Connecticut’s union-bought governor, Daniel Malloy, is apparently scheming with the SEIU to unionize his state’s daycare providers and personal care attendants through a secret plan using the flawed method of card-check unionization.

By stripping individuals of their right to vote on whether or not to unionize, Malloy is virtually guaranteeing money (paid by taxpayers) will go into his SEIU cronies’ pockets.

According to Raising Hale’s Zach Janowski, Malloy has  created “working groups” through executive order that will “guide the unionization” over the next year.

The two working groups will meet Friday morning. The Personal Care Attendant Working Group will meet at 10 a.m. and the Family Child Care Working Group will meet at 11 a.m., both in Room 410 of the Capitol.

Malloy created the working groups with executive orders nine and 10. Adding daycare providers alone to the union roles could increase dues revenue by $1 million.

The executive orders also include a card check provision that takes away the ability of daycare owners and PCAs to vote by secret ballot. (more…)

Desperation is setting in at the White House and the white knight attempting to rescue Obama from himself is the NLRB, guided by a pair of Obama recess appointees Craig Becker and Mark Pierce (see National Labor Relations Board or NBLR – National Big Labor Resuscitation ). Becker and Pierce are taking steps to achieve Big Labor’s most coveted prize, card check (see Card Check through Regulation vs. Legislation).

The NLRB has scheduled a vote this Wednesday, November 30, 2011 where they Plan to Ease Way for Unions to rapidly organize employers through quickie elections. This vote is no more than “Card Check” in disguise (see the Board published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking here). Why is this pair in such a hurry? Member Becker’s term expires at the end of December 2011, and this is the last time the rogue NLRB is guaranteed to have a democratic majority to combat the pending legislation to reign in the NLRB and to pass regulations that favor Big Labor (see Workplace Fairness Act Set to Move to the House Floor).

Just as important, the timeline referred to above is obviously a blatant move to provide big labor with the tools to rapidly force unionize unsuspecting businesses in order to provide Obama and the Democratic party a huge campaign fund source derived from the new influx of membership dues just in time for the 2012 elections. This is obviously a simple “pay to play” maneuver that will be A Death Penalty for Employees and Employers.

This is a classic case of Political Aspirations & Payback Ahead of American Jobs, because this President and the rogue NLRB are intent on Overwhelming the System in order to achieve their labor agenda, first pronounced in the Employee Free Choice Act (see EFCA Through the Backdoor). (more…)

Seeing the forest through the trees and the practical through the partisanship.

This week, on Monday and Tuesday, an “open meeting” occurred at President Obama’s National Labor Relations Board over the NLRB’s proposal to move toward ambush elections. Though largely a waste of time, since the union appointees running the NLRB have little intent to listen to the practical side of labor relations and will do the unions’ bidding, there is a simple solution to resolving this entire matter that is straightforward, fair and apolitical.

Here’s the background: For the last five years, there has been a bill in Congress that unions have pushed using deceptively biased and flawed data. The hallucinogencially-named Employee Free Choice Act, if enacted, would effectively strip employees of their right to a secret-ballot election on the issue of unionization. With the process known as “card check” as a key component, the job-killing legislation passed the House of Representatives in 2007 but stalled in the Senate, yet has had employers on edge since it was first introduced.

Since card check has laid comatose following the election of Sen. Scott Brown [R-MA] in February 2010, several states have passed amendments to their state constitutions preserving the secret ballot, only to be later sued by Obama’s union appointees at the NLRB. (more…)

Over the last year, the Obama Administration, through its regulatory agencies, has been conducting a quiet war on American business—those enterprises that are the nation’s job creators. Earlier this week, the union extremists in Obama’s Department of Labor and the “independent” National Labor Relations Board (the same agency that may cause 1,000 Boeing employees in South Carolina to lose their jobs) launched an all-out offensive designed to maximize unions’ ability to unionize the 93.1% of America’s private-sector employees who are union free.

The Department of Labor writes its own DISCLOSE Act.

On Monday, using retread and biased psuedo-studies, the Department of Labor issued an expansive 160-page notice for proposed rule-making; request for comments. It is, in sum, a radical overhaul of the reporting requirements for employers who wish to remain union free and the consultants, lawyers, and firms that provide human resources, employee and labor relations services.

Since 1959, under a little known law called the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, labor relations consultants who ‘persuade’ employees in the exercise of their Section Seven Rights (the right to unionize or not) have been required to file financial disclosure statements, as do the employers who hire labor relations consultants.

Now, the Department of Labor wants any person who is contracted to directly or indirectly persuades employees to file be required to file reports. To the union zealots at the Department of Labor, any person, lawyer or firm who trains supervisors on how to lawfully communicate with employees about unions, any company that produces videos, conducts seminars, or vulnerability audits (like employee opinion surveys) would be required to file and disclose their earnings which then become made public. (more…)

My name is Philip Christofanelli. I was a student in the University of Missouri’s “Introduction to Labor Studies” course.  The class was taught simultaneously by Professor Don Giljum of University of Missouri-Saint Louis (UMSL) and Professor Judy Ancel of University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC) through the use of a live video feed that linked the two classrooms. The class met every other Saturday for seven hours, including breaks. All of the classes were recorded and put on the class website.

Class slide by Prof. Judy Ancel instructing students on how to "re-frame" messages for "State Battles" against right-to-work legislation in Missouri and elsewhere

Since that time, an organization known as Insurgent Visuals has released videos of the class, which have gained considerable media attention.  To be clear, I am not Insurgent Visuals, nor am I associated with them.  I did not edit any videos or put them online. I did, however, download the original videos off of the class website and give them out in their entirety to a number of my friends in order to obtain other opinions on the propriety of what occurred in the class, and of the steps I should take moving forward.

In this post, I will try to describe, with careful attention to context and accuracy, what occurred in these public classrooms over the course of the semester.  I believe that any reasonable person who takes the time to read this post in full will come to the same conclusion that I did: Professors Giljum and Ancel used a public university class to promote their own radical political opinions and organizations, and to train students and union members in negotiating tactics that are apparently illegal, and profoundly unethical.  Their behavior was highly unprofessional and inappropriate, and the University of Missouri should simply admit that fact and take steps to ensure that classes are not taught in that way ever again.

(more…)

Union officials who have been challenged to accept a federally supervised secret ballot election for Hyatt hotel employees have sought and received protective cover from the Obama Administration. Thus far, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has rejected four petitions from hotels in California and Indiana asking for a straight up and down vote on unionization. Although it is unusual for an employer to ask for an election, this option has existed at the NLRB for 75 years.

The NLRB had scheduled hearings to review petitions for three of the four properties, but later cancelled those hearings when it became clear UNITE HERE was not asking for the election. The idea now is for the union to hide behind and NLRB procedure so it can sustain its corporate campaign and pressure Hyatt into accepting “card check” as a substitute for a secret ballot election.

The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA),” which provides for “card check,” has been a top legislative priority for union leaders but with Republicans now in control of the House it is unlikely to move. Even with Democrats in control of Congress and the White House in the first two years of the Obama administration, the legislation ran into stiff opposition.

“The lesson from this episode is clear: although unions couldn’t convince Congress to force card check on the American people, it remains their preferred method of organizing and they’ll do whatever they can to intimidate workers and employers into using it,” said Glenn Spencer executive director of the Workforce Freedom Initiative with the Chamber of Commerce.

(more…)

Although the energy and influence of organized labor has shifted over to the public sector, union bosses are ambitious to regain their footing in the private sector. This much is evident from the rulemaking changes the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) now seeks to enshrine. With media attention understandably focused on the confrontation between Scott Walker, the Republican governor of Wisconsin, and the teachers unions, private industry advocates should not lose sight of administrative activity in Washington D.C.

In just a few weeks, the Obama Administration attorneys who dominate the board could open the way for labor bosses to burrow into private companies with “mini-unions” built around small clusters of employees. At issue, is a seemingly narrow case involving nursing home workers that could potentially reshape the way bargaining units are created in six million companies covered under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), industry advocates have warned.

Despite losing on major legislative priorities like “card check” and binding arbitration, which were included in the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), organized labor could still find a way to regain its footing in the private sector through rulemaking changes. Brian Haynes, a Republican member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), explains how this can occur in a strongly worded dissent attached to the Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile case.

Under the current system, organizers must gain support from over 50 percent of an entire storewide bargaining unit. However, the legal reasoning at work in Specialty makes it possible for just 10 pharmacy workers, or 15 auto shop workers, or 20 loading dock personnel to all form separate unions.  Employers would have to negotiate separate contracts with each group, while losing the flexibility to reassign workers to different jobs within the organization.

(more…)

There was BIG news in Washington yesterday:

Senate Republicans, led by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), have introduced the Secret Ballot Protection Act.

Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) introduced the Secret Ballot Protection Act (SBPA), legislation that will guarantee the right of every American worker to have a secret ballot election on whether to unionize. The bill would guarantee workers the opportunity to cast a secret ballot before a union can be organized.

Seventeen cosponsors have joined DeMint to introduce the bill including Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee), John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), Richard Burr (R-North Carolina), Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia), Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi), Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), John McCain (R-Arizona), Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), James Risch (R-Idaho), Richard Shelby (R-Alabama), John Thune (R-South Dakota), David Vitter (R-Louisiana), and Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi).

“Last Congress, union bosses and their Democrat allies tried their best to deny workers their basic American right to a guaranteed secret ballot election,” said Senator DeMint. “Secret ballot voting is a basic American value that we must protect. This bill ensures every American worker gets to cast a secret ballot vote without pressure and fear of retribution from union organizers and coworkers looking over their shoulder. No American should be forced to join or pay dues to a union just to have the opportunity to work and provide for their family.”

Why the Secret Ballot Protection Act?

For the last five years, unions have spent hundreds of millions of dollars, taken from their members’ dues, to pass a bill that effectively eliminates employees’ right to a secret-ballot election on the question of unionization. Through the delusionally-dubbed Employee Free Choice Act’s ’card check’ provision, unions have sought to mandate that employees would automatically become unionized once a union secured 50% + 1 of employees’ signatures on authorization cards (or other form). However, after the Employee Free ANTI Choice Act passed the House in 2007 (it was later stalled in the Senate), more people began to take notice of the union threat to their right to choose (or not choose) unionization in the workplace.

(more…)

With the United Auto Workers’ membership at a third of its former size, and the job-destroying card-check bill (the misleadingly-named Employee Free Choice Act) dead for now, UAW President Bob King and the rest of his Detroit henchmen have had to come up with an inventive way in which to save their dying union by getting new members.

In July, the UAW hooked up with Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH coalition and vowed to target the employees of foreign-owned automakers.  In August, the United Auto Workers’ Bob King declared his intent to “shame” companies that do not accept his “Principles for Fair Union Elections.” While eyes rolled throughout the labor relations community, most withheld comment, opting to wait and see what King had up his festooned sleeve. Well, the wait is over.

Because King’s “principles” were unilaterally conjured up in some back office at the UAW’s HQ (or on one of the UAW’s fairways), and given the hints of doom and gloom if an employer did not comply, many never really expected the UAW’s principles to be necessarily fair or principled. As a result, when the UAW officially issued its “principles” on Monday, the Union of Ailing Workplaces UAW did not surprise anyone with its wrong-headedness. In fact, not only did Bob King keep the basic tenets of the failed Employee Free Choice Act in place, he’s taken it even further.

The UAW’s “Principles for Fair Union Elections” [view PDF here] is a series of 11 mostly one-sided and seemingly innocuous guidelines, a few of which are harmless, a few that are superfluous, and several which strike at the heart of an employer’s property and free speech rights. (more…)

Congressman John Kline [R-MN] has been one of the House of Representatives’ most vocal opponent of SEIU’s labor board appointee, Craig Becker, as well as a vocal defender of workers’ right to choose by secret-ballot whether or not to become unionized. In that role, he has stood strong against union bosses as they have worked to strip workers right to a secret-ballot through passage of the job-destroying (and delusionally dubbed) Employee Free Anti-Choice Act.

On Wednesday, showing the change in leadership that will begin in January, Republican named Kline to be the Chairman of the House Education & Labor Committee. The HEL committee is the House committee that must approve issues affecting union elections (like EFCA). Upon being stated for the committee, Kline stated:

“Job creation and American competitiveness are vital national priorities. As Chairman, I will ensure they are at the forefront of the Education and Labor Committee agenda.”

Given the five year push by union bosses to rid employees of their right to vote by secret-ballot, as well as this week’s NLRB decision institutionalizing card-check by collusion, Kline and his fellow Republicans are well suited to re-introduce the Secret Ballot Protection Act. (more…)

It’s no secret that Democrats and organized labor have long shared a love affair that’s lasted for decades and burns even stronger under the Obama administration.  As more and more legislation has been enacted over the years in the interest of protecting workers, including state and federal safety and environmental regulations, voluntary union membership in the private sector has decreased.  Yet, public sector unions have grown under big government policies.  And they continue to grow.

Creating union jobs has become far less of a worker protection issue and far more a political tool for vote pandering.  With 12% of the overall workforce, labor union leaders invest their members’ dues in Democrats and rally their members to turnout at the polls and check off the box for those candidates.  Democrats in turn reward the unions with bigger government – more public sector jobs, more government projects, more schools and other facilities…more spending means more union dues.  And more union dues means more money to spend on political campaigns.  And so the cycle goes.  All too often, big government is a reflection of special interest paybacks, not of well-intended policy.

But for the other 88% of us equally hard working Americans who, primarily by our own choice, are NOT union members, where does that leave us?  Usually, with more taxes and without much of a voice.  And nowhere near as much voting power as Big Labor has amassed over all these years.

But all that is about to change, thanks to The Concord Project.  Finally, a tool for liberty-loving Americans that’s sure to bring out the community organizer in all of us.  And give the average voter a fighting chance against powerful unions and overbearing lefty groups during election season. (more…)

Grandpa Wouldn’t Recognize Today’s Unions.

Nationwide, as many Americans have begun to see, unions have become one of the largest special interest groups in the nation—and often at the expense of taxpayers and, in many cases, other workers. As unions have moved more into politics, this transition from building unions for workers to building a progressive political party to “reorder America’s priorities” has left many union members wondering whether their unions have been hijacked for purposes outside of the betterment of the workplace.  As more and more politicians get bought off by union bosses, it certainly seems clear that today’s unions are more about building a ‘progressive’ political movement than representing many of their members’ interests.

In all, unions collect over $13 billion dollars per year in union dues and fees from workers, the majority of whom have no choice but to pay the union or be fired from their jobs.  Once the money leaves the workers’ pockets, though, union bosses are pretty much free to use the money how they see fit.  For example, in addition to paying themselves and their staffs, union bosses also take the money and spend an astronomical amount of money pushing their progressive agenda.

While hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on direct political activities and lobbying, unions also spend hundreds of millions on funding shadowy groups to push for things like nationalized health care, the job-killing Employee Free Choice Act (which effectively eliminates workers’ right to a secret-ballot election), as well as the effort to nationalize America’s retirement system.

Despite the use of union dues being used with little input from the workers themselves, throughout the country, there are cracks beginning to appear in the more “progressive” (read: socialist) union bosses’ veneer.  As union bosses have pushed open borders and the legalization of illegal immigrants as a means of replenishing their depleted ranks, some have taken exception.

(more…)

It’s truly fascinating, and not the least bit ironic, when union bosses treat their own workers as bad or worse than the employers they attack.

As union bosses clamor for enactment of so-called “card check,” (otherwise known as Employee Free Choice Act), it seems that when confronted with union issues among their own employees, they act every bit as barbaric as the robber barons of yore.

In a move of stunning hypocrisy, the United Federation of Teachers axed one of its longtime employees — for trying to unionize the powerful labor organization’s own workers, it was charged yesterday.

Jim Callaghan, a veteran writer for the teachers union, told The Post he was booted from his $100,000-a-year job just two months after he informed UFT President Michael Mulgrew that he was trying to unionize some of his co-workers.

“I was fired for trying to start a union at the UFT,” said a dumbfounded Callaghan, who worked for the union’s newsletter and as a speechwriter for union leaders for the past 13 years.

[snip]

Callaghan said that yesterday morning, he was hauled into a meeting with UFT officials, including CFO David Hickey, and told only that he was being fired from his job and had a half-hour to clear out of the office.

“They gave me no reason, no letter, no cause at all,” said Callaghan, who insisted that he has received no reprimands or notices about problems with his work. He noted that he wrote six stories in the most recent newsletter for teachers.

Callaghan said the union-busting bullying continued after he was told he was fired, when UFT leaders called in a detail of six uniformed cops to remove him from his office because he wasn’t leaving fast enough.

Callaghan said he decided to unionize the 12 UFT writers after a colleague was fired last year without cause.

“We have no protections and no disciplinary process,” he said.

While the UFT is an example of the hypocrisy that permeates the union movement, it is only one case out of many over the years.

(more…)

Somewhere lurking in the hot, putrid halls of Congress this summer is a union bailout bill of epic proportions and long-term ramifications.   Whether or not Democrats can ultimately push it (or something like it) into passage is yet to be determined. However, with rumors that Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) signed on as a co-sponsor on Thursday, it would appear that the union bailout is quietly creeping along.  If it passes, though, its ramifications surpass the mere $165 billion-plus price tag, as it will influence the political landscape for decades to come.  In sum, Democrats need the bailout desperately and Republicans should shun it like the plague.

Likely to surpass the touted $165 billion it is estimated to cost, Create Jobs and Save Benefits Act (S. 3157) was introduced on March 23rd by Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) and is designed to bailout unions’ underfunded pension funds by transferring the liability of those funds onto the backs of the taxpayers.

Under these bills, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) would, at the request of the plans, have the authority to take over the pension obligations of employers who have withdrawn from the plans, and pay the benefits out of taxpayer dollars, says Furchtgott-Roth:

• Once the PBGC shoulders that obligation, it would keep making payments until the last retiree or designated survivor dies.
• Since many multiemployer plans are in financial difficulty, this legislation, if enacted, could dramatically increase the federal deficit, putting even more pressure on the American taxpayer and the economy.
• Depending on events, it might add billions to government spending — current underfunding levels are estimated at $165 billion-bumping up future deficits.

According to a June 24th article published in the Bureau of National Affairs Construction Labor Report (subscription required):

If enacted into law, the bill would convert a private funding shortfall for collectively bargained multi-employer plans into a public obligation, said Brett McMahon, vice president of Miller and Long Concrete Construction and an ABC member.

The legislation would transfer a portion of multiemployer pension funding obligations to a new insurance program that would be operated by the PBGC and paid for with taxpayer dollars instead of employer-paid premiums, F. Vincent Vernuccio, a spokesman for the trade group’s advocacy organization, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said during the call.

At the heart of the union pension problem are companies that, in many cases, agreed to put retirement money for union workers into “multi-employer plans” but have since gone out of business. As the unionized workers in multi-employer plans are still entitled to a pension, the remaining employers are left funding the pensions of workers who, in many cases, they never employed.

(more…)

This week brought inauspicious news: more union members work for the government than work in the private sector, “despite there being 5 times more wage and salary workers in the private sector.”***

Because of globalization, safer workplaces, Social Security, the ability to save for one’s own retirement through 401k plans, and a better-educated, more mobile workforce, only 7.2 percent of workers in the private workforce have chosen to join a union.

Compare that to the world of government employment, where there is no employer to tell people why a union might not be best for them (we’re the employer, but we’re a little busy with our day jobs) and you get 37.4 percent of government workers paying dues. All told, that’s 7.9 million that we pay and 7.4 million paid by people who actually create wealth.

(more…)

In their first year in office, the Obama Administration has re-made the U.S. Department of Labor into the Department of Organized Labor, working hard to make certain that those who spent hundreds of millions of dollars to put them in office get a return on their investment.  While many dismiss the importance of the Department of Labor, virtually every person in America is directly touched by the rules and regulations that this federal bureaucracy creates and enforces, so changes at the top have real consequences for every working American.

As we evaluate the impact of the past year on the nation’s workforce, it is worthwhile to remember the accomplishments of President Bush’s Secretary of Labor, Elaine L. Chao.

When Secretary Chao left office, workers were safer in their workplaces than at any time in history, the Labor Department was focused upon encouraging private sector job creation, and created an enforcement environment that successfully protected workers from employers who egregiously violated the law while providing the necessary education to limit inadvertent violations.

Secretary Chao put an emphasis on clarifying workplace regulations to make it easier for employers to know the rules of the game.  Her efforts led to overtime requirements being more clear-cut for employers while explicitly guaranteeing overtime protections for blue collar workers, police and fire fighters, EMTs, construction workers and others.

The Labor Department under Secretary Chao brought transparency to the spending of Big Labor through regulations which for the first time shined a light upon labor union expenditures.  These reports revealed the massive labor expenditures supporting ACORN’s efforts,and were used by LA Times reporter Paul Pringle in his Polk Award winning series that brought down the SEIU powerbrokers in the California SEIU.

(more…)

SEIU President Andy Stern, took a couple of minutes to discuss with us recent developments in the Health Care debate, his support for a public option in the bill and the mistakes committed by ACORN.

According to the Wall Street Journal, a rival union to the Service Employees International Union is alleging the purple juggernaut “with changing ballots and threatening to report a worker to immigration officials,” which “experts say the feud is a costly and embarrassing distraction for unions as they lobby Congress to pass” legislation known as card check, which would allow for intimidation of workers.

BigGovernment.com has more on SEIU here and TheTruthAboutEFCA.com adds:

(more…)

Courtesy of TheTruthAboutEFCA.com

Yesterday, Rep. Mark Kirk offered a great illustration of the relationship between ACORN and SEIU. A part of that chart is worthy of a further look: The relatively unknown story of how SEIU and ACORN took their act from Illinois Southward to mess with Texas and allegedly threatened to kill one man’s business because he wouldn’t toe the union line.

Most people know that unions haven’t done as well in the South as in industrialized (and economically troubled) Northern states such as Illinois and Michigan. So, in 2006 SEIU decided it would bring its brand of “justice for janitors” to Houston to set up a new foothold in the South.

(more…)