The New Beast Of Big Labor

[darrels joy]

The New Beast Of Big Labor

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, December 08, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Transition: Barack Obama's election has Big Labor strutting with confidence. But what union bosses such as Andy Stern want should give any president pause. Can Obama stand up to them?

---

The Service Employees International Union chief isn't even trying to hide his sense of power anymore, so confident is he that unions have Democrats in their back pocket.
Stern: Expecting a return for the union's $85 million "investment."

With the dominance of Democrats in the last election, and unions calling it their own victory, the SEIU president told the Wall Street Journal over the weekend that if the power of persuasion doesn't get Big Labor's demands through in Washington, then Big Labor will use "the persuasion of power."

But whether Obama should define his presidency by labor's agenda is another matter. As a representative of the entire country and not just unions, the president-elect could find himself at odds with unions' uncompromising agenda as the country faces economic reality, and may have to decide if he wants to stand up to them.

Stern, one of the most powerful Democrats in Washington, is no traditional union boss, but a curious corporate radical who's repeatedly in trouble with other union bosses. In 2005, the Wharton-educated Stern broke with his AFL-CIO brothers and formed the Change To Win coalition, taking nearly half the confederation's members and resources to advance his agenda through a political insurgency. Like the misplaced CEO he resembles, he says he demands "accountability" and nothing but total victory.

Stern viewed other unions, who compromised with politicians, as sellouts, and instead forged new alliances with radical political forces such as MoveOn.org and billionaire George Soros. The result has been to drive labor leftward.

On his blog, Stern warned on June 5 that SEIU will "dedicate 50% of our staff and resources to passing priorities for working families like the Employee Free Choice Act and health care for all." Over the election cycle, the SEIU contributed $16.5 million to get Obama elected, and $85 million for the election in general, part of the $450 million all unions gave to get Democrats elected.

Election over and paid for, he seeks to increase union membership, which — not coincidentally — will keep up union money muscle. Stern demands passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, a Congressional move to strip workers of the right to a secret ballot in union formation, and replace it with signature on a union organizer's card, a change that will subject workers to coercion.

He also strongly supports nationalized health care and told the Journal he wouldn't mind higher joblessness so long as he could force the U.S. to resemble Europe where there is less income disparity in the name of "equality."

Stern vows to rain perdition on anyone who crosses this plan. He claims to have a $10 million union fund to "unelect" congressmen who don't go along with him.

The agenda is so single-minded that he even let the cat out of the bag about union opposition to a Colombia free trade pact, admitting it was a bargaining chip for passage of card check and not the pious human rights matter union minions tell the media.

Stern's plans call into question whether the union agenda really is the same as the national agenda and whether a swaggering special interest group really deserves the right to remake society on its own terms. Card check and nationalized health care are bound to do exactly what Stern says they will — turn America into the uncompetitive place Europe has become where purchasing power is falling.

Should $450 million taken from the pockets of SEIU's janitors and maids and other union members, many of whom are not even citizens, really be worth that much political return? Should U.S. foreign policy be held hostage to a union that will use even national security as a bargaining chip?

Something out there suggests the union agenda is a thin reed on which to base a presidential legacy. If labor trashes the economy, it also might not endure a new election. If Obama cares at all about being a good president for everyone, he might need to stand up to union muscle. We hope he does.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...13632309443274

[darrels joy]

States preparing to counter Employee Free Choice Act

UPDATE: States are preparing to counter Employee Free Choice Act. At least five states - Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, Nevada, and Utah - are working towards placing constitutional amendments on their 2010 ballots to override the anticipated federal action. State-level legislation would run into a program vis-a-vis federal legislation because of the Preemption Doctrine.

The proposed amendment reads: “The right of individuals to vote by secret ballot is fundamental. Where state or federal law requires elections for public office or public votes on initiatives or referenda, or designations or authorizations of employee representation, the right of individuals to vote by secret ballot shall be guaranteed.”

Seems simple enough. Too bad unions give 90%+ of their millions in contributions to dems. Here's a table drawn from that source data for the period 1989 to 2008:

Rank	Union	Total Donated	% Dems	% Pubs
1	American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees	$40,042,851	98%	1%
6	Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers	$28,883,334	97%	2%
7	National Education Assn (103% indicated in source)	$28,560,558	93%	10%
8	Laborers Union	$27,123,389	91%	9%
9	Service Employees International Union	$26,821,863	95%	5%
10	Carpenters & Joiners Union (104% indicated in source)	$26,152,749	90%	14%
11	Teamsters Union	$25,832,517	92%	7%
12	Communications Workers of America	$25,711,729	99%	1%
14	American Federation of Teachers	$25,199,393	98%	1%
16	United Auto Workers (102% indicated in source)	$24,632,459	98%	4%
17	Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union	$23,629,086	98%	0%
20	United Food & Commercial Workers Union	$23,030,357	98%	1%

So what does a piece of legislation like the Employee Free Choice Act cost? About $325.6 million over 20 years.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE (edited):

Will the Employee Free Choice Act rise in the 111th? If so, the new mantra of labor unions will be “Either your signature or your brains will be on this card.”

Let’s just be clear: Union organizers are no more than a bunch of girls from the hood; they are cheap thugs that define success through achieving ends regardless of means; and their actions over the decades make abundantly clear that they collectively and individually lack either an intellectual or moral core. If we could peer inside a union organizer’s brain and heart, we would find that there just ain’t no there, there.

Now that we have that clear, let’s look at one of their latest attempted scams, one that is certain to be attempted again in the 111th Congress. No, I’m not going after the Big 3 hearings in WDC. That’s someone else’s problem. The auto execs have been so holed over the years that they perceive it as their natural state: Bankruptcy is not an option, even though it would cleanse them of their union contracts. It would ruin the public’s trust in them, they say. Hunh? Their public statements concerning being out of money makes the filing a distinction without a difference. The public has already lost faith in them. It is profoundly sad to see the abused beg to stay with the abuser. Reminds me of the Patty Hearst case.

Let’s talk about the Employee Free Choice Act. Here’s the Thomas link.

The last action was in June 2007. “Cloture on the motion to proceed not invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 51 - 48.”

The US Senate dictionary defines cloture as “The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.”

So the bill sits there awaiting the Magic 60. Are there any senators that will vote against their party line on this? Yeah, at least one. My own Senator Specter (RINO-PA). Every other vote cast was along party lines. Specter has no soul.

Congress helpfully entitled this Act as “To amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes.”

Now what could possibly be objectionable about that? We like efficiency. We like enablers (well, you know what I mean).

We like mandatory things – gives us clarity.

The question is how that efficiency is achieved. The bill authorizes a helpful “card-check system.” Instead of a silly, time-consuming secret ballot, union organizers could now go around to employees of a non-union company and collect “cards” that have been signed indicating the employee’s preference on forming a union. How very helpful. I wonder if the AFL-CIO will outsource their union organizer training to ACORN.

But it doesn’t end there. The bill also provides for civil penalties if employees are let go because of organizing activities – triple wages and civil fines up to $20,000.

What does this mean? It is brilliant. It is putting the union into a grassroots building mode – control small companies and you control the country. Small companies won't be able to pay the fines, so they will be forced to sit and watch their hard work be spread around through union thugs.

The inverse, unfortunately, is also true: Destroy small companies and you destroy the country.

It reminds me of something a cop friend of mine said: If the bad guy is within range for you to take him down, always remember that you are within range for him, too.

The Corporate Buggery Act - that's what this law should be called.

Tags: Unions, economy,

http://patriotroom.com/article/states-preparing-counter

[darrels joy]

The Senate Goes Wobbly on Card Check

It's hard to defend taking away the secret ballot.

• By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

• Article

more in Opinion »


Responsibility has a way of focusing the mind.
Take Mark Pryor, Democratic senator from Arkansas. In 2007, Mr. Pryor voted to move card check, Big Labor's No. 1 priority. And why not? Mr. Pryor knew the GOP would block the bill, which gets rid of secret ballots in union elections.

Besides, his support helped guarantee labor wouldn't field a challenger to him in the primary.

Postelection, Mr. Pryor isn't so committed. He's indicated he wouldn't co-sponsor the legislation again. He says he'd like to find common ground between labor and business. He is telling people the bill isn't on a Senate fast-track, anyway. His business community, which has nimbly whipped up anti-card-check sentiment across his right-to-work state, is getting a more polite hearing.

It hasn't been much noticed, but the political ground is already shifting under Big Labor's card-check initiative. The unions poured unprecedented money and manpower into getting Democrats elected; their payoff was supposed to be a bill that would allow them to intimidate more workers into joining unions. The conventional wisdom was that Barack Obama and an unfettered Democratic majority would write that check, lickety-split.

Instead, union leaders now say they are being told card check won't happen soon. It seems the Obama team plans to devote its opening months to important issues, like the economy, and has no intention of jumping straight into the mother of all labor brawls. It also seems Majority Leader Harry Reid, even with his new numbers, might not have what it takes to overcome a filibuster. It's a case study in how quickly a political landscape can change, and how frequently the conventional wisdom is wrong.

Paradoxically, it's Mr. Reid's bigger majority that is now hurting him. In 2007, he got every Democrat (save South Dakota's Tim Johnson, who was out sick) to vote for cloture. But it was an easy vote. Democrats like Mr. Pryor knew the GOP held the filibuster, and that Mr. Bush stood ready with a veto. Now that Mr. Reid has 58 seats, red-state Democrats in particular are worried they might actually have to pass this turkey, infuriating voters and businesses back home.

Mr. Pryor isn't alone. Fellow Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln voted for cloture in 2007 but is now messaging Mr. Reid that she's not eager for a repeat. She recently said she doesn't think "there is a need for this legislation right now," that the country has bigger problems. What she didn't mention is that she is also up for re-election next year, and that one potential GOP challenger, Tim Griffin, is already vowing to make card check an issue. South Dakota's Tim Johnson, Nebraska's Ben Nelson and others face similar pressure. And it seems unlikely new Senate arrivals such as Colorado's Mark Udall are eager to make card check an opening vote, especially with visions of United Auto Worker bailouts fresh in voter minds.

Republican "moderates" aren't eager for card check either. If this were a minimum-wage vote, Maine's Susan Collins, for example, would be lining up. But polls show more than 80% of Americans disagree with eliminating union ballots. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has bolstered opposition by turning card check into a litmus test of Mr. Obama's promise to work with the other side. Even Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter, the lone GOP vote for card check in 2007, is backpedaling, worried about a 2010 primary challenge.

Credit for this new environment goes to a business community that has been uncharacteristically unified in a sweeping campaign against the bill. U.S. Chamber of Commerce General Counsel Steven Law says the issue has even inspired his organization to change tactics.

"In the past, unions would show up in force on the ground while the business community would send someone in a suit up to Capitol Hill. This time, we pushed hard at the grass-roots level and lit a fire under this issue." Those grass roots have targeted senators like Mr. Pryor and Mrs. Lincoln. Business also spent millions airing ads about card check during the presidential campaign, a prime time to educate voters.

None of this is to suggest card check is dead, or that it might not yet be resurrected in the early days. If Al Franken pulls out a win in Minnesota, Mr. Reid might be inspired to use his 59 votes to forge ahead. Some House Democrats are also suggesting union intimidation would in fact "stimulate" the economy, and that the legislation ought to be attached to the upcoming spending package.

Whatever the difficulties, it's hard to fathom how waiting helps Democrats. Mr. Obama will never be stronger than in his opening months, and he'll need muscle to strongarm reluctant party members to support such an unsupportable measure.

The initial union strategy was to whip this through before Americans understood the debate, but in that they've already failed. The more time goes on, the more likely this issue turns into trench warfare.

For the unions, that wouldn't just be a shot to the heart, but to the ego. Democrats may try to fob them off with less controversial legislation -- "fair pay" or more unionization of public safety officials -- but Big Labor feels it is owed much more. We may be about to discover just how patient, or forgiving, those union bosses are.

Write to kim@wsj.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123085879658147927.html