LaborPains.org

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.

The Daily Caller has another fascinating article about an Obama Administration policy that could give unions a membership boost:

By increasing the number of “green” requirements truckers have to comply with in order to get into some major United States ports — like Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland — the Obama administration and the Environmental Protection Agency are helping push previously independent truckers into companies, which then makes them vulnerable to unionization or, in many cases, forced to join a union. As these aren’t administrative laws from the EPA per se, trucks that don’t fit this new “green” standard, which is meeting at least 2007 EPA emissions levels, are still allowed to operate throughout the country. But each of the major port authorities won’t let them in if they don’t fit the new environmental regulations, which would force many independent truckers out of business if they resist since many truckers depend on business from the ports to survive.

And sure enough, the Caller goes on to quote a spokeswoman for a coalition of groups (including the Teamsters) saying she wants to stop the “misclassification” of truckers as independent contractors. Far better for distant labor leaders to decide truckers’ employment arrangements rather than truckers and trucking companies.

This is a story to watch for two reasons. First, it’s another example of the government stacking the deck in favor of labor unions, which look increasingly unable to survive without the feds. Second, it shows the continuing efforts by organized labor to co-opt the green movement and use it to gain members. As we’ve noted in the past, the Teamsters have embarked on a protracted effort to eliminate independent truckers — all under the guise of being “environmentally friendly.” Now they’ve enlisted the EPA in their scheme.

Image courtesy of Hugo90.

After 20 inches of snow were dumped on New York City last week, the media has been atwitter about allegations made by one city councilman. Dan Halloran claimed he was approached by three Sanitation Department workers who confessed they had been ordered to slow down the snow removal as a protest against recent budget cuts.

The accused unions are the Sanitation Officers Association (which is part of the SEIU) and the Uniformed Sanitationmen’s Association (which is part of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters). Both have claimed that the sluggish plowing was due to budget cutbacks and that no one takes Halloran’s allegations seriously.

But apparently the feds do–at least enough to open an investigation:

Federal prosecutors in Brooklyn have opened a preliminary investigation into allegations that disgruntled sanitation workers sabotaged the cleanup after the blizzard last week that left some neighborhoods snowbound for days, people who have been briefed on the inquiry said Tuesday.

The investigation is focusing on whether there was a work slowdown and, if so, whether it was an effort to pad overtime. If the actions took place, two of those people said, they could constitute wire fraud or wire fraud conspiracy, both federal crimes. Both people spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation was continuing.

Meanwhile:

Between 660 and 720 Sanitation workers called in sick for the cleanup of last week’s blizzard — more than double the usual rate, The Post has learned.

About 11 to 12 percent of the Sanitation Department’s 6,000-strong force didn’t show up for work on Monday or Tuesday, city officials confirmed, as 20 inches of snow brought the Apple to a near-standstill.

Of course, there’s no way of knowing whether those absent employees were protesting or snowed in. But for what it’s worth, this is far from the first time Teamsters-affiliated sanitation workers have called in sick. The worst incident occurred in nearby Yonkers where garbage festered in some neighborhoods for weeks after a budget battle angered the local sanitation union. On one day, 46 out of 48 sanitation workers scheduled to pick up garbage called in sick. More details will come out in the next few weeks, and in the meantime, we are keeping an eye on this.

Image courtesy of Barbara L. Hanson.

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.

There have been several times when I’ve discussed the alternate means of implementing some of the key tenets of the Employee Free Choice Act, like HERE and HERE. It’s just nice to have the President blatantly confirm this agenda in his speech to the AFL-CIO.  Basic story? EFCA will be a challenge in the lame duck session, but no worries, we’ve got other ways of making it happen. From the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Obama reiterated that the administration will put its weight behind it. “We are going to keep on fighting to pass the Employee Free Choice Act,” he told the 54 executive council members and others in the room. “We also know what and who is standing in the way of progress,” he said, adding that it will be “tough” to get the bill through the Senate and will take time to reverse the impact of “at least eight years in which there was a profound animosity toward the notion of unions.”

Mr. Obama also reminded the labor officials of the ways in which the administration has already supported unions, in part by wielding executive powers for actions that don’t require legislation.

“There’s a reason why we nominated people to the National Mediation Board that would ensure that folks in the rail and air” industries can organize, said Mr. Obama, referring to the board’s overhaul in May of a decades-old rule that had made it harder for airline and railway workers to unionize. He also cited the Democrats he nominated to the National Labor Relations Board to “restore some balance” to the group, which supervises union elections and referees disputes between private-sector employers and employees.

Remember the the Hollywood strike of 2007-2007 by the Writer’s Guild of America. Your favorite show probably had a strangely short season. Plot lines were truncated. Favorite shows on the cusp of being renewed were canceled.  It produced Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog. Colbert, Stewart, and Conan (remember him) fought. And we learned that some late night hosts aren’t funny; their writer’s are. It was a dark time.

It goes with out saying, then, that no one  wants to see another strike in Hollywood, except perhaps the Teamsters. They may shut down Hollywood in the coming weeks:

“”If they’re  [the Teamsters] counting on the producers caving, that’s the wrong strategy,” a studio-side source said. “A strike is entirely possible.” The low-profile Teamsters Local 399 represents several thousand drivers who move everything from production equipment to star trailers and electrical generators. No drivers means no equipment, and no equipment means no film or TV production. The Teamsters also represent casting directors and others, and the negotiations also include craft workers such as electricians. A walkout would idle these key workers as well as drivers. A strike would be the third Hollywood work stoppage in less than three years, following a 100-day writers strike in 2007-08 and a Screen Actors Guild (SAG) stalemate in 2008-09 that led to a suspension of most movie production.

It would be the first Teamsters action since a series of strikes during the 1980s. Unless the producers hire replacement workers – a contingency they already are preparing for – production would grind to a halt.”

Sandwiched in the middle of a bit of NAFTA-hating, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka took the time remind everyone, anyone, who would listen that EFCA is still around. From the Wall Street Journal:

“Mr. Trumka said union leaders did discuss the proposed Employee Free Choice Act with Vice President Biden. The measure is a union-backed bill that would make it easier for unions to organize workers for collective bargaining. The bill is stalled in Congress, opposed by Republicans, conservative Democrats and business groups. Mr. Trumka said Mr. Biden assured labor leaders Wednesday that he and the White House were still committed to the legislation.”

I remember Richard Trumka’s battle cry last month at the UAW conference:

“We won’t quit until the EFCA becomes the law of the land and everyone who wants a union can have a union,” Trumka said.

Or a month before that in The Hill:

“The union leader was bullish on its chances of passage, saying there will be a vote on the bill this year and it will pass.”

Perhaps Mr. Trumka has alarm on his phone that reminds him to bring it up at scheduled intervals?  Like “Note to self: Harp on EFCA today. Be positive and aggressive. Smile.”