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.

Since the card-check method of unionization denies individuals of their right to vote by secret ballot, requiring only a majority of a specific group’s signatures, unionization will be easy.

As unions like the SEIU know how to easily rig card-check campaigns, it is likely that the SEIU will concentrate getting signatures in high density areas, while ignoring the more rural areas.

Once the SEIU obtains the majority, it can claim all of the individuals and, shortly thereafter, begin collecting their dues.

And who is overseeing this process for Governor Malloy? Why, the SEIU, of course.

According to Janowski:

Dennis Murphy, deputy commissioner of the Department of Labor, will chair both working groups. Murphy is the former director of human resources in Stamford where Malloy was mayor. He also served as director of human resources and chief administrative officer in Bridgeport.

According to his LinkedIn profile, Murphy worked as a staff attorney for the union NAGE/IBPO during the 1980s.

Note: NAGE/IBPO are subsidiaries of the SEIU.

Janowski notes that the SEIU has already created a brochure/card for daycare providers. Above the signature line, in fine print, the SEIU’s card states:

I hereby authorize the SEIU Local 2001 as my exclusive representative for the purposes of collective bargaining. I understand the SEIULocal 2001 may request recognition from the State of Connecticut or the appropriate subdivision of the state to represent me in bargaining with respect to rates, benefts, and other terms and conditions of my work as a child care provider.

As stated above, once the SEIU collects a majority of signed cards, all of the individuals in the classification will be unionized and the SEIU can begin collecting tax-payer funded union dues.

Connecticut residents who object to this scheme may contact the governor’s office at:

CONNECTICUT STATE CAPITOL
210 CAPITOL AVENUE
HARTFORD, CT 06106

TEL: (860) 566-4840
TOLL-FREE: (800) 406-1527
TDD: (860) 524-7397
FAX: (860) 524-7395

Or, since Malloy likes the #OccupyMovement so much, perhaps daycare workers (and taxpayers) who object to unionization may want to #Occupy the governor’s union meeting on Friday?

______________

“Socialism has no place in the hearts of those who would secure the fight for freedom and preserve democracy.” Samuel Gompers, 1918

Image credit.

[Emphasis added.]

Cross-posted on LaborUnionReport.com and RedState.com

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).

Contrary to disingenuous mainstream media and liberal Democrat rhetoric, this Sleight of Hand from the Rogue NLRB has nothing to do with protecting employee rights, social justice or protecting the middle class. In fact, it will provide Big Labor the ability to do just the opposite by providing it with the tools to intimidate employees into signing union cards well before petitioning for an election, while removing employer ability to educate employees by shortening the election process to 10 days or less. This will virtually eliminate the employer’s ability to expose its employees to the truth that just because they signed a union card doesn’t mean they have to vote union during the secret ballot election as vividly detailed in The Devil at My Doorstep.

The truth is, this is much less about the rights of employees to organize than it is about the president winning the 2012 election, the future survival of the big labor Gasping Dinosaurs, and the redefining of America into a socialistic form of government.

However, the NLRB Putsch could have a monkey wrench thrown into its plans by the lone remaining Republican NLRB board member, Mr. Brian Hayes. In a recent letter to Congressman Kline, Chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, Mr. Hayes indicated that he has been removed from the regulatory process, and that he may resign or boycott the vote to eliminate the chance of passage on Wednesday (see NLRB Member Hayes Details Outrageous Pearce Strong-Arming on Quickie Election Rules, Hayes Letter to Cline and Chairman Pearce Response to Member Hayes).

The circus continued when Big Labor lover and beneficiary California Congressman George Miller took Hayes to task concerning his threats to resign and incapacitate the board (see Representative Miller Weighs In On Potential Hayes Resignation and Miller’s Letter to Hayes). Congressman Miller is well aware the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that two members alone lacked the legal authority to issue new regulations, which would obviously derail the president and his appointees ruling if Hayes decided to take such action, an action Hayes needs to take if we are to avoid Rule by Fiat and the associated massive loss of jobs/high unemployment.

When Will Congress and the Main Stream Media Wake Up and ask “Why are Businesses Sitting on the Sidelines?” They must realize, before it is too late, that this President and his backers are not interested in Restoring America’s Prosperity, but fundamentally changing it to a socialist/communist state. His biggest Big Labor backers such as the SEIU have been involved in rallies that raise the question, is Communism at the Highest Levels?

We must act before Becker’s NLRB Forces Unionization through Administrative Action. Please do your part and Click to Contact your Elected Officials NOW! Ask them to request Hayes to step down before Wednesday’s vote so that we may stop the Administration’s agenda. Such action is necessary to reign in the Rogue NLRB and this Administration’s destructive path towards socialism. Remember the cold war is now from within and America’s future and soul depends on all Americans understanding that The Problem with Socialism is Socialism.

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.

In addition, as it has largely fallen upon the union extremists at the NLRB to make it easier for union bosses to unionize companies on, the NLRB has been busy reinterpreting cases for their union handlers.

In late June, over two consecutive days, both the Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board issued proposed rule changes to effectively neuter employer opposition to unionization. While the Department of Labor’s proposed rules have wider implications than most realize, it has been the NLRB’s ambush election proposal that has drawn the most criticism.

Under the NLRB’s proposed rules, as opposed to the current 38 days, employers may end up facing union elections in as little as ten to 21 days following a union’s filing to hold an election. Since unions already win 68% of the NLRB elections, the union-NLRB proposal is certain to produce even greater unions wins—and more dues for union bosses.

The Solution. Pass the Secret Ballot Protection Act [H.R. 972 and S. 217].

Introduced in the Senate back in January by Jim DeMint [R-SC] and the House in March by Rep. Phil Roe [R-TN], the Secret Ballot Protection Act would ensure that employees have a right to decide on the question of unionization through a secret ballot. More importantly, it would end, once and for all, the deceptive practice of card check which gives union organizers the ability to trick workers into signing their rights over to a union.

Given the current debate over the NLRB’s proposed rules to hold ambush elections, a simple sentence can be added to the bill that states: No election shall take place within 35 days following the filing of a petition, nor on a date to exceed 56 days following the filing of a petition.

By inserting a sentence into the Secret Ballot Protection Act that establishes specific timetables, this would negate management’s alleged stalling during certification elections, as well as negate union stalling during decertification elections.

If there were to be challenges to the specific bargaining unit, as is the case today, the parties would have ample time to state its position to the NLRB, as well as file appeals within that time frame.

As stated by one of the witnesses at the NLRB’s “open meeting” on Monday:

“It is patently unfair to make it virtually impossible for an employer to present the other side of the organizers’ pitch,” said Brett McMahon, a vice president of Miller and Long Construction, a large nonunion contractor in the Washington area. “What is to fear from a fully engaged presentation of the facts from the employer’s perspective?”

Even though they already win a vast majority of NLRB elections, unions would prefer to have no opposition at all. However, given unions’ dismal track record at driving businesses out of business, employers (and their employees) do have a stake in the outcome of union elections.

As a result, it doesn’t take partisanship to come up with something that is fair for employees and the Secret Ballot Protection Act, along with a simple sentence inserted, is the vehicle that can provide a bipartisan solution for all stakeholders.

_________________

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

X-posted.

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.

Among those that would be caught up in this bureaucratic quagmire could be PR firms who provide PR services, websites, or videos to counter union corporate campaigns, video production companies, firms that produce websites, or other multi-media presentations, human resource firms that institute or facilitate round table meetings or design personnel policies or practices for positive employee relations, law firms or associations who offer seminars on remaining union free, as well as polling firms that conduct employee satisfaction surveys [see page 147].

As strange as it may seem for President Obama’s Department of Labor to classify and require individuals and companies who measure or recommend help make improvements in the workplace to file as and disclose their fees, it is nothing more than an effort to enable unions access to company expenditures while making it more difficult to obtain labor and employee relations services.

Like the intent behind the proposed DISCLOSE Act, unions want to be able to shut down free speech for employers to make it easier to target them.

Before the Department of Labor’s rule-making proposal is goes into effect, the public can submit comments online at http://www.regulations.gov. The deadline for comments is Aug. 22. If you are opposed to this union assault on America’s job creators, you can not only make your comments known with the Department of Labor, you can also contact your representatives in Congress.

National Labor Relations Board Continues Terrorizing Business

More than a year since the delusionally-dubbed Employee Free Choice Act (aka Card Check) dies an ignominious and deserved death, the union-controlled National Labor Relations Board announced on Tuesday that it is seeking comments on its proposed rule making to make it easier to unionize companies.

The rule change the NLRB is proposing to change is to turn union representation elections into “quickie elections”—from the current 38 to42-day elections that occur now to elections that take place in as little as 10 to 21 days. In his dissent, lone Republican NLRB member Brian Hayes noted:

…[B]y administrative fiat in lieu of Congressional action, the Board will impose organized labor’s much sought-after “quickie election” option, a procedure under which elections will be held in 10 to 21 days from the filing of the petition.  Make no mistake, the principal purpose for this radical manipulation of our election process is to minimize, or rather, to effectively eviscerate an employer’s legitimate opportunity to express its views about collective bargaining.

As unions currently win nearly 70% of NLRB elections, an expedited (or “quickie”) election process is expected to increase the union win rate substantially. Former NLRB member Peter Kirsanow explains:

Make absolutely no mistake: That’s not enough time for even the largest and most sophisticated employers to counter what the union has been telling employees while organizing them for the last 6–8 months.

In addition to “quickie elections,” the union extremists controlling the National Labor Relations Board are also proposing that unions be given names, addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of eligible voters within two days once an election has been set up. [Currently, unions are only given eligible voters' names and addresses seven days after an election is set up.]

Moreover, the employer would be forced to provide to produce a preliminary voter list, including names, work location, shift, and classification, by the opening of the pre-election hearing.  The NLRB also proposes limiting parties’ (read: employers’) right to appeal cases.

Like the Department of Labor’s announced assault, the NLRB is also seeking public comment on its rules.

According to Labor Relations Today:

The Board invites comments on its proposed rulemaking in two ways. First, the Board is holding a public hearing scheduled for July 18 and possibly July 19. Second, it is providing a 60-day period for written comments, with 14 days for replies, that may be submitted electronically though Regulations.gov or by mail to the Board’s Washington D.C. headquarters.

Regardless whether you’re an employer or an employee, you have a stake in this.

As we’ve witnessed in Wisconsin and elsewhere, unions are desperately trying to cling to their power and using the government to do so.  Take the time to contact your representative in Congress.

You can also contact the House Education & Workforce Committee here.

_________________

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

Cross-posted.

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.

I am in fact a Washington University student.  I needed three more credits for my degree, and I chose to pick them up at UMSL.  When I saw “Introduction to Labor Studies” in the course catalog, I expected a fairly straightforward class about unions, their internal structure, and their relationship to management.  I signed up because I have always been fascinated by unions, and nothing similar was ever offered at Wash U.

After the first day of class, I realized I had gotten myself into something entirely different than what I had expected.  It seemed almost as though I had signed up for some informal Labor Club whose goal was to share complaints about the American political system in a casual manner.  In my opinion, the atmosphere was not one of a credit-worthy course at an established public university.

The time had passed, however, for me to find a new class, so I decided I would suffer through it. I reasoned that even if I was not going to learn much from the class, I would at least be able to learn from the textbook, and perhaps obtain some sort of worthwhile knowledge in return for my investment.

The textbook turned out to be anything but an unbiased source. The book was called Why Unions Matter by Michael Yates, editor of the socialist magazine, Monthly Review. I thought that surely a textbook book had to be published by some sort of university press or notable textbook publisher before being made the sole text of the class.  Instead, I discovered that the book was published by the Monthly Review Press, the publishing arm of the author’s own socialist magazine!  The magazine describes itself as follows:

From the first Monthly Review spoke for socialism and against U.S. imperialism, and is still doing so today…. In the subsequent global upsurge against capitalism, imperialism and the commodification of life (in shorthand “1968”) Monthly Review played a global role. A generation of activists received no small part of their education as subscribers to the magazine and readers of Monthly Review Press books. In the intervening years of counter-revolution, Monthly Review has kept a steady viewpoint. That point of view is the heartfelt attempt to frame the issues of the day with one set of interests foremost in mind: those of the great majority of humankind, the propertyless.

You can imagine the kind of knowledge that I gained from such a source, but allow me to remove all doubt with a few quotes:

An entire television network, Fox, spreads pro-business and anti-labor propaganda twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. (p. 132)

First, the Republican and Democratic parties are most obviously allied with and subservient to the most powerful employers in the nation.  The Republicans may seem to be more ruthless in their willingness to obey the dictates of capital, but the Democrats, in practice, are no different…[S]ince they are perceived as more liberal than they are, they are able to get away with more vicious attacks on workers. (p. 133)

If labor ties its star to the Democratic Party, it is tying itself to its class enemy. (p. 133)

Over the last ten years, especially during the administration of George W. Bush, our government has been increasingly under the thumb of corporate interests. (p. 12)

The AFL-CIO actively rejected the Republican Party’s Contract with America, which threatened vital social services. Its research department developed good materials that exposed the bogus statistics and analysis on which it was based. (p. 12)

Large numbers [of Mexican immigrants] have come to the United states intensifying competition in some labor markets, allowing employers to divide and conquer their workforces, and giving an excuse for xenophobes like CNN’s Lou Dobbs to foment anti-immigrant hysteria, which helps to keep domestic workers from seeing that it is their employers (and the employers’ allies in government) that are their true enemies. (p. 12)

In general terms, the employer must come to be understood as the class enemy of the workers, one that can only be defeated if workers stick together, acting as if an injury to one is an injury to all. (p. 64)

All of these assertions were made without presenting a shred of evidence or data.  The book made very little effort to hide the fact that it was a piece of political propaganda, and not an academic text.  Nonetheless, the professors saw no problem with making it the sole text for the entire class.

The story gets worse.  The assignments for the class were bizarre, to say the least.  While I was expecting tests and quizzes about facts such as labor history and law, our entire grade was based on our completion of opinion papers about very political issues.

Our first assignment was to interview people and then write a letter to Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, providing answers to questions such as: “What is it going to take to convince younger, future workers that belonging to and supporting a union’s organizing effort is in their best socio-economic interest?” and “What do unions have to do to strengthen their existing ranks and solidify the current union members’ support for the labor movement.”

The next assignment concerned the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA)–popularly known as “card check.”  After reading in Yates’ book about EFCA, we were instructed to write a letter to our U.S. senators and representatives about our position on the bill. Since our only materials were Yates’s very one-sided account of the legislation, and the professors’ similarly one-sided account, how could any student be expected to produce a different position? It is unclear whether or not our letters were actually sent to Washington, D.C, but given the determination of the professors, I wouldn’t be surprised if our letters had been bundled up and were en route right now.

Another assignment was to evaluate unions’ political strategy “supporting its political friends and defeating its political enemies.”  The syllabus said: “Based upon both its economic support and campaign support, [labor] has given to primarily Democratic and some Republicans has Labor benefited legislatively sufficiently to continue this political approach or should it seek to establish its own political party as suggested by Yates in Why Unions Matter.” (Try, for a moment, to forgive the professors’ egregious syntax.)

That assignment was due the week following the class in which Prof. Giljum had discussed at length his membership in the Communist Party.  He said he had joined because, in his words, “the American Communist Party was essentially the only party political group that was seriously focusing exclusively on the working class and labor issues and the rights of workers.” He added that one of the political goals of the Communist Party was to “recapture that party [i.e. the Democratic Party] and have it merge with ours.”

Prof. Giljum then introduced Tony Pecinovsky, a local organizer for the Communist Party, who proceeded to speak to us for two hours about the beliefs of the Communist Party and the benefits of membership.  That’s right–the Communist Party was allowed two hours of publicly subsidized class time to recruit. Thank you, Missouri taxpayers!

Mr. Pecinovsky, who has worked in the past for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), informed us about legislation that is pending in the state legislature.  He said: “Here in Missouri, the Republicans who control the house and the senate are trying to push through a number of pieces of legislation that would really, really devastate Missourians.”  He then informed us that State Senator Jane Cunningham (R) was “crazy.” Pecinovsky also described the dues requirements and initiation procedures of the Communist Party, and gave out his phone number several times, offering to stay as long as anyone wanted to talk to him about joining.

Prof. Ancel acknowledged that joining the Communist Party could cost students their future security clearances, make them less desirable to future employers, and potentially put them on federal watch lists.  Still, she and Prof, Giljum invited this organization into class to recruit.  Call me crazy, but I thought universities and professors were supposed to help students become more appealing to employers, not hook them up with questionable organizations that by their own admission could cost students their future livelihood.

In the same vein, the professors frequently used the class to mock and cajole Republicans and conservative policies.  In one lecture, Prof. Ancel put up as part of the class notes a cartoon showing Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi saying, “I don’t believe in collective bargaining either.”  She went on to compare Wisconsin’s Republican governor, Scott Walker, to a repressive authoritarian seeking to emulate dictators and fascists in their “repression of labor.” She then put up another cartoon called “Republican Workplace Bill of Rights,” which showed a number of employees gagged, blindfolded, and handcuffed. In another lecture, she blamed conservatives for what she perceived as media bias against unions, and stated: “The Republican party has done a great job of reducing class to a bunch of tastes, and demonizing liberals because their taste is different from ‘rednecks.’”

Another slide of notes labeled all of the following concepts as “anti-worker attacks”: elimination of collective bargaining for public sector workers, restriction of bargaining and political activities of public sector workers, restriction of what public sector workers can bargain about, the introduction of merit pay, and the elimination of tenure.  (Because, you know, when you don’t have tenure, you can actually be fired for turning classes into political indoctrination courses).

I have attended many political science classes, taught by some of the best political scientists in the country, at Washington University.  Labeling complex pieces of legislation as “anti-worker attacks,” and using political cartoons as lecture notes, is not political science; it is partisan politics and pure propaganda. Credible political scientists are supposed to be able to tell the difference; these professors did not and perhaps could not.

Prof. Ancel presented students with a distorted view of economic history. In one lecture, for example, she told students: “I would argue that fascism absolutely means capitalism, that’s part of the definition [of fascism].” The professors both took a keen interest in the (ultimately unsuccessful) efforts of public sector unions to block Walker’s labor reforms. At one point, Prof. Giljum showed students a live feed of rallies around the state capitol in Madison, WI–and, ironically, broadcast Andrew Breitbart’s Tea Party speech directly into the classroom, followed by that of “Joe the Plumber,” whom Ancel mocked. She described the the protests against Walker’s bill as “a wonderful, welcome thing to see.”

As if indoctrinating students were not enough, the professors dedicated considerable class time to activities that can only be described as training students in tactics to fight the right-to-work legislation that is currently pending in the Missouri state legislature.  An entire day,was devoted to organizing students against right-to-work legislation. Our training included a lecture on tactics from  Jerry Tucker, who Prof. Giljum introduced as the “point person for the UAW’s 1978 Anti-Right to Work campaign.” Much like Tony Pecinovsky, Tucker had nothing of academic value to offer the class. His insights were meant to help us shape a successful campaign against right-to-work in Missouri today. He spent several hours discussing political tactics and strategies, and speculating as to what would be the most appropriate strategies for labor unions and their allies to deploy.

His speech was followed by a lesson by Prof. Ancel on how conservatives have “framed” the right-to-work issue, and a class activity where we were told to “re-frame” right-to-work from the perspective of the working class. She even provided a slide suggesting talking points to use in “state battles” against right-to-work in Missouri and elsewhere. She explicitly told students to describe right-to-work legislation as “payback for CEOs giving money to politicians, OK. So the Republicans and their deep-pockets backers are rewarding the corporations for having put them in office.”

By this point, you should be thoroughly convinced that this public university class was being used for explicitly political purposes. That fact alone should be enough to persuade most reasonable people that something must be done to address how classes are being taught within the University of Missouri system.  This abuse of power and authority by Prof. Ancel and Prof. Giljum, however, was not the most outrageous feature of the class.

On the first day, there was a discussion about the tactic of a sit-down strike, in which union members occupy a plant in order to prevent their replacement, and to hold the property of the business owner hostage.  When I asked Prof. Giljum why workers wouldn’t be prosecuted for doing that, he laughed and said:

Negotiations.  I mean the–there’s nothing that would prevent them from pressing charges other than making it a condition of the agreement. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be an agreement, and the sit-down strike would not end, and your equipment could ultimately be destroyed. And how much money does a group of workers in a union have, OK? That’s what is key here. A lot of the tactics I’ve used with employers, you know, they’ve got a right to sue us, but Jesus Christ, you know, suing our union is like maybe picking up one hour of production, OK?  It’s going to cost them a hell of a lot more than what they are going to get in return.  So what they really need is their property back.  They need their equipment back so that they can be profitable.  If it’s gone and they sue us, they’re not going to be able to replace their property. Not with something like that, OK?  And often times your insurance policies, unless you take out specific strike violence policies and things like that, aren’t going to cover their equipment and that when it’s (waves hands) as a result of a labor dispute. Most of the time there’s exceptions to that in their insurance and that. So those are why.  And again, personally to this day, and you know, again, the things that led up to accomplishing legislative change and reform in this country that were positive for labor weren’t done through legal methods, OK? (Laughs).  They were done by violating the law.  Even this, after the passage of the Wagner Act, you still had to bring people along, kicking and hollering, to comply with it, OK.  And it required taking property over, which then and now is illegal because, what is it?  It’s trespassing. All right? But, I can tell you, nothing gets an employer to respond better, especially one where you’ve got facilities, large facilities like that still today.  And I had this with Ameren [company supplying power in Missouri and Illinois] in the negotiations.  I told my guys and put the word out… ‘Start bringing supplies in. I want you to start stocking up your shops with foods, with all kinds of bedding equipment, stuff like that, in preparation for a work stoppage.  You know, and they kept scratching their head saying, ‘What the hell are these guys doing?  They’re bringing all this crap in here. They’re bringing televisions in. They’re bringing radios in. They’re bringing all this stuff to work and unloading it here. What the hell’s going on?’  Well then one of them realized: ‘Oh shit! We’re going to have a hell of a time getting these guys out of here.’  You know? And I got a call, [and he] said: ‘You know, what you’re doing is  –will be illegal?’ and I said, ‘So what?  I don’t give a shit! Sue me! Arrest me! I don’t care! I could use a break. I could use a vacation.’  OK? So, but then what happened is when they realized that, well, this ain’t going to work, [they said] ‘Okay, let’s negotiate, let’s resolve the dispute,’ because now they’ve got some real skin in the game….  You have to be able to do that, you know, the strike itself anymore is useless.  Once you go out and you go on strike, generally the employer is going to continue operation, they’re going to bring people in, they’re going to get enough security to protect their property and protect the replacement workers, and it’s useless, so what you’ve gotta do is create other alternatives.  Even the threat of a strike is greater than the strike itself.  But you’ve got to do things during that period of time when you’re trying to threaten a strike.

It was clear to me that Giljum was not merely drawing from past examples, but from his ongoing experiences as a union leader.  He told students that these are the tactics they must use in order to be effective against employers.

So let’s be clear: Prof. Giljum was teaching tactics which are, by his own admission, illegal and destructive because, in his view, the ends justify the means.  Is it really the position of the University of Missouri that this sort of instruction is appropriate?

Giljum discussed tactics such as these numerous times throughout the semester.  In the third class, for example, the professors described various ways to strike.  Giljum then talked about actions that can be taken when unions do not have a credible strike threat. He said:

[I]f you don’t [have a credible strike ability], what can you do then to maximize your impact on the employer’s operation that can bring about pressure for them to make concessions to your proposals? That’s the key. You generally have to have a coordinated strategy between how you are going to approach negotiations at the table along with a membership action plan so as to bring that about. You know, an example right now.  You don’t have a credible strike threat, really within the electric utility industry, in the power houses, because employers can idle their units and transport power in from across the country and operate for months, and months, and months.  So that doesn’t become a viable threat.  However, taking control of their system is a viable threat, OK?  If they can’t get in there to idle or do things, you can really create some havoc.  So that’s why you look at, OK, ‘Let’s set it up to where we’re not going to go on strike, we’re going to strike in.  Everybody is going to lock the doors.  We’re going to slam the doors shut, we’re going to occupy and take over the plant, and we’re going to lock management out.”

You would think that Prof. Ancel, being the director of the Institute for Labor Studies at UMKC, would have taken that opportunity to say something along the lines of, “Hey Don, we at the University of Missouri aren’t in the business of teaching students to take over power plants when they don’t get their way.”

She, however, said nothing like that.  Instead, she interjected to tell her own tale about a friend in Peru who helped to destroy the power plant at which she worked by setting numerous feral cats free inside to short out the system.

But wait–there’s more.  In the fourth lecture, we learned about bargaining tactics.  Prof. Giljum, having bargained with many employers in the past, was able to draw from his experience in order to inform the students about some creative tactics that could be used to get employers emotionally invested in the negotiations.

He said:

You need to make the negotiations personal to the man across the table from you.  You’ve got to put a face to the demands and that, and to the demands he’s making on you to show you that these are not in the best interest of these people. Because, they’re going to want–that’s why you don’t have CEO’s at the table a lot of times.  They don’t want to–they can make the decisions in a vacuum, and they don’t have to see the consequences of them.  That’s why they put other people out there to do that for them. But in this case, we did have the CEO there at the table, so he could see what the consequences are.  We had to make him feel the concern and the anxiety that he was going to have to live with.  So we, you know, made all kinds of overtones about sabotaging the equipment, OK? We downloaded a lot of articles off of the Internet and laid them around the plant (Prof. Ancel laughs), about this equipment being sabotaged or that equipment being sabotaged. That’s all they were, nobody was doing anything.  (Prof. Ancel interjects: “You never said anything, did you?”) No, no! We just downloaded the articles and laid them out there, OK, for people to read. ‘Hey look at this article I found!’ You know?  It wasn’t us, it was members that would do that. We had a group of guys that would always end up at the same shopping center, at the same church as the CEO would on Sundays and that in the evenings. Wouldn’t say nothing, just kind of bump into the guy and say, ‘Hey, how you doing?” you know, that’s it, “How’s negotiations going?  Heard they’re not going too well.’  And then walk off, OK?  It got to a point where the guy became very paranoid, very concerned, when he would walk out into the plant he would wear a flak jacket and a helmet with a face guard on it because he was afraid of being shot.  I don’t know why, nobody did anything like that or threatened anything like that….. We had no bargaining power before that. As Judy said,  It’s a power struggle there.  They’ve got all the power, especially if you’ve got people who aren’t willing to go on strike or be militant, so you’ve got to make it as if they look militant, OK?  You get a few guys to do a few things and that’s it. Very mundane, very quiet things, very non-threatening things…

So let’s recap.  In our lesson on bargaining we learned that we should use fear and intimidation–which Prof. Giljam falsely described as “mundane” and “non-threatening”–to play on the emotions of management.  We were told that we should frighten a man to the point where he is so afraid for his life that he wears body armor at work.  And all the while we were learning these profound academic insights, Prof. Ancel was heard in the background laughing, just tickled pink at the idea of terrifying management by making one’s union appear more militant than its workers actually want it to be.

I will give one more example.  In the sixth class, we watched a movie about Memphis sanitation workers and the efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. before his life was cut short horrifically.  In the video, some of the civil rights leaders expressed impatience with non-violence. Following the film, there was an intense discussion about the propriety of the use of violent tactics as a means to accomplish unions’ political goals.  It was in that context that Prof. Ancel, now somewhat infamously, misquoted a person in the film by saying, “Violence is a tactic and it is in your toolbox of tactics.”  (The man in the film actually said, “Non-violence is a tactic.” Minor details!)  A student responded by pointing out several revolutions that would not have occurred without violence.  Ancel responded to that by saying, “Also, the CIO wouldn’t have made it either [without violence].”  There was more banter back and forth between students, and Prof. Giljum chimed in and said:

I think if you look at labor’s history over the years, you’ll find that, you know, we’ve had a very violent history, with violent protests, and reaction to suppression, OK, but as time has changed the tactics have changed or the need for those have changed, OK?  Now, you know, that’s not to say that in certain instances, strategically played out and for certain purposes, that industrial sabotage doesn’t have its place. I think it–it certainly does. But, as far as–you know, and I can’t really honestly say that I’ve never wished, or have never been in a position where I haven’t wished real harm on somebody, or inflicted any pain and suffering on some people (“We’re all human,” someone interjects) that, you know, didn’t ask for it, but, you know, it certainly has its place.  It certainly makes you feel a hell of a lot better sometimes, but beyond that I’m not sure as a tactic today, the type of violence or reaction to violence that we had back then would be called for here, and I think it would do more harm than good.

So there we have it.  At least at the end, Prof. Giljum was reasonable enough to deem looting and riots en masse as an ineffective approach to social change. Of course, the professors now point to the few caveats they applied, as above. Still, as I have demonstrated, at various junctures throughout the course, Prof. Giljum proudly endorsed industrial sabotage, the destruction of property, the use of fear and intimidation, and limited violence, “strategically played out.”  Prof. Ancel, was delighted when Prof. Giljum told these stories, and shared similar, second-hand anecdotes or histories.

The professors, however, seem to have the utmost respect for the law when it comes to the remote possibility that I may have violated a copyright in releasing the footage of our class. They have since said that whoever could do such a thing, in Prof. Ancel’s words, must be “part of a broad agenda to weaken unions and the public sector as well as public education,” and “to undermine the academic freedom that is required to study, better understand, and hopefully improve our conditions of life.”

Let me be clear: I am none of those things. Both my grandfathers were proud union men, and I respect their hard work, which provided my parents and my family with a comfortable lifestyle today.  I resent the fact that these professors’ irresponsible approach to this course has made legitimate union members appear ridiculous. I hold academic freedom as one of the most important tenets of our Constitutional Republic. It the stubborn unwillingness of radical professors like Prof. Ancel and Prof. Giljum to provide unbiased information from which students can freely draw their own conclusions that has really destroyed academic freedom in this country.

In fact, I believe, they are the real opponents of academic freedom. Prof. Ancel wants to make classes like hers “part of every school’s curriculum, certainly in our universities.” That kind of indoctrination is directly contrary to the mission of a university.

Concerning privacy, both the professors and students knew that they were being recorded and that their recordings were not only posted on the class website, but also broadcast simultaneously across the state.  To suggest that there was any reasonable expectation of privacy in the class is laughable.  The videos did not have a copyright mark on them, and at no point did the professors say that the videos could not be shared or ask students to sign a release. In fact, Prof. Ancel said: “All labor education materials are uncopyrighted and to be shared.  We do not believe for the most part in intellectual property rights.  That’s one of the principles of labor education: we share.”  Well, Prof. Ancel, by that standard, I guess I should get an A.

Around the nation, there have been similar reports in the past few days of university professors using their classrooms to push their students into left-wing politics. The University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, for example, has investigated a professor who told students to sign a petition demanding the recall of Republican governor Scott Walker. The chancellor of that university stated that students “should benefit in an unbiased, open-minded classroom where everyone is informed.” Incidentally, in our own classroom, both professors actively supported Gov. Walker’s recall as part of a broader political campaign. Prof. Ancel stated: “I heard that they can’t recall Scott Walker for a year after his election. So–so then we’re gonna see a recall petition on him, and hopefully they’ll keep this thing alive all the way to 2012.” And Prof. Giljum responded: “I hope so.”

UMKC Provost Gail Hackett holds that “A number of the clips [in Insurgent Visuals’s videos] were pulled out of context” and do not accurately portray what occurred in the class.  Insurgent Visuals is standing by their edits.  As interesting as that debate may be, in my view it distracts from the real issue at hand: the abuse of a public university classroom for far-left political organizing and indoctrination.

Today, UMSL has released a statement defending the course. It is shocking that the university, after watching the entire course, could conclude that nothing inappropriate had occurred.

The University of Missouri system needs to stop stalling with semantic debates and apologize for its abject failure of oversight in these classes. I hope that it will have the courage to admit that it made a mistake, and to take steps to ensure that classes will not be taught in this highly inappropriate manner in the future.

I believe that it is my obligation as a student, and an American, to expose what occurred in these classes.  People on the left, right, and center should be able to stand together and agree that public classrooms should not be used to teach activities that are criminal, or to promote the political causes and organizations that professors support.  Let us take this opportunity to put aside our individual differences and work together to ensure that students are taught legitimate material in an unbiased way.  I urge anyone who has taken the time to read this to take the next step and tell the university, their state legislators, and Governor Jay Nixon that the time to clean up Missouri’s college classrooms is now!

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.

“It’s unfortunate that the NLRB doesn’t think that years of harassment and pressure tactics by unions should be enough to trigger a true test of workers’ wishes–a secret ballot election. The NLRB seems intent on throwing out precedent in many other areas, it’s time they take a fresh look here.”

Robb Webb, the chief human resources officer with Hyatt, suspects the NLRB would have had a much different reaction if UNITE HERE had asked for the election.

“Although our request for elections has been denied, we believe the NLRB would have looked upon the matter differently if the leaders of UniteHere had agreed to a federally supervised election as they have nearly 300 times over the past five years, he said.  “We urge UniteHere to reconsider their decision, so that each of our associates can exercise their right to be heard by casting a ballot.

Clearly, union bosses have not given up on the idea of undermining the use of secret ballots, especially in those circumstances where it clear that employees would prefer to remain free of organized labor. The idea now for the left-leaning attorneys who dominate the NLRB to deliver administratively what could not be achieved legislatively even with Democratic majorities.

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.

The NLRB, the agency charged with overseeing union organizing efforts and investigating unfair labor practice charges for private sector workers, could potentially overstep its authority with a ruling that establishes “mini-unions,” Haynes, the Republican member, suggested in his dissent:

“I see no reason to embark on this ill-considered path at all, much less only a scant few months after the Board’s most recent rejection of the view that a unit consisting of all employees who do the same job at the same location is appropriate, without considering whether the interests of the group sought are sufficiently distinct from those of other employees to warrant the establishment of a separate unit. Further, while the Board has broad discretion to make law through case-by-case adjudication rather than through rulemaking, I believe my colleagues’ actions test, and likely will exceed, the limits of that discretion here. They are contemplating a broad revision of a test for determination of appropriate units in all industries under our jurisdiction—a test that has stood for at least 50 years.”

The Steelworkers and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) have previously pushed for rulemaking changes that would make it possible for any number of workers to unionize regardless of job classification. The concept was rejected during the Bush Administration, but it is evident that union officials remain committed to the concept.

“Nothing is as bad as card check,” James Sherk, a labor expert with the Heritage Foundation, said. “But this idea that the board should recognize unions that don’t represent a majority of workers should be a major point of concern. The idea here is to narrowly define bargaining units when organizers know they cannot get a majority of workers and it should not be permitted. The NLRB has been smacked down before and my suspicion here is that another court would have the final say.”

Glenn Spencer, executive director of the Workforce Freedom Initiative with the Chamber of Commerce, views the potential rule change as a payback to union bosses who invested heavily in the election of a Democratic president and a Democratic congress in 2008.

“This would give a major advantage to union organizing within nonunion companies,” he observed. “It is difficult to overstate how damaging this could be for the private sector and for business owners.”

The next deadline in the Specialty case comes on March 8 when public briefs from the Chamber of Commerce and other groups are due. The direct parties in the case then have until March 22 to reply. At that point, a decision could come at any time.