Update: Senator Harkin justifies vote saying NLRB nomineee “cannot” change the rules

As the Director of Organizing at the AFL-CIO, Stewart Acuff draws a smaller crowd than the SEIU’s Andy Stern or his boss at the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka. But that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have something laughable to say.

In his poorly timed Huffington Post piece yesterday, Acuff took that opportunity to sing the praises of the Employee Free Forced Choice Act and bemoan it stalling on the Hill.  Acuff decided it would be a great idea to show big labor’s cards on the day before the Craig Becker vote.  He wrote that if the Senate “no longer” has EFCA’s 60 votes, then labor will be able to simply create new regulation through nominees to the NLRB.

Um, that’s exactly what the opposition to Craig Becker is claiming will occur, and they have Acuff to thank for confirming that publicly. From his own post:

“We are very close to the 60 votes we need. It we aren’t able to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, we will work with President Obama and Vice President Biden and their appointees to the National Labor Relations Board to change the rules governing forming a union through administrative action to once again allow workers in America access to one of the most basic freedoms in a democracy–the freedom of speech and assembly and association so that workers can build the collective power to challenge the Financial Elite and Get America Back to Work.”

Acuff may have gotten some much needed attention from his post. But if the Senate doesn’t confirm Becker now, Acuff might get some attention and credit for that too.

Image courtesy of coloradostatesman.com.

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).

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.

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.”

“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.

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.

I just received this from the North Pole.  It’s almost unbelievable, given the spirit of the season . . . and the billions of children who would be affected. [See below]

In response to the strike notice, Santa Claus has made the following announcement. [See below]

It’s a little unclear what the NLRB’s jurisdiction is in this situation, considering the transnational border issues this brings into play….delivery to every country and territory will be affected if Santa and BCERAS do not reach an agreement.  It is also unclear how this incident may affect the FedEx vs. UPS  controversy–whether the Brotherhood of Elves, Reindeer, and Abominable Snowmen are legally able to strike, or whether they are instead subject to the Railway Labor Act (RLA), which would make it more difficult for something like this to happen– given that Santa’s sled travels over interstate boundaries.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays from LaborPains.org.

In an article entitled “Some Organizers Protest Their Union’s Tactics,”Steven Greenhouse looks at a disgusting organizing practice known as “pink sheeting.”

The title would be perfect but for the “Some” caveat that the paper feels is necessary to include. Don’t worry, New York Times, we get the fact its not EVERY labor organizer. Just more of them that anyone should be comfortable with.

But I digress. Here’s what you need to know about “pink sheeting,” a practice that involves coercing, recording, and then using sensitive personal information about people in order to elicit loyalty from union members, organizers, and potential members.  It is, effectively black mail and a mind game, all rolled into one.  And by sensitive personal information, we don’t mean that fact I have a weakness for lemon cookies.

Take a look:

“Ms. Rivera said her supervisors at Unite Here, the hotel and restaurant workers’ union, repeatedly pressed her to reveal highly personal information, getting her to divulge that her father had sexually abused her.

Later, she said, her supervisors ordered her to recount her tale of abuse again and again to workers they were trying to unionize at Tampa International Airport, convinced that Ms. Rivera’s story would move them, making them more likely to join the union.

“I was scared not to do what they said,” said Ms. Rivera, adding that she resented being pressured to disclose intimate information and then speak about it in public. “To me, it was sick. It was horrible.”

Ms. Rivera and other current and former Unite Here organizers are speaking out against what they say is a longstanding practice in which Unite Here officials pressured subordinates to disclose sensitive personal information — for example, that their mother was an alcoholic or that they were fighting with their spouse.

More than a dozen organizers said in interviews that they had often been pressured to detail such personal anguish — sometimes under the threat of dismissal from their union positions — and that their supervisors later used the information to press them to comply with their orders.

“It’s extremely cultlike and extremely manipulative,” said Amelia Frank-Vitale, a Yale graduate and former hotel union organizer who said these practices drove her to see a therapist.

Several organizers grew incensed when they discovered that details of their history had been put into the union’s database so that supervisors could use that information to manipulate them.

Unite Here is claiming the whole thing is propaganda by the SEIU. And it probably is. Wouldn’t surprise me.

Read the rest of the story at The New York Times. It’s worth the effort.