LaborPains.org

The SEIU is using the Vancouver Olympics as a perfect media moment to attack their nemesis, French-based Sodexo.  Sodexo is a big fish to fry.  It’s the largest facilities management and catering company in the world–and the SEIU has set their sights on them.

The Soxedo-SEIU battle, spanning oceans, has proved less-than-sexy to the media despite transcontinental protests.  After other labor setbacks, the SEIU has decided to bring the Olympics, specifically Olympic athletes into the fray. From a press release:

“The Service Employees International Union, the nation’s largest healthcare union, is raising questions about the safety of food being provided to athletes at the Vancouver Winter Olympics by Sodexo, a global food service contractor based in France who served contaminated meat at a camp in Virginia sickening more than two dozen boy scouts.”

It should not come as a surprise that SEIU’s motives in Vancouver have little to do with athletes’ safety.  According to Politico’s Ben Smith, “Sodexo is also the target of an intense SEIU organizing campaign.”  The SEIU hates Sodexo for the wages they pay American workers and for Sodexo somehow avoiding massive unionization drives, according to the New York Times. According to Business Week, the SEIU has been using “The Embarrassment Factor” to attack Sodexo, among other European companies, and this Olympic attack is more of the same.

Using the Olympics and Olympic athletes to aid in a union drive is irresponsible, opportunistic, and potentially damaging to the athletes. Olympic athletes, many of whom I am sure have torrid relationships with food as it is, don’t need the SEIU messing with their game….or messing with the Games.

The SEIU should leave the Olympic athletes alone.

Image courtesy of KevinDooley.

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.

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.

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.

With declining numbers and unpopular friends (read: ACORN), labor unions are constantly looking for new sectors of the American work force to unionize–those that are structurally non-union, legally non-union, and those who have just been flying under the radar.   With revenue down, American labor depends on finding and unionizing these untapped laborers.

There are complications inherent in this pursuit.  Some industry structures or legal framework do not allow them to unionize easily.  So unions seek to change the structure–and America’s ports are the target.

Under the guise of cleaning up LA’s port, the Port of Angeles’ Clean Truck Program almost included a concession that would mandate that independent truckers (the bane of union’s existance) would be required to join a trucking company. These concessions were backed by labor and labor-friendly environmental groups. According to these groups, independent truckers are guilty for the dirty air because they have more older trucks than companies.

Supporters of the independent truckers have argued that singling them out is not only unfair, it is a transparent attempt to unionize the truckers.  In a large company, said truckers would be wildly more organizable for the Teamsters. Read more in the LA Times.

The other port that has the focus of unions is the Port of Seattle.  Two Seattle Port Commission candidates have received at least $220,000 from unions. Here what the Seattle Post Intelligencer collected:

A front group called Port Reform, promoting election of Holland and Vekich, has received $146,000 from unions plus about $20,000 of in-kind contributions, a chunk of it from a national labor outfit called “Change to Win.” [...] The Washington Teamsters Legislative League has given $25,000 to Port Reform. The Drive Committee, Washington, D.C.-based political arm of the Teamsters Union, has delivered another $25,000. The Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees are the largest giver, at $40,000. The International Longshore and Warehouse Union, out of San Francisco, has put $20,000 into Port Reform. The Service Employees International Union, Washington State Council, has given $10,000. An equal sum has come from the SEIU’s Local 6, which represents workers at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Unions have directly given about $30,000 to Vekich and Holland, with more going to Vekich. Add up unions’ contributions to Port Reform, and to the two candidates, and donations from union members, and the total tops $220,000.

Why so much money through so many different routes, all ties to labor?  The Seattle Post Intelligencer continues:

As unions renew efforts to organize workers, the Puget Sound region has become a testing ground for new tactics. “I know that one priority of ‘Change to Win’ is organizing independent contractor truckers at ports around the country,” said Adam Glickman, spokesman for the SEIU. That includes Seattle, where a lot of independent, non-unionized truckers take cargoes away from the port. Harbor truck drivers are a national organizing target for “Change to Win.”

Despite Teamster’s stranglehold on UPS, FedEx has yet evaded their grasp.

Monday was the day of the highly anticipated vote by Fed-Ex shareholders.  Should they keep the job of chairman and CEO the same, or separate them, as the Teamsters have so desperately wanted FedEx to do?

The answer: A sizable  majority of shareholders said no, and FeEx Founder Fred Smith lives to fight another day.

But no floods or famines here.  FedEx has seen 66.95% percent returns in the last ten years–enough to keep shareholders very happy. By contrast, Teamster’s ally UPS has suffered minus 5.5% percent returns since it went public in 1998.

Click HERE to read more.

I’ve noted how labor attempts to intimidate, harass, or humiliate companies that don’t bend to their will. Change To Win’s favorite target in recent months is drugstore retailer CVS, which they charge with allegedly selling expired products.

But that campaign apparently was not effective judging by what Change To Win is now complaining about:

Add condoms to the list of items under lock and key at some retail pharmacies, a practice at certain CVS drugstores that’s being criticized by a coalition of labor unions. The “Cure CVS: Unlock the Condoms Initiative” led by the labor group Change to Win is asking the nation’s largest drugstore chain to end the practice, which it says is more common in communities of color.

I’m not going to wade into the debate over access to contraceptives but I will point out what the CVS spokesman had to say in response:

“They’re waging a campaign to disparage CVS by using highly skewed or false information because we refuse to waive the rights our employees have under federal law to be able to vote confidentially in union elections.”

This is just another example of how unions wage a retaliatory campaign against a company because it won’t appease their demands. Using access to condoms as a talking point shows just how far Change To Win and its labor allies will go in their attempts to shame a company into changing its policies. Fortunately, linking contraception and card check is not going to resonate with the public, just  like the rest of their failed campaigns.

The Employee Free Choice act was a hot topic on the Colorado airwaves again yesterday, with local radio talk show host Craig Silverman of 630 KHOW’s Caplis and Silverman Show interviewing the two candidates for Colorado’s open US Senate seat. 

Silverman first interviewed former Congressman Bob Schaffer.  On the subject of labor unions, Schaffer first says that labor unions are an important part of our country’s workforce, and legitimate institutions.  He takes a stand, however, against any type of coercion, intimidation, or other underhanded practices by labor unions and their representatives.  He also stands firmly against the “card check” method of unioniztion and the removal of private ballots from the union organization process, and makes it clear that he would not support the Employee Free Choice Act.   

Click to Hear Bob Schaffer Discuss Unions

Silverman then brought in Congressman Mark Udall for the next hour.  Due to the fact the people of Colorado are concerned about this issue, the Employee Free Choice Act  came up again.   Udall laid out a distinctly different plan, supporting the removal of the private ballot from union organization through EFCA. 

Click to Hear Mark Udall Support Removing the Private Ballot 

Despite Silverman’s multiple attempts to get Udall to address the removal of the private ballot from the process, Udall dances around the issue, diverting to other topics including local ballot initiatives, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and insisting the the bill “levels the playing field”.   He claims that EFCA will strengthen the NLRB, but that is patently false, as the NLRB will be removed from the process.  Currently, the NLRB acts as a neutral party between business and labor, conducting the private ballot election that EFCA seeks to remove!

So Mark Udall is willing to “level the playing field” at the expense of workers and their right to a private ballot?  That doesn’t sound like the independent Western spirit that Mark Udall so often claims to possess.  In fact, it sounds like a bad deal for workers in Colorado and all across America!