LaborPains.org

We saw this dilemma coming. Labor is frustrated with Democrats, but how should they channel their anger?  Stories about a Brave New World? Mass protests? Fist shaking?

Democratic primary challenges (or just threatening primary challenges) are sounding better and better by the day.  They’ve even got a short list.

The National Journal reports:

“It’s not one big happy family for the Democrats when it comes to some of the brothers and sisters in the house of labor. Frustrations are so great that union chiefs on the AFL-CIO’s executive committee have discussed backing primary election challenges to Democratic senators cool to their agenda. [...] The prospect of encouraging Democratic primary challenges will be raised with the Steelworkers’ executive board when it meets next month, he added. Three senators’ names will be brought up specifically, Gerard said: Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

All told, the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, United Steelworkers, CWA, SEIU, and many others are discussing primary election challenges to demonstrate their seriousness (That is, you know, beyond calling Senators terrorists).

Watching Governor Paterson try to fix New York State’s budget deficit is painful. Under extreme financial burdens, Paterson arrived in office with his hands already tied by financial guarantees. As he proposes ways to close the $7.5 billion budget gap, Paterson is becoming increasingly upset with public sector unions. The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle Reports:

“[Paterson] was less understanding toward public employee unions. “Some people act as if they’re not supposed to take any sacrifice at all,” he said.  “There are those who are so self-absorbed … that they thumb their nose at the public’s face.” A representative from one of the state’s largest unions said when Paterson addresses the growing number of temporary employees in the state work force, it will talk about other issues. “The governor loses more and more credibility with us every day,” said Stephen Madarasz, director of communications for CSEA [Local 1000 AFSCME]“

Hopefully Gov. Paterson isn’t doing his job based on his “credibility” with unions.  But the New York Times editorial reports that his relationship with the state’s unions is, unsurprisingly, complicated:

Mr. Paterson — who is eager to be re-elected — apparently made a deal with state workers’ unions that if they would agree to a less-costly pension plan for new employees, he would not let anyone go until next year. The new pension plan was needed, but Mayor Bloomberg is right that it is unfair for city workers to bear the burden now for Governor Paterson’s deal.

New York City is also billions of dollars in the hole–and Mayor Bloomberg is furious to say the least.  Maybe he should take a long, heard look at the public sector unions. They are worth getting upset over.

Oregon voters have approved a tax increase for the first time since 1931.  The SEIU had the following to say:

“Aside from funding essential services, the vote also restored some fairness to the state’s tax structure. [...] Oregon voters made a clear statement of their priorities: the government’s top job must be to preserve vital services and infrastructure and stimulate the economy. [...] Prior to the passage of this measure, more than two-thirds of corporations doing business in Oregon paid just $10 a year for the corporate minimum income tax.

Now, the corporate minimum tax will be $150; the tax rate on upper-level profit will be higher–as will the tax rate of people with a taxable household income over $250,000.

The SEIU and AFSCME are thrilled with these results because they paid for them. According to the Wall Street Journal, they poured more than $1 million into the campaign.  Read HERE or HERE for even more breakdowns of the funding of the “yes” campaign. These unions have millions to gain because the new money will help keep unionized public sector employees on the job.  As the Wall Street Journal explained before the election:

“Oregon’s public employees have one of the sweetest deals in America. Their average pay is about one-third higher than that of private Oregon workers, and Oregon public employees don’t have to pay anything toward their health-care benefits. In the last budget, the Democratic controlled state legislature doled out a $259 million pay raise to the government work force, even as the state was facing a near $1 billion deficit. In the last three years, the state has added 25,000 new public employees while losing 40,000 private sector jobs.”

Image courtesy Misserion.

In light of the Supreme Court ruling last week, labor leaders have been up in arms about how it opens the flood gates for corporate monies to flow unfettered into the political arena. But it is quite a bit more complex than that.

On the one hand you have Secretary-Treasurer of the SEIU, Anna Burger, saying this:

“Today the US Supreme Court lifted the floodgates and started dismantling century-old restrictions on corporate electoral activity in the name of the ‘free speech rights’ of corporations—meaning if you are a ‘corporate person’ (aka a CEO or corporate official), you are now free to hit the corporate ATM and spend whatever of your shareholders’ money it takes to elect the candidates of your choice.”

But experts have pushed back. From USA Today:

Analysts said they did not expect to see a flood of corporate spending on ads that call for the election or defeat of an individual candidate. “I don’t see the Cokes and Pepsis of this world writing checks for political campaigns in this economic environment,” said Evan Tracey, who tracks political advertising at Campaign Media Analysis Group. “They have shareholders, boards of directors and customers who come from all sides of the political spectrum.” Experts, such as campaign-finance lawyer Kenneth Gross, said the money is more likely to flow through trade associations and non-profit groups.

They are probably onto something. Even some labor leaders are beginning to muse about what benefit they themselves could gain from the ruling. From the Business Week:

“Karen Ackerman, the political director of the AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest federations of unions, said last week in a conference call with reporters that the Supreme Court’s decision would open “some avenues to spend resources in different ways than we have had in the past.” It is too soon to know how, she said.”

Given the nature of labor union officials’ disregard for the dues of their members and their already creative ways of funneling dues into elections, it is possible that after the Supreme Court ruling the only people using the employees’ ATM more readily will be union officials.

Despite the fact that not a single NUHW member is under contract, the upstart union has once again beat the SEIU-UHW in California.  The LA Times reports:

“Kaiser Permanente healthcare workers throughout Southern California have voted overwhelmingly to quit the giant Service Employees International Union and join a smaller rival union, according to election results released today. The National Labor Relations Board, which tallied secret-ballot votes cast earlier this month, said that about 2,000 nurses and care professionals voted more than 6 to 1 in favor of ditching the SEIU and affiliating with the rival National Union of Healthcare Workers, a breakaway faction that is challenging the SEIU’s dominance.”

“The defeat is a major setback for SEIU, the largest hospital and healthcare workers union in California, with some 150,000 members. The SEIU is engaged in a fierce battle for workers’ allegiance with the emergent NUHW, headed by former SEIU leaders ousted a year ago in a bitter takeover. […]“

“A total of 746 nurses voted to join NUHW, according to the labor board, while 36 cast ballots to remain with SEIU. Healthcare professionals voted 189 to 29 to join NUHW, while psychiatric and social service workers favored NUHW 717 to 92, according to the labor board.”

After the results were released, the SEIU spokesman uttered some threatening remarks about the supposed mess the new NUHW-ites have gotten themselves into, saying they are now “at grave risk.” He neglected to mention that these medical professionals have been “at risk” the entire time–from the SEIU.

Image courtesy of Dave McIntosh.

Following the news last week that labor unions are getting closer to extinction, a friend dropped me a note suggesting names for a few new dinosaurs. (I’m not saying this was my finest photoshop moment). Enjoy.

At the Center for American Progress this week, SEIU President Andy Stern and Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger couldn’t hold in their rage any longer with regards to the election last week in Massachusetts– and its long term implications for labor’s agenda. From the Huffington Post:

Two of the most powerful union officials in the country lashed out at Senate Democrats on Tuesday, jokingly calling some of them legislative “terrorists” and slamming leadership for “squandering” a supermajority in the Senate. [...] “Because there are a lot of terrorist in the senate who think we are supposed to negotiate with them when they have their particular needs that they want met,” [Stern] added.

“Are the Senate rules really appropriate for a 21st-century country where we can create gridlock by very limited hard work,” Stern added. “if we are going to have filibusters lets at least have a debate. At least make people go to the floor. Let’s put the cots on the floor permanently…Change can easily die in the wells of the Senate.” Asked how badly he wanted filibuster reform, he replied: “Very badly.”

Stern’s lament of the Democratic Party’s inability to get legislative action done, even with its supermajority, was shared by his co-panelist and labor colleague, Anna Burger, head of Change to Win. “I woke up Tuesday and we have 60 seats in the Senate and we couldn’t count 60 votes,” she said. “I woke up Wednesday morning and we had 59 seats in the Senate and we still couldn’t count 60 votes.”

The NUHW is furious after a letter began circulating among California health workers implying they would have “less favorable” benefits, i.e., lose benefits like health care if they left the SEIU, according to the Baltimore Sun.

A professor at the University of Maryland, College Park is facing conflict-of- interest questions after he used university letterhead to deliver a legal opinion in his role as a consultant to a labor union. Fred Feinstein, an adjunct professor at the School of Public Policy, wrote a letter saying that California health care employees could jeopardize their contract benefits if they left Service Employees International for a competing union. Feinstein received $240,000 in consulting fees from SEIU in 2007 and 2008, which he did not mention in the Jan. 12 letter that was distributed as a flier in the continuing union battle. Officials of the rival National Union of Healthcare Workers say Feinstein implied that he was speaking for the university and thus compromised its academic objectivity.

College Park officials said Feinstein violated university policy by writing the opinion on official letterhead. He signed the letter as a “senior fellow and visiting professor.” “Mr. Feinstein violated university procedures by improperly using university letterhead in the course of his outside work,” Donald F. Kettl, dean of the School of Public Policy, said in a statement.

The stakes could not be higher for the NUHW as they await election results in their battle with the SEIU to be announced Tuesday, according to the LA Times. The fact he was on the NLRB board, then consulted with the SEIU, and is now shilling for them against a union backed by the NLRB, further demonstrates the muddied waters of regulating big labor.

Image courtesy of InsideHigherEd.com.