LaborPains.org

Bloomberg reports:

Union membership in the private sector declined in 2009 to a record low of 7.2 percent, as a recession eroded employment in labor-organized industries such as construction and manufacturing, a U.S. report showed.

The figure compares with 7.6 percent in 2008, according to data released today by the Labor Department. Union membership made up 12.3 percent of the total workforce, down from 12.4 percent in 2008. It increased among government workers to 37.4 percent from 36.8 percent.

While private sector union membership has dropped, public sector union membership has risen slightly in the last year. Perhaps private sector membership is slowly meeting its maker, but unions have found their rainmaker in public sector membership. It’s terribly convenient that the government can never go out of business. They make great bargaining opponents.

And my, you know you are well connected when the Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis (former board member of a union lobbying organization), immediately states that the new statistics demand the passage of EFCA. From her press release:

“When coupled with data showing that union members have access to better health care, retirement and leave benefits, these numbers make it clear that union jobs are good jobs.

“As workers across the country have seen their real and nominal wages decline as a result of the recession, these numbers show a need for Congress to pass legislation to level the playing field to enable more American workers to access the benefits of union membership.  This report makes clear why the administration supports the Employee Free Choice Act.”

It means quite the opposite. Not to toot our own horn, but Bloomberg and the New York Times reports:

“J. Justin Wilson, managing director of a group called the Center for Union Facts that opposes easier unionization, said today’s data shows that union membership is “an outdated concept” and a “relic of depression-era labor-management relations.”

Anna Burger wants you to think she is furious about yesterday’s court ruling.  She even told a 124 word story in the Huffington Post about shopping in a grocery store in this Brave New World of corporate interests influencing elections by cashiers giving “you a brochure for a candidate running for Congress and with it a coupon for $25 off your next visit if you sign a supporter card.”

“This is not some fairy tale or even hyperbole,” she claims a few lines later. What’s that old saying? The lady doth protest too much methinks. Then again, that sounds like something a labor union might do.

Here’s what else she said:

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.

I am going to ignore the obvious. That companies’ “floodgates” of cash will not be opened. Or That the rulings weren’t a century old.

Imagine what shareholders could do to a company who engaged in the widespread use of company profits to support one candidate! Really, just imagine. So the ruling probably isn’t going to change too much corporate behavior, but it may help unions more.

But Anna Burger has had a bad week. A lot that happened was the union leaderships fault, so I understand her need to attack someone.

Why is her outrage so innane? Because unions have been using their members money for years. Union leadership (like the SEIU’s Anna Burger) spend their union members’ hard earned dollars flagrantly, repetitiously, massively, and without remorse for their own political ends.  If memory serves me (it does), the SEIU spent $67 million in the last election.

Image courtesy of BiigE.

“Your revolution is over, Mr. Lebowski. Condolences. The bums lost. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? The bums will always lose!” –The Big Lebowski

Too harsh? Yes, but still.

Big Labor won’t give up the fight. They just keep losing battles, and then talking about them like victories. EFCA and health care legislation were dealt a major blow yesterday with the election of Scott Brown yesterday in Massachusetts. Health care is suddenly in very rocky, uncharted territory and EFCA, placed on the back burner for health care, may find it very difficult to come to the forefront.

On labor blogs and even in statements by the likes of Andy Stern, labor is blaming the loss on Democrats not being left enough and being too compromising on healthcare and EFCA. Only if Dems had rammed through EFCA without compromise and healthcare with serious teeth, says labor, would the true Democratic base been ignited to action….and to voting for Coakley!

Said another way: If only the Democrats had done exactly what the labor machine told them to do this year, they wouldn’t be in this mess.

So hold onto your hats in the run up to the elections this fall. Will Democrats buy into labor’s version of events? Will they be required to?

I’m sorry.  It’s quite funny, yet unsurprising, that labor leaders can look at the election last night and say they’ve won because it proves that labor’s agenda is embraced by Americans.  Mind you, if Coakley had won, the labor leaders would be talking about the election last night and taking all the credit for their union war machine of endorsements and millions of dollars spent , because it proves that labor’s agenda is embraced by Americans.

Is it possible voters recognize that the health care legislation opens up millions of Americans for unionization and saves/gains billions of dollars for unions? Is it possible that voters see the the Employee Free Choice Act actually removes alot of free choices that employers and employees currenty have? Is it possible that Coakley’s track record supporting unions at the cost of the state taxpayers angered voters? Here is one example. Could it be that that is why they lost last night?

Labor leaders say no. I say yes.

In the words of Andy Stern:

“The reason Ted Kennedy’s seat is no longer controlled by a Democrat is clear: Washington’s inability to deliver the change voters demanded in November 2008. Make no mistake, political paralysis resulted in electoral failure.“

“During the past year, Republicans refused to do anything but stand in the way of change and Democratic Senators took too long to do too little. And tonight, the Senate bears the consequences for its failure to act decisively but the American people are the ones left paying the price. If our elected officials don’t recognize that every day more working families fall victim to Washington’s failure to act, the elections next November will result in the same.”

“Today’s vote must be a wake-up call that now is the time for bold action. Time to stand up to politics as usual. Time to stand up to Republican scare and stall tactics. And time to speak up for working families.”

Maybe they should listen to the working families who voted yesterday for a change.

It appears that labor leaders and government officials have reached a compromise on excise taxes, according to the New York Times. The details are not fully clear yet, but FoxNews has reported the following:

A senior Democratic official speaking on background told Fox News that the threshold for exemption would be raised from $23,000 to $24,000 per family but would remain the same at $8,500 for singles with high-value plans. Dental and vision plans would be removed from that calculation, however. State and local workers and union members are exempted until 2017. A Democratic source with close union contacts said labor leaders are not particularly happy with the tentative deal, but are much less angry than they were at the previous plan.

The chatter in the last few days that been that unions might convince the Administration and Congressional Democratic leadership to exempt collectively-bargained health insurance plans from paying the excise tax, the majority of plans over the threshold.  It’s a deal that would increase the cost of the health care legislation.  While the compromise announced today doesn’t go as far as the one that’s has been bandied about, it will be interesting to see what its final form really is. Unions exempt until 2017? What’s to say that the exemption doesn’t get an permanent extension.

Why on earth should union insurance be exempt with state and local workers (many of whom are union), while the rest of us with expensive plans pay the price?

If indeed collectively bargained health insurance plans are exempt from the excise tax for the next 7 years, former SEIU staffer Michael Whitney who now blogs over at FireDogLake says it could be very, very bad thing for unions in the short and  medium term.  It only proves that unions are guided by “blind self interest.” And it may jeopardize the public willingness to swallow EFCA. The “deal” that FDL is talking about below, for the record, on the union excise tax exemption sans the 2017 caveat, but I’d say the principle holds.

From FireDogLake:

If unions take this “deal,” if the labor movement decides to fold and exempt themselves from the excise tax, they fulfill one of the worst of stereotypes of labor unions: blind self interest.  By abandoning the nonunion middle class and protecting only their own, the labor movement is throwing any hope of future relevancy out the window.

The ideal of unions is to organize the unorganized, to protect the unprotected.  Sure, unions should fight for their members, no question.  But in the biggest public policy and political fight of a generation, unions simply cannot exempt their members from the dangerous excise tax and call it a day. And if Rahm does come through on his end of the deal – a vote on the Employee Free Choice Act – expect unions to be very much on their own in that fight if they sell out on health care.

The great dragon of corrupt labor bosses, scales and all, has reared its ugly head again. I mean, Chicago’s union-monster gets more airplay than Da Bears.

Chicago Teamsters Local 743 has ousted its “reform” leadership after the last group got themselves ousted a few years back over selling drugs on union property and election rigging. If you want to, you can read ONE of the indictments here.  The current batch of Teamsters leaders have allegedly demonstrated gross impropriety with the Local 743′s finances–and they think that, when compared to the people they overthrew (you know, the ones with the nose candy), they should be allowed to stay in office.

Seriously, Local 743′S leadership measures their own corruption on a scale of one to ten.

Here are the details, according to the Chicago Sun Times:

Richard Berg — who took the helm of Teamsters Local 743 on a reform plank, ousting an “old guard” regime rife with corruption — now is being booted out of office for alleged violations of union rules. Berg is accused of improperly firing a Local 743 organizer and, along with secretary-treasurer Gina Alvarez, signing off on a $20,000-plus severance check for the man, officials said.

The firing and the payout first should have gotten approval from Local 743′s executive board, a Teamsters official said. Berg also is accused of preventing two business agents from rejoining Local 743 — even though they apparently were entitled to do so. Some viewed the move as an attempt by Berg to undercut future political rivals. The alleged violations were brought by members of the group’s executive board to the Teamsters’ umbrella organization for the Chicago region, Joint Council 25, which made the decision to boot Berg from office and strip him of membership for five years, the official said.

Alvarez was kicked out for three years. [...] [Berg] also plans to appeal the Joint Council 25 decision to International Brotherhood of Teamsters general president James P. Hoffa, and ask that he and Alvarez be allowed to stay on the job while the appeal is being considered.

According to excerpts from Chicago Public Radio:

“Berg says even if he and Alvarez had broken the rules, they wouldn’t deserve the boot.

BERG: The people that were in office before us got caught dealing drugs out of the union hall, stealing union elections. The federal government prosecuted and put these guys in jail.”

Image courtesy of JoshWellington.com.

Labor leaders are playing hard ball with the President over so called “cadillac” taxes in the health care bill (Senate, not House).  Although press was not present, yesterday’s meeting can’t have gone very well.  The White House officially deemed the meeting “productive”, which in Washington-speak means it didn’t go well. Labor leaders threatened crushing defeat for Democrats in November. So sad I missed the fireworks.

From the AP:

“A Monday evening meeting at the White House between Obama and about a dozen heads of the country’s biggest labor unions capped a day when two union leaders fired broadsides at Obama and Senate Democrats over their plans to pay for overhauling the nation’s health care system with a tax union leaders fear could hurt their workers. [...] Although Obama terms them “Cadillac” plans, union leaders say numerous working-class Americans who’ve negotiated good benefits in exchange for lesser pay would be hurt.

The president of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, warned that Democrats risk catastrophic election defeats similar to 1994 if they fail to come up with a health bill labor likes. A bad bill could have that kind of effect – a place where people sit at home” – as happened in 1994, when Democrats lost 54 House seats and eight in the Senate, costing them control of Congress, Trumka told reporters.

Trumpka, among all his fellow labor leaders, is obviously towing a very hard line. And he’s stating that EFCA will be passed in the first quarter of 2010, or else. According to the Huffington Post:

“I think you will see the Employee Free Choice Act pass in the first quarter of 2010,” said Trumka. [...]” The president fully supports the Employee Free Choice Act, the Vice President fully supports the Employee Free Choice Act, a vast majority of the members of the House support the Employee Free Choice Act, a vast majority of the people of the Senate support the Employee Free Choice Act. And I think we are going to have the Employee Free Choice Act despite the determined efforts of the Republican Party…”

Labor leaders, who put so much money heart and soul into backing health reform, will continue to play hard to get, but heaven forbid they actually remove their support of the legislation.  But if the White House thinks they are just peeved enough, then perhaps Trumka will get his field of dreams after all– EFCA before April.

Furloughs have been proposed for state workers in California in order to close the budget gap, but unions like the SEIU is adamant that furloughs do not actually save money.  Workers have to make up undone work with overtime; they are completely ineffective, and then there is lost productivity, and…..the list continues.  Let me repeat, the SEIU is adamant that furloughs don’t work….in California.  Iowa is apparently a different case all together, where the local SEIU proposed furloughs to save money. From the Daily Nonpareil:

“Superintendent Martha Bruckner already has met with representatives of the three unions representing district employees – the Council Bluffs Education Association, the Service Employees International Union and the Communications Workers of America. The SEIU proposed the furloughs to save jobs. If the district asked its employees to take five unpaid days off, the SEIU will agree. Dwain Pedersen, co-president of CBEA teachers’ union, said the CBEA will not agree. The CWA said it is open to discussion.”

“Most of the district’s administrators have agreed to the furloughs. If everyone agreed, Bruckner estimated the district could save about $1.3 million, and $1 million of that would be from CBEA employees. While unpaid furloughs and a wage freeze for 2010-11 still would not stop layoffs, “If we don’t get agreement on furloughs and wage freezes, there will be more cuts,” Bruckner said.”

In California, whether the SEIU is willing to face the music or not, their options are the same as Iowa’s: furloughs or layoffs (and paycuts). It’s funny, Michigan and Chicago implemented and accepted furloughs to close budget gaps. In Massachusetts, the SEIU was the first to approve furloughs. But in California, apparantly furloughs are ineffective?

Image courtesy of Kables.

We’ve written before about the amount of money that California spends on prison personnel, at the expense of both the prisoners and the entire state’s budget. It’s pretty ugly stuff, and Schwarzenegger seems hell bent on righting some of these wrongs.  According to the Fresno Bee this week:

Prison, legal and financial experts generally praised Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s plan to shift state prison funding to public universities, but said a constitutional amendment that ties the government’s hands in perpetuity could cause more harm than good. “The governor, some years ago, railed against autopilot budgeting,” said Steve Boilard, director of higher education for the nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst’s Office. “This is just another set of restrictions that may not make sense in future years.” Beginning in 2014, the governor’s proposed amendment would dedicate at least 10 percent of the state general fund to the University of California and California State University systems and limit prison spending to no more than 7 percent – approximately reversing the amounts in those lines in this year’s budget.

That plan would have to roll back vast increases in prison outlays in recent years, used in part to underwrite rising wages and benefits, and new medical programs. […]

Schwarzenegger also proposed increased privatization – using private employees in state prisons or contracting out the housing of prisoners to corporate prisons – to cut costs. According to Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation figures, California spends about $50,000 per prisoner annually, compared to a $32,000 average for the next 10 largest states. Department spokesman Gordon Hinkle agreed that costs could be reduced sharply by using more private prisons. Joan Petersilia, a leading prison expert and professor at Stanford Law School, said contracting out low-security prisoners to private prisons is a proven cost-saving measure. Currently, California sends about 8,000 of its approximately 170,000 inmates to private facilities in Mississippi, Oklahoma and Arizona. “It’s so cost effective because 70 percent of housing someone in a California prison is due to personnel costs, and our costs are higher in California,” she said.

Image courtesy of Funky64.