In the U.S., it is estimated that 15,000 Lexus HS250h and 133,000 Prius models will be recalled due to gas pedal issues, with another 500,000 Prius and other gasoline-electric hybrids needing anti-brake software modification. As unfortunate and inconvenient as recalls can be, this not the first, or last time an automobile will need to be brought back to the shop for a quick fix.

One might think this is the first auto recall in decades from the way government officials and Congressional Committees have pounced on Toyota. However, as recent as last month, Honda announced a recall of 646,000 Fit models (or Jazz in some markets) due to a faulty master switch that could allow water to enter the electrical components resulting in fires. Ford, less than one year ago, was forced to recall more than 4 million cars based on 550 vehicle fires. The recall concerned cruise-control deactivation switches that were installed in 16 million Fords. Part of the recall included nearly 1.1 million 1995-2003 Ford Windstar family van models.

There was no government outcry and no demand for Congressional hearings over these recent recalls. So why has Toyota suddenly become the target of a government-led witch hunt?

Toyota’s U.S. operations are extremely successful, not saturated by inefficient union monopolies, and are in direct competition with the now government-owned General Motors.

From their first U.S. factory in 1988, the Japanese company’s success in the U.S. is extraordinary. In 2003, the Camry became the best-selling car in the U.S. and still is. In 2005, Fortune magazine stated: “By nearly every measure, Toyota is the world’s best auto manufacturer. It may be the world’s best manufacturer, period.” In 2006, Toyota became the third-biggest seller of cars and trucks in the U.S. In 2007, Toyota captured second place in the U.S. market, replacing Ford, which had held the No. 2 position since 1931. In 2008, as GM declined and temporarily avoided bankruptcy, Toyota surpassed their unionized competitor becoming the largest automaker in the world.

Toyota’s ability to ascend, while others plummeted, lies in their philosophy based on efficiency and productivity called “The Toyota Way.” This corporate philosophy is not anti-union, rather based on the principle of “kaizen” which means “continuous improvement.” This principle seeks complete quality management by improving local work environments and raising productivity. It empowers executives and plant employees, who are famously authorized by Toyota to stop the assembly line to quickly solve any problems based on their own discretion. Such practices are never heard of and often forbade in other highly unionized automobile facilities.

In fact, the differences in efficiency and productivity (and why the unions are determined to penetrate Toyota’s workforce), do not stop there. When GM fired over 35,000 employees between 2006 and 2008, Toyota laid off zero. GM loses almost $2,500 in profitability per vehicle where Toyota makes almost $1,500 per vehicle. This is largely due to GM’s forced union contracts. GM’s union, the United Auto Workers (UAW) mandates that GM pay, on average, each non-skilled line worker about $33 dollars per hour. This inflated wage includes workers who are “idle,” meaning they don’t have a specific job that day, but can still come to work, sit in a special facility and collect a pay check.

These artificially inflated costs, bound by forced union contracts, are sinking other US auto industries. Toyota has managed to rise above that, not by being anti-union, but by believing in and enforcing a corporate-wide model based on efficiency and improvement.

Now, the agents of the government, which controls GM, are publicly castigating Toyota in an attempt to smear the company and increase their own profitability. As a direct competitor with Toyota by way of involvement with GM, the assault against Toyota represents one of the most public conflicts of interests the business world has experienced.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, told owners of a recalled Toyota to “stop driving it” and take it to a dealer to get it fixed. As a appointee of President Obama, who supported the government takeover of GM, LaHood’s comments should be viewed as a violation of the government’s own “non-compete” commitment. In publically condemning Toyota, which is now a competitor of a government owned corporation, LaHood is using his position to drive down the market share of Toyota and advance the interests of GM.

LaHood’s comments and the call for House Congressional Hearings into Toyota, led by members with union-heavy districts whose interests appear to be self-serving, has led to a public outcry from a bi-partisan group of Governors whose constituents rely on Toyota for employment. Led by Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-Ind.) who says, “Let’s recall. Let’s fix it…If a fine is in order, then fine, but they have gone so far beyond that. It’s very, very suspicious in view of the government conflict of interest.” Daniels added, “These Congressmen running this committee have their own agenda and it is a discriminating agenda in this case. They didn’t do this the last several hundred recalls.”

The government, in this case backed by the union saturation of GM, has a clear conflict of interest in owning companies that are in direct competition with Toyota. The problems have been determined, the solutions are in process. Sec. LaHood and the union-supported Democrat heads of the committees holding hearings on this matter should step back and allow the private sector to function without biased interference.

According to the NLRB website, Congress established the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in 1935 to administer the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the primary law that governs relations between unions, employees and employers in the private sector. The Act guarantees employees the right to organize and to bargain collectively with their employers or to refrain from such activities. The Act, which generally applies to all employers involved in interstate commerce, implements the national labor policy of assuring free choice and encouraging collective bargaining as a means of maintaining industrial peace.

The NLRB has two primary functions: one, to prevent and remedy unfair labor practices, whether committed by labor organizations or employers, and; two, to establish whether or not certain groups of employees desire labor organization representation for collective-bargaining purposes, and if so, which union.

Becker will be the third person on the five person Board and the second Democrat thus giving them majority on the Board. To say that Becker’s views are “extreme” would be an insult. His views of employer-employee relations invites thoughts of hammers and sickles.

As the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Associate General Counsel, Becker has regularly advocated for inappropriate use of the NLRB’s power. In an instant of uncensored honesty, Mr. Becker wrote that employers should be barred from NLRB proceedings:

“On these latter issues employers should have no right to be heard in either a representation case or an unfair labor practice case, even though Board rulings might indirectly affect their duty to bargain.”

In Becker’s opinion, business owners, many of whom are small business owners that collectively employee 50 million Americans, have “no legally cognizable interest” in one of the most significant decisions impacting the potential future success of their company. But Becker takes his views one step further and would even deny employers the ability to alert authorities to illegal union activity during an election campaign saying:

“Similarly, employers should have no right to raise questions concerning voter eligibility or campaign conduct. Because employers have no right to vote, they cast no ballots the significance of which can be diluted by the inclusion of ineligible employees. … Because employers lack the formal status either of candidates vying to represent employees or voters, they should not be entitled to charge that unions disobeyed the rules governing voter eligibility or campaign conduct. On the questions of unit determination, voter eligibility, and campaign conduct, only the employee constituency and their potential union representatives should be heard.”

To suggest that employers should have no role in the unionization process, as Mr. Becker does, is a point of view that is outside of the mainstream and one that puts him at odds with the current practices of the NLRB.

Just as Mr. Becker views employers as obstacles to increased unionization, he similarly views workers ability to democratically choose union representation as problematic:

“Just as U.S. Citizens cannot opt against having a congressman, workers should not be able to choose against having a union as their monopoly-bargaining agent.”

Mr. Becker wholeheartedly believes that employers and workers preferences are second to union goals, namely increased membership. The NLRB is entrusted with interpreting and enforcing the NLRA, laws which apply to nearly every American business. As a member of the NLRB, Mr. Becker would be able to implement his radical ideas and shape labor laws for the indefinite future.

The Senate has scheduled a hearing on Craig Becker for Thursday, Feb. 4. Will they wait for the newly elected Senator from Mass. to be seated before a vote? Only time will tell…but until then, be very, very afraid.

However, they have developed a new tool of misinformation — “Language Tips on Employee Free Choice.”

SEIU EFCA Tip Sheet_Page_2 PDF –

Thanks to an anonymous email to the Alliance for Worker Freedom we obtained this “for internal use only – not for distribution” document. However, in order for this document to reflect any bit of truth, just switch the “NO” and “YES” headers and you’ll be all set.

For an administration that promised to renounce interest groups, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) certainly has the president’s ear and is sure to be a major player in the December jobs summit. In 2008, SEIU donated nearly $28 million to the Obama campaign setting the stage for SEIU President Andy Stern to become the White House’s most frequent visitor in 2009, according to White House visitor logs. Anna Burger, Treasure of the SEIU and Chairwoman of their Change to Win campaign was even appointed to Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board earlier this year and will represent SEIU at the December jobs summit held by the White House.

To the objective observer, it is clear that Andy Stern and Anna Burger are meeting with members of the White House to advance goals of the SEIU, they are lobbying. However, in 2008 both Stern and Burger de-registered as lobbyists providing the Obama administration cover to meet with them while avoiding cries of duplicity. Yet, neither Stern nor Burger changed positions or job responsibilities, they just stopped registering as lobbyists.

So who has to register?

The Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) defines a “lobbyist” as a person who spends over 20% of his time on “lobbying activities” and has two or more “lobbying contacts.” It is important to note that the calculation of the 20% of time spent on lobbying activities includes numerous activities beyond direct lobbying contacts, and is with respect to a calendar quarter of a year.

Lobbyists who fail to register or provide honest reports are subject to civil penalties of up to $200,000 and criminal penalties of up to 5 years in prison, not trivial penalties.

Validating the claim that the Obama administration is still meeting with lobbyists, now unlisted lobbyists, Mr. Stern visited and met with the President and/or White House staff on 22 occasions between January 20 and September 15.

During the first calendar quarter, Mr. Stern went to the White House on 11 separate days, including twice on February 18.  In the second calendar quarter, Mr. Stern visited on 9 days, and twice on April 13 for a total of 10 visits.  Since White House personnel, including the President and Vice President, are considered “covered” officials under LDA, all of Mr. Stern’s communications with them during these 22 visits covering 20 days would constitute “lobbying contacts.”

Mr. Stern’s right hand, Anna Burger has also maintained close relations to the Obama administration after de-listing as a lobbyist. According to LM-2 union disclosure fillings from 2007 and 2006, both years when Ms. Burger was a registered lobbyist, reveal that she spent well over 20 percent of her time on politics and lobbying. After de-listing, Burger reported spending an even larger amount of time, 37 percent, on politics and lobbying activity.

Most recently, Ms. Burger attended the much sought-after State Dinner hosted by the White House on November 24, 2009. The State Dinner has long been one of the most prestigious events an administration holds.

On December 3, the president will preside over his “jobs summit” where he will look for ideas and consensus from business leaders about how to increase hiring. Ms. Burger will be in attendance and undoubtedly engaging in contacts with officials covered by the LDA. Given the enormous access Ms. Burger and Mr. Stern have to White House officials; it is more than probable that they meet the LDA definition of a lobbyist.

In an attempt to hold the administration accountable to its own goals, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform and the Alliance for Worker Freedom have filled a formal request with acting United States Attorney Channing D. Phillips, Esq. and the Secretary of the Senate and House Clerk to investigate the Service Employee International Union President Andy Stern (filed on November 13) and Treasurer Anna Burger (filed on December 3) for potential illegal lobbying.

Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) and me, as Executive Director of the Alliance for Worker Freedom (AWF) formally requested an investigation by the acting United States Attorney Channing D. Phillips, Esq., into the potentially illegal lobbying activities of the Service Employee International Union (SEIU) President Andy Stern.

In a letter hand delivered today to Mr. Phillips, Senate Secretary Erickson and House Clerk Miller, we wrote:

By this letter, we urge you to investigate the activities of Mr. Andy Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), regarding meetings and other lobbying contacts with administration, White House and Congress during 2009.  Specifically, it is important to determine whether those and related activities could constitute unregistered “lobbying” by Mr. Stern in violation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act  (LDA), 2 U.S.C. 1601, et seq.  In fact, Mr. Stern was a registered lobbyist for SEIU until January of 2007 when he terminated his registration.  For the reasons discussed below it appears that Mr. Stern continued to lobby extensively after he terminated his registered status, and in 2009 devoted so much time on lobbying and related activities that he should have re-registered as a lobbyist under LDA.

The evidence appears to put Mr. Stern in quite the pickle. The LDA defines a “lobbyist” as a person who spends over 20% of his time on “lobbying activities” and has two or more “lobbying contacts.”  It is important to note that the calculation of the 20% of time spent on lobbying activities includes numerous activities beyond direct lobbying contacts, and is with respect to a calendar quarter of a year.  A lobbyist must be registered by his or her employer and both must file reports disclosing their lobbying activities.

A “lobbying contact” includes any oral or written communication with certain individuals in the federal government (“covered” officials) regarding the formulation, modification or adoption of legislation, programs, policies or positions of the government, as well as government contracts or nominations of individuals subject to Senate confirmation.  The public officials in government who are “covered” officials include any person in the White House and any Member, Senator or staff member of Congress.

Lobbying activity” under LDA includes time spent on lobbying contacts as well as time spent by the individual on any efforts to support his or her, or another’s, lobbying contacts such as preparation or planning activities, research and other background work, as well as time spent coordinating the lobbying activities of others.

Failure to file accurate reports or to register under LDA is a violation of the Act, which provides for civil penalties of up to $200,000 and criminal penalties of up to 5 years in prison.  Reports must be filed electronically with the Clerk of the House and Secretary of the Senate.  Responsibility for enforcement of the Act rests with the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, under 2 U.S.C. 1605.  In addition, the Government Accountability Office is required under the LDA to conduct random audits of filers.  It does not appear that there has been an audit of the SEIU reports.

During the first calendar quarter of 2009, Mr. Stern went to the White House on 11 separate days, including twice on February 18.  In the second calendar quarter, Mr. Stern visited on 9 days, and twice on April 13 for a total of 10 visits.  Since White House personnel, including the President and Vice President, are considered “covered” officials under LDA, all of Mr. Stern’s communications with them during these 22 visits covering 20 days would constitute “lobbying contacts.”  The time spent at the White House also constitutes “lobbying activity” time which must be captured for determining whether Mr. Stern spent more than 20% of his time during any calendar quarter engaged in lobbying. (Incidentally, in 2008, on his own LM-2 disclosure form filed with the U.S. Department of Labor, Mr. Stern disclosed that he spent at least 24% of his time on lobbying and political activities, without separating those two activities out.)

Below are some of Mr. Stern’s personal “tweets”. The full letter and accompanying documents can be viewed on www.atr.org and www.workerfreedom.org

Lobbying with Mayor Bloomberg on health care. Leaving Senator Snowe. Mayor big proponent of keeping people healthy and the right public plan”

(https://twitter.com/SEIU_ANDYSTERN, 6/24/09)

“Great discussion last 2 days with many Senators. Complicated issue but commitment to change. All understand-longer we wait worse it gets”

(https://twitter.com/SEIU_ANDYSTERN, 6/17/09)

“At Springsteen Concert. Lots of fundraisers in box. Good free choice meetings with key Senators today “

(https://twitter.com/SEIU_ANDYSTERN, 5/18/09)

“Great White House meeting with serious, real discussion on cost savings. June 1 deadline for real results. Glad we could get this started.”

(https://twitter.com/SEIU_ANDYSTERN, 5/11/09)

“Leaving White House. Serious , real discussion with great possibilities. Now work to be done by June 1 deadline. Glad we get start this.”

(https://twitter.com/SEIU_ANDYSTERN, 5/11/09)

“At White House for meeting with President on Health care.”

(https://twitter.com/SEIU_ANDYSTERN, 5/11/09)

“Congressman Sestak impressive on CNN. Visiting him tomorrow.”

(https://twitter.com/SEIU_ANDYSTERN, 5/3/09)

“Specter, Sebelius, Washington Capitols, and 100 great days. On a roll Now let’s fire Ken Lewis at B of A today to keep a great week going”

(https://twitter.com/SEIU_ANDYSTERN, 4/29/09)

“just left White House where group from MoveOn to Chamber of Commerce but mostly progressives had cocktails with Prez and VP”

(https://twitter.com/SEIU_ANDYSTERN, 2/18/09)<

Full copy of the letter below.

AndySternInvestigationRequest_FINAL –

As Union Corruption Update reports:

At least Christine Pawlowski’s thefts will go into the record books as less than what they were. On September 28, Pawlowski, formerly financial secretary for Local 812 of the United Auto Workers, pleaded guilty in Huron County, Michigan (Bay City) District Court to embezzling between $1,000 and $20,000 during January 2007-December 2008. Prosecutors had charged that Pawlowski, now 42, a resident of Minden City, skimmed more than $20,000 from the Harbor Beach, Mich. union, which has 35 members. Sentencing is scheduled for November 9. The guilty plea follows a joint investigation by the Labor Department’s Office of Labor-Management Standards and Harbor Beach police.

While it might not be shocking to some that members of the UAW are embezzling money (the car industry is suffering after all), the below allegation is associated with a company that has a more happy image.

Teresa Luna, bookkeeper/office manager of International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) Local 504, was sentenced for taking almost $70,000 from her union. The good news is, she will have to pay it all back. As UCU reports:

Luna, now 35, a resident of Anaheim, during November 2004-June 2005 allegedly printed out more than three dozen checks from an IATSE checking account and made them out payable to herself. To make the theft convincing, she forged the signatures of two other union officers. She was fired in 2005 shortly after discovery that funds were missing, and eventually was charged and pleaded guilty in September 2008. Luna faced up to five years in prison, but U.S. District Judge David O. Carter gave her a lighter sentence in a less restrictive lockup so she could see her children more often. The sentencing follows an investigation by the Labor Department’s Office of Labor-Management Standards.

If we are going to have the SEC monitor companies and hold them accountable to shareholders/stockholders, we must ensure the OLMS is there and well funded to hold the unions accountable (and their officials) to rank-and-file dues paying members. Investors feel comfortable and safe buying stocks in companies because they know the SEC is monitoring their activities. Rank-and-file union members pay dues to unions and expect them to provide services – not use the money to go on ski trips and lavish vacations; or worse, simply pocket it.

While the “tax anything we can” rhetoric delights most on the Left, it doesn’t play so well with the party’s largest contributor and loyal ally, organized labor.

Unions have spent the past few decades bullying employers into giving them overly generous health care plans (think United Auto Workers) often to the detriment of the companies they work for. Unfortunately for labor, the healthcare plans they spent years negotiating are now considered “Cadillac plans” and are under attack by the same people they helped spent $450 million to put into office.

It is no real surprise that labor is up in arms over Democrats trying to tax their health care. Any powerful interest group would react the same way. Who wants to give money to the government? No one. People just want to give other people’s money away.

The irony is that labor’s rhetoric about the government taxing healthcare goes: “Taxing hard working Americans is unfair. The marginalized worker is being exploited by the man; they shouldn’t be forced to give money to the government in the form of healthcare taxes.” Yes, people shouldn’t be taxed because of the healthcare packages they choose.

But who is labor to talk? The hypocrisy in their argument is laughable. Workers should not have union dues taken from their paychecks before they even receive them, but they do. The right to vote using a secret ballot on unionization should be upheld, yet unions oppose this. Interesting how now unions are opposing the forced surrendering of money when they manifest as healthcare taxes.

Unions have survived, in large part, because they force people to pay union dues, much like a tax. Where do you think that $450 million in campaign contributions came from in ’08? Union dues. In states that do not have right-to-work laws, workers are forced to join a union if they want to work in certain industries. This means that workers have to join a union, whether they want to or not and subsequently are forced into paying union dues.

Labor complains about paying taxes to the government while pocketing union dues, in essence, an employment tax that gives workers the right to keep their job. Taxing hard working Americans is unfair, which is why people should not be forced to join a union.

The marginalized worker is being exploited, by unions, to further labor’s political agenda. Although unions have it right, health care shouldn’t be taxed, it is hard to take them seriously, as they have little credibility in the realm of free choice.