Above is the internal OLMS Regional Director meeting minutes that confirm what my source has been telling me. (PGHDO = Pittsburgh District Office)  What Lund is doing, is much more than fixing parking tickets; he is interfering with potentially serious criminal charges.

As Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) Director, Lund heads the office primarily responsible for criminal investigations regarding union embezzlement. A union’s failure to file its union financial disclosure report in a timely manner automatically prompts a series of actions taken by the DOL personnel. A financial report delinquent more than 90 days is usually followed-up personally by DOL investigators.  But, ‘former’ labor union consultant Lund has short-circuited normal procedures; he is literally telling union officials “not to deal with OLMS investigators” and “send the reports directly to” him.

The office Lund heads is responsible for investigating and reviewing union financial reports and union official conflict-of-interest disclosures. The office functions somewhat similar to the   Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) but for unions rather than businesses.

If you will, imagine Lund as an SEC Director, giving corporations the same instructions do “not to deal with SEC investigators, just deal with me directly.”   Congress and the Inspector General would rush to investigate, and the media would provide full coverage of every detail.  Speculation would be rife within the media, and generate frequent headlines.  The union officials who went see Lund would be under the microscope as well as their unions. Their financial records for the past decade would be reviewed and each questionable trip to Las Vegas or Australia would be questioned.

More importantly, union members and those forced to pay dues to these unions would likely be painted as victims that they are.  Perhaps the press would even look back at the last three years of union disclosure elimination that John Lund has orchestrated that has no benefit for the rank-and-file.  No, Lund has been systematically dismantling union financial disclosure and union boss conflict-of-interest reporting to the benefit of his union boss clients.

As OLMS Director, Lund wields the power to instigate, influence and/or shut down criminal investigations or union audits.  This kind of authority requires responsible oversight and unimpeachable ethical standards, which, it appears, are not being maintained, and thus destroying public confidence in the integrity of OLMS.

According to the official DOL minutes excerpted above, Lund is not only “directly” providing his personal services to delinquent union disclosure filers, but he has also instructed union officers “not to deal with OLMS investigators.”  If this does not violate federal employee ethics, then there are no federal employee ethics.

John Lund has betrayed the trust of the American public and the hard-working union members and forced-dues payers who never have a say in where their money goes and now may never know where it went.

Have we all become so jaded that we EXPECT this type of systemic corruption from a Big Labor consultants appointed to DOL positions?  Regardless, there is no reason to allow these allegations to go uninvestigated.   Union members and forced-dues payers are entitled to know what or who their hard-earned money is buying. The criminal justice system should not be subverted.

Until Lund’s actions were exposed two weeks ago, it was not certain that the White House knew about Lund’s unethical and possible criminal behavior.  If the White House had cared to confirm Lund’s behavior, it would have only taken one call to his DOL supervisor, or perhaps White House staff could have just asked Dick Trumka during their daily conversations.   We must infer from its inaction that the Obama Administration condones this misuse of federal oversight.

Congress must act quickly to thoroughly investigate these questionable activities at DOL.  When John Lund’s actions are combined with the past three years of OLMS regulatory changes; it is clear that DOL is concealing how forced dues are being spent by Big Labor bosses, with the Department’s late reporting insider treatment, conflicts-of-interest, union trust funds, and union receipts.

It is time for Big Labor Secretary Hilda Solis appear before Congress and defend her Department’s actions that benefit Big Labor Bosses at the expense of justice and the rank-and-file.  Will she admit that the Obama’s Ethics Executive Order is a joke and try to defend John Lund’s actions?  Or, will Congress finally call this Obama DOL to the carpet and let Solis know that there is a new Sheriff in town?

20111019 OLMS REgional DIrector Meeting Minutes

John Lund’s Conflicts-of-Interest

The Obama Ethics Executive Order requires appointees to pledge that they will refrain from involvement in matters involving their former employer or clients.  The AFL-CIO and other unions are former clients of John Lund , and these unions remain clients of his former and current employer, the University of Wisconsin School for Workers (Lund is currently on unpaid leave while at DOL).  The Wisconsin School for Workers’ primary mission is to train union officials; the very officials that Lund now purportedly investigates for corruption.

Lund currently attends conferences and union training meetings like he did while he was the School for Workers director — a U.S. Government employee on the taxpayers’ dime.  While at the conferences and meetings, he hands out business cards like candy to those he has federally-granted power over.  He tells these Big Labor bosses “If you have a problem come to me, and ignore the field investigators.” Why?  Because by going to Lund, union bosses can work out deals to avoid jail time or criminal charges.  He can personally advise them how to “clean up” their reports to avoid consequences.  On the other hand, if pesky Department of Labor investigators get involved, then government investigative records will be made, facts will be verified, and falsehoods will be documented.

Forced-dues-paying union members and voluntary members are getting the shaft by the Obama DOL, and Lund bears much of the responsibility.  He is helping union bosses by eliminating and reducing conflict-of-interest disclosure, and by reducing and eliminating union financial disclosures. These disclosure tools were put in place in 1959 to help union members regain control of their unions.

If you look at the Wisconsin School for Workers, you can see its classes indicate that a more appropriate name for John Lund’s other employer would be the Wisconsin School for Union bosses. Lund has shamelessly and flagrantly misused his government position to provide a personal service to his former union clients and to the current clients of the Wisconsin School for Workers. Lund’s kind of personal service is rarely provided by your federal government to mere mortals and everyday taxpayers.  But in the case of union officers who use forced dues to fund the Democrat party, Sec. Hilda Solis’ congressional campaigns, and her former office as the Treasurer of the American Rights at Work, the Department of Labor has been rolling out the red carpet.

Lund’s actions need to be investigated and any scheduled trips that Director Lund has planned to visit union conferences or meetings should be cancelled until completion of a full investigation into his conduct followed with appropriate sanctions against Director Lund.  In fact, he should refrain from contacting or taking calls from union bosses while he remains at DOL.

The Secretary of Labor or the Office of Government Ethics should prohibit Lund from attending events like this one described in our previous post on Lund:

Without regard to appearances, OLMS Director Lund continues to take time to provide training for his Big Labor friends.  On 2010 January 25, Lund flew, at government expense, to Seattle, WA, to provide the AFL-CIO’s Washington Labor Council members with a personal overview of his recent reporting rescissions.  The union headlined John Lund’s 3-hour presentation. At the Jan. 25 workshop, Lund will discuss the new regulations, the common reporting mistakes unions make and how to correct them, and answer your specific questions to ensure your LM reports are accurate.[i] OLMS maintains a District Office in Seattle, and its staff would have routinely provided this compliance assistance, rather than OLMS Director John Lund going out of his way to create this personal conflict-of-interest.

Congress needs to investigate this out-and-out abuse of power by Lund and the actions others at DOL. It is time to clean up this Administration, and if we can only start with a Big Labor puppet like John Lund, then I say we at least start now.

As reported by Tallahassee Democrat and Sunshine State News, after voicing her support for large federal programs, Solis warned, “I’ll be darned if I’m going to set that aside now because a few teabaggers want to somehow muzzle my voice,” Solis said. “We don’t have to sit back and allow a minority in the Congress, known as the tea party, to dominate the discussion in our households.”

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz echoed Solis’ sentiment, telling the crowd of Democratic partisans, “the unfortunate thing is that the problem, in fact, stems from a brutally fanatic right wing group of extremists, who put politics and ideology above principles and people.”

“These fanatics are destroying our state and our country and the contrast between their agenda and ours has never been more stark,” continued Wasserman Schultz.

The comments coming from the head of the Labor Department are striking because of the recent attacks from heads of unions on the Tea Party—this despite the fact that many union members are also members of the Tea Party.

While opening for President Obama at a Labor Day rally, Teamsters President James P. Hoffa declared war on the movement. The union head said that the Tea Party has “got a war, they got a war with us and . . . we’re going to win that war.” He added, “President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these son [sic] of bitches out and give [sic] America back to an America where we belong.”

Earlier this year, Secretary Solis made headlines after she admitted her bias toward unions at the Democratic National Committee’s winter meeting. After announcing the “fight is on” and pledging to aid unionized workers in Ohio, she told the DNC, “Admittedly, I am a little biased  . . . because  . . . I come from a union household.”

However, the Florida convention is not the first time prominent Democrats have gone after the Tea Party.

On August 22, Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.) told supporters in California (many dressed in purple SEIU t-shirts), “[As] far as I’m concerned, the ‘Tea Party’ can go straight to Hell.”

In August, Rep. Andre Carson (D., Ind.) told the Congressional Black Caucus, “Some of them in Congress right now of this Tea Party movement would love to see you and me . . . hanging on a tree.”

Vice President Joe Biden went so far as to compare the Tea Party to terrorists, and at a Labor Day speech he told a union audience that they are “the only folks keeping the barbarians from the gates.”

The Tea Party vs. unions and Democrats divide will become even more striking as the 2012 election heats up. However, insults such as the ones used by Secretary Solis have no place in civil political discourse.

** The Department of Labor was not immediately available for comment.

Targeting younger workers has been part of the AFL-CIO’s strategy since Richard Trumka took over the reins of the AFL-CIO in 2009. Elizabeth Shuler, the AFL-CIO’s Secretary Treasurer, has been spearheading the effort and is hosting the “Next Up: Young Workers Summit” in Minneapolis later this week.

The summit was announced back in March on the Communist-run People’s World website:

The AFL-CIO’s new young workers advisory council is taking charge of the movement to invigorate the labor movement – and make its leadership more youthful – says Liz Shuler, the federation’s secretary-treasurer.

One key step, she said, will be a second “Next Up” summit for young workers and activists, to be held in Minneapolis-St. Paul from Sept. 28-Oct. 2.

Shuler has led the effort to make labor’s leadership younger and look more like its members.  The first summit, in D.C. last year, drew approximately 300 delegates from around the country.  Shuler hopes for 800 this time.

According to the AFL-CIO’s blog on Monday:

U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis will headline a panel, along, with AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Liz Shuler at the second annual AFL-CIO Next Up Young Workers Summit beginning later this week (Sept. 29-Oct. 2). Since taking office in 2009, Solis, the daughter of union members, has changed the direction of the Labor Department from one that favored employers to one that protects working people.

Hundreds of young working people, including organizers and students from across the country, will meet in Minneapolis Sept. 29-Oct. 2 for the summit, part of the AFL-CIO”s efforts, led by Shuler, to reach out to working people under age 35.

While not calling the conference courses Saul Alinksy 101, the attendees of the summit “workshops” will apparently be learning the basics of Uncle Saul’s community organizing tactics:

2:00 – 3:30

CORE WORKSHOPS

1. Union 101
2. Using Social Media
3. Message Development*
4. Organizing 101: One-on-Ones
5. Building Young Worker Groups

OTHER WORKSHOPS

1. Robert’s Rules of Order
2. Union 101 for Non-union Workers
3. Inoculation Trainings**
4. How to Organize on Campus
5. Basics of an Organizing Campaign

3:45pm – 5:15pm

CORE WORKSHOPS

1. Union 101
2. Using Social Media
3. Message Development
4. Organizing 101: One-on-Ones
5. Building Young Worker Groups

OTHER WORKSHOPS

1. Infusion: Art and Organizing
2. Immigration 101***
3. Public Policy 101
4. Organizing in a Global Context****
5. Comedy Through Activism

For your bemusement, the entire “draft agenda” is here.

* Message Development is the identification of workplace issues and determining how best to exploit them with employees so as to convince employees that the union is the answer to whatever the issue.

** Inoculation trainings in union-organizing parlance means teaching would be organizers how to counter employers’ messages by telling employees what the employer may tell employees before the employer tells the employees, there by “innoculating” the employees from the information.

***Immigration 101 is essentially training on how to convince ‘undocumented immigrants’ to unionize despite the fact that they are in the U.S. working illegally.

**** For Organizing in a Global Context, go here, here and here

With over 9% officially unemployed, it does boggle the mind how a Secretary of Labor of the United States can blindly devote so much of her energies (and taxpayer dollars) by pandering so blatantly to those who excel at making job creation impossible more difficult.

Whether it’s trying to create hit lists for union bosses, or attending union organizing “summits,” it is difficult to recall a cabinet official from any administration so utterly and singularly beholden to a special interest.

Even though Solis never actually joined a union or had the ‘privilege’ of paying union dues, going out on strike, or being downsized from a union job, she does boast that her parents were union members, her demonization of business on behalf of union bosses is unparalleled.

Unless, of course, it all boils down to a simple and age-old premise: Reward your friends and punish your enemies.

Then again, it could just be the simple fact that Solis’ allegiance is based on the large amounts of union money union bosses have showered her with over the course of her career.

Meanwhile, as the summit in Minneapolis takes place later this week, taxpayer dollars will likely be used by a high-ranking Obama administration official to curry more favor with union bosses and show ’solidarity’ in the union effort to rebuild their treasuries on the backs of Americas youth.

What a country.

_________________

“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 on LaborUnionReport.com.

So far, it has been remarkable that almost no attention has been given to this issue on Capitol Hill. However, it may be that very few have actually understood the DOL proposal’s unprecedented overreach and broad ramifications until these last few weeks. Yet, since so many of the law firms who donate to high-ranking Democrats (as well as to Republicans) will likely be deemed ‘persuaders’ and be required to report their incomes under the DOL’s proposal, there may yet be some interest raised in Congress over the issue.

Nevertheless, in addition to many of the comments from individuals urging the union appointees within the Department of Labor to drop this unbelievably broad proposal, several larger groups expressed their harsh criticism through their comments.

Among those comments, Over 1500 came from persons affiliated with the Society of Human Resource Management. Outside of attorneys, with 250,000 human resource professionals, SHRM members are probably the single largest grouping of individual service providers who will be affected by the DOL’s proposed change.

What follows below are some excerpts [with emphasis added] of a few of the comments received by the Department of Labor:

In its 31-page comment to the Department of Labor (which also goes into the legislative history of the 1959 law), SHRM was pointedly criticized the DOL proposal, stating:

SHRM disputes the so-called contemporary research as not so contemporary; in some cases it is marred by obvious bias as well as flaws in methodology. In all cases it fails to mention, let alone consider, the actions of organized labor as a root cause of employer response. Even if there is some validity to this “research” (which seems to not be the case), it fails to take into account organized labor’s actions. Organized labor hardly has been quiescent these last decades. Employers have been subjected to the “corporate campaign” tactics, where unions undertake whatever means necessary, lawful and unlawful, to inflict enough damage to the target employer’s business so that it will accept the union without a government supervised secret ballot election. [p.3]

[snip]

The research cited by the Division in support of the proposed change contains flaws which support the need for independent inquiry into the current labor relations climate. For example, No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing (“No Holds Barred”) is quoted extensively in the NPRM in support of the need for increased reporting. This document on its face raises serious questions as to its usefulness:

• The study itself states that it gathered information only from talking to lead union organizers, not from the employees and not from employers…. [p.15]

In addition to calling into question the Department of Labor’s unquestionably union-biased “research,” SHRM also called out the effects of the DOL’s proposal on businesses, large and small.

SHRM is concerned that the Division’s proposed interpretation will encompass activities far removed from any actual or even potential organizing. SHRM as an organization is devoted to assisting its membership in developing initiatives to improve employee retention, morale and productivity. These initiatives can, among other things, include employee surveys, policy changes, and training. Sometimes an object or a part of an object of these types of initiatives is to prevent union organizing even when there is no union activity. Improving morale of employees in particular has the side effect of reducing the possibility an employee will go outside of his or her employer to seek assistance. [p. 27]

You can view SHRM’s entire 31-page public comment here.

Though it took no position on non-attorneys’ potential reporting requirements, the American Bar Association weighed in with its “serious concerns” about the potential loss of attorney-client privilege.

According to one attorney quoted by Labor Relations Today:

The ABA’s position here is important because on many labor & employment matters, it abstains because there is typically not a consensus between management-side and employee-side attorneys. This issue, however, touches all attorneys and is necessary, in the ABA’s words , to defend “the confidential client-lawyer relationship” and would impose an “unjustified and intrusive burden on lawyers and law firms and their clients”.

The rule is still in its proposed stage, but the ABA’s input here could be quite important for another reason as well. The ABA’s involvement in the “red flag” rules was crucial to getting that rule overturned. Time will tell if the ABA’s involvement here will have a similar impact.

[Given that even the law firm of the legal team for the Democratic National Committee would also be impacted by the Department of Labor's proposal (as would large Democrat-leaning law firm Akin Gump, Nancy Pelosi's second largest contributor), the ABA's involvement may what ultimately gets the union appointees in the Department of Labor to see the unintended consequences of their overreach.]

In a strongly-worded rebuke of the DOL’s proposal, the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace stated in its 29-page comment:

The Labor Department’s proposed rules are anti-employer, especially anti-small business, and, perhaps most significantly, anti-employee. Indeed, the proposal, when taken in concert with the NLRB’s proposed “ambush” election procedures, amounts to a radical attempt by the Executive Branch to shift the balance of private sector labor relations, in defiance of the neutral policies established by Congress over many decades.

The Department’s proposal is contrary to the plain language and congressional purpose of the LMRDA, conflicts with the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), and is unconstitutionally vague. Moreover, the Department has failed to provide reasoned justification for its sweeping changes, which depart from more than 50 years of uninterrupted precedent both within the Department and in the courts. The proposed rules will interfere impermissibly with the attorney-client relationship, will interfere with the right of trade associations to communicate with their employer members, and will interfere with the ability of employers to obtain much needed advice from their peers, their lawyers and experienced labor relations consultants.

Furthermore, the proposed rules do not comply with the requirements of the regulatory rulemaking process. Indeed, the proposed changes go beyond the legitimate scope of administrative rulemaking, and are so significant and substantive that only Congress could properly enact them. Coming on the heels of the failure of unions to obtain passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (“EFCA”), this proposed “no advice” regulation, combined with the NLRB’s nearly simultaneous proposal for “ambush” Representation-Case rules, is but a thinly veiled attempt to circumvent Congress and implement “back door” EFCA. [p. 3]

[snip]

Indeed, the proposed rules are designed to ensure that employers—especially small business employers—are effectively denied critical legal counsel and entirely legitimate management training by associations and other consultants. [p. 3]

The US Chamber of Commerce also weighed in on the biasness of the DOL’s proposal in its 25-page comment, stating:

As part of its campaign for radical amendments to American labor law, organized labor and its allies have fabricated a narrative that portrays the long decline in private sector union density in the United States as the result of flawed National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) processes and employer campaigns. According to this narrative, employers have become increasingly aggressive in campaigning against unions and routinely employ coercive, illegal, and otherwise deplorable tactics in order to defeat union attempts to organize. Organized labor attempts to buttresses this narrative with numerous studies or reports of dubious credibility. [p. 2]

[snip]

In addition, at a time when the Labor Department should be focusing on policies that will lead to economic growth and job creation, it is a travesty that instead the Department is investing resources in policy changes that will not create a single new job, but will instead create a further drag on job creation. Furthermore, we agree with President Obama’s recent statement that “We should have no more regulation than the health, safety, and security of the American people require.” Unfortunately, this proposal fails that test. [p. 3]

[snip]

Nor is the proposed rule limited to labor-management relations consultants. The proposed rule is so far-reaching in its scope and implications that an interior decorator who is engaged by an employer to recommend office furnishings, arrangements, lighting and paint colors to create a pleasant and productive work environment, could trigger the proposed reporting and disclosure requirements if the intent in the mind of either the employer or the service provider involves the purpose of persuading employees in any way (for or against) regarding the exercise of their rights to organize and to bargain collectively (e.g., the employer directs the decorator to make his shop a more pleasant workplace than the union shop down the street). [p. 4]

This last example is not out the realm of possibility, given how broadly the Department of Labor drafted the definition of what could constitute ‘persuader activity,’ and the Chamber explores other possible seemingly innocuous scenarios (like the attending of a seminar) that could suddenly become reportable to the Department of Labor.

While none of the comments reviewed addressed the physical danger that the DOL’s proposal could lead to if firms that provide security guards or replacement workers are required to disclose their personal information—which could include the individual guards and/or replacement workers—hopefully, enough pressure will be placed on the Department of Labor to reconsider this dangerous and unprecedented overreach.

_________________

“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 on LaborUnionReport.com and RedState.com.

Yesterday, information was shared with you about the importance of submitting a comment by Wednesday on the Department of Labor’s proposed regulatory change on who would be newly classified as ‘persuaders.’

There has been one sentence, more than others, in the Department of Labor’s 160-page proposed rule change that indicates the DOL’s expansion of the definition of ‘persuader’ to mean just about any vendor who has anything to do directly or indirectly with an employer’s relationship with employees since activities may implicitly influence the decisions of employees with regard in the exercise of their rights in the workplace.

Until now, however, one part of the sentence has been overlooked which, unless addressed, may cause individuals great harm—literally, physical harm.

Here is the operative sentence [emphasis added]:

An employer and consultant each must file a report concerning an agreement or arrangement pursuant to which the consultant engages in activities that have as a direct or indirect object to, explicitly or implicitly, influence the decisions of employees with respect to forming, joining or assisting a union, collective bargaining, or any protected concerted activity (such as a strike) in the workplace. [Page 68 & 69]

One of the problems that unions have had for years is that their effectiveness to wage successful strikes has been diminished because employers choose to operate their businesses through the use of outsourcing or the hiring of replacement workers. While much of the blame has been aimed at Ronald Reagan’s use of Jimmy Carter’s strike plan during the air traffic controllers’ strike, the reality is, since 1938, employers have always had the right to permanently replace economic strikers. While employers do not always choose to permanently replace strikers, many employers do hire temporary replacement workers during strikes.

For example, on Thursday, up to 23,000 registered nurses in California will be striking 34 hospitals. Those hospitals that choose to operate will be bringing replacement nurses in to run their facilities.  Those replacement nurses are likely independent contractors hired by firms contracted by the hospitals to help them tend to their patients.

Although the strike is for one day, many hospitals have informed union leaders they will prevent striking workers from returning until Sept. 27 because they have signed five-day contracts with the firms bringing in temporary workers.

Despite Barack Obama’s campaign promise to ban the use of permanent replacement workers, it would require legislation in Congress to do so. This won’t likely occur any time soon. Therefore, his union cronies at the Department of Labor may have devised a more devious strategy, which is to make the replacement workers themselves targets for union retaliation.

Under the Department of Labor’s proposal, not only will the firms that supply replacement workers like be required to file reports with the Department of Labor, it is highly likely that the Department of Labor will require the replacement workers themselves have to file with the DOL, which will then make the information public, on the internet, for union bosses (and others to view).

The filing form (see below), would require the independent contractor’s name, as well as address, and the requirement is that they file within 30 days of being contracted to do the work.

From the teaching of tactics in college classrooms to the tactics during the recent Verizon strike, as well as the union dispute in Washington and the racially-charged noose incident in North Dakota, union retaliation and violence is not a rare occurrence. In fact, it permeates the House of Labor all the way to the top of the AFL-CIO, including AFL-CIO boss Richard Trumka’s own history with union violence.

According to one study, there were  over 9,000 reported incidents of union violence. Many of those incidents, like the woman who found a severed cow’s head on her car or the assassination of Eddie York, occurred during labor disputes.

If, in fact, the Department of Labor is doing union bosses’ bidding by establishing a public list of replacement workers and then those same workers (or their families) are retaliated against, it would be difficult for unions to be prosecuted. Since, according to a 1973 US Supreme Court decision, unions are immune from prosecution for union violence if it occurs in the pursuit of union goals, holding unions accountable for retaliation that occurs in the dark of night or at an individual’s home will prove difficult, at best.

Whether or not the union bosses intend for intimidation, retaliation, or even violence to occur is unknown. However, that the Department of Labor seems to be heading toward making a hit list for union bosses seems abundantly clear.

The question that remains now, though, is whether or not anyone is paying attention.

Public comments must be received on or before Wednesday. You can comment here, if you choose to make your voice heard.

Here is the direct link, if you are having trouble with the above links: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=LMSO-2011-0002-0001

________________

“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 at LaborUnionReport.com and Redstate.com

Related Posts:

• America’s Job Creators Are About To Be Sucker Punched & You Have Until Wednesday To Comment
• Ignorance Or Malice? Why Are Obama & Union Bosses Working to Destroy Companies & Jobs?
• The Unintended Consequences of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis’ Witch Hunt
• The Latest From Obama’s Labor Department: “You Might Be Union Busting If…”

On Wednesday, the public comment period will be closing on a Department of Labor proposal that the majority of America knows nothing about and even fewer understand.

If enacted as drafted, the union cronies within the Department of Labor will require every private-sector employer and service provider (whether or not they ever talk directly to employees) to file financial statements with the Obama Labor Department if the service provider’s services indirectly affect employees’ choice to unionize or not.

Unless you act by commenting here, this rule change will likely take affect. [See link to a downloadable sample comment below.]

Once the financial information—which includes the service provider’s entire company (or firm’s) receipts (even from other clients)—are submitted, it will become public information. It will then be published on the Department of Labor’s website and available to union bosses. What’s more, willful failure to file the financial information is a criminal violation, punishable by either imprisonment, a fine, or both.

In June, when the Department of Labor, at the behest of union bosses, issued a 160-page proposal to expand the interpretation of “advice” under a little-known law called the Labor-Management Reporting & Disclosure Act, few understood just how deeply the DOL’s proposed rule change could affect employers and consultants of all stripes–not just those involved in labor relations. Most still don’t understand it.

In addition to companies who hire attorneys to assist them with union issues, the Department of Labor’s broad expansion into areas that most would not consider remotely connected to unions, but because it could indirectly affect [read deter] employees’ choice to unionize, the Department of Labor will likely call this “persuader activity.”

Here are the types of vendors (and the employers that hire them or purchase goods from them) who will likely be caught up in the DOL’s new proposed rules:

• Writers (or authors) who may write a website, publication, sell a book, or other material that may promote a positive employee relations culture, thereby dissuading employees from unionizing
• Website designers who may be contracted to design and build a website to be used for internal communications with employees
• Consultants who coach management on how to structure and effectively manage employee teams
• Employee engagement consultants who help companies and employees with positive employee relations
• Productivity consultants who design and implement quality, or any other type of teams that may give employees a voice in the success of their companies’ products
• Safety consultants who help establish safety committees that give employees the ability to voice safety concerns to their employer to resolve safety issues
• Human resources consultants that design, write, or implement employee handbooks or policies
• Compensation and benefit consultants who design and administer any type of benefit, pay or incentive plans for companies
• Consultants who conduct surveys to determine employee satisfaction at their jobs

Since the Department of Labor’s phraseology is: “…activities that have as a direct or indirect object to, explicitly or implicitly, influence the decisions of employees with respect to forming, joining or assisting a union, collective bargaining, or any protected concerted activity (such as a strike) in the workplace,” the type of activity that an employer and consultant may be required to report to the Department of Labor is almost endless.

Again, the public comment period closes on Wednesday, September 21, 2011. All comments must be received on or before Wednesday.

If you do not act by submitting a comment, it is likely this rule change will go into effect causing many job creators, instead of focusing on job creation, to spend more time and resources on more paperwork, or risk going to jail. Moreover, it will cause many unsuspecting service providers who currently do not know they will fall into the Department of Labor’s trap to either violate the law, or open their personal, company or firm earnings to the Department of Labor, the public and union bosses.

Here is a sample comment provided courtesy of the Labor Relations Institute. It is suggested that you download, individualize or personalize it before sending to the Department of Labor, then submit your comments to the Department of Labor here.

The choice is yours: You can act by submitting a comment, or you can give union bosses what they want–the ability to target more employers.

________________

“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 on LaborUnionReport.com and RedState.com