LaborPains.org

With the news that labor unions have shrunk to their lowest level in decades, many media outlets looked to the Center for Union Facts to weigh in.

Reuters: U.S. union membership falls to lowest percentage in 76 years

The activist group Center for Union Facts, which is critical of the labor movement, said unions have made salary and benefit demands that have hurt the budgets of corporations and the public sector.

Detroit Free Press: Unions shrink in size, clout to 1930s membership levels, data show

“No one is surprised by the numbers,” said J. Justin Wilson, managing director of Center for Union Facts in Washington, D.C., an interest group that criticizes unions. “It has been a slow and precipitous decline since 1979.”

…

In one respect, “unions have been too good at their job,” Wilson said. They fought for safety, anti-discrimination and other rights that have since become protected by the federal government.

But on the negative side, “they have become non-responsive to their members,” said Wilson, who receives many calls a day from union members who feel leadership is not looking out for their interests.

Washington Examiner: Unionization rates fell to 11.3 percent in 2012

Richard Berman, executive director of the business-backed Center for Union Facts, said in a statement: “The continued decline of union membership, even during four years of a labor-friendly administration, is a sign that organized labor is no longer serving the best interests of its members.”

Kansas City Star: Dwindling union ranks shrank further in 2012, new data show

But most people don’t want to be union members, countered J. Justin Wilson, managing director of the Center for Union Facts, an organization funded by corporations, foundations and individuals.

That’s partly because today’s workers “are expressing a greater interest in autonomy and ambition on the job and want the ability to negotiate for themselves,” Wilson said.

It’s also because much of what unions fought for in the past “has now been codified into federal law,” Wilson said, pointing to standards required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and wage and hour laws.

Furthermore, federal health legislation sets health benefits standards for employers, minimizing the need for collective bargaining in that respect, he said.

“So the bargaining power of unions comes down to wages, and companies are saying it’s just not feasible to continue to pay more,” Wilson said, citing increased “givebacks” — wage concessions — by unions.

Press-Telegram (Long Beach, CA): California bucks nationwide trend of falling union membership

California is a state that is dominated by labor-friendly politicians, said J. Justin Wilson, managing director of the Center for Union Facts, an anti-union group in Washington, D.C.

“The private unions in particular spend a great deal of money and have proven they will continue to do that, and in turn they receive sweetheart deals and have a seat at the table – this gives unions power and keeps them strong, together,” he said.

For years, the most notorious and important labor unions were in the private sector. But power within the labor movement has shifted from the private sector to the public sector, if only because public employee unions have taken the lead in raw membership numbers. Luke Rosiak at the Washington Times reports that government now pays the salaries of the majority of union members in America.

The public sector had a late start — the first instances of collective bargaining didn’t arrive until the late 1950s. Allowing collective bargaining in the public sector was a line that even Franklin D. Roosevelt didn’t want to cross. But they appear to have made up for lost time by adding on incredible numbers in recent decades. From 1991 to 2011, the number of unionized employees in the public sector rose from 18 million to 20.4 million.

As our Managing Director J. Justin Wilson tells the Times, public employees were traditionally seen as the last ones who needed collective bargaining:

“Anyone would have a difficult time arguing that in the public sector there’s a conspiracy to abuse the rights of workers. We have oversight mechanisms in place” and numerous forms of recourse, he said.

Furthermore, it’s the public sector unions that are allowed to fly under the radar, as they are not required to make as many disclosures as their private sector counterparts.

“[The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act is] a transparency bill:  Union members should be able to see this for themselves so they can make decisions. But public employees are exempted,” Mr. Wilson said.

One look at that information available thanks to the LMRDA, which is available at UnionFacts.com, makes it apparent why public sector unions would want to avoid the disclosures. It details all significant spending by the union and breaks down what it costs for every promotional item, every “member education” mailing, and all of the salaries for the labor bosses. Nonetheless, the Office of Labor-Management Standards at the Department of Labor admitted in its own self-assessment in October that its current practices do “not assess whether union financial integrity, democracy or transparency have actually increased.”

It’s also clear to see why many private sector workers might be turned off by their unions: some have become family dynasties. Rosiak also reports this morning that local unions are run and almost entirely controlled by kin. His lead example: One Ohio Laborers chapter has its purse strings held by members of the Mayle family, who take up five of the groups 14 leadership positions.

There is also little turnover in labor union officers from term to term. There are “elections” held on a regular basis, but rarely is an incumbent tossed from office. It’s often safe to say that if a leader doesn’t return to office, it’s a position that’s been yielded to an anointed successor.

The lesson learned is that the more things change, the more they stay the same.  There are serious problems at the local level when union members might prefer some real democracy and choices, but get cronyism and nepotism instead. And on the macro level, the changing of the guard from private sector unions to the public sector will do little to change organized labor’s tactics or agenda. The only difference is that now, labor leaders can hide behind the lack of transparency.

WSJ Calls for Explanation on IUOE/Griffin Lawsuit

As we detailed yesterday, National Labor Relations Board member Richard Griffin, who never went through a Senate hearing prior to his “recess” appointment to the NLRB, is a defendant in a civil suit involving the union he used to legally represent. The story is gaining some serious steam: The Wall Street Journal editorial board is now calling for some pro-active action by Griffin:

As a lawyer, Mr. Griffin was an officer of the court with legal obligations beyond his union duties. At the very least, he should respond to the charges in the complaint and publicly explain everything he knew about the events that led to his role in terminating these employees.

Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO Teaming Up?

In what seems like an unholy alliance, Tom Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said that his organization is teaming up with Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO to work on immigration reform. The Chamber outlined its 2013 agenda but has yet to name specific legislation that both groups would support—if such a thing exists.

Rumor Mill Churns on Solis Replacement at DOL

With Hilda Solis’s recent resignation as Secretary of Labor, commentators are starting to speculate about possible replacements. New Hampshire media outlets want Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, while David Macaray, writing at the Huffington Post, considers former Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers, and Donald Fehr of the NHL Players Association as potential Obama picks. We recommend someone who won’t unduly favor unions, unlike the outgoing Solis.

Union President Proposes Medieval Punishment for Political Foe

On Wednesday, we reported that Karen Lewis of the Chicago Teachers Union recalled the days where labor leaders shouted “off with their heads.” Labor leaders in Toledo favor similarly archaic forms of incapacitation. The Toledo Blade reports that Dennis Duffey, secretary-treasurer of the Ohio State Building Construction Trades Council, said that City Council President Joe McNamara should be ‘removed, tarred and feathered, or de-nutted.” How charming.

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis announced on Wednesday afternoon that she is resigning her post. By all accounts, Solis clearly stood on the side of organized labor. As Byron York notes, Solis served as a cheerleader for union members opposing Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s reforms, and she supported the anti-secret ballot EFCA before it went down in flames.

As the speculation begins as to who might replace Solis, she has already put in motion at least one major change that ensures yet another advantage for organized labor. The Department of Labor (DOL) is approaching the Final Rule stage of a new regulation that would change the definition of “advice” and “persuader.” The proposed rule would revise the way the DOL interprets the Labor Management Reporting Disclosure Act (LMRDA) by limiting the exemption of whom an employer must share information about.

Prior to this proposal, the DOL interpreted Section 203 of the LMRDA to mean that employers only had to reveal information about “persuaders,” those who help the company in deterring union campaigns, if those individuals were in direct contact with employees. Under this altered interpretation, employers would have to reveal the names of the lawyers or other consultants that they relied on for advice, as well as how much it cost to hire them.

This is especially problematic for attorneys, as the American Bar Association (ABA) stated in its comment in opposition to the rule. It would force attorneys to violate rules of confidentiality with their clients. According to the ABA Model Rules and several state bar rules of professional conduct, the divulging of information relating to representation of a client without the informed consent of the client is not permitted.  The ABA says:

By requiring lawyers to file detailed reports with the Department stating the identity of their employer clients, the nature of the representation and the types of legal tasks performed, and the receipt and disbursement of legal fees whenever the lawyers provide advice or other legal services relating to the clients’ persuader activities, the Proposed Rule could chill and seriously undermine the confidential client-lawyer relationship.

This is but one part of the pro-labor legacy that will remain even though Solis is moving on.

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.

Don Todd previously headed up the Department of Labor’s Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS) under President George W. Bush. Now he’s charging that, instead of keeping unions honest, the Department of Labor is working hand-in-hand with organized labor:

“In a worst-case scenario, your union organizer comes to you, offers you a deal to unionize, you say, ‘no,’ and, the next thing you know, OSHA’s [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] at your door,” Todd said in a phone interview. “Then, Wage and Hour show up, and they want to publicize it. They always find something wrong – it’s like with bed-checks in boot camp in the army.”

Todd said some companies will fight the DOL’s intimidation tactics, but many will give in to unionizing forces.

“It makes it the path of least resistance,” Todd said.

There’s much more where that came from. Click here to read the full story.

The core problem is that the ideologues at DOL see their role as solidarity with, not enforcement of, organized labor.

Image courtesy of gfpeck.

Labor unions are allowed to “pressure” businesses with which they have a direct dispute. But what about companies that are completely neutral? Keith Eastland, a labor lawyer in Grand Rapids, wrote an op-ed explaining an unfortunate decision by the National Labor Relations Board.

Employers can expect the new board to grant much broader protections to union-related activity. An Aug. 27 board decision on “bannering” highlights this point. Bannering refers to the display of large signs, often containing misleading claims, at job sites belonging to neutral parties. It is a union tactic often designed to threaten and coerce neutral businesses to avoid dealing with non-union contractors or suppliers.

Although the law expressly prohibits unions from engaging in coercive or threatening actions toward neutral businesses, the new board has ruled that bannering is protected. Under this new rule, unions can now target your business or job sites with large banners — or use giant inflatable rats signifying the presence of “scabs” — even when you have no labor dispute with that union.

The case before the NLRB began in Arizona where representatives of the Carpenters Local 1506 (consisting of non-union temp workers  being paid to play the part of “picketer”) held 16-foot-long signs outside two medical centers and a restaurant. The signs read “Shame on…(the name of the establishment)” with the words “Labor Dispute” nearby. The catch? The establishments had no conflict with the union. The dispute was with construction companies doing work for the establishments’ owners.

This should have been a no-brainer for the NLRB. The National Labor Relations Act forbids conduct found to “threaten, coerce, or restrain” secondary businesses not involved in the primary dispute. But chalk one up to the labor-stacked NLRB, i.e. Craig Becker and Co.: They found a way to rule in the union’s favor.

To what extreme’s will unions take this new rule?

Recently the [United Brotherhood of Carpenters in Salt Lake City] has taken its bannering a step further by targeting companies that don’t do business with the Contractors. The banners are the same. But the handbills reveal that the company named is a potential tenant in a building where one of the Contractors is slated to perform work. According to the Union, the company being bannered is guilty of “thinking about profiting from unfair labor practices.” By this measure, most of the population might be subject to bannering.

A “potential tenant” where a company “is slated to perform work”? How far will bannering go? Could a union pressure the company that employs the aunt of the owner of a plumbing company that services an office building that houses a paper company that sells supplies to another company with which the union has a dispute? Or perhaps just thinking about selling supplies is enough to put a company in the unions crosshairs. Thanks to Craig Becker’s NLRB, it’s certainly possible.

This video drives home the point. Despite being about NFCW, not the Carpenters, it’s the same practice of creating a deceptive union picket line.

Talk about inappropriate comparisons! As reported by the National Journal, Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO and one of the heavy-hitters in the labor movement, came out swinging today and racked up yet another uncomfortable gaffe.

Trumka, the nation’s top union official, said that the anti-Obama views aired by conservative commentators like Glenn Beck constitutes “hate” in his mind and that he fears it could incite violence in these frustrating economic times.

“Our country’s been there a couple of times before, and with one exception, we’ve always taken the high road,” Trumka told National Journal. “You remember when John Kennedy got off the plane in Dallas, Texas, there were people on the airwaves talking about doing violence to the president. And what happened? That kind of stuff didn’t help our country, and we want to make sure that the anger gets turned into action, and it becomes unifying and not dividing and that we get hope and not hate.”

Go ahead and add that to Trumka’s Greatest Hits, which also includes a metaphorical threat to “burn” coal companies that replaced striking union workers, and accusing recalcitrant businesses of “economic treason.”

Of course, the real reason for Trumka’s desperation is that Congress failed to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, item number one on the unions’ wish list. And with Congress looking like it will be less sympathetic to Big Labor after the election, EFCA is as good as gone.