LaborPains.org

“Your revolution is over, Mr. Lebowski. Condolences. The bums lost. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? The bums will always lose!” –The Big Lebowski

Too harsh? Yes, but still.

Big Labor won’t give up the fight. They just keep losing battles, and then talking about them like victories. EFCA and health care legislation were dealt a major blow yesterday with the election of Scott Brown yesterday in Massachusetts. Health care is suddenly in very rocky, uncharted territory and EFCA, placed on the back burner for health care, may find it very difficult to come to the forefront.

On labor blogs and even in statements by the likes of Andy Stern, labor is blaming the loss on Democrats not being left enough and being too compromising on healthcare and EFCA. Only if Dems had rammed through EFCA without compromise and healthcare with serious teeth, says labor, would the true Democratic base been ignited to action….and to voting for Coakley!

Said another way: If only the Democrats had done exactly what the labor machine told them to do this year, they wouldn’t be in this mess.

So hold onto your hats in the run up to the elections this fall. Will Democrats buy into labor’s version of events? Will they be required to?

I’m sorry.  It’s quite funny, yet unsurprising, that labor leaders can look at the election last night and say they’ve won because it proves that labor’s agenda is embraced by Americans.  Mind you, if Coakley had won, the labor leaders would be talking about the election last night and taking all the credit for their union war machine of endorsements and millions of dollars spent , because it proves that labor’s agenda is embraced by Americans.

Is it possible voters recognize that the health care legislation opens up millions of Americans for unionization and saves/gains billions of dollars for unions? Is it possible that voters see the the Employee Free Choice Act actually removes alot of free choices that employers and employees currenty have? Is it possible that Coakley’s track record supporting unions at the cost of the state taxpayers angered voters? Here is one example. Could it be that that is why they lost last night?

Labor leaders say no. I say yes.

In the words of Andy Stern:

“The reason Ted Kennedy’s seat is no longer controlled by a Democrat is clear: Washington’s inability to deliver the change voters demanded in November 2008. Make no mistake, political paralysis resulted in electoral failure.“

“During the past year, Republicans refused to do anything but stand in the way of change and Democratic Senators took too long to do too little. And tonight, the Senate bears the consequences for its failure to act decisively but the American people are the ones left paying the price. If our elected officials don’t recognize that every day more working families fall victim to Washington’s failure to act, the elections next November will result in the same.”

“Today’s vote must be a wake-up call that now is the time for bold action. Time to stand up to politics as usual. Time to stand up to Republican scare and stall tactics. And time to speak up for working families.”

Maybe they should listen to the working families who voted yesterday for a change.

It appears that labor leaders and government officials have reached a compromise on excise taxes, according to the New York Times. The details are not fully clear yet, but FoxNews has reported the following:

A senior Democratic official speaking on background told Fox News that the threshold for exemption would be raised from $23,000 to $24,000 per family but would remain the same at $8,500 for singles with high-value plans. Dental and vision plans would be removed from that calculation, however. State and local workers and union members are exempted until 2017. A Democratic source with close union contacts said labor leaders are not particularly happy with the tentative deal, but are much less angry than they were at the previous plan.

The chatter in the last few days that been that unions might convince the Administration and Congressional Democratic leadership to exempt collectively-bargained health insurance plans from paying the excise tax, the majority of plans over the threshold.  It’s a deal that would increase the cost of the health care legislation.  While the compromise announced today doesn’t go as far as the one that’s has been bandied about, it will be interesting to see what its final form really is. Unions exempt until 2017? What’s to say that the exemption doesn’t get an permanent extension.

Why on earth should union insurance be exempt with state and local workers (many of whom are union), while the rest of us with expensive plans pay the price?

If indeed collectively bargained health insurance plans are exempt from the excise tax for the next 7 years, former SEIU staffer Michael Whitney who now blogs over at FireDogLake says it could be very, very bad thing for unions in the short and  medium term.  It only proves that unions are guided by “blind self interest.” And it may jeopardize the public willingness to swallow EFCA. The “deal” that FDL is talking about below, for the record, on the union excise tax exemption sans the 2017 caveat, but I’d say the principle holds.

From FireDogLake:

If unions take this “deal,” if the labor movement decides to fold and exempt themselves from the excise tax, they fulfill one of the worst of stereotypes of labor unions: blind self interest.  By abandoning the nonunion middle class and protecting only their own, the labor movement is throwing any hope of future relevancy out the window.

The ideal of unions is to organize the unorganized, to protect the unprotected.  Sure, unions should fight for their members, no question.  But in the biggest public policy and political fight of a generation, unions simply cannot exempt their members from the dangerous excise tax and call it a day. And if Rahm does come through on his end of the deal – a vote on the Employee Free Choice Act – expect unions to be very much on their own in that fight if they sell out on health care.

Labor leaders are playing hard ball with the President over so called “cadillac” taxes in the health care bill (Senate, not House).  Although press was not present, yesterday’s meeting can’t have gone very well.  The White House officially deemed the meeting “productive”, which in Washington-speak means it didn’t go well. Labor leaders threatened crushing defeat for Democrats in November. So sad I missed the fireworks.

From the AP:

“A Monday evening meeting at the White House between Obama and about a dozen heads of the country’s biggest labor unions capped a day when two union leaders fired broadsides at Obama and Senate Democrats over their plans to pay for overhauling the nation’s health care system with a tax union leaders fear could hurt their workers. [...] Although Obama terms them “Cadillac” plans, union leaders say numerous working-class Americans who’ve negotiated good benefits in exchange for lesser pay would be hurt.

The president of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, warned that Democrats risk catastrophic election defeats similar to 1994 if they fail to come up with a health bill labor likes. A bad bill could have that kind of effect – a place where people sit at home” – as happened in 1994, when Democrats lost 54 House seats and eight in the Senate, costing them control of Congress, Trumka told reporters.

Trumpka, among all his fellow labor leaders, is obviously towing a very hard line. And he’s stating that EFCA will be passed in the first quarter of 2010, or else. According to the Huffington Post:

“I think you will see the Employee Free Choice Act pass in the first quarter of 2010,” said Trumka. [...]” The president fully supports the Employee Free Choice Act, the Vice President fully supports the Employee Free Choice Act, a vast majority of the members of the House support the Employee Free Choice Act, a vast majority of the people of the Senate support the Employee Free Choice Act. And I think we are going to have the Employee Free Choice Act despite the determined efforts of the Republican Party…”

Labor leaders, who put so much money heart and soul into backing health reform, will continue to play hard to get, but heaven forbid they actually remove their support of the legislation.  But if the White House thinks they are just peeved enough, then perhaps Trumka will get his field of dreams after all– EFCA before April.

I just received this from the North Pole.  It’s almost unbelievable, given the spirit of the season . . . and the billions of children who would be affected. [See below]

In response to the strike notice, Santa Claus has made the following announcement. [See below]

It’s a little unclear what the NLRB’s jurisdiction is in this situation, considering the transnational border issues this brings into play….delivery to every country and territory will be affected if Santa and BCERAS do not reach an agreement.  It is also unclear how this incident may affect the FedEx vs. UPS  controversy–whether the Brotherhood of Elves, Reindeer, and Abominable Snowmen are legally able to strike, or whether they are instead subject to the Railway Labor Act (RLA), which would make it more difficult for something like this to happen– given that Santa’s sled travels over interstate boundaries.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays from LaborPains.org.

Labor leaders have been back and forth on different portions of the health care bill, but in the last day, SEIU President Andy Stern and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka have both come out with a “We’re just so disappointed” statement against the current version of the Senate health care bill. Don’t confuse this with labor leaders actually taking a stand. It remains to be seen whether they will NOT support the bill.

In light of yesterdays reading and quick dismissal of a public option amendment, and a variety of other concessions aimed a Sen. Lieberman and Sen. Nelson, leaders of both groups met last night to discuss the Senate bill, in an apparantly emotional and heated conversation.

At 7:30 am this morning, Andy Stern put his feelings this way:

“I am writing to you today because I believe this is the moment when we must stand as one and say enough. [...] But at the very moment that we saw real and meaningful changes within our grasp, one Senator came forward to say “no we can’t.” He can’t let the Senate have an up-or-down vote on health insurance reform. And the result of this Senator saying “we can’t?” The public option is declared impossible. Americans cannot purchase Medicare at an earlier age. The health insurance reform effort we have needed for a century is at risk.”

“SEIU does not accept that this monumental effort – that this reform that is so necessary to the health and wellbeing of our economy, our families and our future – can be over without a fight. A fight to make it work for you and your families.”

The CBS News blog reports the following about a statement by AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka released this afternoon:

“Meanwhile, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka released a statement this afternoon following a meeting yesterday of their union. “The labor movement has been fighting for health care for nearly 100 years and we are not about to stop fighting now, when it really matters,” Trumka said. Taking a somewhat more aggressive tone than Stern, Trumka called the bill “inadequate.” “For this health care bill to be worthy of the support of working men and women, substantial changes must be made,” he said. Trumka said the AFL-CIO is still fighting for a government-run insurance plan, or “public option,” employer contributions and the removal of the “Cadillac” benefits tax.”

Despite the grumbling and grandstanding, neither union conglomerate has pulled support for the bill.  Why? Because the bill still helps out these unions. They still have something to gain from current legislation as is. And they have a lot to gain if the bill passes as is–even with the “crucial” things that the unions have demanded missing entirely.

When the Senate bill passes unaltered, the unions can use it against the Democrats.  They can kindly let the Democrats know that the Democrats still owe the unions back for their hard work and support.  For America’s union leaders, the worst thing in the world will be the day the Democrats think they’ve done enough for the labor movement. Because who then can labor turn to? Think of the worst codependent relationship you can imagine.

So the labor union leaders will keep barking. And never bite.

It was named in Minneapolis in August, but yesterday it was finally born.

National Nurses United, as it is called, in the middle of their founding convention in Scottsdale, AZ, (Dec. 7-8). And who exactly is National Nurses United? It’s funny, but the San Francisco Chronicle piece from today doesn’t even need editorializing:

“Nurses from three unions, including the powerful California Nurses Association, have founded a new national union to influence national health care policies and try to extend California’s patient ratio law into other states. Organizers said the 150,000-member National Nurses United, the largest professional union for registered nurses in the country, will also flex its power to push for a stronger voice in the health care overhaul process going on in Congress and the expansion of representation for nonunion nurses.”

“The merger, approved Monday at a convention in Phoenix, combines the California union, which has 83,000 members in several states, with the Massachusetts Nurses Union, with 23,000 members, and the 45,000 members from the United American Nurses, who work primarily in the Midwest. The unions will continue to operate separately, but will be aligned under the larger umbrella of National Nurses United.”

I felt compelled to put together this To-Do List for the modern labor movement:

Step 1: Ignore local union members needs. Check.

Step 2: Centralize power by joining together with other unions around the country. Check.

Step 3: If local union members protest, decertify (or abandon) them. Check.

Step 4: Notice that a “Local” isn’t very local anymore. Check. (Just kidding. No one notices this one.)

Step 4: Have a convention congratulating each other for collusive political strength. Check.

Step 5: Select a kitschy, annoying, hyperbolic name. Check.

Step 6: Make sure that the new name makes anyone unfamiliar with the union immediately think of the Bolsheviks…and sickles. Check.

Image courtesy of east_lothian_museum.

In an article entitled “Some Organizers Protest Their Union’s Tactics,”Steven Greenhouse looks at a disgusting organizing practice known as “pink sheeting.”

The title would be perfect but for the “Some” caveat that the paper feels is necessary to include. Don’t worry, New York Times, we get the fact its not EVERY labor organizer. Just more of them that anyone should be comfortable with.

But I digress. Here’s what you need to know about “pink sheeting,” a practice that involves coercing, recording, and then using sensitive personal information about people in order to elicit loyalty from union members, organizers, and potential members.  It is, effectively black mail and a mind game, all rolled into one.  And by sensitive personal information, we don’t mean that fact I have a weakness for lemon cookies.

Take a look:

“Ms. Rivera said her supervisors at Unite Here, the hotel and restaurant workers’ union, repeatedly pressed her to reveal highly personal information, getting her to divulge that her father had sexually abused her.

Later, she said, her supervisors ordered her to recount her tale of abuse again and again to workers they were trying to unionize at Tampa International Airport, convinced that Ms. Rivera’s story would move them, making them more likely to join the union.

“I was scared not to do what they said,” said Ms. Rivera, adding that she resented being pressured to disclose intimate information and then speak about it in public. “To me, it was sick. It was horrible.”

Ms. Rivera and other current and former Unite Here organizers are speaking out against what they say is a longstanding practice in which Unite Here officials pressured subordinates to disclose sensitive personal information — for example, that their mother was an alcoholic or that they were fighting with their spouse.

More than a dozen organizers said in interviews that they had often been pressured to detail such personal anguish — sometimes under the threat of dismissal from their union positions — and that their supervisors later used the information to press them to comply with their orders.

“It’s extremely cultlike and extremely manipulative,” said Amelia Frank-Vitale, a Yale graduate and former hotel union organizer who said these practices drove her to see a therapist.

Several organizers grew incensed when they discovered that details of their history had been put into the union’s database so that supervisors could use that information to manipulate them.

Unite Here is claiming the whole thing is propaganda by the SEIU. And it probably is. Wouldn’t surprise me.

Read the rest of the story at The New York Times. It’s worth the effort.

No one ever accused the SEIU of being a class act, sometimes they can play the class clown (like when they ask us to believe that Labor Day was  a labor of love), but more and more people are realizing the SEIU might just be the bully on the playground.

The LA Times:

Carmen Padron, a commercial laundry worker in Pomona, said a rival union tried to persuade her to abandon her longtime local. “They should be organizing workers who don’t have a union, not harassing us,” Padron said. George Ibarra, a hotel worker in Texas, said an organizing drive in San Antonio collapsed when a competing union swooped in and made a deal with management. “That was completely underhanded,” Ibarra said. The two incidents are among numerous episodes in a vicious civil war that is roiling the U.S. labor movement and diverting attention from its core goals — better contracts for workers, new organizing drives and a far-reaching political agenda in Washington. Occurring mostly below the public radar, the ferocious battle ripped apart the union known as Unite Here, with tens of thousands of workers nationwide, and assumed a tumultuous center stage in labor circles. Each side in the schism has accused the other of trying to raid its ranks and steal members.

The dispute has cost organized labor millions of dollars to fight and dealt pleased employers an upper hand as union shops battle each other. A broad swath of contested terrain ranges from commercial laundries in California to school cafeterias in Philadelphia. The war has featured a blitzkrieg of leafleting, prerecorded phone calls, direct mailers, home visits and, according to court papers, “coercive interrogation techniques” used to strong-arm members. Both sides have alleged threats, harassment, lockouts, misappropriated funds and back-room deals with employers. [...]

“This is a conscious effort by SEIU to hijack our members, our jurisdiction and our assets,” said Unite Here’s president, John W. Wilhelm, who is known for his organizing efforts among casino employees in Las Vegas. “They’ve launched an attack on our membership totally unprecedented in American labor history.” Wilhelm has gone so far as to advise employers to deposit union dues into escrow accounts, warning that to do otherwise could be illegal. Many employers have done so, depriving locals of operating funds.

SEIU President Andy Stern has repeatedly denied any effort to steal members or challenge jurisdictions. “SEIU is not interested in raiding Unite Here members,” Stern declared in calling for a “cease-fire” in the struggle. But Unite Here stalwarts reject Stern’s protestations of innocence. [...] But a lot of assets are also in play. Both sides claim a bevy of contested holdings, including prime Manhattan real estate, considerable cash reserves and a majority stake in Amalgamated Bank in New York, which has more than $4 billion in assets. The right to the treasury is playing out in federal court in New York.

Image courtesy of jessyparr.