LaborPains.org

War drums are beating all over the country as Big Labor gears up for the fight to stay relevant in the American political landscape. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka began expanding his political operation last summer with a super PAC for the purposes of funding multi-cycle, issue advocacy as well as get-out-the-vote efforts. The new super PAC, “Workers’ Voices”, has announced its small, yet respectable haul with $3.7 million raised, and $3 million cash on hand.

The battle may be coming to a head in California, where labor organizations are fighting tooth and nail to protect their source of revenue. If a new ballot initiative passes this November, unions would need to get written permission from their members each year to use dues for political purposes.

“This could change the balance of power long after the governor’s taxes are expired,” said Thad Kousser, a political-science professor at UC San Diego. “Defeating this has got to be the top goal of labor. If they don’t, they could become almost extinct in California politics.”

At this point, unions are desperately looking for a win. Today, as thousands of protesters packed hallways and shouted their disapproval, the Indiana Senate voted 28-22 to pass a right to work bill. The bill will now go to Gov. Mitch Daniels for his signature.

On a national level, there is legislation with a similar provision. The Employee Rights Act, sponsored by U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and U.S. Representative Tim Scott (R-SC) contains a measure that would give employees the right to require unions to get their approval before dues money is spent on behalf of political parties or political candidates.

It should be noted; exit polling from 2010 by shows that 42 percent of union households voted for Republican candidates, yet more than 93 percent of union political support went to Democratic candidates. There is a serious disconnect between Big Labor’s political agenda and the personal ideology of its members.

The right-to-work battle is heating up in Indiana, and labor unions look desperate. So desperate in fact, that union leaders are contemplating disrupting the Super Bowl, which will be played in the Lucas Oil Stadium.

The Associated Press reports that around 50 Indiana labor leaders met this week for the AFL-CIO’s “labor Table” to discuss a strategy. With all eyes on Indiana on February 5, Big Labor wants to cash in on the free publicity and use the opportunity to bash right to work efforts in the state. The Teamsters are considering blocking the streets around the NFL village with truckers willing to risk arrest for their cause, and other union members could flood the streets marching in protest.

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said they don’t expect the game to be disrupted, likely because the unions representing stagehands, carpenters, electricians and painters have a no-strike agreement with the board that runs the Indianapolis Convention Center. But other unions key to the overall success of the super bowl, such as hotel employees do not fall under the no-strike agreement.

It is clear from the hostile attitude of one Teamster organizer saying, “You can tell them we’ll take the Super Bowl and shove it,” that the good of the community might not be Big Labor’s number one interest. With Republicans in the state House and Senate hoping to vote on right-to-work legislation in the upcoming weeks, the half-time show might not be the only controversy at this year’s Super Bowl.

Driven by opposition to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s proposal passed last year that effectively ended collective bargaining rights for nearly all public sector workers, unions have been extremely active in the state’s campaign to force a recall election. In a recent statement, the AFL-CIO praised the Wisconsin union members for collecting over a million signatures throughout the last two months.

However, not all of the action will be in Wisconsin. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has a bold plan to overhaul pensions for future city- and state-government workers. The New York chapter of the AFL-CIO is mobilizing its 2.5 million union members to oppose the plan.

“How they can be against adjusting future benefits just boggles my mind,” Cuomo told the New York Post. “It’s just unbelievable to me.”

The AFL-CIO is making waves on a national level as well. On Wednesday, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka slammed the White House jobs council’s latest report. As one of the two union leaders on the council, Trumka said the body is too narrow to provide recommendations to President Obama that are balanced between the interests of business and labor.

For a group that just launched a new ad campaign touting how “work connects us all” the AFL-CIO sure doesn’t seem to work well with others.

Union membership has steadily declined for decades. Membership peaked in 1979, with over 20 million union members. Today, less than 15 million members remain—less than half of which are in the private sector. In light of the recent push for labor reform and right-to-work laws, combined with unions’ dwindling membership, labor leaders are fighting for a last chance at relevancy and control.

The AFL-CIO is attempting to revive its image with a new advertising campaign. The Wall Street Journal reports that the $1.5 million campaign featuring 30 and 60 second television ads has begun, airing in Pittsburg, PA and Austin, TX. The awkward ads attempt to show how everyone is connected by organized labor, but what they obviously don’t show is all of the people who are forced to be connected to unions in non-right to work states.

Public sector unions in Wisconsin, with the help of their national unions, are also engaged in a fight for their life, as they desperately attempt to rid the state of Gov. Scott Walker. Last year Walker championed a bill that limited state employee collective bargaining rights, leaving union leaders seething.

In 2011, unions spent $35 million in a failed attempt to stop labor reform by recalling a number of Republican state representatives, and this year Walker himself told Fox News, “[Unions] want those automatic dues, and they’ll spend just about anything to get it back.”

With the current standoff in Indiana over right-to-work leaning in its opponent’s favor, the unions’ survival skills will again be tested.

Part of the Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) Director’s job is to oversee the investigations and audits of union financial records and union officials’ conflicts-of-interest reporting. Obama appointee John Lund should have never been given this position, as performing those duties would be a conflict of interest for Director Lund. Don Loos first broke the story in April.

The Obama Ethics Executive Order requires appointees to pledge that they will refrain from involvement in matters involving their former employer or clients.  The AFL-CIO and other unions are former clients of John Lund , and these unions remain clients of his former and current employer, the University of Wisconsin School for Workers (Lund is currently on unpaid leave while at DOL).  The Wisconsin School for Workers’ primary mission is to train union officials; the very officials that Lund now purportedly investigates for corruption.

Now, even more disturbing details have surfaced. Lund is purportedly telling union officials they can bypass Department of Labor investigators and instead work with him personally. And a new U.S. Department of Labor internal document seems to back up the claim of Lund’s flagrant abuse of power. Don Loos explains the dirty details:

[B]y going to Lund, union bosses can work out deals to avoid jail time or criminal charges.  He can personally advise them how to “clean up” their reports to avoid consequences.  On the other hand, if pesky Department of Labor investigators get involved, then government investigative records will be made, facts will be verified, and falsehoods will be documented.

Loos also points out that had the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman similarly invited corporate presidents to deal with her directly and ignore SEC investigators, it would be breaking news with investigations to follow. Instead, Big Labor will continue to reap the rewards of Lund’s appointment at the expense of their dues paying members (who the OLMS department is supposed to protect). A thorough investigation should be made into the abuse of power at the Department of Labor, and specifically into Lund’s actions while at the DOL. When the fox watches the hen house, the village always goes hungry.

The Chicago Tribune and WGN-TV reported today that bosses in the Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA) are set to receive benefits from two and even three pension funds upon retirement from their positions. The highlights:

Union pension benefits are not public record, but the Tribune and WGN-TV obtained information confirming that at least seven union officials are accruing benefits in multiple pensions and another retired official already is receiving money from two pensions.

One labor leader stands to reap more than $400,000 a year from three pensions — the city laborers fund, a union district council fund and a national union fund — all covering the same time period.

The Tribune reports that union bosses are using a loophole in a state pension law that prohibits union members who receive city pensions from “receiving credit in any pension plan established by the local labor organization based on his employment by the organization.”

The LIUNA bosses and the city pension fund argue that the “Construction and General Laborers District Council of Chicago and Vicinity” does not count as a “local labor organization” and thus they are entitled to claim the city pension and the union pension. And boy, do they stand to claim quite a pretty penny. The Tribune gives this example of a boss’s benefits:

Among those in line to reap multiple pensions with the blessing of city pension fund officials is Liberato “Al” Naimoli, president of Cement Workers Local 76.

Naimoli retired in 2010 from a $15,000-a-year city job that he hadn’t worked at in a quarter-century. He now receives a city pension, based on his union salary that pays him about $158,000 a year, more than any other annuitant in the city laborers’ pension fund.

In order to get that inflated city pension, Naimoli signed an application in 2009 that stated he was not receiving credit in any local union pension plan. Yet information obtained by the Tribune and WGN-TV shows that the local has been sending pension contributions on his behalf to the union fund since 1977. He is now eligible to receive about $60,000 a year.

For comparison, the Tribune reports that the average member’s benefit is $29,000 per year from one pension. Being the boss has its benefits.

The National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) legal efforts to derail The Boeing Company from opening a new production plant in South Carolina, a right-to-work state, prompted 41 Republican senators to retaliate against President Obama and his pro-union NLRB. The senators wrote in a letter to Obama last Thursday that they’d “use all procedural tools available to defeat” the confirmations of two board members unless he withdrew their nominations immediately.

Specifically, the senators vowed to oppose the nominations of the board’s Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon and board member Craig Becker, a former attorney who has represented both the AFL-CIO and Service Workers International Union (SEIU), who we’ve written about before.

For a hint at just how frustrated the 41 senators are, here’s a bit more of the letter sent by them to President Obama:

The Senate has been unacceptably denied the ability to exercise its constitutional duty of advice and consent in regards to the NLRB.

In light of the NLRB’s recent actions that would have a deleterious effect on job creation and economic opportunity across the country, it is time to hold the NLRB accountable.

We urge you to withdraw both Mr. Solomon’s and Mr. Becker’s nominations to their respective positions immediately.

If not, we will vigorously oppose both nominations, vote against cloture and use all procedural tools available to defeat their confirmation in the Senate. …

Is this move against Boeing what President Obama meant when he told the AFL-CIO in August 2010 that he was going to “restore some balance” to the NLRB and make it easier for workers in the aerospace industry to unionize? It certainly seems that way.

Image courtesy of: vgm8383

It's hard to tell anti-capitalist protesters from AFL-CIO leaders these days. (Photo credit: csuspect)

The AFL-CIO is demonizing millionaire CEOs that make their money the old-fashioned way—by working hard and earning it. According to the union, more than 100,000 median wage earning workers could be supported if the nation’s top earning CEOs were, presumably, eliminated or magically decided to work for free. The AFL-CIO’s “Executive PayWatch” website states:

In 2010, Standard & Poor’s 500 Index company CEOs received, on average, $11.4 million in total compensation— a 23 percent increase in one year. Based on 299 companies’ most recent pay data for 2010, their combined total CEO pay of $3.4 billion could support 102,325 median workers’ jobs.

Taking a page from the AFL-CIO’s book of wishful thinking, bloggers at The Union News reverse-engineered the union’s argument to see what would happen if billions in union dues hadn’t been collected in 2010 and blown on “salaries and benefits of union bosses, their staffs, and their golf courses, airplanes, and other costs.” The results, though speculative, seem to shatter the glass house in which the AFL-CIO enjoys throwing its rocks:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2010, there were 14.7 million union Americans belonging to unions. While that only represents 11.9 percent of all wage and salary earners, there is a substantial amount of dues money flowing to unions.

If we were to use a conservative figure of $50 per month for union dues, in 2010, unions collected $735,000,000 per month in union dues from America’s unionized workers. Multiply $735,000,000 by 12 months and you get a whopping $8,820,000,000 that was collected in union dues in 2010.

Divide $8,820,000,000 by $33,227 and you’ll find that if unions did not take union dues from workers in 2010, 265,447 workers’ jobs could have been supported.

We’re guessing AFL-CIO leader Richard Trumka probably won’t be testing out The Union News’ theory to see if it holds any merit, and for obvious reasons.