LaborPains.org

Here’s another example of unions not caring who pays the bill as long as they get to keep their jobs.  AFSCME  is demanding that the state of Illinois raise taxes:

The largest state employee union in Illinois says no amount of concessions by workers can solve the budget problem and lawmakers should raise the income tax.

Henry Bayer (BARE’) of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees told reporters Tuesday that asking workers to take unpaid days off or making other concessions would do very little to close a $9 billion deficit.

AFSCME met with Gov. Pat Quinn’s administration Tuesday to discuss concessions. Bayer says the union told the administration it is working to convince legislators to back Quinn’s income tax increase.

The SEIU last week called for higher taxes in California. I expect this will be a recurring pattern at the state and local levels of government.

I’ve noted how labor attempts to intimidate, harass, or humiliate companies that don’t bend to their will. Change To Win’s favorite target in recent months is drugstore retailer CVS, which they charge with allegedly selling expired products.

But that campaign apparently was not effective judging by what Change To Win is now complaining about:

Add condoms to the list of items under lock and key at some retail pharmacies, a practice at certain CVS drugstores that’s being criticized by a coalition of labor unions. The “Cure CVS: Unlock the Condoms Initiative” led by the labor group Change to Win is asking the nation’s largest drugstore chain to end the practice, which it says is more common in communities of color.

I’m not going to wade into the debate over access to contraceptives but I will point out what the CVS spokesman had to say in response:

“They’re waging a campaign to disparage CVS by using highly skewed or false information because we refuse to waive the rights our employees have under federal law to be able to vote confidentially in union elections.”

This is just another example of how unions wage a retaliatory campaign against a company because it won’t appease their demands. Using access to condoms as a talking point shows just how far Change To Win and its labor allies will go in their attempts to shame a company into changing its policies. Fortunately, linking contraception and card check is not going to resonate with the public, just  like the rest of their failed campaigns.

The Daily News‘ Juan Gonzalez has the scoop on the financial details surrounding the bitter civil war that engulfed UNITE HERE.

Documents obtained by the Daily News showed that Bruce Raynor, the former general president of UNITE HERE, ordered more than $12 million transferred from the union’s accounts to local chapters loyal to him and outside groups. Raynor appeared to have disbursed the funds without the knowledge of UNITE HERE leader John Wilhelm.

Raynor appears to have ordered substantial wire transfers to various locals and groups to help facilitate the secession:

The internal documents obtained by The News show that in the weeks leading up to the split Raynor ordered several sizable wire transfers without any approval from Wilhelm.

On Jan. 31, for example, he directed that $457,981 be paid from UNITE HERE to The Organizing Group, a political consulting firm with close ties to SEIU. …

Between Jan. 26 and Jan. 31, Raynor ordered another dozen transfers totaling $11.2 million for various UNITE HERE locals around the country. …

On March 6, the day before those locals officially voted to secede, Raynor ordered more a dozen wire transfers sent to them, totaling another $500,000, for “reimbursement of expenditures.”

It turns out that the SEIU-friendly consulting firm, The Organizing Group, arranged mailings and robocalls to UNITE HERE members promoting the Workers United secession campaign.

The pattern of wire transfers follow the events of the UNITE HERE split. On March 7, “dozens of locals that were loyal to Raynor” voted to secede from UNITE HERE and subsequently formed Workers United, which “promptly affiliated” with the SEIU.

Wilhelm charged that “it’s an absolute violation of federal labor law to use members’ own money to foster a secession.” Raynor declined to comment for the Daily News report.

Although troubling, the revelation of the transgressions and tactics of the UNITE HERE civil war is the equivalent of a public service announcement. Voters, legislators, and workers alike can see just how far labor bosses will go to advance their own agendas.

The Sacramento Bee and ProPublica both reported that Sean Harrigan, a “veteran leader of the United Food and Commerical Workers union,” actively solicited contributions for his union from money managers and pension fund consultants while serving on the board of California’s largest pension fund, CalPERS.

Harrigan claimed that he “invited not more than two dozen firms to participate” and that it was not a pay to play scheme. Harrigan also claimed that he never let the donations to the UFCW’s Issues Education Fund influence his decisions on CalPERS’ investments.

State campaign finance records found that money managers, pension fund consultants, and advisers pumped in more than $1 million to the UFCW’s fund between 2000 and 2004.

Furthermore, an examination of campaign contribution records “show the UFCW campaign fund received contributions from money managers as their deals were being considered by the CalPERS board.”

The Bee provides several examples of contributions followed by dubious pension fund investment decisions that appear to have benefited the contributors.

One of the largest contributors to the union fund was Yucaipa American Funds LLC, a financial firm owned by millionaire businessman Ron Burkle. … In October and November 2001, Harrigan had several telephone conversations directly with Burkle and other members of his company about his plans to create a merchant bank – The Yucaipa Companies. On Feb. 4, 2002, CalPERS announced deals and investments with Yucaipa for up to $560 million. Between Sept. 20, 2002, and April 23, 2004, Yucaipa American Funds put $36,000 in three $12,000 donations into Harrigan’s union fund, documents show.

The pattern of contributions and subsequent pension fund investment decisions certainly give the appearance of potential pay to play. Harrigan and the UFCW don’t help their own case, judging by how they spent a bulk of the contributed funds:

Harrigan said his union used some of the money companies contributed for member education and voter registration efforts. Some of the cash also financed the UFCW Western State Council’s annual Person of the Year Award gala dinner, he said. Harrigan confirmed that he was named person of the year by the UFCW and feted at an event that featured a day of golf and a gala dinner attended by 300 to 400 people in Monterey. The dinners have cost between $100,000 and $200,000 to organize and stage, documents show.

To summarize: labor boss solicits donations for union from potential investment targets while sitting on the board of the largest state’s largest pension fund. These donations are funneled to host expensive galas, including one to honor aforementioned labor boss as Person of the Year. Labor boss says there’s no wrong-doing or evidence of pay to play.

If that doesn’t sound at all suspicious to you, we’ve got an union organizing card for you to fill out.

Today, The Detroit News featured an op-ed by Center for Union Facts Executive Director Rick Berman calling on GM workers to decertify the UAW.

The text of the op-ed is below:

GM Needs Fresh Start From UAW, Too

Brian Deese, the 31-year-old Yale Law School dropout charged with restructuring General Motors, takes a lot of flak for his inexperience.

Although a think tank researcher with zero business experience might be an unusual choice for such a big job, GM desperately needs a break from the past. Deese, a novice in an insular industry full of seen-it-all-before veterans, may be uniquely qualified to look beyond what “everyone knows” is possible and bring America’s largest automaker into the future.

With a number of powerful lobbies sitting at the negotiation table, Deese is having to cut through the clutter and acknowledge the major structural problems facing GM. The truth is that GM’s crisis is the product of decades of gross mismanagement by its own executives and the equally-powerful leaders of the United Auto Workers.

In March of this year, GM President Rick Wagoner was forced to resign at the insistence of the Obama administration. That Ron Gettelfinger, Wagoner’s counterpart at the UAW, has clung to his own position is an injustice, but one that could easily be remedied with some pressure from Deese. Continuing to invite Gettelfinger to the table for restructuring talks makes as much sense as tapping Bernie Madoff to reform the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Gettelfinger oversaw the implementation of a UAW contract that runs to more than 1,110 pages, nearly five times larger than the nimble non-union contract Toyota works with. While GM bled $70 billion during the past two years, Gettelfinger resisted all significant cost-savings measures while loudly trumpeting trivial concessions like eliminating Viagra from the UAW health plan and giving up the Easter Monday holiday. And last year, even as GM’s financial meltdown threatened his members’ pocketbooks, Gettelfinger OK’d a lavish $100,000 union meeting at the Doral Desert Princess Resort in Palm Springs. If flying to D.C. on a private jet was bad optics, the UAW was clearly tone deaf themselves.

Gettelfinger had his chance, but it’s time to go.

With Gettelfinger out of the picture, Deese’s next move should be helping dissatisfied GM employees decertify the United Auto Workers union. The UAW claims to represent the interests of its 400,000+ members, but this catastrophic failure of leadership calls for a reevaluation of that relationship. GM’s remaining employees deserve the chance for a secret-ballot vote on firing their union, just like all workers deserve a vote on whether to be represented in the first place.

Winning majority support for decertification shouldn’t be a problem:

GM’s workforce has seen countless layoffs and plant closures caused by deep-rooted union legacy costs and head-in-the-sand denial. When GM made a last-ditch attempt at viability by trying to restructure in 2007, the union instigated a futile 41-hour “shot across the bow” strike that in many ways sealed the automaker’s fate. And it’s certainly safe to say that few of these employees are getting their money’s worth from of the $33 million Black Lake golf resort their union owns and operates.

The UAW had a good run, but it’s time to go.

Private investors and bondholders wouldn’t be the only ones celebrating the UAW’s decertification. A recent study from the National Bureau of Economic Research showed that non-unionized companies’ stock prices fare significantly better than their unionized counterparts. For UAW members whose ailing pensions depend on GM shares that have plummeted 95% in the past year, freeing the automaker of union entanglements could be the ticket to an actual retirement.

The UAW has failed its members, and GM will never be competitive with the UAW’s noose around its neck. The American public is set to become 60 percent shareholders, so we’ve all got a stake in Brian Deese’s performance. We the shareholders can only hope that President Obama’s fledgling car czar will exceed expectations, make the tough call, and sever the union cord for good.

UNITE HERE’s John Wilhelm penned another response to the SEIU’s Andy Stern, reiterating his opposition to settling the union dispute through binding arbitration:

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.

Wilhelm already made this point before, but it doesn’t hurt to point out again that if binding arbitration isn’t good enough for a major union to settle its differences, it’s certainly not good enough for America’s businesses or workers. Wilhelm’s vehement opposition to binding arbitration is just another reason why EFCA should not be passed.

I wrote about how unions exert their influence over the Obama Administration when the White House announced it would skip the U.S. Conference of Mayors because it didn’t want to cross a local union’s picket line.

Well, as The Politico reports, that deference has provoked considerable criticism and ire from mayors from across the country who gathered in Providence, R.I. over the weekend:

In its attempt to honor the picket line of a local firefighters union involved in a labor dispute with the city, the administration has inadvertently angered some of its staunchest supporters in urban America, who argue that by declining to send an official contingent to the three-day mayors’ conference, the administration is caving in to labor and snubbing local governments at a time of economic strife.

Miami Mayor Manny Diaz, who actually endorsed Obama last year, had harsh words about the White House’s decision to cave into the unions:

“We have no choice. None of us in this room are insulated from the economic challenges faced by the city of Providence. This will not be the last time this administration will be asked to make a similar choice,” said Diaz, a former Democrat turned independent who endorsed Obama in 2008. “This is why the administration is setting a very dangerous precedent. Our president has called on all Americans to sacrifice. Mayors have sacrificed before, and we will do it again. But we must not be asked to bear this burden alone. Sacrifice often means doing things that we don’t want to do; doing things we don’t like to do; doing things that keep us all up at night.”

Mayor Joseph Riley of Charleston, S.C. – who is a Democrat – expressed disappointment, calling the Obama Administration’s decision a “mistake”:

“It was such a surprise,” said Riley, a Democrat and past president of the conference, “because we’ve worked so closely with them and with the White House. And obviously Vice President Joe Biden has been a longtime friend of many mayors.”

As we noted last week, given the choice between helping local governments implement the stimulus or appeasing labor’s demands, the Obama Administration deferred – not surprisingly – in favor of the more politically influential constituency. What’s disconcerting about this incident is the green light given to unions that they can disrupt governance by promising to show up and picket.

It appears that the SEIU is the likely winner of its protracted battle with the National Union of Health Workers over organizing home health care workers in Fresno, CA. Randy Shaw, a notable pro-labor activist, reports some surprising details about the brutal race that exhibited the SEIU’s extensive resources and bruising tactics.

The SEIU reportedly turned out 900 (!) organizers for roughly 10,000 health workers:

The chief reason is an unexpectedly high voter turnout, likely caused by SEIU’s delegation of 900 outreach workers – likely the largest per worker in labor movement history, considering that only 10,000 are eligible to vote.

The SEIU also spent an exorbitant amount of money on the organizing campaign:

SEIU has reportedly spent $200,000 a day on its massive staff. When television ads, mailers, and other costs are included, NUHW estimates SEIU’s has spent as much as $10 million on the entire campaign (in contrast, NUHW had little funds and its 150 plus Fresno outreach team is primarily volunteer).

And accounts of SEIU intimidation and vandalism have already been documented in the media.

Shaw openly wonders what direction the SEIU will take the labor movement after its apparent victory in Fresno. Not that this comes as a surprise, but Shaw expresses concern that an emboldened SEIU will only exacerbate labor relations by continuing its much publicized fight with UNITE HERE.

On June 4, Stern issued a public letter to “The American Labor Movement” stating that if SEIU’s battle with UNITE HERE is not resolved by the end of June, “we are prepared to respond vigorously” to UNITE HERE and “defend our union.” The letter’s confrontational tone and its questionable accusations that UNITE HERE rather than SEIU started the fight undercut Stern’s stated desire for peace, as did his demand that UNITE HERE accept binding arbitration of all outstanding issues.”

Based on the SEIU’s executive board’s actions, Shaw notes that it doesn’t appear the SEIU plans on mending relations with UNITE HERE anytime soon:

In a possible sign that SEIU is moving in this direction, last week the union’s Executive Board elected two new Executive Vice-Presidents: Director of Property Services Mitch Ackerman and former UNITE HERE President Bruce Raynor. This does not bode well for labor peace. It was Raynor’s dispute with UNITE HERE that got SEIU involved in the fight, while Ackerman is reported to be among the SEIU leaders aggressively pushing to raid UNITE HERE jurisdictions.

Shaw, to be expected, holds out hope that the SEIU will not furthe escalate its conflict with UNITE HERE. But with the SEIU’s open display of aggression and UNITE HERE’s John Wilhelm’s defiant opposition to Andy Stern’s call for binding arbitration, it’s unlikely that this will end anytime soon.