Labor Pains: Because Being in a Union can be Painful

Wilhelm Reiterates Opposition To Binding Arbitration

jwilhelmUNITE HERE’s John Wilhelm penned another response to the SEIU’s Andy Stern, reiterating his opposition to settling the union dispute through binding arbitration:

You and Raynor plotted to break up UNITE HERE, remove assets from the Union’s control, and organize in UNITE HERE’s traditional industry jurisdictions. Having made this attempted burglary you now want to have a third party divide up the spoils. Only UNITE HERE would be at risk in such an arbitration – SEIU would have no risk.

No victim of a theft would ever agree to such a proposition.

No International Union would agree to put its future members, its jurisdiction, and assets in the hands of an arbitrator.

Wilhelm already made this point before, but it doesn’t hurt to point out again that if binding arbitration isn’t good enough for a major union to settle its differences, it’s certainly not good enough for America’s businesses or workers. Wilhelm’s vehement opposition to binding arbitration is just another reason why EFCA should not be passed.

Categories: Center for Union FactsEFACNewsSEIUUNITE HERE