SEIU's expanding embezzlement epidemic

More Andy Stern stories: here • Tyrone Freeman stories: here

Scandal engulfs 3rd California big, multiple investigations underway

The Service Employees International Union's top California officer has taken a leave of absence, and her former boyfriend has been ordered to return tens of thousands of dollars he received from the state council and Los Angeles local that she heads.

Annelle Grajeda is the third major SEIU leader to step aside following reports in The Times about the union's financial practices. The SEIU acknowledged Saturday that Grajeda was on leave as president of the L.A. local and the union's state council, and as an executive vice president of the national organization, because of allegations that she was improperly involved in the payments.

The union did not provide any details of Grajeda's purported role in the payment to the former boyfriend, Alejandro Stephens. The SEIU said it has demanded that Stephens, who was a longtime president of the Los Angeles chapter before it merged with several others, return the money.

An internal complaint filed Aug. 14 also accuses Stephens of remaining on the Los Angeles County payroll while drawing a salary from the union. Attempts to reach Stephens were unsuccessful.

Grajeda said Saturday that she was "very confident" the inquiry would conclude that she did nothing wrong. She said she could not discuss specifics. The inquiry is separate from a federal criminal investigation and congressional probe of another SEIU local in Los Angeles, which were prompted by a Times report earlier this month.

"Our serious concerns about these charges have been greatly elevated by the recently published article," states the complaint, brought by two members of Grajeda's local, which represents thousands of county employees including social workers, nurses and clerks. "We have grave concerns that this type of betrayal of public trust and malfeasance may be happening in our local union."

The SEIU is the nation's fastest-growing union, with 2 million members in North America and more than 700,000 in California. Grajeda's local has 77,000 members. She has been a close aide to its president, Andy Stern. The state council oversees the union's lobbying efforts in Sacramento and its get-out-the-vote drives.

In 2007, Stephens was paid nearly $14,000 by the Los Angeles office in "disbursements for official business" and $75,000 in consulting fees by the state council, according to the union's financial filings with the U.S. Labor Department.

As an SEIU executive board member, he also received more than $104,000 in salary and disbursements last year from the union's headquarters in Washington, D.C., records show. The filings indicate that the national office reimbursed the state council for the $75,000.

SEIU spokeswoman Michelle Ringuette said the $75,000 was part of a severance deal with Stephens when he was removed as local president because of the consolidation.

She said he violated the agreement by receiving money from the local and remaining on the county payroll as an employee. It was not known whether he received similar payments this year. In addition to the union payments, the complaint calls on the SEIU to investigate a nonprofit that is affiliated with the local and headed by Stephens. The most recently available tax records show that it has devoted only about 9% of its expenditures to its charitable programs.

In a letter to Ron Tanner and Arturo Diaz, the two local members who filed the complaint, SEIU's national office asked for more specific information. It also said the complaint about the charity was referred to the nonprofit's board.

Donna Meredith, the charity's vice chairwoman, said it was established after the 1994 Northridge quake to provide aid to union members affected by such disasters. She said it spent less than $15,000 on program services in 2006, the last year for which Internal Revenue Service reports are available, because it needed to build a reserve for future payments. "We have to keep putting funds into that," she said.

The nonprofit spent about $81,000 in 2006 on fundraising expenses, more than half its total outlays. Meredith said costs for the charity's fundraiser -- a 5K and 10K run -- were higher than expected. She defended Stephens' stewardship of the charity and his work for the union, labeling the complaints against him sour grapes by Tanner and Diaz. "He is doing what he is supposed to do," Meredith said of Stephens. "They are just unhappy with him because he is in charge."

Diaz denied that he and Tanner harbor any grudge against Stephens. "I think he's totally taken advantage of the membership," said Diaz, a county computer programmer.

Tanner, a county retiree who still belongs to the union, said Meredith's comment reflected "pure loyalty to Alejandro Stephens, whether he's wrong or right."

Previous Times reports have focused on the SEIU's largest California chapter, the United Long-Term Care Workers. The head of that local, Tyrone Freeman, has stepped aside because of the resulting investigations into its finances.

His former chief of state, Rickman Jackson, who is now president of SEIU's biggest Michigan chapter, also has taken a leave because of the probe.

The Times has reported that small companies run by Freeman's wife and mother-in-law got about $405,000 in 2006 and 2007 from the union and a charity he founded, among other expenditures. Freeman has denied any wrongdoing.

A housing corporation Freeman helped found used the address of a Bell Gardens home that property records show is owned by Jackson. Union and housing corporation officials have declined to say whether Jackson was paid for any use of his residence. Jackson has said in e-mails that he would have no comment on the matter.

(latimes.com)

Barack captures union-dues

Hyper-partisanship at work: 150-to-1 for Barack over McCain

Labor union's have lavished big bucks on the presidential campaign of Barack Obama since January of 2007 and only a piddling amount on the campaign of presumptive Republican nominee John McCain.

On the eve of Labor Day, a Times analysis of Federal Election Commission data shows Obama scooped up $8.1 million from union political action committees through July 2008 while McCain garnered just $54,100 from organized labor and employee PACs so far in this presidential election cycle.

The all-or-nothing bet unions are placing on Obama repeats the strategy of heavily backing Democratic candidate John Kerry in the 2004 election.

"There is that huge split because there is a huge split in what Obama and McCain represent," said Tom Balanoff, President of Chicago-based Service Employees Union Local 1. "Barack Obama understands the needs of working families."

During and immediately after the primary season, SEIU political action committees were by far the largest organizational contributors to the Obama campaign, dropping a combined $7.26 million in his campaign war chest.

Of all the political action committee donations made to the Obama campaign, 89.3 percent were from unions. Of all the political action committee donations made to the McCain campaign, just 2.9 percent came from unions and employee PACs.

In fact, union political action committees made $1.6 million in donations to anti-McCain efforts, the election commission records show.

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton had broader support from unions than Obama during the primary season, garnering $4.4 million in donations from 35 union PACs. Obama's money came from just eight union PACs.

Unions cannot make direct donations to federal candidates' election campaigns. Instead, union members contribute to the unions' political action committees through authorized payroll deductions.

The United Steelworkers are using the same logic as SEIU in throwing all their weight behind Obama now that he is the Democratic nominee, according to Jim Robinson, USW District 7 director.

"If we gave money to McCain, that wouldn't change the positions he's had for many years," said Robinson. "It would be like the chickens getting together and giving a donation to Colonel Sanders."

The United Steelworkers backed former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards in the primaries.

"He was the most energetic and aggressive on trade policy," said USW public affairs director Gary Hubbard of Edwards.

But now the USW is backing Obama wholeheartedly, Hubbard said.

Obama's policies on universal health care, trade, and the Employee Free Choice Act make the Illinois Senator the choice of most every union, Robinson said.

Unions believe the Free Choice Act, which would give employees union representation if a majority signed cards signalling union membership, will increase union numbers. Unions claim the current regime of National Labor Relations Board elections for union recognition allows employers to stall unionization.

McCain opposed the Free Choice Act when it was introduced in Congress. The steelworkers also believe McCain's health care plan will actually drive workers out of employer programs and into the arms of private insurance companies, Robinson said.

In addition to their campaign donations, unions are working to increase their clout through get-out-the-vote and ongoing political campaigns, according to Michelle Ringuette, SEIU assistant director of communications.

Local 1 SEIU members were in Gary this weekend conducting a voter registration drive.

SEIU will have members make 10 million calls to members of Congress in support of universal health care and other issues important to working families, Ringuette said. The union will put up $10 million to make sure members of Congress deliver on their promises and dedicate 50 percent of its organizing budget to political action.

"We will keep the heat on so things get done," Ringuette said.

Big labor, big issues, big money
Union PACs and employee PACs were big givers during the presidential primary season and after, donating millions to the campaigns of presidential hopefuls.
John McCain
Total donations: $54,100
Total PACs contributing: 12
Barack Obama
Total donations: $8.1 million
Total PACs contributing: 8
Hillary Clinton
Total donations: $4.4 million
Total PACs contributing: 34

(nwitimes.com)

Workers can object to unions' political spending

More union dues stories: here

About 40% of workers disagree with unions' hyper-partisanship, but are forced to support it through workplace deductions

Soon after World War II, 36 percent of all workers in the United States were members of labor unions. Today, the figure is about 12 percent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. A big decline, obviously. But even at 12 percent, that's enough people — roughly 16 million — to make a difference in a presidential election.

In the lead story in today's section, Rochester labor leader Jim Bertolone states succinctly why he favors Barack Obama over John McCain. When the AFL-CIO, the nation's largest labor organization, endorsed Obama in June, it called him "a champion for working families."

The National Right to Work Committee doesn't hold the Democratic nominee in such high regard. "On Labor Day ... as we celebrate the free enterprise system and the value of hard work, union officials are mounting an unprecedented, billion-dollar campaign effort to grab more forced unionism power," said Right to Work President Mark Mix.

"Their goal is to elect a president and a filibuster-proof Senate that will give them even more tools to force workers to join or pay dues to a union."

The Right to Work Committee says its 2.2 million members are dedicated to the principle that all Americans must have the right to join a union if they choose to — but that no one should ever be forced to become a union member to get or keep a job.

And so the committee is urging workers to challenge the use of their dues this fall to pay for any elect-Obama effort.

(democratandchronicle.com)

Labor union corruption: A national epidemic

More embezzlement stories: here

Despite rampant racketeering & ripoffs, labor bigs seek $10 billion bailout from Congress via EFCA

Remember the air-traffic controllers union strike of 1981? Odds are you don't -- 60 percent of Americans were 16 or younger at the time of Big Labor's last nationwide power grab.

But unions haven't made that kind of nasty headline for a while. So it should be no surprise that this Labor Day many of these underinformed Americans approve of labor unions as an institution.

But new research indicates that unions' popularity would be in the tank if Americans were aware of the current leadership's record of fat expense accounts, corruption, embezzlement and discrimination.

You might be surprised to learn that in the last reported five years, inspectors from the Department of Labor obtained 1,100 labor racketeering indictments, with court judgments exceeding $400 million in fines and other forms of punishment and repayment to union members who were ripped off.

In addition, the federal Office of Labor-Management Standards has successfully prosecuted 850 corrupt union officials and obtained $103 million in restitution orders since 2001.

And since 2000, labor unions have faced more than 14,000 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaints -- charging leaders with discrimination by race, sex, age, disability and religion.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General, "Schemes involving bribery, extortion, deprivation of union rights by violence and embezzlement used by early racketeers are still employed to abuse the power of unions."

But union leaders have kept their activities out of the public eye -- relying on deft political maneuvering, multimillion-dollar public relations campaigns and the residual goodwill of the American people.

This has worked for a long time. But now organized labor has a new scheme that should be prompting more and more concerned citizens to speak up and oppose disturbing new legislation that amounts to a brazen power grab.

It's congressional legislation deceptively named the Employee Free Choice Act, or EFCA. It eliminates workers' right to a private vote when considering the forming of a union in the workplace and makes it vastly easier for outside organizers to enter a workplace and form a union, without time for debate and deliberation.

How would this "free choice" proposal do all this?

Instead of giving everyone the right to make a decision in the privacy of the voting booth, signatures would be collected in public, making individuals vulnerable to pressure and harassment from union organizers.

If organizers collect cards from more than 50 percent of a workplace's employees, the result is a binding contract for representation.

The U.S. Supreme Court has called this signature-collection method "admittedly inferior to the (private ballot) election process."

"It would be difficult to imagine a more unreliable method of ascertaining the real wishes of employees," said the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a real election, when you vote "no," your word is final. But under EFCA, union organizers would be permitted to pester employees as much as necessary, even showing up at their homes until they relent.

To a union organizer, "no" means "not yet." How can you ever register a final "no" vote in that process?

An AFL-CIO "Guidebook for Union Organizers" admits that sometimes employees will sign just "to 'get the union off my back.'" Nevertheless, 50 percent plus one of the targeted employees signing a card equals an election under the proposed rules.

An office could be unionized overnight.

Union president Andy Stern predicts EFCA would mean 15 million to 20 million more unionized Americans. By Stern's calculations, unions would conservatively pick up an additional $10 billion in dues annually.

Money talks in politics so unions would have unprecedented political influence and power to advance their agenda. And given their history of corruption, deception and mismanagement of member dues, a $10 billion cash injection should be enough to cause any American serious concern.

This Labor Day, make sure your friends and neighbors have heard about the labor bosses' latest scheme to increase their own power and eliminate working Americans' right to a private vote, free from coercion or intimidation.

It will be tragic if millions of Americans don't find out until it is too late.

- Richard Berman is the executive director of the Center for Union Facts, a nonprofit watchdog for America's workers.

(pittsburghlive.com)

What do union bigs want?

More EFCA stories: here

Huge federal bailout for organized labor looms in 2009

The 2008 elections may represent the high-water mark of Big Labor's political ascendancy. Although union operatives have already announced $300 million in national campaign expenditures, union political spending could exceed $1 billion after factoring in PACs, 527s, and state and local outlays.

What does Big Labor want? A sympathetic president and a filibuster-proof Senate majority mean less federal oversight for corrupt unions and new government-granted special privileges for union bosses.

Most ominously, the erroneously titled "Employee Free Choice Act" (AKA the Card-Check Forced Unionism Bill) looms over the horizon, threatening to unleash a wave of coercive union organizing across America.

In recent years, the Card-Check Forced Unionism Bill has become Big Labor's No. 1 political priority - a de facto litmus test for candidates seeking union bosses' political backing. Endorsed by presidential nominee Barack Obama and virtually all congressional Democrats, this legislation would allow union operatives to unilaterally bypass federally supervised secret ballot elections and instead pursue coercive card-check organizing drives to determine whether workers unionize.

By forcing workers to declare their support or opposition to unionization in front of aggressive union organizers, card-check leaves employees vulnerable to coercion, intimidation and harassment. Without even the limited protections of secret ballot elections, card-check allows aggressive unions to acquire monopoly bargaining privileges in an environment that makes it nearly impossible for employees to say "no" to unionization.

Under current law, an employer still has the right to insist that employees get a secret ballot election, rather than to bargain with the union assuming the cards are legitimate and uncoerced. The Card-Check Forced Unionism Bill would change all that.

The National Right to Work Foundation, a group that provides free legal aid to workers whose rights have been violated by compulsory unionism, has helped hundreds of employees abused by card-check. Workers report being harassed at home and on the job until many eventually agree to sign away their rights to self-representation. Some have had to threaten to call the police just to get aggressive organizers out of their homes.

In other instances, union activists have resorted to lying or misleading employees about the cards' meaning, claiming workers' signatures would only be used for choosing health insurance coverage, validating tax deductions, or initiating a federally-supervised secret ballot election.

According to Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger, the Card-Check Forced Unionism Bill is "the fuel - the opening - for the SEIU to change our growth curve from 100,000 to a million or more workers a year." If the SEIU is allowed to intimidate and cajole workers into signing cards, Ms. Burger's prediction threatens to become self-fulfilling.

Big Labor's political organizers are nothing if not ambitious. The Card-Check Forced Unionism Bill represents the cornerstone of their efforts to reshape American politics for decades to come.

While mandatory card-check would greatly enhance Big Labor's influence, union operatives have already used card-check drives to push thousands of workers into union collectives.

Through the Freedom of Information Act, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys recently acquired new information on the prevalence of card-check in the workplace. According to the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) report, union organizers successfully completed more than 250 card-check organizing drives between October 2007 and May 2008. Because the NLRB was not required to track the use of card-check until late last year, this information only hints at the pervasive nature of coercive organizing.

Current law gives employers the right (but not the obligation) to secure employee access to a secret ballot election, so Big Labor's efforts increasingly focus on bludgeoning management into submission. Union operatives frequently initiate vicious "corporate campaigns" aimed at targeted companies featuring drawn-out litigation, staged protests and massive PR broadsides. Employers then face a stark choice: suffer months of harassment at the hands of union militants, or subject their employees to abusive card-check organizing.

Once they cave in to union pressure, companies frequently are compelled to provide union operatives with employees' personal information and force workers to attend mandatory meetings touting the "benefits" of union membership.

Federal labor law already grants union officials privileges enjoyed by no other private organization, including the power to force workers to accept union "representation" and pay union dues as a condition of employment.

By further tilting the playing field in favor of union organizers, legislation like Card-Check Forced Unionism Bill will give union bosses what they need to raise billions of dollars in new forced union dues to spend on things like radical politics. Supporters of workplace freedom had better watch out.

- Mark Mix is president of the National Right to Work Committee

(washingtontimes.com)

Politics interfere with worker-choice

More EFCA stories: here

Union bigs lean on Congress to enforce forced-labor unionism agenda

Big Labor is making a billion dollar bet on this fall's election. If they elect Barack Obama and a filibuster-proof Senate, they could run the table next year. Obama is an enthusiastic supporter of Big Labor's legislative agenda of more compulsory unionism. At the top of that agenda is the Orwellian-named "Employee Free Choice Act" which would block employees from secret ballot elections over unionization. Passage of EFCA, more accurately called the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill, is central to Big Labor's plans to obtain new coercive union organizing privileges.

The bill's provisions attack freedom and choice for both employees and employers. In Big Labor's world view, the only proper relationship between workers and employers is an adversarial one. Under mandatory "card check," employees may never even hear their employer's opinion on the downsides of unionization and what it could mean for their company. Employees could leave work at the end of one day, only to find the next morning that they are in a union. And just how will this happen? Union organizers pressure workers one by one to sign union authorization cards. When a majority of workers sign, the employer would be required by law to bargain with the union as the "exclusive representative" of all workers.

Because "exclusive representation" is such an extraordinary privilege, current law allows employers to insist that workers make their decision on unionization through a secret ballot election supervised by the NLRB. The Card Check Forced Unionism Bill does away with the secret ballot except under the most far-fetched of circumstances.

But there's more. In the Senate, Obama introduced the so-called Patriot Employer Act, which offers tax advantages to those companies agreeing to so-called "neutrality" and use of card check (which is not yet mandated). Under such agreements, employees lose both access to truthful information about the downsides of unionization and the privacy of the secret ballot. Employers that refuse to throw their workers under the bus will not be deemed "patriots" and will therefore face higher taxes than their competitors.

Meanwhile, Obama and union lobbyists have another bill in mind -- one which will force unionization on hundreds of thousands of public safety workers across America.

Under current law and the principle of federalism, states are free to determine for themselves the best way for state and local governments to negotiate contracts with government employees. Almost half of all states either do not permit union monopoly bargaining over police, firefighters, and EMTs or grant more limited forms of "exclusive representation." Already a cosponsor of this bill, Obama promises he will push for and sign the Police and Fire Monopoly Bargaining Act, forcing states and cities to bargain with union bosses as the monopoly bargaining agent of public safety personnel.

With the potential for the most radical shift in labor law in decades, it should come as no surprise that Big Labor is spending record funds -- estimated at over $1 billion in mostly compulsory dues -- on the 2008 elections.

When it comes fighting for forced unionism power grabs which corral more hardworking Americans into unions, Obama is Big Labor's great hope. So much for the little guy.

- Doug Stafford is vice president of the National Right to Work Committee.

(thetowntalk.com)

AFL- CIO's Gold helps Barack silence critics

Michelle Malkin investigation gets details

Where are all the free speech absolutists when you need them? Over the past month, left-wing partisans and Democratic lawyers have waged a brass-knuckled intimidation campaign against GOP donors, TV and radio stations, and even an investigative journalist because they have all dared to question the radical cult of Barack Obama. A chill wind blows, but where the valiant protectors of political dissent are, nobody knows.

On August 11, I called the American Civil Liberties Union national headquarters in New York for comment about the Chicago gangland tactics of one of these groups -- a nonprofit called "Accountable America" that is spearheaded by a former operative of the Obama-endorsing MoveOn outfit.

"Accountable America" is trolling campaign finance databases and targeting conservative donors with "warning" letters in a thuggish attempt to depress Republican fundraising. (You'll be interested to know that the official registered agent of Accountable America is Laurence Gold, a high-powered attorney for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) who has testified before the Senate complaining about the use of campaign finance laws to stifle the speech of union workers -- a pet cause of the ACLU.)

The ACLU press office failed to respond to my initial call. On August 13, I followed up through e-mail:

"I called on Monday requesting a statement from the ACLU about Accountable America's intimidation campaign against GOP donors. What is the ACLU's position with regard to such efforts? Waiting for your statement..."

ACLU press officer Pamela Bradshaw e-mailed back:

"Michelle, My apologies that I cannot be of more assistance, but we don't have anyone available. Thanks, Pam."

My reply: "Pam -- Does this mean you don't have anyone available today, this week, or for the foreseeable future?"

On August 20, after a week of silence, I forwarded the message again to the ACLU press office. No response.

So, I won't bother asking the ACLU's opinion of the latest wave of speech-squelching moves by the Obama campaign:

On Monday, Obama demanded that the Justice Department stop TV stations from airing a documented, accurate independent ad spotlighting Obama's longtime working relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Obama summoned his followers to bombard stations, many of them owned by conservative-leaning Sinclair Communications, with 93,000 e-mails to squelch the commercial.

On Tuesday, the Obama campaign sent another letter to the Justice Department demanding investigation and prosecution of American Issues Project, the group that produced the Ayers ad, as well as Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons, who funded it.

And on Wednesday, Obama exhorted his followers to sabotage the WGN radio show of veteran Chicago host and University of Chicago Professor Milt Rosenberg. Why? Because he invited National Review writer Stanley Kurtz to discuss his investigative findings about Obama's ties to Ayers and the underwhelming results of their collaboration on a left-wing educational project sponsored by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. The "Obama Action Wire" supplied Rosenberg's call-in line and talking points like this:

"Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse. ... It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves."

Behind the glowing, peaceful facade lies Barack "The Silencer" Obama and his silent enablers on the left. While mainstream journalists schmoozed with liberal celebrities in Denver, practiced yoga with left-wing bloggers and received massages at the Google convention tent near touchy-feely Barackopolis, Team Obama was on an ugly, aggressive warpath sanctioned by Mr. Civility. While compassionate Obama prepared to stand before thousands of worshipers at Invesco Field, purporting to give voice to the voiceless, his Chicago-schooled campaign machine was working overtime to muzzle conservative critics. "We want it to stop," ordered one pro-Obama caller to WGN.

Welcome to the future: the politics of Hope and Change enforced by the missionaries of Search and Destroy.

(statesmanjournal.com)

Teachers nix fact-finder, go out on strike

Related story: "The 28 labor-states"

Labor-states lead the nation in teacher strikes

Tuscarora (PA) School District teachers are officially on strike and there will be no school in session for the foreseeable future.

District Solicitor Carl Beard confirmed Saturday that the teachers have given written notice to School Superintendent Rebecca Erb that they are striking. The district and the teachers union could not agree on a teachers' contract for 2008-2009. A fact finder was called in, and the school board voted twice to accept the fact-finder's report. The teachers voted twice not to accept it.

The primary issues are health insurance (how much of a percentage the teachers have to pay) and salary concerns.

There will be a picket line on Tuesday morning at the high school, middle school and two elementary schools, though which two elementary schools have not been decided.

No new negotiating sessions between the district and the teacher's union have been scheduled as of this posting.

(publicopiniononline.com)

Alabama to dock obese state workers

Related story: "The 28 labor-states"

Management couldn't get away with this in a labor-state

Alabama, pushed to second in national obesity rankings by deep-fried Southern favorites, is cracking down on state workers who are too fat.

The state has told its 37,527 employees they have one year to start getting fit — or they'll pay $25 a month for insurance that otherwise is free. Alabama will be the first state to charge overweight state workers who don't work on slimming down. A handful of other states reward employees who adopt healthy behaviors.

Alabama already charges workers who smoke — and has seen some success in getting them to quit — but now has turned its attention to a problem that plagues many in the Deep South: obesity.

The State Employees' Insurance Board approved a plan this month to charge state workers starting in January 2010 if they don't have free health screenings.

If the screenings turn up serious problems with blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose or obesity, employees will have a year to see a doctor at no cost, enroll in a wellness program or take steps on their own to improve their health. If they show progress in a follow-up screening, they won't be charged. But if they don't, they must pay starting in January 2011.

"We are trying to get individuals to become more aware of their health," said state worker Robert Wagstaff, who serves on the insurance board.

Not all state employees see it that way.

"It's terrible," health department employee Chequla Motley said. "Some people come into this world big."

Computer technician Tim Colley already pays $24 a month for being a smoker and doesn't like the idea of another charge.

"It's too Big Brotherish," he said.

The board will apply the obesity charge to anyone with a body mass index of 35 or higher who is not making progress.

A person 5 feet 6 inches tall weighing 220 pounds, for example, would have a BMI of 35.5. A BMI of 30 is considered the threshold for obesity.

The board has not yet determined how much progress a person would have to show avoid the charge.

It is unclear how many people might be affected, because in theory, all state workers could make efforts to lose weight.

But that seems unlikely, as government statistics show Alabamians have a big weight problem. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 30.3 percent are now obese, ranking the state behind only Mississippi.

E-K. Daufin of Montgomery, a college professor and founder of Love Your Body, Love Yourself, which holds body acceptance workshops, said the new policy will be stressful for people like her.

"I'm big and beautiful and doing my best to keep my stress levels down so I can stay healthy," Daufin said. "That's big, not lazy, not a glutton and certainly not deserving of the pompous, poisonous disrespect served up daily to those of us with more bounce to the ounce."

A recent study suggested that about half of overweight people and nearly a third of obese people have normal blood pressure and cholesterol levels, while about a quarter of people considered to be normal weight suffer from the ills associated with obesity.

Walter Lindstrom, founder of the Obesity Law and Advocacy Center in California, said he's concerned that all overweight Alabama employees will get is advice to walk more and broil their chicken.

"The state will feel good about itself for offering something and the person of size will end up paying $300 a year for the bad luck of having a chronic disease his/her state-sponsored insurance program failed to cover in an appropriate and meaningful fashion," he said.

William Ashmore, executive director of the State Employees' Insurance Board, said the state will spend an extra $1.6 million next year on screenings and wellness programs but should see significant long-term savings.

Ashmore said research shows someone with a body mass index of 35 to 39 generates $1,748 more in annual medical expenses than someone with a BMI less than 25, considered normal.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, a few states offer one-time financial incentives for pursuing healthy lifestyles. Ohio workers, for instance, get $50 for having health assessments and another $50 for following through with the advice.

Arkansas and Missouri go a step further, offering monthly discounts on premiums for employees who take health risk assessments and participate in wellness programs to reduce obesity, stress and other health problems.

Alabama's new policy is drawing no objection from the lobbying group representing state workers.

Mac McArthur, executive director of Alabama State Employees Association, said the plan is not designed to punish employees.

"It's a positive," he said.

(statesman.com)

Barack to wow unionists at Laborfest

Related story: "The 28 labor-states"

Nation's organizer-in-chief sets Labor Day event in labor-state

Barack Obama will be the special speaker at Laborfest.

Fresh from his triumph at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, the presidential candidate will bring his visionary message, plans for a better American and powerful oratory to Milwaukee, consciously connecting the national worker’s holiday, Labor Day, with the union members who in Milwaukee celebrate annually with a parade and free family festival at the Summerfest grounds.

But a warning – absolutely no tickets for the Obama evening event will be distributed at Laborfest.

The Obama visit, under tight security, will fill the Marcus Amphitheater (south of the main grounds) and start at 6 p.m. Monday, September 1.

Doors for seating will open at 3 p.m. for the 6 p.m. event.

Tickets for the general public will be distributed in advance only at Obama campaign offices throughout the state and for union members in special advance arrangements (away from Laborfest) with their union leaders.

Obama will lead this Rally for America’s Workers, speak directly about his plans to provide real relief for working families and discuss why we can’t afford “four more years of the same old politics and the same old policies.”

For the public, required tickets can be picked up starting at noon Sunday at Obama campaign offices – as long as the tickets last. While open to the public and the press, seating for the event is limited, so this is really a first come-first served rally for the public.

Plans for all this were rapidly developed by the campaign and by the Milwaukee Area Labor Council, AFL-CIO, sponsor of Laborfest.

Union members will have to work through the offices of their locals or through meetings off the grounds with their union leaders Sunday and early Monday to get their tickets.

Thousands of tickets are available to them and thousands more will be
distributed to the general public through Obama campaign offices in Wisconsin listed below.

A statewide interest in Obama’s speech – indeed a national interest, with traveling media expected from around the world -- is anticipated, so Obama organizers suggest visiting a campaign office starting Sunday to get the essential tickets.

The central office of the Obama “Campaign for Change” is downtown at 744 N. 4th St. (corner of Wells St.). In fact, seven hours before the Obama event starts, that’s where the vintage cars and Harley motorcycles gather to kick off Labor Day's 11 a.m. parade through downtown to the Summerfest grounds.

The free events there, open to all residents and families, are full of activities for children and adults. Dozens of Summerfest’s traditional food and beverage vendors will be open for business. Two bands will rotate full time at the Miller Stage. Bingo, pro wrestling and special displays and raffles are among the attractions.

These Laborfest activities run from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m., leaving enough time for participants to stroll over to the Obama event, which was announced just two days in advance, on Aug. 30.

Obama’s last Milwaukee visit was Feb. 16 in a major appearance for the state Democratic Party ahead of the Wisconsin primary. Many commentators have credited that primary with galvanizing his national campaign. Obama supporters expect his speech at Laborfest will do the same for the November 4 election.

It is hard to overstate the interest in his appearances and plans.
It’s an outburst of belief reflected in the numbers who watched his acceptance speech August 27 (the most-watched convention speech ever: 38.4 million viewers -- 57% more that John Kerry in 2004).

It was also anticipated by Milwaukeeans in 2004, when Obama (not yet even the senator from Illinois) spoke at Washington Park. Many pressed forward to greet him in person, saying “I’m shaking the hand of a future president.”

(milwaukeelabor.org)

Rep. Brad Ellsworth, Indiana DINO

Related story: "Public opinion survey on card-check"

Democrat wants to end secret-ballot union elections

Is the Employee Free Choice Act on your political radar? If it is not, it better be. It has the potential to be one of the most damaging pieces of legislation for employers and employees that has been seen in decades.

What is the Employee Free Choice Act?

* It provides that a union could be certified to represent your employees with a simple majority of your employees signing an authorization card, therefore the slang term for this legislation, "card check." This requirement for employees to publicly sign a union card to join a union would do away with the current practice of private ballot elections in organizing efforts. At issue is whether or not workers should continue to have the right to vote in privacy like we do in every other election in this county. Because there is no private ballot, the way each worker votes is made known not only to their co-workers but also to union organizers and their employer. This atmosphere would be ripe for extreme peer pressure, harassment and intimidation. This is wrong. Workers deserve the continued right I to make these important personal decisions in private, without fear of coercion or reprisal from union organizers, their employer, or both. The right to a private ballot is a cornerstone of our democracy The voting booth is so private that couples who have been married for years will not disclose to each other whom they voted for in the last government election. Yet, can you believe this fundamental right is under assault in the U.S. Congress? It gets worse.

* If an employer and a union are engaged in bargaining for the first time and are unable to reach an agreement, arbitration will be forced and the result binding for two years.

* It increases the amount an employer is required to pay when an employee is discharged or discriminated against during on organizing campaign to three times back pay. Additionally, there are civil fines up to $20,000 per violation against employers found to be willfully violating employees' rights during an organizing campaign.

On the record. This proposed legislation called H.R. 800 has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives 241 to 185. A companion bill in the U.S. Senate (S. 1041) is currently under consideration. The Indiana members of the U.S. House of Representatives have recorded their votes on this issue. Representatives Julia Carson, Joe Donnelly, Brad Ellsworth, Baron Hill and Pete Visclosky all voted in favor of this legislation. Standing up for worker rights and voting to protect private ballots were representatives Dan Burton, Steve Buyer, Mike Pence and Mark Souder.

President Bush has promised a veto. But however this issue turns out this session, it is not going away What if there is not a presidential veto threat after 2008?

This legislation is organized labor's highest legislative priority today and will continue to be. This is their litmus test for members of Congress that they support. Unions seek to reverse the decline in union membership by facilitating the organizing of workplaces through legalized coercion and intimidation.

Call to action. Whether you are an employee or employer, make your voice heard. If you need assistance with how to do that, visit www.myprivateballot.com. Indiana organizations that have declared their public opposition to this "card check" legislation include the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, Indiana Manufactures Association, Associated Builders and Contractors, Indiana Retail Council, Indiana Petroleum Council, Indiana Hotel and Lodging Association, Indiana Grocery and Convenience Store Association, and Restaurant and Hospitality Association.

Remember. Your vote. In America it's as sacred as the Constitution. And it is to be cast in private. A right that belongs only to you. Don't let your Congressman, who was elected by secret ballot, take away your right. What could be next??

- J.R. Gaylor is president and CEO of the Associated Builders & Contractors of Indiana Inc. He also serves on the board of directors of the Indiana Construction Roundtable and on the board of trustees for Vincennes University.

(goliath.ecnext.com)

Ronnie Musgrove's EFCA Deception

Union-backed ACORN in criminal voter-fraud

More ACORN stories: here

Pattern of misconduct begins to anger elections officials around the nation

Milwaukee’s top election official said Thursday she plans to seek criminal investigations of 10 more voter registration workers, including two accused of offering gifts to sign up voters. Most of the suspect workers appear to have falsified driver’s license numbers, Social Security numbers or other information on voter registration cards, Election Commission Executive Director Sue Edman said.

Counting the latest group, Edman will have referred 49 voter registration workers this month to Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Bruce Landgraf for possible prosecution. Milwaukee police are looking at the evidence to determine whether criminal charges are warranted against the workers, Landgraf said.

About 250 to 300 of the registration cards submitted by those workers are under scrutiny, Edman said. All the workers were paid by two organizations running voter registration drives, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now and the Community Voters Project. Overall, 37 of the suspect workers were on the ACORN payroll, 11 were paid by the voters project and it’s not clear who employed the other one.

In many cases, the organizations said they caught the fraud, fired the workers and flagged the cards for investigation before turning them over to Edman.

They also have said the problems involve only a fraction of the hundreds of workers who signed up tens of thousands of new voters.

Among the latest group, two ACORN workers are accused of offering pre-paid gasoline cards or restaurant gift cards to people in exchange for signing up to vote.

Edman said she wants Landgraf to look into whether the workers violated a state law that forbids offering cash or gifts to sway voters.

Eight voter project workers are suspected of making up information on voter applications, Edman said.

Among the workers previously referred to Landgraf, two are accused of submitting cards for dead voters.

Others appear to have submitted cards for people who said they never filled out an application or who were already registered, signed cards themselves, or falsified driver’s license numbers.

The incident has revived partisan debate over whether photo identification for voters would help prevent fraud or discourage the poor and minorities from voting.

On Wednesday, the state Government Accountability Board refused to require voters to show photo ID at the polls if new database checks found discrepancies in their registration information.

(jsonline.com)

Slate urges Barack to abandon EFCA

More EFCA stories: here

Pledge to end secret-ballot unionization elections is not playing well with voters

This Labor Day marks yet another year in which the five-decade-old decline of organized labor as a representative of American employees continues almost unabated. The 73-year-old National Labor Relations Act, the principal legal framework for resolving disputes about the forming of unions, is in complete disarray. It's been tattered by bad appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and by long delays in resolving the elections that determine union representation and charges of unfair labor practices brought by employees.

These delays make it too easy for employers to intimidate and coerce workers, including by dismissing them for organizing. And this in turn diminishes employee interest in unions and thus undercuts the right to collective bargaining they are supposed to enjoy.

Democrats and Republicans (with their respective labor and management allies) are in a standoff about how to remedy the law. That situation is unlikely to change even if the Democratic Party swells its majority somewhat in Congress and recaptures the White House in November. Democrats, with near unanimity, support a bill, sponsored by organized labor and called the Employee Free Choice Act, that would provide for unions to be recognized on the basis of authorization cards signed by employees rather than the secret-ballot elections now provided for by the NLRA. Republicans decry this initiative, arguing that the current elections are sacrosanct. Even assuming Sen. Barack Obama wins the presidency in November, if the Senate remains prey to filibuster with fewer than 60 Democrats, Republicans will be in a position to block the bill from across the aisle from becoming law. The Democrats' view is preferable to the status quo, but there is a better approach that might occupy bipartisan common ground—an approach for which Obama is well-known, though he hasn't championed it in this way yet.

Secret ballots to resolve union representation rights are the way to go, and Obama should meet the Republicans halfway by saying so—and then add this all-important coda: Elections should continue only if the law ensures that voting is conducted expeditiously—for instance, within one or two weeks of the filing of a union's petition seeking recognition. This is the case in Canada, whereas in the United States, the resolution of union drives currently takes months and sometimes years. Quick elections are the key to meaningful reform because delay is the principal way in which labor law stacks the deck against employees. It allows employers to engage in one-sided anti-union campaigns of intimidation and coercion, with little possibility for remedy.

The delay is caused by the NLRB itself as well as obdurate employer behavior. Perhaps, as Obama suggested to the British multinational Tesco, employers should voluntarily agree to expedite NLRB elections on their own. I have acted as an independent monitor to hear employees' complaints about unfair treatment during a union-organizing campaign, in a system devised privately by another British multinational firm operating here in the United States. In my experience, the process can take two to four weeks from start to finish.

But that privately devised solution is a rarity. And until most of business moves toward such procedures, Congress must make them address complaints quickly by imposing time limits for the NLRB is to issue a decision about whether to hold a union election or reinstate unlawfully dismissed workers. The agency's action on election disputes should be final and unappealable so that workers and management can get on with collective bargaining promptly. That there are no such mandates currently constitutes the heart of what ails American labor law.

Other reforms are also needed. For instance, the law should provide that unions have the right to communicate and address employees on company property. Today, only employers may do so. The NLRB must also be given the authority to punish companies through fines that double or triple the amount of back pay owed to workers who are illegally dismissed or demoted. The law could also spur collective bargaining with a provision for arbitration if labor and management are unable to agree on their own.

Then there is the composition of the NLRB. A Democratic president, if we next have one, should make appointments that are freer from partisan pressure from either side than they have been during the past decades. At the moment, board members are frequently reluctant to act promptly, and thus avert the crisis for union recognition caused by delay, because of the fear that their vote will be unpopular and diminish their chances of being reappointed. This has been true in both Democratic and Republican administrations. The next president should address this weakness by recruiting nominees from all parts of the country, not just the Washington-insider circle that has come to dominate federal administrative agencies. Also, appointees should be limited to one eight-year term. In this way the very best people will come to Washington, willing, like Cincinnatus, to return to their homes when their appointment ends.

These reforms would skirt an unnecessary and divisive debate about the secret-ballot election and marshal the support of Congress' center. Obama has pulled off such feats in his career as a community organizer and politician. If he can pull off this one, we might actually achieve the long unrealized objectives of the National Labor Relations Act more than 70 years after its enactment. Better late than never.

- By William B. Gould IV

(slate.com)

Big Labor's Campaign to Mislead Workers

More EFCA stories: here

False Choice: Union organizers would never choose secret-ballot elections over card-check recognition.

Organized labor's highest legislative priority is the deceptively named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). EFCA replaces secret ballot elections—the method by which most workers join unions—with publicly signed union cards. While eliminating secret ballots is extremely unpopular, many EFCA support­ers argue that the legislation merely gives workers the choice between organizing using secret ballots or pub­licly signed cards. This argument is false; nothing in the legislation gives workers any control over union organizing tactics. Though EFCA still allows for secret ballot elections under unusual circumstances, stan­dard union organizing tactics ensure that publicly signed union cards will dominate the recognition pro­cess. As a result, the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act effectively eliminates secret ballot elections.

The Current System

Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), workers may be organized in one of two ways: card-check recognition or secret ballot elections. To begin organizing workers, a union must solicit employee signatures on union authorization cards. Once the union has collected signatures from enough employ­ees—a minimum of 30 percent—the union submits the cards to the company and requests the company recognize the union. This process is called card-check recognition. Very few employers accept card-check as the sole means of recognition. Indeed, between 1998 and 2005 only 13 percent of new AFL-CIO members joined through card-check with­out an election.[1]

Employers routinely refuse to recognize unions on a card-check–only basis because publicly signed cards do not reflect employees' preferences. Public card signing exposes workers to pressure, harass­ment, and threats from the union.[2] Even union organizing guidebooks state that a worker's signa­ture on a union card does not mean that worker supports the union.[3]

If, as in most instances, the employer doubts the cards reflect its workers' preferences, union orga­nizers then submit their cards to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and request an election. The typical election occurs six to seven weeks after the union submits its petition.[4] If a majority of workers—expressing their choice in the privacy of the voting booth—support the union, then the company must begin bargaining with it. If most workers vote against the union, then it does not represent them and must cease its organizing activ­ities. Unions win recognition in over 60 percent of these elections.[5]

Card-Check

EFCA requires employers to recognize a union— without an election—once organizers collect cards from a majority of employees.[6] Indeed, the act states that once the union submits signatures from over 50 percent of the employees to the NLRB, it must certify the union without an election. Under EFCA, holding a secret ballot election once unions collect cards from a majority of workers would become illegal.

Additionally, a card-check–only recognition pro­cess strips workers of their privacy. Polls show that most Americans strongly oppose denying workers the privacy of the voting booth when deciding whether to join a union.[7] In response to such criti­cism, unions now argue that EFCA does not end secret ballot elections. Instead, proponents argue that EFCA gives workers the choice between orga­nizing using public card-check or private elections.[8]

Unions make this claim because union organiz­ers can call for an organizing election after cards have been signed by at least 30 percent of employ­ees.[9] Since card-check recognition under EFCA occurs after organizers submit cards signed by a majority of workers, secret ballot elections could— in theory—occur under EFCA if organizers submit­ted cards signed by 30 to 50 percent of workers.

In practice this scenario will not happen. Noth­ing in the legislation gives workers any control over what organizing method unions use. That decision is left to union organizers. Organized labor's well-documented preference for card-check recognition makes it clear that EFCA effectively eliminates secret ballot elections.

Unions Do Not Submit Cards from a Minority of Workers

Unions virtually never call for elections with cards signed by a minority of workers. Organizers are generally instructed to collect cards from 60 to 70 percent of workers in a company before going to the polls.[10] Unions openly state that they do not go to an election without a supermajority of cards:

1. International Brotherhood of Teamsters: “The general policy of the Airline Division is to file for a representation election only after receiving a 65 percent card return from the eligible voters in a group.”[11]
2. New England Nurses Association: “Have 70– 75 percent of members sign cards; if unable to reach this goal, review plan.”[12]
3. Service Employees International Union (SEIU): “...[T]he rule of thumb in the SEIU is that it's unwise to file for an election when fewer than 70 percent of the workforce has signed interest cards.”[13]

Effective End of Elections

As these organizing guidelines demonstrate, unions do not file for an election with cards signed by only 30 to 50 percent of workers. Rather, they only file for an election when they have a superma­jority of cards because workers who sign in front of an organizer often vote “No” in the privacy of the voting booth.[14] Internal union studies show that the union does not have even odds of winning an election until 75 percent of employees sign cards.[15] Unions will not go to the polls without majority support because they know they are unlikely to win and, if they lose, federal law bars them from calling for another election for a year.[16]

Under EFCA, once cards have been obtained from a majority of workers, unions would not file for an election. In fact, EFCA specifically bars the NLRB from conducting an election if the union turns in cards from a majority of workers. Union organizers' jobs are to recruit new union members to pay 1 to 2 percent of their wages as dues to the union. They are not paid to give workers a chance to rethink the wisdom of union membership.

Union leaders openly state that they will not call for elections if given the choice. United Food and Commercial Workers President Joe Hansen admits that “We can't win that way anymore.”[17] UNITE HERE President Bruce Raynor says that he sees “no reason to subject the workers to an election.”[18] SEIU Local 32BJ President Mike Fishman flatly states, “We don't do elections.”[19]

Under EFCA, organizers would submit all their cards directly to the NLRB and demand immediate recognition. This mandatory check-card process would represent a dramatic departure from the cur­rent norm of secret ballot elections that give work­ers an opportunity to privately express their views. Every circumstance that currently leads to a secret ballot organizing election would, under EFCA, lead to card-check recognition without an election.

On paper EFCA leaves secret ballot elections a possibility. In practice EFCA eliminates secret ballot organizing elections for American workers.

Unions Mislead Workers

Union organizers frequently demonstrate that they have no interest in giving workers the choice of how to join a union, especially when such a choice would interfere with Organized Labor's primary objective—recruiting new members who will pay new dues. Organizers in many campaigns tell work­ers that the cards they are signing only count toward an election, and then request card-check recogni­tion on the basis of those cards.

For instance, union representatives attempting to organize Trico Marine told workers the cards were only requesting a vote, and then tried to pressure Trico to recognize the union only on the basis of the cards.[20] Culinary Workers organizers in Las Vegas told the same thing to workers at the MGM Grand.[21]

SEIU workers also made the same promise to Kai­ser Permanente employee Karen Mayhew. The SEIU then used signed cards to pressure Kaiser into recog­nizing the union, without the promised election.[22]

Union organizers do not want to give workers a choice about how to join a union; they only want to collect new dues from new union members.

Workers Have No Choice

Workers have no say in the methods union orga­nizers use. EFCA does not permit workers to sign cards that call for an election without also counting those signatures toward a card-check majority. In fact, under federal law, a worker's signature on a union card counts as a “showing of interest” in union representation.

If workers at a company targeted by union orga­nizers collected signatures to call for a secret ballot election the union could, under EFCA, use those signatures to count towards a card-check majority. For instance, in an attempt to preempt a card-check–only organizing drive, employees might col­lect cards from 35 percent of fellow employees, turn them in to the NLRB, and request an election.

The 35 percent of employees who signed the cards do not necessarily want a union; they simply want an opportunity to consider the matter before casting a private vote. However, in response to the employees' efforts to prevent card-check recogni­tion, union organizers could submit additional signed cards they had collected from pro-union employees. If the combined total of cards col­lected—from both pro-union employees and unde­cided employees seeking to protect their privacy— was greater than 50 percent, the union would be recognized as the workers' exclusive representa­tive—without an election.

Under such circumstances, it is possible that only a paltry 16 percent of employees were in favor of union representation. After all, 49 percent of employees may have been outright hostile to the idea of organizing, while 35 percent—though undecided about representation—wanted to pro­tect their ability to make a decision in a private voting both. Yet, under EFCA, the NLRB would have to consider the 35 percent employees' signa­tures not as a decision to reserve a right to con­sider the matter privately, but as an overt gesture of union solidarity. Subsequently, EFCA provides an opportunity for a small minority of pro-labor employees to impose their agenda on a majority of employees who desire only to make a thoughtful, private decision.

Workers could not insist that they only wanted to vote in privacy and not recognize the union. Under EFCA, employees do not have that choice.

EFCA Effectively Ends Worker Privacy

EFCA strips workers of their freedom to choose in privacy. It requires companies to recognize unions without an election once unions collect cards publicly signed by a majority of employees. Unions contend that because the union could file for an election with signatures from 30 to 50 per­cent of the workers in the company, EFCA does not end secret ballot elections. This is highly mislead­ing. Unions do not file for elections with cards signed by a minority of employees because they know they will probably lose. Their leaders openly state they have no intention of seeking elections if they can avoid them. Once unions have the majority of cards they need for card-check recognition, unions would demand immediate recognition, not request an election.

EFCA gives union representatives—and these representatives alone—the choice of how to orga­nize workers. Union organizers' goal is to recruit new dues-paying members, not give workers an opportunity to privately say “No” to union repre­sentation. Unions will tell workers that cards count only toward an election, then demand recognition without a vote. Employees cannot sign cards to request an election without having those cards count toward a card-check majority. Unions have demonstrated that they have no interest in allowing workers to privately reject union representation. The misnamed Employee Free Choice Act effec­tively ends secret ballot organizing elections for American workers.

[1]Rafel Gely and Timothy Chandler, “Card Check Recognition: New House Rules for Union Organizing?” Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 35 (2008), p. 247, Table 2.

[2]James Sherk, “How Union Card Checks Block Workers' Free Choice,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 1366, February 21, 2007, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/wm1366.cfm.

[3]James Sherk, “Unions Know that Card Check Does Not Reveal Employees' Free Choice,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 1386, March 7, 2007, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/wm1386.cfm.

[4]Office of the General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Summary of Operations: Fiscal Year 2007, Memorandum GC 08-01 Revised, December 5, 2007, at http://www.nlrb.gov/shared_files/GC%20Memo/2008/GC%2008-
01%20Summary%20of%20Operations%20FY%2007.pdf (August 20, 2008). The typical election is defined as the median election, which took place 39 days after the election petition's filing. Some 94 percent of all elections took place within 56 days of the petition's filing.

[5]National Labor Relations Board, Seventy-First Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board for the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2006, June 18, 2007, at http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/brochures/
Annual%20Reports/Entire2006Annual.pdf (August 19, 2008).

[6]Employee Free Choice Act, H. Rep. 800, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., March 1, 2007, Section 2.

[7]James Sherk, “Workers Reject Card Checks, Favor Private Ballots in Union Organizing,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 1363, February 16, 2007, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/wm1363.cfm.

[8]American Rights at Work Resource Library, “Lies and Distortions on the Secret Ballot,” http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/employee-free-
choice-act/resource-library/lies--distortion-on-
the-secret-ballot-20080730-596-84-84.html (August 19, 2008).

[9]National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S. Code § 159 (e).

[10]David L. Cingranelli, “International Election Standards and the NLRB: Representative Elections,” Parts 1–3 in Richard N. Block, et al., eds., Justice on the Job: Perspectives on the Erosion of Collective Bargaining in the United States (Kalamazoo, Mich.: W.E. Upjohn Institute, 2006), p. 42.

[11]International Brotherhood of Teamsters Airline Division, “Airline Division Organizing,” at http://www.teamster.org/divisions/Airline/
airlineorganizing.htm (August 12, 2008).

[12]New England Nurses Association, “Why a Union?” at http://www.nenurses.org/your_rights.htm (August 12, 2008).

[13]Steven Henry Lopez, Reorganizing the Rust Belt: An Inside Study of the American Labor Movement, (Berkeley, Cal.: University of California Press, 2004), p. 38.

[14]Sherk, “Unions Know.”

[15]AFL-CIO, AFL-CIO Organizing Survey (Washington, D.C.: AFL-CIO, 1989).

[16]NLRA, 29 U.S. Code § 159 (c)(3).

[17]BNA Business Report, “UNITE HERE Picks Hilton as Target for ‘Hotel Workers Rising' Campaign,” March 24, 2006, p. B-1.

[18]Steven Greenhouse, “Labor Turns to a Pivotal Organizing Drive,” The New York Times, May 31, 2003, at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=
9E0CE6DC1430F932A05756C0A9659C8B63 (August 20, 2008).

[19]Timothy Aeppel, "Not-So-Big Labor Enlists New Methods For Greater Leverage," The Wall Street Journal, August 29, 2005, at p. A-2.

[20]Clyde Jacob, testimony before the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations, Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, April 22, 2004.

[21]Bruce Esgar, testimony before the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, July 23, 2002.

[22]Karen Mayhew, testimony before the Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, February 8, 2007, at http://www.nrtw.org/pdfs/Mayhew.pdf (August 20, 2008).

- James Sherk is Bradley Fellow in Labor Policy in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.

(frontpagemagazine.com)

Union dues-payers turn to decertification

More decertification stories: here

Workers increasingly wary of union membership

When workers at a privately owned building-products supplier in Sudbury, Ont., decided to stop paying union dues several years ago because they felt the union wasn't doing anything for them anymore, a labour boss was eventually dispatched to the northern city to deal with the situation. The union official told the company it had to start deducting the dues from its pay-cheques. Employees resisted. They hadn't paid dues in more than 10 years.

The union lost touch with its members, failing to bargain a new collective agreement after it expired in 1997, the workers said. Meanwhile, they insisted the employer treated them fairly, giving them raises and an allowance for clothing. Last year, they voted to cut all ties with the union and decertify.

"I don't think the union could get us more [than we have], not here anyway," said Marcel, a worker at the company who spearheaded the decertification. "I am in agreement with unions at certain other retail outlets. They do need it. But over here, no." Similar rejections of organized labour are playing out across Canada.

Workers at seven Starbucks outlets in Vancouver voted last year to decertify from the Canadian Auto Workers union, leaving the global coffee goliath with just one unionized company-owned store nationwide.

Workers at roofing manufacturer IKO Industries Ltd. in Hawkesbury, Ont., voted to leave the the United Steel Workers of America, ending nearly 30 years of labour representation there.

Even in Sudbury, historically a labour stronghold, things are changing, said Marcel, who asked that his last name not be used.

"There are a lot of people that are starting to de-unionize too, but you don't hear too much about it," he said. "The unions don't advertise it. And a lot of other companies are scared to advertise that they're de-unionizing because it is a unionized town. They're afraid that if they advertise that, they might lose business."

Unions can certainly claim some big recent victories. The CAW was let in to organize auto supplier Magna International Inc. after years of fighting with the company. But overall, organized labour may be losing favour.

According to a new and comprehensive poll for the National Post/Global National on workplace issues, not only do working Canadians not see unions as the anti-exploitation saviours of years past, roughly half of them wouldn't blink if they didn't exist at all.

During the past five years, the number of employed Canadians who believe unions are no longer needed has increased by 8%, according to the poll.

During the same period, the percentage of current or formerly unionized employees who said they would prefer to be unionized has dropped 17 points, from 81% in 2003 to 64% today.

The survey found 46% of respondents said unions were needed and relevant at one time but are no longer necessary today. That's on par with the 47% of those who said unions were still as relevant today as they ever have been.

Among non-union workers, 77% said they had no interest in becoming unionized. Among those currently unionized, seven in 10 said they were satisfied with their union while 27% stated that if given the choice, they would prefer not to be unionized.

The percentage of Canadians workers that are unionized has fallen steadily since 1991, to roughly 30% today.

Strong regional economies in some parts of the country, such as Alberta, may push workers to downplay the relevance of unions. The argument is: Things are going well, so why do we need them?

But that theory does not necessarily hold for provinces like Ontario and Quebec, both of which have been hit hard by a manufacturing slowdown that has wiped away thousands of jobs. In Ontario, more survey respondents said unions were no longer needed than said they were.

Alan Levy, an assistant professor at the University of Regina and an expert in labour mediation, said one explanation might be found in the notion of "false consciousness." In the service sector in particular, some service workers tend to see themselves as similar to their non-unionized middle-class clientele, when in fact they're not.

He gives the example of shopping at an upscale furniture store in downtown Toronto.

"You meet the working-class salesperson. But he takes on the air of the customer. And if anything, he's somewhat a little haughty. When you ask that person, 'Do you need a union?', he says, 'No.' But when you look at what would truly be in his individual self-interest, he might well need a union. But he doesn't see that because he's taken the ethos and the culture that the organization has put forward."

Overall, 92% of employed Canadians surveyed by Nanos said they were satisfied with their current job. That's unchanged from 2003 levels. Almost nine in 10 said they were satisfied with their relationship with management at work.

"Employees increasingly see themselves as free agents who decide who they're going to sell their service to," said John Mortimer, president of LabourWatch, an employee-rights organization. He said more workers today also believe in merit over the union principle of seniority.

Far from showing that organized labour is in decline, the Nanos poll contains many findings that suggest Canadians' attitudes are positive toward unionization, said Ken Georgetti, president of the Canadian Labour Congress. For example, 20% of non-unionized workers surveyed said they were either "very interested" or "somewhat interested" in being unionized. That's an encouraging number, he said.

"I think you're going to see a lot of growth in unionization," Mr. Georgetti said. "There are advantages to acting collectively. And our employers for the last eight years have done pretty good. And workers that aren't in a union are seeing that they haven't got their share of that prosperity."

A Canadian Labour Congress poll of unionized workers in 2003 found that 44% of those surveyed said they did not need a union to be treated fairly at work. The union has not updated that poll.

State of the Unions, Part 2: In Tuesday's paper ... have labour laws swung too far in favour of the unions?

(financialpost.com)