Colorado's new anti-corruption law

More Clean Government stories: here

Unions enraged by voters, will sue to protect corruption

Confusion surrounds the constitutionality of the Clean Government Amendment (otherwise known as Amendment 54), which was approved by Colorado voters on Nov. 4. There were 10 amendments on the ballot and only two passed. One of them, Amendment 54, says that contract-holders of significant no-bid business with the government cannot contribute to political campaigns. (The other was Amendment 50, on gaming revenues and community college funding.)

No-bid contracts are awarded without the government putting the contract out to bid, i.e., the work is awarded to a contractor that the county commissioner, for instance, has done business with in the past. This has potential for kickbacks, as in, "If you give me this government contract, I will contribute to your campaign." The people understood the abuse and, even with our opponents spending an estimated $30 million to defeat us, the people approved the Clean Government Amendment while rejecting most of the other amendments.

We applaud The Post's position in its Nov. 7 editorial that "reining in such 'pay to play' practices is a legitimate objective." However, the principal point in the editorial was incorrect: The Clean Government Amendment does not restrict political contributions of union members. It only restricts the principal contract-holder — the union itself, to use the context of The Post's example, or the owner of Joe's Paving, to use another example. The Clean Government Amendment is tailored to the abuse and only restricts the contributions of the principal players who contribute to political campaigns to ensure future business for themselves.

Related video: "Clean Government Amendment"


The Clean Government Amendment defines the contract-holder, the person affected by the amendment, as "persons that control 10 percent or more shares or interest in that party; or that party's officers, directors or trustees; or, in the case of collective bargaining agreements, the labor organization and any political committees created or controlled by the labor organization."

There is nothing vague in this definition (as The Post asserted) and we were careful to tailor the amendment to control only the people or entities that abused and benefited from the old system. As the amendment concerns unions, it only affects the union's coffers and leaves the union members, even its leaders, free to contribute as they did before.

Amendment 54 does not restrict the political contributions of all family members of anyone remotely associated with a no-bid contract. (The Post used the brother-in-law of a union janitor as an example.) That would probably be unconstitutional — if it were true. The amendment restricts immediate family members only when the contract-holder is using them as a pass through for the contract-holder himself. We would have been naïve to have allowed a loophole to allow Mr. Big to contribute to the county commissioner through his wife (with a wink). However, any family member of Mr. Big still has the right to donate to any political campaign.

The firefighters, nurses, teachers, and police of Colorado who serve us every day will not be silenced or denied their right to actively participate in the political process. They may lobby, contribute to, and work for any campaign of their choice. The voters did not fall for this propaganda spread by our opposition before, nor will we let their attorneys win by spinning these misconceptions in the courtroom.

The people want to stop the politicians, contractors and unions from taking advantage of their relationships and money to work the system. Those in power do not like such restrictions. But the people have spoken, and we are confident that the judges will uphold their will. Such carefully tailored amendments that express the will of the people are seldom overturned.

- Robert M. Liechty (rliechty@ crossliechty.com) is an attorney who helped draft the Clean Government Amendment.

(denverpost.com)

Clean Government Amendment

More Clean Government stories: here

Obama's Orwellian, undemocratic agenda (1)

Related video: "Employee Forced Choice Act"
More EFCA stories: here • card-check: here

Fascistic pro-union agenda promised to Big Labor

The proposed legislation that a Democratic Congress with enhanced Democratic majorities stands poised to pass ranges from the destructive to the abominable and the tyrannical. Indeed, much of it -- like, for example, the Fairness Doctrine -- is all of the above.

Another such bill is organized labor's Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800). In terms of truth in labeling -- another feature it shares with the Fairness Doctrine -- this bill could have been inspired by 1984's Ministry of Truth.

The bill is designed to put an end to the secret ballot on which workplace unionization is based under federal labor law. Rather, union certification would be premised on the signing of cards supporting unionization by a majority of employees.

Related video: "Employee Forced Choice Act"


Under federal labor law, the signing of authorization cards by 30 percent of an employee unit is the predicate to a secret ballot election following a campaign in which both labor and management make their cases to the affected workforce. According to data compiled by the National Labor Relations Board, in recent years unions have lost about 40 percent of such elections.

The Heritage Foundation has posted a superb backgrounder on the EFCA. The backgrounder provides a wealth of information on the defects of a card check system as a substitute for secret ballot elections.

The American people themselves would never buy a system that is predicated on the abrogation of secret ballot elections, but they might get one. It would represent the biggest change in federal labor law since the adoption of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, if not since the adoption of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935.

Newspaper articles discussing the EFCA -- such as this Los Angeles Times article -- focus on the abrogation of the secret ballot. Yet the EFCA would also work another change that is almost equally profound and rarely mentioned in such articles. It goes unmentioned, for example, in the Los Angeles Times article.

As the Heritage backgrounder explains, section 3 of the EFCA would require companies and newly certified unions to enter binding arbitration if they cannot reach agreement on an initial contract after 90 days of negotiations. Thus arbitrators would be empowered to impose the terms and conditions of employment for newly unionized workers. Neither companies nor employees could appeal the arbitrator's ruling regarding terms, and the contract would last for two years.

I'm afraid that the EFCA may not the worst of what the Democrats will have on offer in the next Congress, but it is bad, and it would be a mistake to forget about it before the Obama administration comes to power.

(powerlineblog.com)

Union-dues double standard

More union-dues stories: here • More worker-choice stories: here

Dues opt-out requires annual renewal

Two union members who dislike the way the United Steelworkers handles union dues are complaining to the National Labor Relations Board. Chemtura Corp. employees David Yost and Ronald Echegary can opt out of paying partial dues for things like political activism and organizing.

But once a year, they must renew their objections and insist their dues go only for bargaining. They say that's a discriminatory practice because there's no similar requirement for people who are willing to pay in full.

The Virginia-based Right to Work Foundation, an anti-union group, filed the charges last week.

The USW said Monday it believes its policy is legal and supported by case law.

(dailypress.com)

Union secret-ballot news - Nov. 18

Bookmark Secret-Ballot News posts: here • card-check: here • EFCA: here

Stories-of-the-day concerning Organized Labor's #1 priority.






• A choice too important for workers ... The problem is that there's no way to know whether or not the signature represents an informed choice to back a union. That signature could also have been garnered through intimidation or deception. Unlike an election, there's no privacy and no monitor to ensure that the whole thing is done fairly. Incidents of intimidation by union officers in card-check campaigns are legion: workers have been harassed by union officers, been visited at their homes by union officials without notice or invitation, and told they would be fired if they fail to sign. (mackinac.org)

• Fat-cat unions cut Prez Bam no slack ...
Paul Booth, a top official of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, is quick to say that congressional leaders will decide when to move the bill. But he has his view: "Sooner the better. I'm quite anxious to have it come up." ... Barry Broad, a Teamsters lobbyist and attorney in Sacramento, believes the future of unions hangs in the balance. ... "Unions spoke with a nearly unanimous voice: This is their No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 priority in the next administration," said Broad, who believes quick passage is crucial. (chicagotribune.com)

• Stern: Obama doesn't matter ... Obama is “going to have to decide if this is part of his economic program,” Stern said. “On the other hand, there are still two other branches of government, two other houses of decision making here, that can act on their own.” .. “I would not say this is a wedge issue,” said AFL-CIO legislative director Bill Samuel. “This is a basic issue of economic security and fairness.” (politico.com)

• Fascistic pro-union agenda promised to Big Labor ... EFCA would require companies and newly certified unions to enter binding arbitration if they cannot reach agreement on an initial contract after 90 days of negotiations. Thus arbitrators would be empowered to impose the terms and conditions of employment for newly unionized workers. Neither companies nor employees could appeal the arbitrator's ruling regarding terms, and the contract would last for two years. (powerlineblog.com)

• Organized Labor's big con job ... t looks like Big Labor's strategy for selling the EFCA can be summed up in one word: obfuscation. There's no mention in this ad of any of the provisions of Card Check--wiping out the secret ballot, allowing the federal government to dictate the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, and dramatically increasing the penalties on employers (but not unions) for inappropriate activities during organizing drives. (weeklystandard.com)

Related video: "Employee Forced Choice Act"

Union disputes workers' decertification

More union-decertification stories: here

Typical labor-state collective bargaining SNAFU

Most nurses with Fremont-Rideout Health Group's two local hospitals have not signed a petition asking to remove the California Nurses Association as their bargaining representative, CNA contends — while Fremont-Rideout says otherwise.

Liz Jacobs, a registered nurse and spokeswoman for the statewide nurses association, questioned the hospital group's claim Friday that a majority of nurses at Rideout Memorial Hospital in Marysville and Fremont Medical Center in Yuba City signed the petition.

"Are these current employees" Jacobs asked Monday of the petition.

Because of contract-related issues, she added, "there's been an exodus of experienced RNs."

But Trehsa Moreland, vice-president of human resources for Fremont-Rideout, said that the signatures have been verified.

"We are confident that, if challenged, the withdrawal will be upheld," Moreland said of the petition asking to end CNA representation.

About 450 nurses work for Fremont-Rideout. They voted in 2006 to join the CNA and have been in contentious salary negotiations with Fremont-Rideout for the past two years.

Some nurses started collecting signatures to decertify the union a year ago and have to turn the petitions into the National Labor Relations Board.

Olivia Garcia, regional attorney for the labor board at its San Francisco office, said Monday that the federal agency has not received a new petition.

Jacobs said of the dispute that, "nurses got the clear message that if they continue to support the union — CNA — they'd never get their raises."

Moreland said Fremont-Rideout is moving forward to ensure the competitiveness of wages and benefits and "will work in other ways to help build a strong relationship built on open dialogue and trust."

(appeal-democrat.com)

Obamunist maps out Barack's agenda

Related video: "Employee Forced Choice Act"
More EFCA stories: here • card-check: here • More collectivism stories: here

CP-USA big: 'Once America learns to accept socialism ...'

The enactment of a "single payer" socialist health care system; passing laws to make joining a labor union easier; raising the minimum wage and increasing labor union support – all these are just some of the policies the Community Party USA has mapped out as crucial for Obama to push through during his term of office.

Just days after the party's official newspaper lauded the role of labor unions in Obama's election victory, another article in the Communist Party's Political Affairs magazine by leading party member and Rutgers University history professor Norman Markowitz outlined the kind of "change" he expects Obama to bring to the U.S.:

"For the people who elected Obama and the increased Democratic majority," Markowitz writes, "'change we can believe in' isn't about bailouts for corporations and banks. It isn't about wearing American flag pins on your lapel. ...

"It is about ending the post-World War II policies that led to the long-term stagnation and decline of the labor movement," Markowitz writes. "It is about creating a national public health care program more than 50 years after it was established in other major industrial nations, and handling a national debt which has increased 10 times since Ronald Reagan became president in 1981."

Markowitz urges Obama to implement a "single payer" national health system, or socialized universal medicine.

"A 'single payer' national health system ... should be an essential part of the change that the core constituencies which elected Obama desperately need," he writes.

As an Illinois state senator, Obama publicly supported universal healthcare and previously expressed support for "single payer," although he later waffled. He also co-sponsored the Bernardin Amendment, which did not pass but which would have amended the Illinois State Constitution to add healthcare to the list of basic rights for residents.

Markowitz also expressed hope Obama will pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which he says would make joining a union easier and would relax current requirements on creating unions.

Related video: "Employee Forced Choice Act"


Markowitz calls for labor unions to "expand the base of union voters who supported Obama by nearly 50 points on Nov 4."

In an article last week titled, "Special Interest or Class Consciousness? How Labor Put Obama in the White House," Political Affairs reported on polling data released that revealed the extent of union support for Obama.

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, or AFL-CIO, sponsored a poll showing union members supported Obama by a 68-30 margin and strongly influenced their family members.

According to the survey, Obama won among white men who are union members by 18 points. Union gun-owners backed Obama by 12 points, while union veterans voted for Obama by a 25-point margin. In the general population, Obama lost these groups by significant margins.

Political Affairs quoted AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, a longtime member of the Boston chapter of the Democrat Socialists for America, expressing hope labor unions can continue working with Obama.

"We have taken the first crucial steps to build a better future for our children and grandchildren. And what we've seen – the stunning voter participation and the common call for change – is an indication of the history we can continue to make together," Sweeney said.

"The election is just step one in delivering the change we need," Sweeney said. "Working men and women are poised to keep the energy pumping to help the Obama administration lead. … There will be no gap or letdown."

In his article, Markowitz goes on to suggest how Obama can win many Americans who voted for Sen. John McCain:

"The best way to win over the portion of the working class in the South or the West that supported McCain and the Republicans is to create important new public programs and improve the social safety net. National health care, significantly higher minimum wages, support for trade union organizing, aid to education should all be on the agenda. These programs will improve the quality of our lives directly, giving us greater security and establishing the social economic changes that will bring reluctant voters into the Obama coalition. That is how progress works," he writes.

The New Zeal blog, which researched connections between Obama and the Communist Party USA, commented: "The best way to determine the Obama administration's likely agenda is to read the communist press. Very few US voters would have any inkling that the approximately 3,000 members of the Communist Party USA have a huge influence on the policy and direction of the Democratic Party."

Markowitz seemed to anticipate such attacks, and claimed it would be strategically beneficial if "the right-wing propaganda machine" labels Obama's policies as socialist.

"The right-wing propaganda machine will scream socialism, and that is also a good thing," Markowitz writes. "Because the more socialism comes to be identified with real policies that raise the standard of living and improve the quality of life for the working class and the whole people, the more socialism will be looked at seriously."

And once America learns to accept socialism as a good thing, Markowitz writes, the country can more easily be pulled even farther.

"A stronger left that follows the tradition of the Communist Party," Markowitz writes, "in its unbreakable commitment to a socialist future and to educating people about the value and necessity of socialist policies in the present could follow."

(wnd.com)

Chávez, Russians' Latin nuke pact unchallenged

More collectivism stories: here

Typical U.S. sword-rattling noticeably absent

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez says Russia will help his country build its first nuclear reactor in the northwestern province of Zulia.

"A nuclear reactor, to produce energy for peaceful purposes, will soon be built in Estado Zulia and named in honor of the Venezuelan scientist of the last century Humberto Fernandez Moran," Chávez told supporters in Maracaibo, the capital of Zulia state on Sunday, RIA Novosti reported.

"Brazil has several nuclear reactors, as does Argentina. We will also have our own reactor," he said. On Friday, Chávez revealed plans of broadening nuclear ties with Russia and said he would discuss the Issue with President Dmitry Medvedev during his visit of the Latin American country later this month.

Moscow and Caracas are expected to discuss large-scale cooperation projects in the energy sector, gas and petrochemical industries during the Russian president's November visit to Venezuela.

While the US and its NATO allies are eyeing eastward expansion in a bid to circle Russia, Moscow is strengthening ties with Latin America, the US backyard.

Chávez earlier said that Latin American countries need strong relations with Russia to reduce US influence in the region and maintain peace and stability.

(presstv.ir)

Chávez, Iran team up for socialist ed

More collectivism stories: here

Obama Administration: No comment

Venezuela and Iran plan to start a new university program in the South American country with a focus on teaching socialist principles. Venezuela's government says it plans to establish the University of Civilizations under accords recently signed with Iran.

Deputy Minister for Academic Development Tibisay Hung says the program will begin in Caracas at the existing, tuition-free Bolivarian University. Hung tells the state-run Bolivarian News Agency that the aim is to promote discussion of "21st century socialism." Venezuela announced the program on Monday.

President Hugo Chávez is promising to lead Venezuela toward socialism, and in recent years has built increasingly close ties with Iran.

(google.com)

Union-sponsored Ohio election fraud

More ACORN stories: here • Voter-fraud stories: here

ACORN was co-founded by SEIU founder, the disgraced Wade Rathke

The presidential election ended with a whirlwind of activity in Ohio. Some of us are exuberant, others are disappointed, but most of us are relieved Election Day has passed. Whether you are celebrating Democrat victories or frustrated by Republican defeats, Ohioans cannot close the book on this election until questions about unlawful voter registrations are resolved.

I remember my first presidential election: it was 1976 and I watched Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford. That was my first time voting, as well as the first time I heard about election fraud. Days before the election, Carter was slammed by an investigation that exposed his campaign had tampered with ballot boxes.

In 1976, election fraud appeared to be something that occurred infrequently, by crooked campaigns and dishonest precinct captains. Today, election fraud seems ubiquitous, especially among political non-profits.

Slightly prior to Carter's election, a group called Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) was founded. ACORN is a national non-profit that organizes on behalf of low-income and urban minorities.

Although ACORN has existed for nearly four decades, I hadn't heard of them until recently. A few weeks ago the Enquirer reported that the Hamilton County Board of Elections was investigating voter registrations submitted by ACORN of people who didn't exist. Later, I learned similar investigations were occurring in Columbus, Cleveland and other places across the state.

Our state isn't the only place ACORN has a bad reputation. In Wisconsin and Colorado, former employees have been convicted of fraud, and more workers have been indicted for submitting false registrations in Nevada, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and here in Ohio.

You would think that after ACORN employees are caught, reprimanded, and the overall organization experiences a public relations nightmare, they would stop their questionable behavior.

Not even close. In fact, an ACORN representative told election officials the organization "lacks resources" to monitor their work. How is this possible, when the Obama campaign paid their affiliate Project Vote $832,000 to help with their quality control system?

This is not a sign of lacking resources, but rather of indifference toward crime. ACORN's reckless efforts erode the work of our already busy county election boards, requiring our local governments to spend countless hours double-checking their ill-advised registrations.

So how many problematic registrations should Ohioans expect from ACORN? During an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Ali Cochran, a regional quality-control manager for ACORN, said we should anticipate at least "3 percent [of registrations] to be incomplete or problematic."

This means at least 7,200 from the 240,000 registrations submitted by the Ohio chapter of ACORN will be "problematic." And considering the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision - Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is not required to provide county boards with the resources to verify voter eligibility - citizens like you and me have to monitor, prevent, document, and report election fraud, because our government won't.

This brings me to the following question: why should Ohioans let ACORN stay in business after we have heard anecdote after anecdote of illegal activity? Some of its employees even bribed a Cleveland man with cigarettes and money to fill out 72 voter registration forms.

Our state deserves fair and clean elections. If ACORN can't play by the rules, the state shouldn't allow them to do business here.

That's why I have filed a lawsuit with the Buckeye Institute, a non-profit organization that advocates for limited government and personal responsibility, to challenge ACORN's questionable behavior. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." That's a price I'm prepared to pay.

- Jennifer Miller is a Warren County resident and school board member who is represented by the Buckeye Institute in efforts to defend Ohioans rights to fair and clean elections.

(timesgazette.com)

Remember ACORN

More ACORN stories: here • Voter-fraud stories: here

Union-backed group still a threat to free and fair elections

Here we are two weeks after the election and we have forgotten the ACORN activities we heard about in October.

In Ohio, they delivered vanloads of people from homeless shelters to polls where they could register and vote on the same day, no proof of residency or citizenship required. A van driver admitted on-camera in Cleveland that she told her passengers how to vote. In North Carolina, they brought disabled adults to the polls, and ACORN employees were allowed to go into the voting booth with them to assist. In more than 15 states, the FBI was investigating ACORN's illegal activity to determine whether it was part of a coordinated effort to steal an election or just isolated incidents. In Florida, election officials stopped cross-checking signatures on new voter registrations against absentee ballots because there were just too many to challenge. Other states where the FBI was called in to investigate were similarly overwhelmed. All this seems to be forgotten.

I know it won't change the outcome of the election, but I wonder if I am the only one who is curious about whether ACORN actually did influence the election. I wonder how much more ACORN will grow because they have gone unchallenged in 2008.

- Jane Kenny, Bluffton

(islandpacket.com)

Union refuses to enter talks

Stern: Obama doesn't matter

Related video: "Employee Forced Choice Act"
More EFCA stories: here • card-check: here

Special interest political payback doesn't require bully pulpit

Organized labor spent tens of millions of dollars putting Democrats in Congress and the White House. Now, as the new Democratic majority gets ready to take office, unions are ready to cash — or, rather, check — in.

The Employee Free Choice Act, widely dubbed the Card Check Bill, has long been a top legislative priority for labor. Although Democrats may fall short of a filibuster-resistant majority of 60 votes in the new Senate, unions feel confident about their chances to push the legislation through Congress next year.

“You can go on our website and look at how many times Sen. Obama told us he was in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act,” said Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union. “We don’t have any question where he is on this issue.”

Related video: "Employee Forced Choice Act"


But industry groups are warning the new administration that if Barack Obama pushes the legislation, the new president will face a major fight that could permanently hurt his relationships with the business community — an enemy he may not want to make early in his term.

“It could be a defining battle,” said business lobbyist Jade West, who sits on the management committee of the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, an anti-card-check group. “This could be a very big defining issue right out of the box for the president-elect.”

Unions are transforming their election-year ground troops into a national lobbying force that will push for the bill. Last week, the AFL-CIO’s executive council decided to shift its 2008 field structure, with hundreds of staff in key states, from electoral politics to a card-check mobilization campaign.

On Friday, American Rights at Work, a coalition of labor and workers’ rights advocates, launched a national advertising campaign to build support for the Card Check Bill. The group’s chairman, former Rep. David Bonior (D-Mich.), is one of Obama’s economic advisers.

For its part, the business community plans to continue pouring resources into opposing the bill.

The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, which ran ads opposing the bill before the elections, plans a major outreach drive to state and local industry associations and is considering running print ads next week.

“We are well-prepared throughout the country to address [the Card Check Bill] and participate in that debate, and it’s not going to be a walk in the park,” said Tom Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “We’re going to win this thing.”

The bill would give workers the right to unionize if a majority of employees publicly sign cards in favor of forming a union. Labor groups argue that months-long intimidation campaigns run by employers make unionizing almost impossible. The legislation, they say, would give employees a clear and fair path to form a union.

Card check has become critical to organized labor, which believes the new process would help boost its rolls. Union membership has fallen to just 12 percent of the entire work force; in 1983, it was 20 percent.

But business groups say the legislation would take away the rights of companies to insist on a secret ballot election. A public ballot, business lobbyists argue, would open employees up to coercion or manipulation.

The bill passed the House in March 2007, with help from 13 Republicans, but failed to get a filibuster-proof margin in the Senate. Only one Senate Republican, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, broke party ranks to support it.

Now the question facing both sides is how quickly the issue comes up again.

Unions are pushing the Obama administration to include the legislation in a broader economic package, likely one of the first issues the president-elect will tackle after taking office in January. Unions, they argue, are a necessary part of bolstering the middle class and helping the economy recover.

“I would not say this is a wedge issue,” said AFL-CIO legislative director Bill Samuel. “This is a basic issue of economic security and fairness.”

But business officials argue that the Card Check Bill would further hurt the struggling economy.

“I don’t think that you can make a very rational argument for dropping the Employee Free Choice deal on top of a stimulus program in a way that clearly, both in real terms and perceptions, would have serious implications on the creation of jobs and the stability of the economy,” Donohue said. “It clearly should wait until after we get these economies stabilized.”

Even if Obama doesn’t include the legislation among his early top priorities, unions feel confident that they can win in Congress — particularly if Democrats win Senate seats in outstanding races in Georgia, Minnesota and Alaska.

Obama is “going to have to decide if this is part of his economic program,” Stern said. “On the other hand, there are still two other branches of government, two other houses of decision making here, that can act on their own.”

If Democrats fail to win all three Senate seats, the issue would turn on a handful of key Republican votes — a political dynamic that gives some business lobbyists hope.

“We have no reason to presume that any of the Republicans who voted against cloture would vote for it today,” West said.

Unions realize that they must win Republican support but see the recent election as a mandate.

Stern said that, according to SEIU polling, ads run by the business community against candidates who supported the Card Check Bill had no effect on voters. Every House member who voted for the measure was reelected, he said, and all of the Democratic senators whose opponents had run card check ads against them kept their seats.

“In voters’ minds, this is very simple,” Stern said. “They want to make their own decisions. They don’t want the union to decide. They don’t want the employer to decide. They want to decide if they have an organization.”

(politico.com)

A choice too important for workers

Related video: "Employee Forced Choice Act"
More EFCA stories: here • card-check: here

Labor fascists know best: Pay union dues under the force of law

The following general principle should be fairly uncontroversial: Where workers genuinely want union representation, they ought to have it. When they don't, a union ought not to be imposed on them.

It also seems pretty reasonable to say that when there is a question about what workers want, the best way to settle the question is a secret ballot vote.

Union officials in Michigan and across the country appear to have rejected the notion that choosing or declining a union is ultimately the workers' prerogative. They clearly have repudiated the idea of secret ballot votes. This is a development that could put workers in a tough position. At some point a lot of Michigan workers will need to make a stand. They will be better off making that stand sooner rather than later.

Unions typically collect signatures from interested workers on what are known as "authorization cards." When presented with signed cards from a sufficient number of employees, a company may accept a union's claim to have the support of a majority of workers and recognize that union as their representative without a vote. In some cases workers may submit a petition of their own to force a vote even if the company is willing to skip that step. A secret ballot vote isn't automatic, but the law is set up so that if there is a question about a union's support, it gets tested by the fairest, most reliable means possible.

Under the Employee Free Choice Act, which has the adamant support of most union officials, a large portion of Congress and President-elect Barack Obama, an employer will be obligated to recognize a union when presented with signatures. Secret ballot votes — if any are held — will be strictly at the union's discretion.

The process of establishing union representation via signatures alone — known as "card-check," has been known for years to be a flawed one, which is why the law has allowed employers to call for an election for decades and why the National Labor Relations Board created the procedure for workers to call a vote roughly a year ago. The problem is that there's no way to know whether or not the signature represents an informed choice to back a union. That signature could also have been garnered through intimidation or deception. Unlike an election, there's no privacy and no monitor to ensure that the whole thing is done fairly. Incidents of intimidation by union officers in card-check campaigns are legion: workers have been harassed by union officers, been visited at their homes by union officials without notice or invitation, and told they would be fired if they fail to sign.

Unions typically receive fewer votes in secret ballot elections than the number of authorization cards they have that were signed. As one Teamsters union Web site puts it: "cards don't vote." Numerous unions are on record stating that a union should not go ahead with a vote unless they have signed cards from around 70 percent of workers.

Doing away with the secret ballot would put workers in a vulnerable position: unions could resort to intimidation and deception to gain signatures, and then impose their representation over workers who at bottom do not really want the union there.

The absence of a right-to-work law in Michigan would become even more important if EFCA is passed. In a right-to-work state, workers cannot be forced to pay membership dues or agency fees as a condition of employment. That minimizes the incentive for unions to insert themselves in workplaces where they are not wanted — union opponents can refuse to join and pay dues. But in Michigan unions can expect full dues and fees from workers they represent whether they have genuine worker support or not.

So workers who want to keep the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not they want a union have a difficult choice: they can take a stand against the EFCA now and preserve secret ballot votes, or they may need to stand firm against union intimidation later. Either way, there ain't no easy way out.

- Paul Kersey is director of labor policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Mich.

(mackinac.org)

Organized Labor's big con job

Related video: "Employee Forced Choice Act"
More EFCA stories: here • card-check: here

Unions will do or say anything to gain political power

It looks like Big Labor's strategy for selling the EFCA can be summed up in one word: obfuscation. There's no mention in this ad of any of the provisions of Card Check--wiping out the secret ballot, allowing the federal government to dictate the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, and dramatically increasing the penalties on employers (but not unions) for inappropriate activities during organizing drives.

Related video: "Puppies for Big Labor Bailout"

Related video: "Employee Forced Choice Act"


If signed into law, Card Check holds the potential to make labor strife a regular front-page feature during Obama's first term and slow down an economy that's already beset with huge problems. Does Obama really want to sign such controversial legislation if the unions sell the measure by bait-and-switch? If the voters feel they were fooled, they'll take it out on the elected officials who supported the bill--and that might not be limited to representatives and senators.

It's interesting that Democratic senators are so afraid of taking public stances on controversial issues that they're deciding Joe Lieberman's fate by a secret ballot, but they seem eager to take the right of privacy away from employees deciding on a union.

(weeklystandard.com)

Fat-cat unions cut Prez Bam no slack

Related video: "Employee Forced Choice Act"
More EFCA stories: here • card-check: here

Militant labor fascists lick their chops

Two months before Barack Obama is sworn in, opening salvos are being launched over what could become one of the thorniest issues his administration will face.

Organized labor, which spent about $80 million to put Obama in the White House and Democrats in Congress, wants him to deliver on its top priority: new rules to make it easier to unionize workplaces. American Rights at Work, a union-backed organization whose founder is David Bonior, a former Michigan congressman and one of Obama's economic advisers, launched a national ad campaign Sunday calling for the legislation.

Obama and his vice president-elect, Joe Biden, embraced the measure in the Senate last year, and on the campaign trail this year, particularly in front of union audiences.

Related video: "Employee Forced Choice Act"


But the issue poses a quandary for the president-elect. If he pushes for the law, he risks alienating business—which also contributed heavily to his campaign and his party and will be crucial to his efforts to fix the crippled economy and overhaul the health-care system.

"President-elect Obama needs to think about how much political capital he wants to put behind this," said Glenn Spencer, a U.S. Chamber of Commerce executive who is leading the fight to kill the measure. If it is passed in Obama's first 100 days, Spencer said, it is "going to look like a special-interest payback."

The chamber stayed out of the presidential race but spent $35 million on the elections, much of it to try to keep Democrats from reaching the 60 Senate seats needed to block filibusters.

Paul Booth, a top official of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, is quick to say that congressional leaders will decide when to move the bill. But he has his view: "Sooner the better. I'm quite anxious to have it come up."

AFSCME, which backed Sen. Hillary Clinton during the Democratic presidential primaries, spent $50 million on the 2008 election, he estimated.

The issue involves the method by which unions organize workers. The Employee Free Choice Act, sponsored by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), would do away with secret-ballot elections and require employers to enter contract talks when a majority of workers sign union cards.

The legislation comes at a time when labor, while relatively strong among government workers, represents 12 percent of the total workforce, down from one-third at its height in the early 1950s.

Miller, the labor committee chairman, said he is all but certain that the measure will not be "the first bill out of the chute." But he also vowed that it is "not moving to the back of the train."

Barry Broad, a Teamsters lobbyist and attorney in Sacramento, believes the future of unions hangs in the balance. Broad was among hundreds of union people who walked door-to-door on Obama's behalf in Reno in the days leading up to the Nov. 4 election. Tens of thousands of other members did the same.

"Unions spoke with a nearly unanimous voice: This is their No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 priority in the next administration," said Broad, who believes quick passage is crucial.

(chicagotribune.com)

SEIU protests v. Magic Johnson

More SEIU stories: here

Friend of Hoffa doesn't cut it with Andy Stern

The building service workers union put a full-court press on Magic Johnson Monday, launching a Web site to protest the former NBA basketball star’s use of non-union labor at a Brooklyn condominium building owned by his investment company.

SEIU Local 32BJ unveiled the online site, NoMagicHealthCare.org, to call attention to workers at One Hanson Place. Although they receive prevailing wages and individual health care coverage, they have to pay extra to secure coverage for family members.

The union will shadow Mr. Johnson, who is due in town this week to promote a new book, at various public appearances and post his responses to the question, “Magic, where’s our health care?” in video on the site.

“Although Magic Johnson has spoken out on the need for family health care, he has dropped the ball when it comes to workers at One Hanson Place in the heart of Brooklyn,” said Kyle Bragg, vice president of 32BJ.

Mr. Johnson’s investment company, Canyon-Johnson Urban Fund, partnered with the Dermot Co. to convert the landmark Williamsburgh Saving Bank into luxury condominiums. The building—known for its clock tower— reopened this year, with sales for individual condo units approaching $1 million.

The dozen workers receive individual health care coverage and are paid the union rate of $18.94 for porters and concierges and $20.19 for handymen. But they are being asked to pay $300 per family member for coverage, a benefit unionized luxury residential building workers in the city get as part of their contract.

Prior to One Hanson Place’s conversion, the cleaning and maintenance workers in the building were 32BJ members earning area standard wages and benefits.

A spokesman for Canyon Johnson said the workers are provided fully-paid employer health care and earn competitive wages. He said any decision on expanding coverage is up to the condominium association and the building’s managing agent.

“The story of One Hanson Place is a great story for organized labor,” he said. “Union labor was hired to complete this extensive renovation and we’re proud of that fact.”

(crainsnewyork.com)

'Good start' to labor-state teachers strike

More strike stories: here

Pennsylvania - #1 in the nation for teacher strikes

As the snow flurries began to fall Monday morning, the 70-plus Northwest Area teachers stamped their feet a few extra times, pushed their hands deeper into coat pockets and continued picketing in front of the Junior/Senior High School for the first day of their strike.

It was a good start to the strike, said Northwest Area Education Association President Gary Hasinus, which could last 17 days, pending word from the Pennsylvania Department of Education.

“I’m hoping to get the board to realize that we want to get back to the bargaining table,” Hasinus said. “... The only way to come to a solution is face-to-face.”

Now that the strike has begun, the Department of Education will check the Northwest Area’s schedule and inform the union how many days it can strike and still complete 180 days of class by June 15.

Until that information comes in or the strike is called off, Superintendent Nancy Tkatch said, all classes and extracurriculars for the district’s approximately 1,400 students are cancelled. At that time, the school board will meet to make a decision on what extracurriculars and events to continue during the strike.

(citizensvoice.com)

Engineers' strike now at day 10

More strike stories: here • Related story: "The 28 labor-states"

Typical labor-state work stoppage

Day three, and still no package for the people.

More than 500 A.B. Chance factory workers beared cold temperatures this morning picketing, as talks between plant and union officials continued.

The workers reportedly went out on strike against A.B. Chance Company and Hubbell Inc., Saturday afternoon, following a contract negotiation meeting concerning retirement benefits and insurance coverage, along with other non-economic issues.

While company human resource officials declined to comment today, Union President Matt Jackson with the 86821 IUE-CWA said that both sides are still trying to work things out.

"We're still talking with the company, and we eventually hope to get these people back to work with the benefits we feel they deserve," Jackson told The Ledger, as some 100 plus union employees stood vigilant outside the manufacturing facility and throughout Centralia, with signs of protest.

"We've got meetings lined up and we're getting committees together so we can get back to the table to hammer something out that is successful for both the people and the company."

According to Jackson, the company's proposed contract change could remove retirement benefits – which would not be in the best interest of a wide range of people, mainly those nearing retirement.

"What the company is wanting to take and or change is what got us to where we are today," said Jackson. "I realize that negotiations are give and take all the way across the board, but all these retirees want is the ability to retire early and have some medical coverage and life insurance."

The plant currently employs some 800-900 workers, manufacturing plastics, construction materials and power line tools.

Those workers most affected, Jackson said, are those age 55 to 64.

"With a few minor changes here or there, we could probably work this thing out. What they are asking is not a lot more than what was offered to them," said Jackson. "But, I have to say I really admire these workers for standing up for themselves.

"It was their decision to go out on strike while the discussions continued."

Jackson said today that workers were picketing every inch of the grounds, and that 18-wheelers were lined up on Hwy. 22, refusing to cross the picket line.

"Other unions are backing us as well," Jackson said. "Trucks with all their products, won't cross the picket line, and the railroad won't come in and pull scrap cars out, which is going to be difficult for the company to move products in and out."

At this point, he noted, "We really hope to get back to the table because we don't want to hurt the company's finance. We're still looking to get what is right for these people."

(mexicoledger.com)