Any day now, the U.S. Department of Labor, under former Big Labor treasurer and now Obama’s current Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, intends to announce a new definition for the term “Employer” that will protect her union boss friends.

When the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) passed, Congress defined the term “Employer” very broadly as “any employer or any group or association of employers engaged in an industry affecting commerce … an employer within the meaning of any law of the United States relating to the employment of any employees.” (Emphasis added)

Pretty broad definition: “any law of the United States;” and yet, John Lund, the union labor consultant who heads OLMS, intends to exclude all labor unions from the definition of employer, no matter how many employees the union has.  There is one exception to DOL’s proposed rule, and that is that if the union is trying to organize employees of another union or influence its own employees, then the word “Employer” would pertain to union bosses.

Why the change? Because John Lund wants to exclude himself and other union labor consultants from the onerous new “Employer” and “Labor Consultants” regulations that DOL is currently proposing.  If union bosses were covered by the ‘Employer’ definition, then Big Labor law firms like the NEA’s Bredhoff & Kaiser would be required to file the new reports in order to comply with its new regulations. This Employer definition change will effectively eliminate union bosses from ever having to disclose timely details of their payments to Justice for Janitors, Interfaith Worker Justice, or any other Big Labor front groups participating in their labor persuader activities.

So while Obama’s Labor Department claims to want employees to be made aware of who is trying to influence them, they are actually helping hiding this very type of information from employees regarding all of Big Labor band of rogues who create chaos at the work site, for vendors, City Halls, and Capitol Buildings. (more…)

Last week, the union extremists controlling the U.S. Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board conducted a coordinated attack on America’s job creators. The first punch, a 160-page rule-making proposal by the Department of Labor was issued on Monday for public comments. However, it was quickly drowned out by the second punch: Tuesday’s NLRB rule-making proposal to modify election procedures, which are intended to fast track union elections giving unions greater ability to unionize employees.

It is important to note that both rule-making proposals are intended to work together and, like an axe in an executioner’s hand, they are intended to make an employer’s resistance to unionization futile.

On the one hand, the NLRB’s proposal to ’streamline’ union elections is meant to make it easier for unions to unionize employers in the least amount of time with the least amount of resistance, while giving union organizers access to employee telephone numbers and e-mail addresses and drastically curtailing employers’ ability to appeal NLRB decisions.

However, on the other hand, in an effort to broaden the definition of “union busting,” it is the Department of Labor’s proposal to redefine the term ‘persuader’ that will force many unsuspecting businesses, associations, and “consultants” (i.e., lawyers, human resource consultants, PR firms, and others, as well as seminar attendees and providers) to report their fee arrangements to the federal government—or face jail time and/or fines for failing to do so. (more…)

The Labor-Management Disclosure and Reporting Act (LMRDA) requires labor union officials to report potential or certain conflict-of-interests they might encounter if they receive gifts or cash payments from employers. Service Employees International Union (SEIU) President Andrew Stern may be in violation of that requirement since he has not filed a report disclosing $140,000 in advance payments from publisher and service industry employer Simon & Schuster.

In addition to this, documents made public during an intra-union California lawsuit and obtained by a “BigGovernment researcher” (posted on NRTWC.org’s Scribd, seen below) reveal that SEIU Treasurer Anna Burger recommended that the union use general treasury money, much collected from employees as a condition of employment, to promote Stern’s book, A Country that Works.

It’s not as if Stern has never filed a conflict-of-interest disclosure report; in fact, he has filed two in 2004 and one in 2005. But, why has he not filed any reports related to his special book deal?

SEIU President Andy Stern’s Book Advance and Past Conflict of Interest Reports (LM-30s)

Unfortunately for rank and file workers forced to pay dues or fees to the SEIU, rather than spending its resources investigating potential LMRDA violations, the Obama Labor Department (DOL) is busy rescinding conflict-of-interest and other union financial reporting requirements.

(more…)