Labor Pains: Because Being in a Union can be Painful

Page 64

  1. Super Bowl Ad Calls for Employee Rights Against Union Abuse

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Sunday, the Center for Union Facts (CUF) will run a television ad just prior to Super Bowl kickoff highlighting the Employee Rights Act (ERA), a bill introduced into the current Congress by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Representative Tom Price (R-Georgia), which provides increased employee protections against union abuses. The ad emphasizes the continuous pressure by union organizers to have employees publicly cast their votes in unionization elections—an anti-democratic process known as “card check.”

    The ad can be viewed here.

    The ad shows a series of individuals sitting on a toilet in highly visible public places. A narrator then states, “We all know that some activities should be guaranteed privacy, like voting on whether or not to pay labor union dues.”

    The narrator then goes on to warn, “Today, labor bosses want to destroy privacy when it comes to voting,” concluding, “The Employee Rights Act guarantees that your private vote will always be protected to avoid pressure from union organizers.”

    Richard Berman, executive director of the Center for Union Facts, says the measure is intended to ensure the most basic democratic principles are afforded employees in the workplace. “If voting in private is proper in presidential elections, then it is equally proper in unionization elections,” said Berman. “The Employee Rights Act would guarantee this fundamental right to all employees.”

    Among other provisions, the ERA would also require that unions receive the express consent of their members before spending union dues on political activities, aka, paycheck protection.

    A poll conducted by ORC International demonstrates that both union and non-union households strongly support measures contained in the ERA. When asked if employees should have a right to a federally-supervised secret ballot election, 78 percent of union and non-union households support the idea.

    More information on the ERA is available online at EmployeeRightsAct.com.

    Categories: Employee Rights Act
  2. Worker Centers Worry Union Rules Might Apply

    Trumka Ad Roll CallThe New York Times recently covered the debate over “worker centers,” the latest incarnation of union front groups. Worker Centers like Interfaith Worker Justice (IWJ) and OUR Walmart — a subsidiary organization of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union — continue to exploit a loophole in labor law. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) limits the length of unions’ organizational pickets to 30 days, but there are no such restrictions on ostensibly non-organizational campaigns. Worker centers offer unions the ability to conduct indefinite campaigns that may lead to future organizational efforts.

    Our Executive Director was interviewed, and noted that the organizations are little more than pawns for union campaigns: “[Unions] put on a costume and call themselves something other than a union […] they’re doing Potemkin-village unionization.” IWJ responded on its own blog, whining that worker centers really aren’t unions at all. Interestingly, IWJ is heavily union-funded: Department of Labor filings show the UFCW paid $99,000 to IWJ. Probably not coincidentally, IWJ branding appeared on some materials associated with the UFCW-orchestrated anti-Wal-Mart demonstrations last fall.

    Unlike traditional union corporate campaigns that attacked alleged shady business practices of the targeted firms, worker centers have an implied organizational aim. Some, like the fast food worker centers funded by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), have even legally organized as unions, perhaps out of concern a court might order it. OUR Walmart officially disavowed an organizational aim to avoid possible federal sanctions.

    Categories: Center for Union FactsSEIUUFCWWorkers Center
  3. AFL-CIO Issues Wish List to Obama

    Tonight President Obama will give his State of the Union address, and some of his deepest-pocketed backers at the AFL-CIO have outlined their hoped-for initiatives from the President’s speech. Along with an immigration reform bill and more public sector union make-work spending, the nation’s largest union federation asked for two very specific favors: a minimum wage increase and more efforts to aid unionization.

    We’ve noted that some unions have self-interested contract provisions that increase with statutory minimum wage increases. The Service Employees International Union, the union pushing the fast food protests, has several that are publicly identifiable. AFL-CIO member unions have these provisions too: We found publicly available UNITE-HERE and UFCW contracts that also peg to the minimum wage or get automatically renegotiated if it changes. When we pointed it out, the UFCW bragged about them, so we assume they’re at least somewhat prevalent.

    The AFL-CIO also asked for more support for “strengthening the freedom of workers to organize and collectively bargain.” Translating from union-speak to English, that suggests that the unions want Obama to resurrect the dead “card-check” bill that would take employees’ right to secret ballot votes. After the misleadingly named “Employee Free Choice Act” died amid bipartisan skepticism in Obama’s first term, unions have looked to the National Labor Relations Board to do their dirty work.

    However, with the union-backed employee “right” to a higher minimum wage likely to be a top administration priority, it’s more likely that expanding, rather than restricting, employee rights will be on the menu. The Employee Rights Act, which would guarantee a secret ballot to join a union, require opt-ins to union political operation funding, and criminalize union threats (among other things) offers the opportunity to expand, rather than restrict, employee freedoms.

     

    Categories: AFL-CIO
  4. What’s that, Randi?

    AFT Times Square BillboardSince we launched our new campaign exposing the American Federation of Teachers and its contributions to America’s education decline, we’ve had several testy exchanges with AFT President Randi Weingarten. When we kicked things off with a full-page ad in The New York Times, Randi initially took to Twitter to let us know her displeasure. Then, appearing later that evening on the Kelly File, Randi was presented with the ad and asked to answer directly to its charges on national television – answers that were less than accurate, to say the least.

    Well now Randi’s taking out her frustration in print. Last week, our executive director had an op-ed published in the Providence Journal in which he placed blame with Randi and the AFT for causing America’s fall in the recently released rankings of international scholastic performance. Specifically, Randi has throughout her career with both the United Federation of Teachers (an AFT Local) and the AFT itself militantly opposed policies that reward the best teachers with merit-based pay – if you’re a better teacher, shouldn’t you be paid more? – and opposed those that would remove failing teachers from the school system altogether (e.g., “rubber rooms”).

    So this week Randi responded with a lengthy letter to the editor seeking to correct the record – and again, was off on several notes. For one, Randi accuses us of attacking teachers and their unions alike. This could not be further from the truth. The Center for Union Facts does not attack good teachers – it exposes the power structures (aka, teachers unions) which make positive education reform impossible.

    Second, Randi speaks of the need for fewer political grenades. Interesting. Because it was the AFT that just recently was exposed for having spent $480,000 in an exceptionally shady campaign to elect the new mayor of Boston, Martin Walsh. Not to mention that in the 2012-13 fiscal year (the most recent year for which data is available) the AFT spent a staggering $32 million on political contributions.

    Randi can continue on her misinformed and misleading tirades if she likes, and we suspect that she will. (We can’t wait to hear what she thinks about this.) She’s fighting an uphill battle though, that somehow she can convince Americans the AFT is right for our kids despite decades of union-led stagnation and decline. Good luck.

    Categories: AFTTeachers Unions
  5. New Billboard in Times Square Calls out AFT

    Randi Times SquareWashington, D.C. – As part of its ongoing campaign against the toxic effects of teacher unions on U.S. education, the Center for Union Facts has placed a billboard in New York City’s Times Square and is running a 60-second radio ad on several NYC stations calling out the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and its president, Randi Weingarten, for contributing to America’s education decline. The ads focus specifically on how the powerful teachers union protects incompetent teachers at students’ expense, and refuses to reward excellent teachers with higher pay.

    The Times Square billboard, located at Broadway and 46th, features a picture of AFT President Randi Weingarten with the text, “Randi Weingarten’s Union Protects Bad Teachers.” The billboard then prompts viewers: “Find out why she opposes reforms that would improve our kids’ education: AFTFacts.com.”

    The radio ad begins with kids in their school classroom asking, “Hey, what’s that elephant doing in the classroom?” and “How am I supposed to get a good education with this elephant in the way?” Switching to a narrator, the ad continues: “It’s time we talked about the elephant in our kids’ classroom: Teachers unions. Our students have fallen behind countries like Latvia, Estonia, and Vietnam in math and science, and it keeps getting worse. Powerful teachers unions continue to protect incompetent teachers from being replaced, and refuse to reward good teachers with higher pay.

    “Randy Weingarten, the head of the American Federation of Teachers, has been stalling reforms that would help fix these problems and give our kids the opportunities they deserve. Weingarten and her union need to start embracing major changes so that our kids and our country can compete internationally.” The ad concludes by prompting listeners to learn more at AFTFacts.com, a website operated by the Center for Union Facts dedicated to exposing the corrosive effects the nation’s second-largest teachers union has on education.

    “The American Federation of Teachers can go on pretending it’s all about the kids, but after decades of scholastic underperformance it’s clear that it’s nothing but a charade,” said Richard Berman, executive director of the Center for Union Facts. “The American public is wising up to the truth: Randi Weingarten’s first priority isn’t to improve the quality of education – it’s to protect poor-performing teachers and the lackluster status quo.”

    Berman concluded, “Students in New York City and across the U.S. deserve an education that focuses on giving them the tools they need to succeed, not one that protects incompetent teachers at their expense.”

    Categories: Uncategorized
  6. Bill to Protect Union Whistleblowers Proposed

    capitolAmong the favors federal law offers labor unions that it does not offer other groups is an exemption from employee “whistleblower” protection laws. If union employees or junior officials find financial misconduct and bring it to the attention of union officers, those employees can be fired, sometimes without explanation. (The particulars depend on the employees’ and officials’ contract status—as we have detailed, unions can negotiate as ruthlessly as the most hated capitalists against their own staffs.)

    Heritage Foundation labor policy analyst James Sherk recounts one example of how this special-interest exemption chills the efforts of union employees to hold senior officers accountable for their fiduciary duties to union members:

    [Federal law] did not protect Rian Wathen, Peggy Collins, and Herman Jackson. The former officers of the United Food Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 700 in Indianapolis (allegedly) found their union president using union funds for his own benefit. They revealed this to their Local’s executive board. The next day the president fired them.

    Congress now has the opportunity to give protections to these union officials. Rep. Matt Salmon has introduced H.R. 3637, a bill which would subject unions to the same whistleblower laws to which other private-sector employers are subject.

    This bill and the provision of the Employee Rights Act that would remove legal protections given to otherwise criminal union threats clearly show that the federal government is sick of unions abusing their special privileges. It’s time for the government to protect union members against corruption cover-ups and against threats and intimidation and put labor unions on the same footing as other groups.

    Categories: Center for Union FactsCrime & CorruptionEmployee Rights Act
  7. What the IAM’s Battle in Seattle was Really All About

    Whenever there’s a labor union negotiating a contract with a major manufacturer, we all accept that their negotiation is defined by their competing interests. But with the recent case of Boeing’s contract with the International Association of Machinists, the more significant competing interests were actually within the union itself.

    National leadership at the IAM simply had different priorities than local. This disagreement is exposed via the main sticking point of the negotiations; retirement benefits. IAM local demanded that workers keep their defined-benefit plans intact, while Boeing was only offering defined-contribution 401(k)-style packages. It’s a typical negotiating fight that has played out in unionized workplaces across the country as companies project that defined-benefit plans are leading them into cash-flow trouble.

    The real issue is why IAM national staked itself in opposition to IAM local and recommended accepting Boeing’s deal. The threat of Boeing leaving Washington state for cheaper labor in (potentially) Right-to-Work territory was legitimate and real. These states would be significantly more difficult territory for IAM national to organize dues-paying members. So, when Boeing gave their final offer sans pension plans, national IAM made a cold decision to push away the local’s specific demands for the sake of preserving their own self-interest.  The term ‘Big Labor’ isn’t just a political euphemism reserved for rhetoric in Washington, D.C. It’s an actual criticism that has resonated with workers nationwide and more recently in Washington state.

    Categories: Right-to-Work
  8. Teachers Unions Caught in Shady Political Scheme

    school busLast November, unions including the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and its Boston local (the Boston Teachers Union or BTU) heavily backed Marty Walsh in the city’s mayoral election. (He won.) Part of that support was a $480,000 ad buy by the AFT national headquarters that the BTU swears it didn’t know about. The money path gets shadier, according to the Boston Globe:

    State campaign finance records show that no teachers unions disclosed giving money directly to Walsh’s campaign, instead the American Federation of Teachers donated $500,000 to One New Jersey, a political action committee that has a history of spending money against candidates who have clashed with teachers unions.
     
    That group then set up One Boston, a local political action committee, which funded the late advertising blitz.
     
    The emergence of One Boston shocked political observers, who could not track down any information about where the group or its money was from. Last week, officials with One New Jersey and the American Federation of Teachers disclosed that the national union had bankrolled the political action committee.

    The Globe editors were not amused by the scheme. Noting that open support by the BTU (which didn’t formally endorse Walsh until Election Day) might have hurt his campaign, the editors found the AFT’s probably legal money-laundry scheme very dissatisfactory:

    In the same spirit, One Boston was unusually secretive about its activities. The Boston Teachers Union insists it didn’t know about the contribution. The only person named in One Boston’s paperwork was a Roslindale woman who rarely even voted in local elections. The American Federation of Teachers channeled its contribution through a New Jersey political action committee that, under that state’s law, isn’t required to identify its donors. This is the campaign-finance equivalent of avoiding taxes by channeling one’s earnings through shell companies and stashing them in the Cayman Islands.

    As more people become aware that teachers unions like the AFT and its locals are holding our kids back, expect more and more secretive schemes like this one to keep the campaign cash flowing far from public scrutiny.

    Categories: AFL-CIOAFTCenter for Union FactsPolitical MoneyTeachers Unions