LaborPains.org

–The SEIU sees blood in Arizona, and a chance to cash in. They put together a hotline for anyone traveling to Arizona to call in and get travel advisories. The hotline, if set up by anyone not far left of center, would result in pejoratives being hurled at them by ….everyone.  But because the SEIU is in a category of scandal all its own, nothing has come of their activities….yet. Want to see how uncomfortable the hotline is? Call it at 1 (800) 958-5068 or just read the text here. Oh, I almost forgot to mention:  Call the hotline number from the cellphone of a coworker you hate.  The SEIU is using the hotline to collect phone numbers.

–Organized Labor has been particularly laborious and organized this primary season. Need a primer on today’s primaries? Check out the Daily Caller’s here. Pay attention to Arkansas.

–The SEIU has abandoned the “legalize pot” campaign [I-1068] in Washington State, and the head of the campaign had some terrible colorful things to say about the SEIU:

“F*** them all,” he said of the three groups his campaign is now directly or partially blaming. “I don’t know what happened or why they (SEIU) walked away,” he added. “But in the end… they’re afraid to support us because they’re either politically afraid or because they’re mommies will find out they smoke weed. A bunch of chickensh** rich people.”

–The SEIU workers who have been picketing the Red Cross have ended their 5-day work stoppage. Yay for sick people.

–Ohio’s home care and child care workers were effectively unionized by gubernatorial order. Now some workers aren’t so happy that dues are coming out of their pay checks:

“…some workers are not happy about joining a union, and other critics say Strickland is helping the Service Employees International Union and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees collect millions of dollars in dues and fees that can be used to support the governor’s re-election bid and other Democratic Party campaigns.

Patricia Griggs, a nurse from Loveland in Hamilton County, said she doesn’t want union representation, nor does she want money withheld from her paycheck for union fees to be used to support candidates or causes she might oppose. “I’m self-employed. Why do I want to be (in) a union?” Griggs asked. “The state will begin to take (union fees) out of our checks without us signing anything. … It’s stealing.” [...]

Griggs said she will pay $12 a week. Even though she hasn’t joined the SEIU, Griggs is covered by the union contract and must pay an assessment to the union.

Higher public sector unionization means higher public sector debt (speaking of the debt, have you seen our sister organization, the Employment Policies Institute’s Defeat the Debt campaign?). Labor unions generally ignore the connection, or claim its caused by something else, but when public sector employees are draining state coffers, like California’s, into deeper debt, it’s an unavoidable connection.

From Boortz.com:

The Cato Institute did a little study on states and their rising debts. Interestingly enough, they discovered something common among states with high per-capita debts.

That something in common would be a high level of unionization of government employees. Yup, the states with the highest per-capita debt also happened to be the states with the largest government union workforces. You can see a handy little chart if you click here, but here are some of the details:

Among states whose government workers are less than 40 percent unionized, median per capita state debt is $2,238.

Among states with between 40 and 60 percent of their government workers in public sector unions, the average debt is $3,609.

Among states with more than 60 percent of the government workforce unionized, the average (median) per capita debt is $6,380.

Image courtesy of Jeff Belmonte.

Today the Center for Union Facts (CUF) released an analysis of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) data which refutes union claims of widespread employer intimidation and lagging union win rates in organizing elections.

In the first-half of 2008, labor unions won 66% of NLRB secret ballot elections, the highest win-rate in decades. This figure counters union leader claims that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is needed in order to further tip the scales towards the unions in organizing campaigns. Further, NLRB statistics tell a different story about employer unfair labor practices (ULP).

In 2007 and 2008 the NLRB received 4,208 unique petitions requesting a secret ballot election. During that span the NLRB determined that only 158 election-related ULP charges or 3.75% which alleged unlawful terminations had merit. The Board further determined that 309 such claims were without merit. These figures come from the NLRB’s Case Activity Tracking System (CATS) which is used to tabulate the statistics in the Board?s annual reports. A complete copy of the CATS database was obtained by CUF through a Freedom of Information Act request.

“The facts do not support the claims made by union officials and their allies who allege misconduct far beyond reality,” said Rick Berman Executive Director of the Center for Union Facts. “The data indisputably demonstrates that unions are largely successful in organization campaigns and that very few employees are inappropriately terminated during those campaigns.”

Read the complete study here.

Watching the unions complain about the Department of Labor reporting requirements reminds me of watching OJ try to put on the bloody gloves. They go through all sorts of contortions—twisting and turning to great effect—ultimately arguing that categorizing their electric bill as “overhead” and their photocopiers as “administrative” is some sort of Herculean task. (Never mind that the IRS already requires unions to file categorized expenditures on their annual 990 tax forms.)

The fact of the matter is simple: the unions don’t like their members knowing how they spend their members hard-earned dues dollars.

Considering that, we were surprised to see the left-leaning Center for American Progress (CAP) come out against the DOL’s disclosure requirements in its recent report, “Beyond Justice.” After all, groups like labor unions, CAP, and other so-called “progressives” are typically champions of public disclosure requirements when it comes to businesses, government agencies, and others.

Despite the studies seriously shortcomings, which we debunked on Tuesday, its author, CAP Senior Research Scott Lilly isn’t done defending unions. In response to a post by Carter Wood over at ShopFloor.com, Lilly posted a lengthy comment.

But after eleven paragraphs of complaining about all the paperwork the poor unions have to file, among other things, Lilly never gets around to responding to Wood’s central criticism: that union corruption is on the decline because the DOL’s disclosure requirements deter union officials from embezzling. After all, that’s why disclosure requirements exist in the first place.

Here’s my favorite part of Lilly’s post:

The measures that have been adopted at the Labor Department with respect to disclosure and reporting by labor unions and their officials, employees and members do virtually nothing to increase transparency into union finances or reduce the likelihood that corrupt individuals will attempt to raid union coffers. They are crudely and ineptly drawn. They greatly add to the paperwork burden but provide little new or useful information to union members or outside watchdogs.

Maybe Mr. Lilly should tell that to the thousands of union members that rely on our website every day to do research on their own union. And as an outside watchdog, I can personally attest that the DOL’s reports have provided me with a host of new and useful information.

Ironically, its those same disclosure requirements that allow us to look up labor unions’ donations to CAP in 2006. As Carter Wood pointed out over at ShopFloor.com, it turns out that labor unions donated more than $100,000 to the Center for American Progress in 2006. We’ll let you be the judge as to whether you find that information useful.

As a final note, I should mention that our lawyers are looking into whether CAP libeled the Center for Union Facts in their report. We contacted Lilly and CAP’s General Council, but it is two days later and they still haven’t corrected the online PDF. You can read the letter we sent them here.