8/27/08

Stern's SEIU bigs look out for #1

More Andy Stern stories: hereRickman Jackson stories: hereTyrone Freeman stories: here

Michigan SEIU heavy steps down

Rickman Jackson - the head of a Service Employees International Union local in Michigan has taken a leave of absence following reports of his involvement in a California scandal.

The Los Angeles Times reported the union's Los Angeles local paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to companies owned by chapter President Tyrone Freeman's wife and mother-in-law and also spent a lot of money at luxury venues such as the Four Seasons Resort and Morton's Steak House.

Freeman, who resigned a week ago, had set up a corporation to help SEIU members find affordable housing, the Times said. The corporation, which failed to win non-profit status in California, operated out of a house owned by Michigan local President Rickman Jackson, who had been chief of staff of the SEIU chapter in Los Angeles.

"We will not tolerate any action by any leader that harms the interests of our membership," national union President Andy Stern said Monday.

Both men were named to their posts by Stern.

(upi.com)

Forced-labor unionism makes comeback

Related story: "Ex-U.S. Rep. David Bonior, Michigan DINO"
More worker-choice stories: here

Worker-choice fad yields to unions' political muscle

Forget for a moment the media fascination with disgruntled Hillary Clinton delegates or Michelle Obama's makeover. One of the most underreported stories at this week's Democratic National Convention is that Big Labor is making a big comeback.

Not long ago, the labor movement was in a state of steady, seemingly unstoppable decline. A global economy and the information age made unions less relevant to more workers. The fall of industrial trades cut into existing union ranks, while service workers saw less need to join. Union membership as a share of the American workforce has been falling since the early 1980s, and today stands at 12.1%. In the more dynamic private sector, only 7.5% of workers carry the union label.

The paradox is that even as union numbers have declined, union political clout has increased, especially within the Democratic Party. That's in evidence in Denver, where no less than 25% of the 4,200 delegates are active or retired union members or belong to households with union members. More significant for the rest of America, labor has won the intellectual battle for control of the Democratic Party and is reasserting its agenda in a way not seen since the 1970s.

A decade ago, leading Democrats were willing, if not eager, to disagree with union priorities. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Bob Kerrey pushed Social Security reform, and John Breaux took on Medicare. Even Al Gore, in his pre-Oracle phase, took on the task of "reinventing government," including the FAA and air-traffic controllers union. Bill Clinton promoted trade expansion, breaking with the AFL-CIO to do so. Still other Democrats pushed charter schools and more education accountability.

Those reform days are over. In Denver, there's no more talk of busting these "public trusts." The only reform idea for education is a tepid call for teacher testing. Free trade is in disrepute, with Barack Obama bowing to union wishes to rewrite Nafta, even unilaterally if Mexico and Canada don't bend. The party platform includes a passing reference to reviving the Doha Round of global trade talks, but nothing about the trade promotion authority that would be needed to pass more trade deals.

More tellingly, rewriting federal law to promote union organizing is now near the top of the Democratic agenda. The main vehicle is "card check" legislation, which would eliminate the requirement for secret ballots in union elections. Unable to organize workers when employees can vote in privacy, unions want to expose those votes to peer pressure, and inevitably to public intimidation. This would arguably be the biggest change to federal labor law since the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. The Democratic House passed card check last year, and Mr. Obama has pledged his support. With a few more Senators, it might pass.

Card check is merely the start. Next on the agenda is a campaign to repeal "right to work" laws in the 22 U.S. states that have them. Right to work laws allow employees to decide for themselves whether to join or financially support a union. Former Michigan Congressman David Bonior told a union event in Denver on Monday that limiting right to work laws is essential both to lifting union membership and promoting more Democratic political victories. He pointed out that John Kerry didn't win a single right to work state in 2004, while Al Gore won only one -- Iowa -- and only by a few thousand votes in 2000.

This point is crucial to understanding labor's new Democratic clout. States with more union households tend to be more Democratic. And groups like the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO will pour hundreds of millions of dollars, and endless man hours, into getting Democrats elected this year. Those resources have simply overwhelmed the 1990s New Democrat movement that tried to tug the party toward freer trade and public-sector reform.

The question for Americans more broadly is whether a return to widespread unionization is really the way to raise middle-class incomes. The case for card check is that, amid global competition, the balance of organizing power has shifted to business. Giving unions more power will redress this imbalance and let workers grab a higher share of corporate profits.

But this claim is highly suspect, given the record in autos, steel and the rest of unionized American manufacturing. The only sector of the U.S. auto industry that is prospering is the part not organized by the United Auto Workers. Likewise, Europe, with its high jobless rates and slow growth, argues against unionization as a way to lift middle-class incomes. To the extent a country like Germany has modestly reversed some of this, it has been the result of recent labor-law reforms and labor concessions.

As for the U.S., the states with right to work laws have performed better economically for workers of all types. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy has shown that right to work states over the past 30 years have lower unemployment, higher rates of job creation, and faster growth in GDP and per-capita personal income than states with compulsory union membership. Colorado is hoping to get in on this success, with a high-profile ballot initiative this fall that would make it a right to work state.

We have long believed that if workers want to form a union, they have every right to do so. And businesses that get a union often deserve what they get. What Americans need to know this November is that the Democratic Party wants to make it that much more difficult for them not to join a union.

(online.wsj.com)

Labor expert: Secret-ballot still needed

More EFCA stories: here

Dems are wrong to curb democratic rights in the workplace

Is a secret ballot election the best way to select a representative? Does a secret ballot allow people to vote their conscience without being pressured? If you answered "Yes" to these questions, then you have concluded that the ironically named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) does not provide "free choice" when it comes to employee decisions on whether to be represented by a union.

The labor movement has crafted the Orwellian-named EFCA with one goal in mind — increasing the ranks of organized labor. Currently, if 30 percent of eligible voters sign an authorization card, the government will conduct a secret ballot election to determine if a majority of employees want a union (unless the employer agrees otherwise). The EFCA would change that — if a union convinced a majority of employees to sign cards, the union would be recognized. (If the employer and union did not agree to a contract within 90 days, an arbitrator would impose a contract upon the parties, but that is another topic.) In other words, proponents of the EFCA would replace a secret ballot system with one that relies upon publicly signed cards.

The goal of union organizers is to get cards signed so that they can organize workers. These are well-trained salesmen and saleswomen who provide only one side of the story. They are not objective or neutral — their goal is to get new union members, which in turn increases the dues that unions collect.

Organizers understand that if workers have a chance to think about their decision, reflect on it, and seek out the other side of the story, many of them will not want a union. Although the union message, like many sales pitches, is designed to get cards signed right away, organizers know who has refused to sign a card, and they can continue to exert pressure, through ethical and unethical means, to get cards signed. Unscrupulous union pushers can and do use coercive tactics to get what they want. Harassment, intimidation, threats of violence, and property damage by union proponents is well documented.

Unions claim that the EFCA is required to "level the playing field," due to what they claim are current employer advantages. Most proponents of the EFCA, however, fail to mention that unions have been winning roughly 60 percent of elections. They certainly cannot make logical arguments about how secret ballot elections are unfair when they have been batting .600 in them. Many people think abolishing secret ballot elections could never happen in this country, but may not realize that the U.S. House of Representatives has already passed the EFCA by a vote of 241-185.

Secret ballot elections allow workers to exercise their conscience without fear of retaliation. Just like American voters have the right to vote in secret, so do American workers.

- Brian Lapps, an attorney with Waller Lansden, is a partner and practices in the firm's labor and employment group.

(tennessean.com)

ACORN probed in Michigan

Flint police launch criminal investigation v. union-backed voter-fraud group

A non-profit group whose members have helped with the effort to recall Mayor Don Williamson has come under police scrutiny for a $291 bounced check. The group's leader questioned why a Flint police detective is spending time looking into the check instead of unsolved homicides.

"Instead of focusing on crime, (Mayor Don Williamson) would rather nitpick with us," said Lisia Williams, local director of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. ACORN members have been visible in the effort to recall Williamson and Williams believes the mayor is using the police to retaliate against them. Williamson could not be reached for comment Tuesday afternoon.

Acting Flint Police Chief David R. Dicks issued a statement Tuesday announcing that his department was conducting an investigation of ACORN "concerning checks written to workers that were (non-sufficient funds)."

The chief's statement said ACORN's local director was cooperating with the probe but offered no other details.

The release was a rarity, given that the department does not usually announce ongoing investigations involving bad checks.

Dicks could not be reached for comment on the statement.

But Williams said she was told by a police detective that came to her office last week and Monday that the bad check investigation involved a check issued to a canvasser hired to register voters this year.

Williams acknowledged the check bounced Aug. 6 but said the group had already taken care of the matter, cutting a new check last Friday and paying another $206 for the bad check fees.

"We made good for what happened," said Williams, adding all of the other checks paid to 20-30 canvassers cleared.

Williams thought it was a dead issue until a detective showed up at her office last week to question her on the matter.

The detective came back Monday and asked her to accompany him to Flint police head quarters, but Williams said she refused.

Williams believes the investigation is tied to ACORN's plans for a march and rally against violence at 10 a.m. Wednesday.

The march is set to end at City Hall where Williams has said there would be an attempt to discuss the issue of crime with city leaders.

Publicizing a police investigation of ACORN deflects from the Flint's crime problems, she said.

"(Williamson) is trying to take the focus off him," she said.

(mlive.com)

Denver collectivists fracture

Progressive authoritarians differ on tactics

The most revealing moments at the Democratic National Convention aren’t happening in the hall or on the stage. They occur as activists, political operatives and thinkers gather at small forums around Denver to talk about the future.

Two panels Tuesday revealed potential fault lines among Democrats if they end up in control of the White House and Congress. A morning panel sponsored by The American Prospect made clear that the more liberal wing of the party feels resurgent and wants sweeping change reminiscent of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal.

An afternoon forum sponsored by the insider publication National Journal showed the liberal agenda could be frustrated by the deliberative temperament of Barack Obama and the measured approach of congressional leaders.

The left wing is still rooted in its traditional places — the labor movement and single-issue advocacy groups. But it is also now housed on the Web, which liberals have used to great effect for fundraising, organizing and communicating a tougher message.

Prospect panel members, including economists, writers and liberal elected officials, agreed they see opportunity in the current economic malaise, which combines a credit crunch, wage stagnation and inflation on key consumer items.

With this crisis-opportunity, they’re hoping — demanding, actually — that Obama will be the transformative figure he claims to be and fundamentally change the American economy in the way Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s, though in reverse.

They want the “Employee Free Choice Act,” which would make it easier to organize workers into a union by no longer requiring a secret ballot election to decide whether to unionize; more tightly regulated financial markets; a sharply more progressive tax code to move wealth down the income ladder; universal health care; more money for social programs, education and renewable energy; and big investments in infrastructure such as roads, rail, schools and bridges.

It’s pent-up lefty demand, an agenda on the books for decades but never before fully enacted, like the mirror image of the Republican issue list of 1995 right after the party took control of Congress.

AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka summed up the neo-Keynesian philosophy: “What we have is a distribution problem ... The only way out of this is to put more money in the hands of those consumers and have them lead us out of this.”

The business lobby is terrified, believing these proposed remedies would eat into corporate profits and shareholder returns — their reason for being.

But the liberals think they can get it done. Sen. Sherrod Brown, an Ohio populist, said Democrats can move beyond the internal battles that have long plagued the party. He called it “ideological convergence.”

Indeed, after losing many presidential races, some Democrats, led by the corporate-funded Democratic Leadership Council, pushed the party to the center at the end of the 1980s. That was a movement Bill Clinton rode to the White House, where he balanced the budget, overhauled welfare and improved the image of the Democratic Party as an economic steward.

But the economic policies of President Bush have radicalized many Democrats, even centrists such as former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who favored balanced budgets and a friendly attitude toward Wall Street and financial deregulation. At the Prospect forum, Paul Krugman, a liberal Princeton economist and New York Times columnist, quipped: “Bob Rubin is no longer a Rubinite.”

Or as Bruce Reed, former domestic policy adviser to President Clinton and now president of the Democratic Leadership Council, said at the National Journal forum: “George W. Bush turned everyone into a populist.”

The Prospect liberal panelists hope this ideological convergence will produce a radical shift in American economic policy.

Robert Kuttner, founder of the Economic Policy Institute and The American Prospect magazine, argued that in times of national crisis, including the Civil War, the Great Depression and the struggle to end Jim Crow segregation laws, presidents supported agendas far more radical than conventional political wisdom dictated. They were compelled to do so by mass movements.

But the National Journal forum said, “Not so fast.” It featured Reed, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who is a key Obama adviser, and Obama’s domestic policy adviser, Heather Higginbottom.

Daschle predicted an Obama presidency would secure easy, bipartisan victories in health care and energy. “If we take it a piece at a time, there are things we can do reasonably quickly,” Daschle said.

Emanuel agreed. The man who ran the Democrats’ 2006 campaign committee and is often mentioned as a future House speaker said legislation Bush vetoed provides easy targets for Democrats. Those include children’s health insurance and stem cell research. Another major priority is a middle-class tax cut, he said.

Emanuel noted that important legislation, including civil rights, Medicare and the Social Security fix of the 1980s, has nearly always required bipartisan cooperation. This is in keeping with Obama’s promise of a more civil, cooperative tone in Washington. Obama is known to be temperamentally conservative, uncomfortable forcing big change on institutions, despite his rhetoric to the contrary.

Moreover, Higginbottom noted, Obama likes to consult a wide range of experts and think problems through. These facets of his personality could account for the promise to peel off easy victories rather than go for big change right away.

The Sun asked Emanuel whether the labor-left wing of the party, which was so confident and demanding at the morning forum, would be happy with an Obama presidency.

“Come back in four years,” he joked. “I don’t want to spoil the ending.”

He later returned to the subject, answering more seriously: “They’ll be happy if we’re successful in having an economic program that’s fundamentally different.”

But Emanuel is at root a political thinker with a simple rule his more liberal friends will need to heed: “Nothing in politics replaces winning.”

(lasvegassun.com)

After EFCA: Mini-unions

Congress rushes to the aid of organized labor

U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue today adamantly spoke against legislation that would make it easier for workers to unionize in the midst of a Democratic Party convention featuring a significant organized labor presence.

Donohue touted his appearance in the Mile High City as part of his group's bipartisan efforts to find solutions for high-profile issues like energy, infrastructure and broadband access. And while the Chamber tilts toward GOP endorsements, Donohue ticked off the Democrats it will be endorsing in Senate races this fall: Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mark Warner of Virginia and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

But Donohue focused much of his remarks on legislation that would allow workers to organize via a card-check process rather than a traditional secret-ballot election. The measure passed the House this session but stalled in the Senate due to a filibuster. Donohue said the Chamber is focusing on key Senate races to ensure Democrats do not have a filibuster-proof majority. He said the Chamber will spend millions on the card-check issue and activate its grassroots network of business owners and executives.

"It's a battle these guys are going to find very uncomfortable," Donohue said of his battle with the unions.

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney and Change to Win Chairwoman Anna Burger are speaking tonight at the convention.

Donohue said he recently had a discussion with a top Senate Democrat -- whom he did not identify -- who told him the senator has never received as much heat as on any issue as the card-check bill. He added that he knows of as many as four Senate Democrats who will not vote for the bill if it comes to floor vote.

The Chamber argues that the bill would strip a constitutional right for a secret-ballot election and open up organizing campaigns to more worker intimidation. Unions contend the bill is needed because employers are not held accountable under current federal rules for union-busting activities and that the National Labor Relations Board has been toothless in cracking down on companies.

"I think it will resonate in some specific places," Donohue said.

He said his concern with organized labor's agenda is heightened because Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., would likely be open to signing union bills if elected president.

He said the Chamber is on guard about other another dozen labor agenda items that could be unveiled in the next Congress, such as an effort to allow a small segment of workers within a company to form their own "mini-unions" even if other rank and file are not covered, and legislation that would curb at-will dismissals.

(nationaljournal.com)

Under Andy Stern's thumb

More Andy Stern stories: hereTyrone Freeman stories: here

Corrupt, jumbo SEIU bigs forget all about 'the little guy'

Alba had a smile on her face last week when I arrived at the Los Angeles nursing home where she hustles through long, hard shifts night after night. Hard to believe she'd be in high spirits after changing the diaper of an elderly woman, but she had one thing going for her:

She hadn't yet heard about the financial shenanigans of her union president. If you've missed the ongoing stories by The Times' Paul Pringle, you've missed some doozies. While Alba and thousands of other workers have been schlepping bedpans for $9 or $10 an hour, Tyrone Freeman, head of the United Long-Term Care Workers local of the Service Employees International Union, has been living the high life thanks to the union dues of his struggling members.

For starters, the state's largest union local and a related charity paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to firms owned by Freeman's wife and mother-in-law. That alone was enough to raise a few eyebrows.

But then there are the other goodies dug up by Pringle -- $300,000 worth of union funds spent at a Four Seasons Resorts golf tournament, Morton's steakhouse and the celebrity-rich Beverly Hills Grand Havana Room cigar lounge, among other hot spots.

"Every expense has been in the context of fighting poverty," said Freeman, who denied any wrongdoing.

I, for one, am hoping for a public reckoning. Maybe we'll discover the secret of how to end poverty by rushing to the nearest Four Seasons for a good time.

That cigar lounge tab alone, by the way, came to nearly $10,000 and was listed on the union's financial report as a "lodging" expense. I suppose it's possible union officials smoked cigars so big they passed out on the floor. But the expense raises more than a few questions, since the Grand Havana offers no lodging.

If space allowed, I'd love to get into the $16,000 paid by the union to a minor league basketball team coached by Freeman's brother-in-law, or the claim of an $82,000 union contribution to a Florida video firm that says it never received the money.

And what's with SEIU leadership? Not only did the spending go unchecked, but national union officials were in the process of steering more locals under Freeman's control until Pringle's stories broke. Now there's an investigation into similar problems at a Michigan local headed by Freeman's former chief of staff.

More than ever, American workers need protection against the relentless squeeze on wages, benefits and retirement plans. What they don't need is the kind of "representation" that gives some organized labor a bad name.

Speaking of labor, let me take you back to the nursing home, where Alba has worked for eight years.

She washed her hands after tending to the elderly woman, then we went out to a patio to talk. The facility's patients have severe physical and/or neurological problems that keep Alba on her toes constantly.

"They're totally dependent on me," she said.

As a certified nurse assistant, she feeds them, bathes them, soothes them when they're sad or scared or in pain, and helps them in and out of beds and wheelchairs and onto toilets.

"I like the work," she said, because she's helping people in need.

But she isn't thrilled about the pay -- a little above $10 an hour after eight years on the job, with no great package of benefits. And she doesn't like the nonstop pressure of caring for 14 to 16 patients who need constant attention.

When I told her about the problems in her union, she shook her head.

"This is a surprise to me," she said.

Alba, 46, has a 17-year-old son in high school, and her husband doesn't work after suffering two strokes. When I asked how she gets by on just $10 an hour, she reached for the ID badge that hangs around her neck and shoved it aside, revealing another badge under it.

"I have two jobs," she said.

The other badge was for a hospital in Hollywood.

"I work there from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., and here from 3 p.m. to 11."

How many days a week?

"Four days, each job."

"That's eight shifts in one week," I said.

Alba raised her hands in surrender. What can she do?

The combined income from both jobs, minus union dues of about $70 a month, doesn't leave much after she pays the rent on a one-bedroom apartment in Hollywood. They work it out, she said when I asked how three people manage with just one bedroom.

At her other job, she said, she's represented by a different SEIU local and has a better deal. She's responsible for only five or six patients there, instead of more than twice as many. It's a more humane pace for her, and the patients get better care too. Plus, she's due for a significant raise in January.

But as for the local run by Freeman, I showed Alba the Times story on SEIU's investigation.

It said Freeman had stepped down pending the outcome, and 55 of the local's board members had been relieved of their duties.

Alba read the details of lavish and fishy expenditures and looked to me for my opinion. I didn't say what I was thinking, which was:

For shame, for shame, for shame.

"Beverly Hills," she said, reading about the cigar club. "Four Seasons? I'm paying for this. They're doing this with my money."

Yes. But it's all in the name of fighting poverty.

(latimes.com)

SEIU scandal spreads to Michigan

More Andy Stern stories: hereRickman Jackson stories: hereTyrone Freeman stories: here

Michigan SEIU heavy steps down

The head of the Service Employees International Union local representing 55,000 health care workers in Michigan has taken a temporary leave as part of an investigation into the finances of a California local.

Rickman Jackson served as president of SEIU Healthcare Michigan, the organization formed last August by the merger of SEIU's local chapters representing nurses and other health care workers. Jackson had been appointed head of the local by the international SEIU after running an organizing drive for 40,000 home care workers.

Before heading the Michigan chapter, Jackson was chief of staff for a Los Angeles SEIU local whose president has been suspended following several Los Angeles Times stories that uncovered extensive union payments to firms run by his family members.

The Times reported that local president Tyrone Freeman launched a housing corporation that listed a property owned by Jackson as its headquarters. Freeman stepped down last week as president of the L.A. local, and the SEIU put the union under a trustee.

According to federal financial documents, Jackson received no salary from the Detroit local last year, but was paid $178,405 by the Los Angeles local in salary and other benefits. Jackson also received $18,000 from SEIU national headquarters for consulting work.

Alex Shulman, chief of staff for SEIU Healthcare Michigan, said the local union began paying Jackson's salary last year just before the merger. He said secretary-treasurer Margaret Faville will oversee the union while Jackson is on leave.

Jackson and Freeman were appointed to their positions by Andy Stern, the head of the 2-million member SEIU. Union spokeswoman Michelle Ringuette said Jackson had "taken a leave so that the investigation can go forward without any appearance of interference.

"We take these allegations seriously, and we're absolutely committed to protecting the interests of our members," she said.

(freep.com)

Stern, Burger take fire for retaliation v. UHW

More Andy Stern stories: hereAnna Burger stories: here

SEIU bigs smacked down by dues-paying members over corrupt regime

UHW has received notice from SEIU International Union President Andrew Stern that he intends to hold a hearing on September 22-23 for the purpose of determining whether to put UHW into trusteeship.

Stern’s latest attack on UHW is nothing new and an act of desperation. The vast majority of these allegations formed the foundation of a bogus lawsuit filed by SEIU that has already been tossed out of court.

This most recent action is simply a cynical attempt to divert attention away from Andy Stern and Anna Burger’s links to the corruption reported recently in both the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times involving leaders such as Tyrone Freeman and Rickman Jackson, and others who Stern and Burger appointed into office.

UHW is one of a number of SEIU affiliates that have forcibly spoken out against undemocratic practices, forced mergers and cronyism within our union.

This call for a trusteeship hearing is Stern’s attempt to retaliate against UHW for exposing his corrupt practices.

It points to the need to hold the top leaders of our International Union, including Andy Stern and Anna Burger, accountable. This act of desperation also establishes the need to have an independent agency investigate the financial practices and cronyism of the officers of the International Union.

(seiuvoice.org)

SEIU sets one-day strike this week

Related story: "The 28 labor-states"

Typical labor-state bargaining tactic

Thousands of health care workers, including 350 at O'Connor Hospital in San Jose, will stage a 24-hour strike Thursday to protest what they say is management's refusal to return to the bargaining table and attempts to stifle employee input into staffing matters.

"They're seeking to turn back the contract we've had at some hospitals for 25 years, with take-backs we haven't seen in 15 years,'' said John Borsos, vice president of United Healthcare Workers, which represents 2,500 caregivers, nursing assistants and technicians at five hospitals owned by the Daughters of Charity Heath System. "They want to deny workers a voice in how the hospitals are staffed, how many caregivers are at the bedside.''

In a statement released Tuesday afternoon, Julie Hatcher, O'Connor's vice president of human resources, said any impact on operations would be minimal and called the strike ''unfortunate. As long as we are not at the bargaining table the ability to reach agreement on a new labor contract with our SEIU-UHW represented associates is delayed. Real progress can only be made at the bargaining table, not on the sidewalks.''

Union members, who have been without a contract since it expired May 1, will begin their strike Thursday at 6 a.m.

Other hospitals affected include Seton Medical Center in Daly City; Seton Coastside in Moss Beach; St. Francis Medical Center in Lynwood; Saint Louise Regional Hospital in Gilroy; and St. Vincent Medical Center in Los Angeles.

(mercurynews.com)

No friends of small business

Dems offer a reliable pro-union ticket

So, where does Obama's vice presidential pick stand when it comes to small-business issues? It's definitely known that Senator Biden supports the controversial card check for labor union elections and a higher minimum wage, but here's something less known.

Last April, some Senate Republicans, led by Jim DeMint of South Carolina, tried to insert an amendment into a math and science bill that would amend the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley legislation to exempt smaller businesses from some of its regulations. The "Sarbox" bill, you'll remember, was passed to reform corporate governance in the wake of the Enron collapse. But many in Congress who supported the bill initially thought that several of its provisions went too far—such as Section 404, which requires companies to produce massively expensive "internal control reports." So, DeMint and others wanted to give smaller companies a break from Section 404, but Biden and 61 other senators disagreed, shooting down the amendment.

This might not seem like a small business issue at all, under closer inspection. Sarbox only covers publicly traded companies, and the proposed exemption would have affected companies with less than $125 million in revenue or fewer than 1,500 shareholders. Any business that has gone public is hardly the mom and pop corner store that we think of when we hear "small business."

But a business with under $125 million in revenue is a far cry from a multibillion-dollar behemoth like Enron was. In addition, one underappreciated aspect of Sarbanes-Oxley is the chilling effect it has on entrepreneurs and startups—an effect that can't be seen. As I've written about earlier, Section 404's burdens might dissuade some entrepreneurs from growing their companies because it imposes so many extra costs. The wake of Sarbox has also coincided with a slowdown in venture capital funding. The lack of an exemption for smaller public companies, then, could be hurting more humble startups by depriving them of the chances to grow larger.

Also, let's be fair: McCain did not vote for the DeMint amendment, either (although he didn't vote "no").

(usnews.com)

Coalition of the temporarily willing

Forced-labor unionism joins rivals

Like partners in a marriage of convenience, the AFL-CIO and rival labor federation Change to Win are putting on a show of unity this week in Denver. But this fall they will pursue separate electorate strategies -- a departure from the cooperation that characterized the 2006 elections. That year, a majority of the Change to Win unions participated in the AFL-CIO's political program.

At a Monday rally sponsored by the AFL-CIO, Change to Win, the National Education Association, and the American Federation of Teachers, both AFL-CIO President John Sweeney and Change to Win Chairwoman Anna Burger said that labor needs to work together for Barack Obama.

"We can count on NEA, AFL-CIO, Change to Win," Burger said. "I can count on all of you."

Likewise, Sweeney said, "We are united in our determination to turn around America. The work that all of us in this room will do will bring home the crucial working-class vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden."

But expressions of unity were largely confined to shared goals. It was clear that the federations are pursuing their own strategies.

Burger spent part of her speech discussing the importance of Change to Win's February decision to back Obama. That endorsement was the largest labor feather in Obama's cap until after he clinched the nomination. The AFL-CIO held off on making an endorsement until after Hillary Rodham Clinton quit the race.

"We worked our butts off across America to make [Obama] the nominee," Burger said.

Earlier in the day, she told reporters that she thinks her federation and the AFL-CIO will work together effectively during the fall campaign. But at the Change to Win's largest member, the Service Employees International Union -- where Burger is secretary-treasurer -- some staffers joke that their collaboration with the AFL-CIO is a "coalition of the temporarily willing."

Karen Ackerman, the AFL-CIO's political director, said that the substantive cooperation between the two federations is at the state and local levels, where some Change to Win unions belong to labor councils run by the AFL-CIO. "Wherever we have races, certainly, at the local and state levels, those members are integrated into our political program," Ackerman said.

On the national level, the AFL-CIO plans to spend $53.4 million on a micro-targeting campaign that will include mailings, phone calls, worksite visits, and door-knocking. Meanwhile, the SEIU has announced a two-stage plan to spend $75 million on the election and another $75 million advocating for health care reform and passage of the Employee Free Choice Act in the first 100 days of the next administration.Like partners in a marriage of convenience, the AFL-CIO and rival labor federation Change to Win are putting on a show of unity this week in Denver. But this fall they will pursue separate electorate strategies -- a departure from the cooperation that characterized the 2006 elections. That year, a majority of the Change to Win unions participated in the AFL-CIO's political program.

At a Monday rally sponsored by the AFL-CIO, Change to Win, the National Education Association, and the American Federation of Teachers, both AFL-CIO President John Sweeney and Change to Win Chairwoman Anna Burger said that labor needs to work together for Barack Obama.

"We can count on NEA, AFL-CIO, Change to Win," Burger said. "I can count on all of you."

Likewise, Sweeney said, "We are united in our determination to turn around America. The work that all of us in this room will do will bring home the crucial working-class vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden."

But expressions of unity were largely confined to shared goals. It was clear that the federations are pursuing their own strategies.

Burger spent part of her speech discussing the importance of Change to Win's February decision to back Obama. That endorsement was the largest labor feather in Obama's cap until after he clinched the nomination. The AFL-CIO held off on making an endorsement until after Hillary Rodham Clinton quit the race.

"We worked our butts off across America to make [Obama] the nominee," Burger said.

Earlier in the day, she told reporters that she thinks her federation and the AFL-CIO will work together effectively during the fall campaign. But at the Change to Win's largest member, the Service Employees International Union -- where Burger is secretary-treasurer -- some staffers joke that their collaboration with the AFL-CIO is a "coalition of the temporarily willing."

Karen Ackerman, the AFL-CIO's political director, said that the substantive cooperation between the two federations is at the state and local levels, where some Change to Win unions belong to labor councils run by the AFL-CIO. "Wherever we have races, certainly, at the local and state levels, those members are integrated into our political program," Ackerman said.

On the national level, the AFL-CIO plans to spend $53.4 million on a micro-targeting campaign that will include mailings, phone calls, worksite visits, and door-knocking. Meanwhile, the SEIU has announced a two-stage plan to spend $75 million on the election and another $75 million advocating for health care reform and passage of the Employee Free Choice Act in the first 100 days of the next administration.

(nationaljournal.com)

Dems, Unions Joined At The Hip

More EFCA stories: here

Election Critical For Union Wish List

If Tom Donohue has his way, nobody will be using the words "card check" this fall. Instead they'll be talking about "secret ballot."

For Donohue, president and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, that's "the major reason" he's in Denver: to get Democrats to think differently about the Employee Free Choice Act, also known as card check.

At stake is a potentially radical change in how unions are organized that would almost certainly expand their power. Unions think they'll get their way if Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., becomes president. Donohue fears they may be right.

"The main thing is that we want to keep enough people in the Senate to maintain the filibuster," he said.

His hope is to recast the legislation as an assault on the right of people to cast secret ballots.

Labor scoffs.

"They are trying to fool the public and play on fear," said Leo Gerard, president of United Steelworkers. "The reality is . . . this is about growing collective bargaining. Hopefully fear doesn't win."

Big Labor Is Watching

Under current law, unionization bids are overseen by the federal National Labor Relations Board, which runs workplace elections. If more than 50% sign secret ballots, then a union is recognized.

Big Labor wants to bypass that system with card check, which would allow unionization if more than 50% of workers sign cards requesting a union.

Since the cards could be signed in public, business claims workers could be pressured into signing. Union organizers would know who has signed and who has not and would be able to visit employees at their homes, for example.

Business will highlight this in ads and get-out-the-vote efforts, claiming the act would infringe on the constitutional right to secret ballots, a charge Big Labor disputes.

"I think that card check will not resonate. It's like a lead balloon," Donohue said. "But taking away the secret ballot can resonate."

Whatever it is called it would make organizing radically easier. With the total work force organized at 12% and falling, getting it passed tops Big Labor's agenda.

To that end they've donated more than $36 million to Democratic candidates this election cycle. They'll also devote considerable resources to outside groups and get-out-the-vote efforts.

Dems, Unions At The Hip

Democrats have been receptive. At least five union chiefs are addressing the faithful from Denver's Pepsi Center as part of the convention's official program. They include John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, and Anna Burger, secretary-treasurer of the rival Change to Win Coalition.

Obama has touted card check on the stump and Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., his running mate, is supportive as well.

"Labor is ecstatic" over the ticket, said Robert Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future, a pro-union activist group.

Republicans, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., have opposed the legislation. While it has passed the House, the measure has stalled in the Senate.

But it's possible Democrats could win enough Senate seats in November to break GOP filibusters.

"We are doing everything that we can to get that majority to 60," said Stewart Acuff, AFL-CIO assistant to the president.

That has some nonunion business alarmed.

Wal-Mart, (WMT) the nation's largest employer and long a target of unions, has held meetings with store managers to organize efforts against card check. The AFL-CIO has asked the Federal Election Commission to investigate the retail giant, claiming the meetings violated campaign finance laws.

"You'd have to be naive to think those managers didn't take that out onto the floor to the hourly employees," Acuff said.

The Chamber is leading the charge for business. Donohue declined to say how much it was earmarking for its campaign but said it was "in the seven figures, several times over."

(investors.com)

Teamsters on strike v. Waste Management

More Waste Management stories: here

Militant unionists walk out during bargaining

Waste Management drivers represented by Local 200 of the Teamsters walked off the job this morning in a contract dispute, union officials said. Bill Plunkett, a Waste Management spokesman, said company and union negotiators were at a bargaining session at a suburban hotel when the Teamsters walked out and went on strike.

Tom Millonzi, secretary-treasurer of Local 200, said 212 workers at Waste Management were union members of the southeast Wisconsin collective bargaining unit. The drivers have been without a contract since April 30. The workers went on strike after what Millonzi said was "an unsuccessful bargaining session."

Plunkett said the drivers handle both commercial and residential accounts all over southeastern Wisconsin. He said Waste Management had mobilized management and other personnel to handle trash collection from both residential and commercial accounts.

Plunkett said the company expected there would be some delays in trash pickup but added that regular service would be restored by the end of the week.

He said drivers would emphasize trash pickup at crucial businesses such as hospitals and restaurants. Additionally, Waste Management will pay particular attention to Harley-Davidson reunion sites where large crowds may gather.

Plunkett said that, for the time being, the company would delay the collection of recyclables.

(gazettextra.com)
Related Posts with Thumbnails