LaborPains.org

For the fourth time, American Crystal Sugar union members rejected the contract proposed by the company. That means the 16-month lockout will continue. This was the closest vote yet, with 55 percent of members rejecting the vote, down from 63 percent in June and at least 90 percent in the two votes prior.

The sticking points have remained the same throughout the dispute. According to the Star Tribune:

While the contract would raise wages by a relatively healthy 13 percent over five years, it would entail significant increases in workers’ health care costs. Also, it would give management more rights in determining key workplace issues. For instance, seniority — a basic union tenet — would lose its importance in worker advancement.

So which union is at the center of this dispute? None other than the Hostess-killing Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM). But unlike Hostess, American Crystal Sugar has found a way to survive: replacement workers. The Associated Press reported in September that the company has been happy with the results, saying they are doing a “fabulous job.” On the other hand, early on in the dispute, BCTGM members were accused of hurling racial slurs at the replacement workers.

The union has claimed that American Crystal Sugar has incurred higher production costs due to the lockout. But undoubtedly, the individual union members are suffering. Besides what the union has presented in its own sympathy campaign, the numbers tell a story as well. Of the 1,300 workers locked out in August of last year, approximately 500 have left, and unemployment benefits have now run out.

The AFL-CIO has called for a boycott of the sugar, but it’s a tough one to enforce, as very little of American Crystal’s sugar is sold under its own brand—the company primarily supplies the commodity as an ingredient to candy and soft drink makers.

Once again, labor leaders at the BCTGM seem to have severely confused members. At Hostess, the union convinced members that another company would swoop in and buy up the entire corporation as-is, keeping the production plants up and running with union workers. But as reality sinks in, it looks like buyers are only interested in the brand names, not the union employees.

Here, labor is more concerned with telling American Crystal how poorly the union thinks the company is doing rather than encouraging members to accept the economic realities of this situation. Replacement workers have been on the job for months, and union employees have no earned income or unemployment benefits. The Star Tribune reports that some union members requested the latest vote. Earlier in the dispute, a former union member said that leaders were misleading members on what would happen at the bargaining table.

BCTGM appears to be doing a great disservice to its members in both of these high-profile disputes. One commentator has even questioned if the union could be violating federal law due to its actions at Hostess.

Meanwhile, BCTGM President Frank Hurt cannot seem to right his sinking ship. His insistence that the union will not “fold” against American Crystal does not work well when it comes to negotiating and getting members back to work. Coupled with his discouraging union members from signing the “piece of crap” contract with Hostess, it is clear that Hurt is more concerned with keeping his power and his job — with a hefty salary and benefits — than he is about members’ struggles.

Labor wants everyone to “look for the union label,” but what if the union label isn’t real?

According to Gawker, that’s the problem with Unionmade clothing in San Francisco. Despite the name, the store doesn’t actually have many goods that are made by union members:

If you want to have an attractively curated store that sells insanely overpriced clothes designed to mimic the clothes that poor people wore a century ago, fine. But calling your store “Unionmade” (and modeling your logo on the AFL-CIO’s) while not selling union made goods is just as asinine and insulting as calling your store “Americanmade” while selling things manufactured in China. It’s blatantly misleading. It’s fraudulent.

Even the worst union labor costs could hardly justify some of the prices for Unionmade’s clothing. (Anyone want $155 long johns?) Needless to say, the AFL-CIO was particularly miffed, and perhaps it can’t be blamed, at least for its objection to the logo rip-off. But in the company’s response to Gawker, Unionmade claims that it meant no harm, calling the name part of the “overarching narrative of the store”:

You are correct, though some of the brands we carry are union made, many are not. The unfortunate reality is that there are not many unions left in the garment industry and so the name was cultivated as a signifier of well-made and aesthetically timeless goods.

In that regard, Unionmade has hit the nail on the head. All that’s left of labor is the aesthetic. At best, labor is quaint, and at worst–and perhaps more accurately–it is a relatively useless relic. The consumers who shop at Unionmade and places like it are trying to find ways to ironically adopt the ways of the past, and the name is indicative of that narrative. Sure, “unionmade” might have denoted something of values decades ago, but now labor is more well known for its big-money political spending than anything else.

Twinkie the Kid was known for saving Twinkies from evil-doers in his classic commercials. Unfortunately, the Kid was no match for destructive union leadership. Will someone else come to the rescue?

Fans of Hostess snacks are hoping that other bakers will run to the brand in the same way they had a run on the products this weekend. And there’s plenty of speculation as to the fate of Hostess and its most iconic assets. Chief among those rumors is that Grupo Bimbo, a Mexican food company, will buy the product line.

So does that mean the striking members of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM) will be back at work soon? Not exactly.

Especially if a Mexican buyer is involved, production may go the way of the Brach’s and Fannie May candy concerns: south of the border. With US sugar tariffs set artificially high to protect Florida sugar-growing concerns, a non-unionized shop with access to lower-priced sugar in Mexico could be the Twinkie lifeline, economists suggest.

On the other hand, if Hostess’ problem is its legacy delivery system, which is what University of Maryland economist Peter Morici suspects, Bimbo may be able to squeeze profits out of the supply chain while still making Twinkies in the US, albeit probably not in union shops.

So much for the white knight that unions still think will ride in to save them. Despite the union’s contention that management should take 100% of the blame for the liquidation, prospective buyers are finding that the union workforce needs to be subtracted out of the equation in order to have a comeback of Ho-Ho’s. It’s the same thing that Hostess told the Teamsters, and why they agreed to work with management.

A new rumor today is that the only chance for the company to survive as one unit would be from the help of a private equity firm. You know, the “Bain-style” people that AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka blames for the bankruptcy.

After engaging in what Bloomberg News called “brinkmanship,” members of the BCTGM really should not be happy with their union leaders. As J. Justin Wilson, Managing Director of the Center for Union Facts, explained on CNBC on Friday, there is little chance that many of these jobs will ever return. He said that “we should feel bad” for the union members who were duped into thinking that their jobs would be saved at the last minute:

Unions are out of touch with workers when it comes to issues like this. This is the worst case scenario—everyone is out of a job, including the CEO of this company. The union is the one that walked over the cliff.

BCTGM seemed to be more concerned with its negotiating power than it was about keeping its members at work just before the holidays.

Even while the union and Hostess were thrown a life raft by the bankruptcy judge on Monday, we learned more about the union’s efforts—or rather, the lack thereof:

“The bakers union did not object to the relief that was sought. I want to repeat that,” [the judge] said, calling its decision to remain silent when Hostess was on the verge of imposing labor cost cuts “somewhat unusual, to say the least, and perhaps illogical.”

So what is the point of the union—to protect its power and its talking points or to protect its workers against losing their jobs? Or as the editorial board of Investor’s Business Daily asks, “When are unions going to start caring about real jobs and real workers?”

This isn’t an argument: it’s a recycled talking point. Blaming the free market for every problem that befalls labor is how unions got into this mess (and will never get out of it). Hostess faced a difficult reality: restructure or cease to exist. Labor costs are a major part of the equation, and because the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM) represents the company’s second-largest group of employees, Hostess needs its cooperation. The largest union, the Teamsters, obliged, and even asked the BCTGM to back down from the destructive strike. But BCGTM stayed on the picket lines through yesterday’s deadline, and Hostess announced this morning that it had to liquidate the company.

What the BCTGM did might be “brave” as Trumka claims, but it isn’t smart. And if you don’t think so, consider labor’s response: trashing an unrelated venture capital firm that used to be run by a guy who just lost the presidential election.

But don’t blame Trumka for having nothing constructive to say: there is no good argument for the bakers union strike.

After surviving a bruising reelection campaign, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) wants to reign in political spending by passing new campaign finance reforms. He’s targeting labor and Democrats’ favorite whipping boy, the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision. Brown said in a conference call with reporters on Wednesday that in order to alleviate some of the problems of corporate political spending, corporations should be required to ask shareholders for permission before they spend treasury funds on politics.

Apparently one reporter pressed Brown about the same policy granted unions:

Asked if union members also should be required to approve political expenditures before their unions donate to campaigns, Brown said that unions hold elections for new officers every three years and members can make their views on such matters known through those elections. Brown said he “bristles” at the “false equivalency” between corporate and union political expenditures made by conservatives, contending union donations pale in comparison.

Citizens United allows corporations and unions to spend money from their treasuries—either gained by selling widgets or mandatory dues collection—on “independent expenditures.” Those are defined as political spending used to support or oppose a candidate for office, but that are not coordinated with a campaign. For unions, this means that dues money can be spent on politics, and the union leaders don’t need to ask for permission first.

So Brown is right, in a way: it’s a “false equivalency” to compare corporations and unions. Corporate shareholders voluntarily purchase stock in corporations. They don’t risk losing their job if they refuse to hold stock in a certain company.These shareholders can sell shares at any time if they disagree with what the company is doing. Beyond that, just like unions, corporation’s shareholders periodically hold elections to determine their board of directors.

Union members, the shareholders’ counterparts in this scenario, do not always enter a union voluntarily. There are still 27 states that have forced unionism, including Ohio, the state Brown represents in the U.S. Senate. The only way that those employees won’t be contributing to the union’s political spending is if they invoke their Beck rights and ask for a refund. This can be a long and complicated process.

Brown’s position is predictable. The EFCA-backing senator has done well with labor support in the past, and union SuperPACs spent millions on his campaign this year. The SEIU chipped in $1.27 million and AFL-CIO’s Worker’s Voice pitched in another $678,000.

Although labor hasn’t officially asked for “payback” this time around, it’s clear that unions intend to be heard on where they stand on the so-called “fiscal cliff.” Labor and its supporters have long fancied themselves as the keepers of the working people, and it appears that unions will take up that mantle again in the coming weeks.

By this morning, it appeared that Obama would be coming in hard on the “cliff” negotiations: he’s proposing double the amount of revenue generation than he proposed in last year’s drawn-out budget battle. He’s slated to meet with business leaders today, but it looks like he already reached some conclusions yesterday after just hearing from labor and liberal activists at the Center for American Progress and MoveOn.org. It’s a sign that Obama’s tone has rapidly changed from his election night victory speech, when he talked about greater cooperation in Washington.

Take a step into an alternate universe, just for a minute: Mitt Romney has just been elected the 45th President of the United States. Millions have been spent on the campaign, but one of the largest chunks comes from Corporation X. This large corporation starts to take claim for Romney’s win even before polls have closed. The leadership of the corporation has made campaign stops to rally its troops throughout the campaign. In press releases that go out hours after Romney’s victory speech, Corp X explains how its many volunteers, phone calls, and door-to-door stops led to the Romney win.

But some people want to know why Corp. X spent so much money on Romney’s campaign. The chairman of Corp. X tells a national newspaper who asks about political spending, “We’re the big dog, but we don’t like to brag.” When asked about what he expects in return for the corporation’s investment, the chairman explains that President-elect Romney needs to deliver on a piece of legislation that favors the corporation. That will be Romney’s payback to Corp. X. The chairman said that Corp. X spent a fortune on electing Romney, and he’s proud of it. And in no uncertain terms, he tells the press that, “Romney has owed a debt to Corp. X and will continue to owe a debt to Corp. X.”

It would only be a matter of time before outrage would ensue from both sides of the aisle.

Now, come back to reality and consider President Obama’s election and re-election. Labor unions spent millions upon millions of dollars to push Obama over the top in 2008 and again in 2012. And what did we hear last time? Here’s a hint: The political activity of imaginary Corp. X and the quotes from its hypothetical chairman weren’t created out of thin air.

The AFL-CIO’s midday memo showed high turnout for union members in Ohio was higher than in 2008. President Richard Trumka made campaign stops throughout battleground states. The SEIU’s “Victory!” e-mail sent out this morning bragged about the 13 million calls, 25,000 volunteers, and 5 million door knocks by the labor union. The “big dog” is AFSCME, according to its head of political operations.
As for payback? Gerald McEntee of AFSCME made clear what he expected:

Mr. McEntee said labor must guard against overreaching and should avoid warring with other Democratic-leaning groups – “to turn the other cheek on this and be more interested in the bigger picture,” he said – but he also said unions paid their dues by supporting Democrats and President-elect Barack Obama in this year’s election. He said they expect that effort to be rewarded with action. “The payback would be Employee Free Choice Act – that would be a vehicle to strengthen and build the American labor movement and the middle class,” he said.

And who had the pride in bankrolling Obama’s 2008 win? None other than Andy Stern of the SEIU:

We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million to be exact — and we’re proud of it.

Larry Hanley, president of the Amalgamated Transit Union, is ready to collect from Obama:

“Barack Obama has owed a debt to labor and will continue to owe a debt to labor”

It’s clear that labor has an expectation of a quid pro quo. In 2008, unions bragged about their spending, and were explicit that it came with strings attached. And despite many of his other campaign promises, Obama and Democrats in Congress pushed hard for EFCA when they controlled the White House and Congress. But yet, there is no outcry. With even greater spending on Obama’s campaign this year, there is no reason to suspect that that anything has changed.

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court put unions and corporations on par with one another when it comes to allowable political spending. The decision has been used by progressives to demonize corporations and imply that big spenders will have politicians in their pockets. But why is it acceptable for labor to openly discuss buying a politician’s way into office—the Oval Office—and still not hear a peep?

As usual, unions are trying to have have their cake and eat it, too.  In this case, unions will spend tens of millions of dollars this election cycle telling their members which candidates to vote for, but at the same time, they are criticizing employers who engage in the same activity as being “improperly coercive.” Steven Greenhouse at the New York Times frames the issue with this hypothetical: “Imagine getting a letter from the boss, telling you how to vote.” Never mind that the hypothetical is just that—none of Greenhouse’s examples of employers’ activities explicitly told employees to vote for or against any candidate. As Professors Brad Smith and Eugene Volokh told the Times, this is all within the limits of the law:

“If the employer wants to say, ‘This candidate is good or bad for our business and therefore good or bad for you, the employee, that’s permissible — that’s protected by the First Amendment,” Professor Volokh said. “But if the employer threatens to fire you based on how you vote, that’s not protected.”

Per the Times’ account, none of the latter accusations have been made. In fact, companies such as Koch Industries have defended themselves against more outrageous claims by providing a copy of the letter that was sent to employees. The letter noted:

First, and most important, we believe any decision about which candidates to support is – as always – yours and yours alone, based on the factors that are most important to you.

Along these lines, the Oregon Business Report recently provided some guidelines for employers to keep in mind as election season rolls around. The attorney-author Brenda K. Baumgart outlined a few possible trouble spots: allowing speech and communication in the workplace that is appropriate, but not limiting it so much as to violate the National Labor Relations Act; selective enforcement of policies; and political endorsements of candidates and ballot issues.

But for as carefully as employers must tread, unions rarely come under the same microscope. Labor is practiced at the art of election season communication. The Times notes:

Many corporate executives say they have stepped up their political activities to counter organized labor’s efforts on behalf of Mr. Obama and other Democrats. Even before Citizens United, unions were allowed to promote candidates to their members. Democrats and Republicans alike acknowledged the effectiveness of labor’s political efforts. [emphasis added]

Nonetheless, union leaders think that employers are breaking the law:

Larry Gold, associate general counsel of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., said some of the recent employer letters, by hinting at the possible loss of employees’ jobs, appeared to cross the line into improper coercion.

While unions suggest that by employers letting employees know of their candidates of choice, employees may feel undue pressure to conform and vote in a certain way, disclaimers notwithstanding. Yet, not surprisingly, labor doesn’t see how its own communications with employees could invoke the same feeling for its members. In non-right-to-work states, an employee’s job depends on his membership in the union. Breaking the mold and contradicting the union’s political goals, even while contributing to them, is a risky proposition.

Arguably, unions have been more forceful in their member education through their Committees on Political Education (COPE). For example, the New Jersey AFL-CIO encourages local union leaders to send endorsement letters to its members. In Pennsylvania, as the election draws near, union leaders boast that their communications can make the difference in an election:

“Local leaders have a lot of sway,” [AFL-CIO Pennsylvania State Director David] Driscoll-Knight said. “Union members frequently get letters from their local president; when they get one, they’re going to open it up and read it.”

The letters sent from the New Jersey AFL-CIO read the same in 2012 as they did in 2007, even before Citizens United allowed both labor unions and corporations more leeway in political communication. Although they don’t want to admit it, unions are doing even better in a post-Citizens United world.

Now that corporations can mimic the efforts of labor unions, those on the political left, especially those supported by labor, are up in arms. They don’t like competition—whether it’s in the workplace or in politics.

By their nature, unions are, and almost always have been, intensely political. It is an organized group of people with (supposedly) similar interests in mind, attempting to navigate the system as a unified group, to the benefit of the members. This is very different than a corporation, which is primarily concerned about shareholders and profit margins. When the corporation prospers, so do the employees, unionized or not. When a corporation fails, all the collective bargaining in the world cannot offer job security.

But in a world where the makeup of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) appears to reign supreme, employers are recognizing that they need to get into the political game.  Expect unions to bristle at every employer letter that is sent out.