wrote that he “owes” the SEIU and a few other unions for supporting him in his bid for the Illinois statehouse.

The Los Angeles Times reports that the SEIU won another organizing election against the NUHW. Healthcare workers at a hospital and two nursing homes in Hollister, CA voted to remain with the SEIU instead of joining the recently formed NUHW.

Much like their bitter contest in Fresno last week, the NUHW plans to challenge the election results on legal grounds.

What’s notable from the Times‘ article is the fact that the SEIU is actually asking federal officials to prevent organizing elections from occurring at multiple hospitals, nursing homes, and other facilities across the state:

The SEIU has asked federal officials to stop elections at dozens of other hospitals, clinics and nursing homes up and down the state, saying the new union has engaged in a variety of unfair labor practices. The breakaway group calls the allegations baseless and has accused the SEIU of using corporate-style tactics to halt the balloting.

“The SEIU is only willing to have an election where they feel they have a chance of winning,” said John Borsos, an interim vice president of the new union.

Not surprisingly, the SEIU did not respond to inquiries about why elections were acceptable in Fresno and Hollister, but not elsewhere throughout the state.

It appears that the SEIU is picking the battles that it can win and counting on legal action to disrupt its areas of vulnerability. What’s particularly ironic is the SEIU accusing the NUHW of “unfair labor practices.” Recall that the NUHW filed a similar complaint against the SEIU for its dealings with Bank of America.

Brad Peck over at the Chamber Post reminds me of the Teamster’s intimidating letter targeting Wall Street money managers. Reading between the lines, it reads: “It’d be a shame if we had to take our member’s multi-billion dollar pension fund elsewhere.”

But you don’t have to read between the lines to get a better understanding of why the unions’ are so desperate to pass the deceptively-named Employee Free Choice Act. Teamster boss Albert Mixon, whose union maintains billions of dollars in unfunded multi-employer pension liabilities, wrote:

Especially important to me as a trustee, EFCA would strengthen defined benefit plans by fueling broad-based economic growth and increased plan participation from newly organized union members.

Read the entire letter here.

Some days it seems like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is leading the charge against the deceptively-named Employee Free Choice Act. At least, that seems to be the case according to its action.

Smack-dab in the middle of the biggest labor legislation fight in a generation, the SEIU decided it was a perfect time to raid (a labor no-no of serious proportions) two major unions.

The first raid was in California, where the SEIU took a dissident local into trusteeship. Now, with the local’s former leaders siphoning off members, this morning’s LA Times reports “SEIU borrows business’ anti-union tactics to fend off a rival.” The article notes:

“The SEIU is advocating free choice for every employee in the United States, unless you’re an SEIU member,” said John Borsos, an interim vice president of the National Union of Healthcare Workers, which says it has enough signatures to represent nearly 100,000 employees. “The only reason the SEIU doesn’t want elections is that they know they would lose.”…

The SEIU has turned for help to an agency that it has frequently scorned and whose ways the free choice act aims to reform: the National Labor Relations Board. The union has filed a welter of unfair-practice charges with the board, alleging in part that the new group has restrained and coerced workers in plotting to launch the breakaway organization.

The second raid occurred with the breakup of UNITE HERE. In a recent letter to SEIU chief Andy Stern, UNITE HERE’s John Wilhelm had this to say:

You and Raynor plotted to break up UNITE HERE, remove assets from the Union’s control, and organize in UNITE HERE’s traditional industry jurisdictions. Having made this attempted burglary you now want to have a third party divide up the spoils. Only UNITE HERE would be at risk in such an arbitration – SEIU would have no risk.

No victim of a theft would ever agree to such a proposition.

No International Union would agree to put its future members, its jurisdiction, and assets in the hands of an arbitrator.