LaborPains.org

Although former speaker of the Connecticut House of Representatives Christopher Donovan came up short in his run for Congress, the Hartford Courant reports that he’s being encouraged to campaign to be the next head of the state’s AFL-CIO. Donovan has a great prerequisite: he’s already involved in a serious scandal.

A few months before the Democratic primary, seven people were indicted by a federal grand jury for conspiracy in directing illegal campaign contributions to Donovan. Among those were Donovan’s campaign manager and long-time aide, his finance director, and a union leader. According to the Wall Street Journal:

Prosecutors also disclosed that Ray Soucy, a former union official and a key figure in the probe, pleaded guilty Tuesday to conspiracy charges in the scheme, which supplied straw donors with cash so they could write checks to Mr. Donovan’s campaign committee.

In exchange, according to court documents, Mr. Soucy assured the co-conspirators that Mr. Donovan would kill legislation to close a loophole allowing roll-your-own tobacco shops to avoid collecting cigarette taxes. The bill didn’t come up for a vote in the state Legislature.

Since his defeat, not much has been heard from Donovan. And although he has not been accused of wrongdoing, the swirling scandal around him is par for the course for union officials.

In Minnesota, a father-son duo has been accused by the International Teamsters of embezzlement, bank fraud, racketeering, and other financial crimes. Bradley Slawson Sr. and Bradley Slawson Jr. of Local 120 are currently on unpaid leave from the union. The pair is said to have received payments from a Teamsters-owned bar — payments adding up to $140,000 between the two of them. Another teamster, Todd Chester, helped to coordinate those payments from the bar and has also been charged. Chester, described in the Star Tribune as “a family friend of the Slawsons” and “the father of one of Slawson Sr.’s grandchildren,” also received a questionable finder’s fee of $90,000 for the construction of a new union hall. The Star Tribune reported in December that the Independent Review Board (IRB) report included an “unsettling allegation… that one of the bar managers wanted to hold a fundraiser for a ‘nonexistent fake sick baby’ and direct the funds instead to a bar the union owns in Fargo.” The bar, the Teamsters Club in Fargo, North Dakota, hosted a victory party for Democratic now-Senator Heidi Heitkamp.

The Slawsons claim that this is just a “witch hunt” because the family broke away from Jimmy Hoffa Jr. in 2010. But this isn’t the first time the Slawsons have been in the news for misconduct. In 2009, the Department of Labor conducted an audit of Local 120’s records under its Compliance Audit Program (CAP) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and found that Slawson Sr.’s chapter committed recordkeeping and reporting violations. In 2000, a press release from Overnite Transportation Co. reveals that Slawson Jr. pled guilty to disorderly conduct charges for his actions at a strike of the company. The release says:

Slawson was found in contempt of court on May 8 for his self-admitted threats and coercion in connection with unrefuted claims that he struck one Overnite driver with a picket sign and locked another Overnite driver in a trailer while the driver was attempting to make a delivery at a customer’s facility. Slawson was ordered to keep away from Over[ni]te property and that of the trucking company’s customers for the purpose of assisting the union in any labor action against Overnite. He was also ordered to pay $500 to compensate Overnite for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Not surprisingly, Junior was also a big fan of EFCA.

Labor should go no further than its own backyard if it is looking to blame anyone for its declining numbers. Rampant crime and corruption are just line-items on the long list of reasons why organized labor slides deeper into irrelevancy.

As members of Congress, state legislatures, and the President of the United States are sworn into office, we’re reminded of our American democratic ideals. Unfortunately, many union members don’t get the chance to celebrate democracy thanks to a unionization procedure known as “card check.”

Take Karen Cox and her coworkers at Americold Logistics, who are only the latest examples of how unions intend to end the secret ballot in labor organizing. In spring of 2012, she was given a card that she was told would be used for information purposes. She filled it out and returned it. But in June, she learned that she, along with at least 50 percent of her fellow coworkers, had signed and returned the cards that recognized a labor union.

Cox, who opposed the union, tried to collect petitions from co-workers to call for a secret ballot vote. But rather than let her have the same access rights as union organizers, Cox was stopped from doing so by Americold. She’s now being represented by National Right to Work Foundation in a complaint against the company filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

“I think they did it that way as a way for the union to sneak in without opposition,” Cox told Sauk Valley Media. “Some people were mad about that, and all I want is a legit election.”

In 2011, Barbara Ivey shared her very similar story. A 21-year employee at Kaiser Permanente in Oregon, she was shocked that after only 13 days, a Service Employees International Union (SEIU) card check campaign successfully turned her workplace into a union shop. Ivey said that her coworkers felt pressure to sign the card.

Ivey began to collect signatures for a decertification election, which would allow the employees to vote on the unionization by secret ballot. Although these elections used to take place immediately after a card-check drive, a “safety valve” provision to ensure the card check collection was proper, the NLRB’s penchant for overturning precedent ended that protection. In Lamons Gasket, the NLRB did away with the immediate vote petition and instead required that more time elapse before the decertification vote could take place.

These women aren’t outliers. In fact, denying the secret ballot vote is policy for labor. That didn’t die with the EFCA. With UNITE HERE leading the way, several labor groups, notably the AFL-CIO, backed a boycott of Hyatt Hotels in July because the company refused to allow card check unionization at its hotels.

Just prior to the November election, Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO told the Atlantic that labor will never give up on card check. “That’s within the next term,” he claimed.

Card check is no way to determine if an individual really wants to join a union. The process is fraught with potential problems—deception and intimidation chief among them, as shown in the workplaces of Cox and Ivey. Card check makes the vote public and puts employees in the difficult position of openly stating their position to a union organizer. The Employee Rights Act requires secret ballot elections for union certification votes in order to ensure that each individual employee can decide whether she wants to join a union without someone looking over her shoulder.

Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis was a big hit at the Illinois Labor History Society. As the keynote speaker at the Society’s “Salute to Labor’s Historic Heroes from the History Makers of Today” event, Lewis recalled the labor days of yore by saying, “[W]e are in a moment where the wealth disparity in this country is very reminiscent of the robber baron ages. The labor leaders of that time, though, were ready to kill. They were. They were just–off with their heads. They were seriously talking about that.” Minor applause ensued, along with a few laughs. But Lewis, who’s already known for her jokes, thankfully cleared things up: “I don’t think we’re at that point.”

Whew.

Jon Ortiz at the Sacramento Bee’s State Worker blog reports that Assemblyman Roger Hernández has introduced a bill that would re-institute a state holiday on the second Monday of October, one of the two holidays that were eliminated in 2009 (Lincoln’s Birthday was the other).

Most people call this “Columbus Day,” but Hernandez’ bill renames the new holiday “Native American Day.” It would also be a paid holiday for state employees. California public employees already enjoy greater compensation than their counterparts in the private sector. Although the two holidays were replaced with two “professional development days” in 2010, Ortiz reports that Hernández’s bill would not amend that change.

The National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) decision in D.R. Horton condemned mandatory arbitration agreements barring class actions as a part of the Board’s larger goal of broadening the definition of “concerted activity.” In other words, the NLRB is trying to expand its power. As Allison Frankel’s “On the Case” explains, a three-judge panel in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals was “utterly dismissive” of the NLRB’s analysis and granted the Board no deference. Importantly, the judges noted that most court decisions since D.R. Horton have not used the NLRB’s reasoning.

Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa Jr. knows a thing or two about steamrolling the opposition. So it’s no surprise that Hoffa supports “reform” of the Senate filibuster, which allows the minority party to stop a bill if it cannot garner 60 votes in its favor. Hoffa explains that if not for the filibuster, EFCA would be the law of the land. Naturally, both parties find the rules afforded the Senate minority abhorrent—but only until that party is in the minority. We’d guess that if the partisan tables were turned and the Employee Rights Act was up for a vote, Hoffa would be singing a different tune.

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.

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?

Misleading commentary from the SEIU is nothing new, but a post on their blog today is truly astounding. In a laughable attempt to claim that EFCA will preserve workers’ right to a secret ballot, they quote today’s Wall Street Journal editorial, saying:

“The bill doesn’t remove the secret-ballot option from the National Labor Relations Act…”

Hmm… Here’s that sentence again, without the SEIU’s editing:

“The bill doesn’t remove the secret-ballot option from the National Labor Relations Act but in practice makes it a dead letter.“

Notice a difference? I thought so. The fact that the unions are still clinging to the 30-50 myth is a reflection of their casual relationship with the truth. In case you’re still not sure EFCA ends elections, just read the bill itself:

If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a). [emphasis added]

Even as newspapers and columnists around the country like the Sun Sentinel in Florida, the Washington Post in Washington D.C. and our own Oregonian deride the act, Jeff Merkley supports it.

Even as bloggers, the new media for politics in the United States, point out the major flaws and hypocrisy with this grossly mis-named act, Jeff Merkley supports it.

Even as members of his own party, liberal icons like George McGovern speak out against it as being un-democratic, Jeff Merkley supports it.

Even though a survey shows that 94% of Oregonians believe employees should have the right to vote on forming a union by a private ballot election where each individual’s vote is kept private, Jeff Merkley supports it.

If you follow the money, the answer seems pretty clear: Big Labor Unions and the Union Bosses are contributing tens of thousands to Merkley’s campaign. Would you care to guess what the Big Labor Unions #1 priority is for Congress next year? You’re right: Passing the Employee Free Choice Act. You can bet that the people they supported will need to support their #1 priority.

Which all means that Big Labor, not Oregonians, are Jeff Merkley’s #1 priority.

A recent column by David Reinhard in the Oregonian highlights the problems behind the grossly mis-named “Employee Free Choice Act”.  This piece of legislation would strip workers of their right to a private ballot in the workplace when it comes to unionization.  Instead, workers would be subject to harassment, coercion and intimidation from union organizers who could come to their houses to “persuade” them to support union representation.

The article says it well enough but doesn’t point out that Jeff Merkley, candidate for U.S. Senate, supports this deceptive piece of legislation wholeheartedly.  What’s worse, when confronted about the issue, he tries to either steer the conversation away from answering the question or avoid the question entirely.

When will Jeff Merkley honestly answer why he wants to take away a worker’s right to a private ballot?  Until he does, we can only assume that it’s because Big Labor Union Bosses, who are funding his campaign, know that it’s a bad bill and don’t want him to say anything.  Putting money in their own pockets seems to be the most important thing.

Read part of the article for yourself:

OK, you want to talk issues. You’re tired of talking personalities, character, experience and Sarah Palin’s eyewear. You’ve had it contemplating whether Barack Obama’s or John McCain’s campaign ads are more full of lies and distortions. You’re above all this bunkum. You want to talk about some substantive difference between the two presidential candidates that could shape the way we live — that could alter some basic American value — in the decades to come.

So here’s the issue. It’s a big one that’s below the surface and not getting a lot of attention, and it’s not the racial issue. It’s called card check.

Read more…………..