Look for the union label! (Photo credit: eggrole / Mark)

Organized labor in Northern California says it’s high time that they unite with the state’s growing medical marijuana industry. On Monday, cannabis operators in San Jose and the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union hashed-out the details for their new partnership.

Angel Raich, founder and CEO of ARCH collective in Oakland, described her industry’s budding relationship with UFCW as “a meeting of the minds in a lot of ways.” Dispensary operators say that aligning themselves with one of the nation’s most powerful labor unions  brings “clout” to their industry.

UFCW Local 5 President Ron Lind told KGO-TV that the Silicon Valley Cannabis Coalition for Sensibility and Dignity was launched to help cannabis shops “build their power and legitimacy” through unionization. The Daily Caller reported in June 2010 that marijuana legalization in California would especially be a boon to UCFW membership:

By getting in on the ground floor, the UFCW has a chance to dominate in an industry where employees and employers alike are –as of this moment anyway– far less skeptical of organized labor than the long-unionized supermarket industry.

With medical marijuana sales expected to generate revenue of nearly $9 billion over the next 5 years, could it be that UCFW leaders are hoping for spillover benefits to their core industry?  UFCW employees will certainly be in a unique position to deal with any and every case of the munchies that comes their way.

First from Pennsylvania:

Three of the largest state employee unions wanted to remove one of the more pressing issues that Gov.-elect Tom Corbett will find on his doorstep when he walks into office on Jan. 18. They sought a one-year extension to their labor contracts that expire June 30.

Leaders of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 13, Pennsylvania Social Services Union Local 668 and United Food and Commercial Workers approached outgoing Gov. Ed Rendell as well as members of Corbett’s transition team about the idea.

While Rendell saw advantages for his successor to not have to deal with labor negotiations right off the bat as he did when he first was elected in 2003, the incoming governor showed no interest when the two discussed the matter last week.

This was a desperate attempt by the unions to head off Corbett, who has promised to cut state spending and not raise taxes. Corbett, a fiscal conservative, will be far more likely to crack down on organized labor than Rendell. Thus the unions need Rendell to solve their problems — and quickly. Kudos to him for turning them down.

Meanwhile Indiana may join the ranks of right-to-work states:

Republicans in the Indiana House have filed bills that would prevent workers from being required to pay union dues, an issue considered so divisive that Gov. Mitch Daniels would prefer to avoid it.

The so-called right-to-work legislation could move forward anyway since Republicans have full control of the General Assembly after winning a House majority in last month’s election. The bills would prohibit companies from making union dues or membership a requirement of employment.

Daniels is understandably nervous about spending lots of political capital on what’s sure to be an acrimonious battle against the unions. (One Indiana Democrat is already claiming that right-to-work laws discriminate against women and minorities.) If the bill does pass, it would make Indiana the 23rd right-to-work state.

Image courtesy of tricky ™.

The results are very bad news for the country’s labor unions. Organized labor broke the bank this election season trying to stem the Republican tide. The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the largest public-sector union in the country, spent an astonishing $87.5 million to get Democrats elected, the biggest contribution in the race. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) donated another $44 million.

It made very little difference. Now comes the day after. Just how will America’s most lovable labor leaders try to rationalize their way out of this one? Some did better than others.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka:

“We did our job. No matter what demographic, you look at our membership, we had large margins for progressive candidates approaching 30, with Harry Reid it was higher. … I think [Democrats] are cognizant of what we did and if they aren’t they should pay heed to it.”

In other words, don’t blame us…or else.

SEIU President Mary Kay Henry:

“[W]e are looking to the new leaders elected tonight to show up in January ready to work for the American people — not for the agenda of the nameless, faceless corporations who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into our political process.”

I.e. please ignore the millions we pumped into campaigns.

United Food and Commercial Workers President Joe Hansen:

“In stark contrast to 2008, the election of 2010 will be remembered because the results were fueled not by hope, but by anger, frustration, and fear. … Empty and inflammatory rhetoric that derides health reform as ‘Obamacare’ and demonizes leaders as socialists will not right the imbalance in our economy or help working people make ends meet.”

In other words, we’re angry that you’re angry.

National Education Association President Dennis Van Roekel:

“NEA stands ready to work with the new Congress to put students first and ensure that education is the engine that moves America forward. We will work with all policymakers to maximize the achievement, skills, opportunities and potential of all students, to make sure they are prepared to become creative and productive citizens in our democratic society and diverse world.”

Because the NEA is all about students, not teachers.

AFSCME President Gerald W. McEntee:

“The loss of the U.S. House of Representatives is a real setback for working families. Washington Republicans have done nothing since the last election to curtail the Bush recession and bring down unemployment.”

It’s also a real setback for our wallets, which are feeling pretty empty this morning.

Whatever stages of grieving union leaders are at, soon the reality will set in.  With a Republican-controlled House, labor legislation will get very little traction over the next two years.

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.

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.