LaborPains.org

As usual, unions are trying to have have their cake and eat it, too.  In this case, unions will spend tens of millions of dollars this election cycle telling their members which candidates to vote for, but at the same time, they are criticizing employers who engage in the same activity as being “improperly coercive.” Steven Greenhouse at the New York Times frames the issue with this hypothetical: “Imagine getting a letter from the boss, telling you how to vote.” Never mind that the hypothetical is just that—none of Greenhouse’s examples of employers’ activities explicitly told employees to vote for or against any candidate. As Professors Brad Smith and Eugene Volokh told the Times, this is all within the limits of the law:

“If the employer wants to say, ‘This candidate is good or bad for our business and therefore good or bad for you, the employee, that’s permissible — that’s protected by the First Amendment,” Professor Volokh said. “But if the employer threatens to fire you based on how you vote, that’s not protected.”

Per the Times’ account, none of the latter accusations have been made. In fact, companies such as Koch Industries have defended themselves against more outrageous claims by providing a copy of the letter that was sent to employees. The letter noted:

First, and most important, we believe any decision about which candidates to support is – as always – yours and yours alone, based on the factors that are most important to you.

Along these lines, the Oregon Business Report recently provided some guidelines for employers to keep in mind as election season rolls around. The attorney-author Brenda K. Baumgart outlined a few possible trouble spots: allowing speech and communication in the workplace that is appropriate, but not limiting it so much as to violate the National Labor Relations Act; selective enforcement of policies; and political endorsements of candidates and ballot issues.

But for as carefully as employers must tread, unions rarely come under the same microscope. Labor is practiced at the art of election season communication. The Times notes:

Many corporate executives say they have stepped up their political activities to counter organized labor’s efforts on behalf of Mr. Obama and other Democrats. Even before Citizens United, unions were allowed to promote candidates to their members. Democrats and Republicans alike acknowledged the effectiveness of labor’s political efforts. [emphasis added]

Nonetheless, union leaders think that employers are breaking the law:

Larry Gold, associate general counsel of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., said some of the recent employer letters, by hinting at the possible loss of employees’ jobs, appeared to cross the line into improper coercion.

While unions suggest that by employers letting employees know of their candidates of choice, employees may feel undue pressure to conform and vote in a certain way, disclaimers notwithstanding. Yet, not surprisingly, labor doesn’t see how its own communications with employees could invoke the same feeling for its members. In non-right-to-work states, an employee’s job depends on his membership in the union. Breaking the mold and contradicting the union’s political goals, even while contributing to them, is a risky proposition.

Arguably, unions have been more forceful in their member education through their Committees on Political Education (COPE). For example, the New Jersey AFL-CIO encourages local union leaders to send endorsement letters to its members. In Pennsylvania, as the election draws near, union leaders boast that their communications can make the difference in an election:

“Local leaders have a lot of sway,” [AFL-CIO Pennsylvania State Director David] Driscoll-Knight said. “Union members frequently get letters from their local president; when they get one, they’re going to open it up and read it.”

The letters sent from the New Jersey AFL-CIO read the same in 2012 as they did in 2007, even before Citizens United allowed both labor unions and corporations more leeway in political communication. Although they don’t want to admit it, unions are doing even better in a post-Citizens United world.

Now that corporations can mimic the efforts of labor unions, those on the political left, especially those supported by labor, are up in arms. They don’t like competition—whether it’s in the workplace or in politics.

By their nature, unions are, and almost always have been, intensely political. It is an organized group of people with (supposedly) similar interests in mind, attempting to navigate the system as a unified group, to the benefit of the members. This is very different than a corporation, which is primarily concerned about shareholders and profit margins. When the corporation prospers, so do the employees, unionized or not. When a corporation fails, all the collective bargaining in the world cannot offer job security.

But in a world where the makeup of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) appears to reign supreme, employers are recognizing that they need to get into the political game.  Expect unions to bristle at every employer letter that is sent out.

Labor unions’ political activity is best framed as a byproduct of collective bargaining. Without the exclusivity of a collective bargaining unit, unions could not compel “opt-in” status of their members.  With the help of payroll deductions, “giving” by their membership is easy.

Proposition 32, which will appear on the ballot in California, would stop the practice of automatic payroll deduction and institute paycheck protection, giving public sector union members the chance to make their own decision on who to support. Unions, who have invested heavily (almost $69 million raised so far) in defeating the proposition, claim that this puts unions at a disadvantage, as these deductions are the primary way that unions fund their political spending.

Joe Mathews, writing at the NBC San Diego “Prop Zero” blog, goes a step further. Mathews proposes that if we are concerned about the political power of unions, we should ensure public employee unions are relieved of their “responsibility” to stand up for others:

These unions end up doing far more than representing their members. They are one of the leading arsenals of people and money for the Democratic Party and progressive causes. Just look at California politics and you’ll see public employees and their unions have stepped in again and again to defend people who otherwise don’t have resources or power in the political process.

Mathews laments that no clear entity to could take over the role public employee unions play in advancing left-leaning causes. He believes that the state should help encourage new institutions to replace the political function of labor unions. Specifically, he’d like to see “[s]tronger local political parties, public processes for deliberation and engagement, and a stronger public media…”

But Mathews fails to understand the first problem of union political power: it’s artificial. Much like his own proposal, it is contrived. For union members in many states, including California, “opt-out” is the default—they contribute to the unions’ political spending with a portion of their dues unless they specifically ask for a refund. The refund process is difficult for members to navigate, so many just chalk it up as the cost of doing business.

The political power that unions possess is largely thanks to union’s monopoly on employees and their ability to compel participation. If union members thought that that their union’s political operation was worth the money, then the union’s leaders would have nothing to be afraid of.  Members could just as easily opt-in to dues, or even write a check to a union’s political action committee (PAC) which is also permitted to donate directly to candidates.

Evidence from other states shows that the “opt-out” default creates a false sense of support for the unions’ political spending. Similar paycheck protection laws in other states resulted in massive reductions in political dues paid to the union.

But Mathews says that the “responsibility” to represent others has fallen to the labor unions so that they ought not be limited to just helping their members (you know, the people who are forced to pay for the unions’ activity). Yet Mathews has no explanation as to how “[s]tronger local political parties, public processes for deliberation and engagement, and a stronger public media” should be funded. Perhaps there could be a forced payment from the general public to support his endeavor? (Arguably, the way that “The Machine” works now leads to that result.)

Furthermore, it isn’t only the progressive policies that unions support with their political spending, as Mathews posits. As the San Diego Union-Tribune reminds us, unions are more interested in the laws that would affect their own interests:

In 2005, the Schwarzenegger administration’s Million Solar Roof initiative died in the Legislature because it didn’t mandate the use of union electricians for installation. In 2006, a proposal to let poor parents enroll their kids online in Medi-Cal or the Healthy Families program to take advantage of government-provided health care was killed because of concerns it could lead to fewer jobs in county welfare offices.

Prop 32 would give public sector union members the opportunity to decide for themselves if they need to be “represented” in Sacramento by a union or if their dues are better spent elsewhere. Progressive political power should not be built on the backs of California government employees.

The latest face off is playing out in the federal courts and on Capitol Hill. But don’t let politics distract from the real story: Unions are only looking out for themselves.

Crane says that the job of the agents is to just arrest illegal aliens and let the judicial system take care of the rest. Under these new rules, agents are supposed to pass over anyone who claims to fit the rule—making their job much more difficult.  Crane thinks that his union has been neglected for the sake of political gain. Now, Crane is leading a lawsuit against Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and ICE Director John Morton to enforce the law as it was before the policy change.

Crane must have missed a memo: the AFL-CIO has firmly endorsed a “roadmap to citizenship.” AFL-CIO’s leadership had thrown its full support behind the administration’s “deferred action” policy. So rather than speaking up in favor of one of their member unions—or even just ignoring them—the union told Crane to get in line:

Robert Lauermann , the former secretary-treasurer of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) Division 682 in Whiting, Indiana was convicted but able to avoid jail time for his theft from the union. Lauermann was indicted for embezzlement in April 2011 and pleaded guilty a year later. Lauermann has to pay $5,743 in restitution to BLET Division 682 and another $500 for a fine.

Lauermann is at least the third BLET secretary-treasurer subject to Office of Labor-Management Standards embezzlement investigations since last October, joining union officials in Iowa and Virginia.

Unions in California are busy playing politics this season. In addition to labor’s push against paycheck protection, the AFL-CIO has been particularly outspoken in supporting—and funding–a San Jose referendum that would increase the city’s minimum wage to $10 per hour. (The campaign even appears to be headquartered at the offices of the AFL-CIO’s South Bay Labor Council.)

Proponents claim that it improves the lives of low wage employees. But a new report from University of Kentucky economist Aaron Yelowitz explains what has happened in San Francisco since the city voted for a similar proposal in 2003: Teen unemployment has risen, and their hours worked have fallen. It’s not a surprising result, given that 85 percent of the most credible economic studies on the subject find that job loss does occur after a wage hike.

Don’t tell that to activists in San Jose, who have set aside real research and chosen to rely on Big Labor’s think tank for their “analysis and expertise.”

Of course, EcPI and labor unions will continue to perpetuate the myths of wage floors beyond November 6. Be sure to check MinimumWage.com for a fact-based response to all of them.

A second commercial, “Student Safety,” notes that criminal background checks might also be on the bargaining table, which would not allow school districts to ensure that felons are not on the payroll. The commercial specifically highlights allegations of teachers sexually abusing children.

Just add this to the growing list of problems with Prop 2.

When a Washington D.C. union boss comes to town, take notice. If that boss promises to come back again, take cover.

“This is not my first trip to Colorado, and it won’t be my last,” said Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT).

Coloradoans—you’ve been warned.

Weingarten, the former head of the AFT’s New York City local, isn’t just visiting the Rockies for vacation. New York magazine said that as Gotham’s teachers union president, “Weingarten ha[d] the power to stop education reform in its tracks, or at least slow it to a virtual halt.” And now Weingarten is ready to throw AFT’s weight around in Douglas County, Colorado and block innovative education reform.

The folks in Douglas County, home to one of the top public school systems in the country, are in for a nasty union-money-fueled battle in the weeks and months ahead. And that’s why we want you to join us and Stand With Dougco Kids and support them in improving their education, not dragging it backwards.

Teachers Union Exposed, a project of Center for Union Facts, just released a commercial that alerts county residents to the attempts by the Douglas County Federation of Teachers (DCFT)—an AFT-affiliated union—to block innovative reforms.

AFT’s Weingarten is one of a kind—or at least that’s what she says. She told the New York Sun in 2008, not long before she left for D.C., “Anybody who thinks that they can just walk into New York City and become the next Randi Weingarten is smoking something.” Likewise, if a high paid union boss ($407,323 to be exact) who backed the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) strike thinks she can just walk into Douglas County and become a credible voice on the school district, she should take note of some of her own wisdom.

That’s right: DCFT and the CTU are all under Weingarten’s AFT umbrella. The CTU is the union that blocked the school house doors when it took a “strike of choice” against Chicago students for seven days.

And now Weingarten is attacking school district leaders in Dougco, as she told Ed News Colorado:

“[A]cross the border [from Denver] is Douglas County, where the school board is only interested in its own power. Douglas County schools used to be on the cutting edge in Colorado. But rather than respect the staff, for political and malevolent reasons the board has undermined the public education system that once was known as the jewel of Colorado.”

[…]

“I’m here to say to Douglas County, ‘What the heck are you doing? And why are you doing this?’ They are attempting to destroy the public education system. It is absolute political machination.”

Dougco School Board President John Carson isn’t shy in exposing  Weingarten’s agenda:

“The Douglas County Federation of Teachers really has its strings pulled by the national union in Washington, D.C., and that’s demonstrated by the fact that that’s where they send the majority of their union dues, to the national union for politics,” Carson said. “The Douglas County Federation of Teachers is really more interested in national politics and is not interested in the educational interests of kids in Douglas County.”

For Weingarten, it has always been about teachers union power. Weingarten even pushed for a 22 percent raise for New York City teachers in November 2001, as the city was still reeling from the 9/11 attacks.

And if Weingarten wants to talk about who is being political, we’ll have that conversation. In its recently-released disclosures, the AFT headquarters in D.C. said it spent over $21 million on political activities and lobbying in the past fiscal year. That’s down from the $31 million it spent the year prior.

If Weingarten and the AFT think Chicago-style politics will work in Dougco, they’re wrong. We hope that you will Stand with Dougco Kids today.