Workers at a Wal-Mart in Gatineau, Que., are officially decertified from their union after just more than a year with their first collective agreement.

Quebec’s Labour Relations Commission removed the more than 150 workers, who are employed at a store on du Plateau Boulevard in the city’s Hull sector, from their union.

The Wal-Mart workers first joined the union, United Food and Commercial Workers Canada, in 2008. Then after two years of unsuccessful negotiations between the union and Wal-Mart, an arbitrator enforced a collective agreement in the summer of 2010.

“This follows an application made by our Hull associates earlier this year to decertify the union at their store,” said Andrew Pelletier, Wal-Mart’s vice president of corporate affairs and sustainability.

“Wal-Mart respects the decision of our Hull associates. They have made their views clear in this matter.”

The United Food and Commercial Workers Canada union declined to comment Monday.

Read more here.

A powerful United Food & Commercial Workers local union (348s) in New York was closed for business on Thursday as police arrested three family members who run the union local.

Police arrested the president, former president, and treasurer of Local 348 United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) on Thursday. Anthony Fazio Sr., John Fazio Jr., and Anthony Fazio Jr. were charged with racketeering, extortion, money laundering, and witness tampering.

The Fazios used their positions in the union to extort money from employers unionized by the UFCW. They stole more than $2.4 million from union members and employers over the course of 16 years, according to the indictment.

According to Courthouse News Service:

The indictment accuses the Fazios of “extorting, soliciting and obtaining cash payments, in violation of federal and state labor law, from business owners who employees were represented by Local 348,” to enrich themselves and others.

It claims the Fazios conspired to extort, and did extort, and laundered the extortion money, embezzled from pension and welfare benefit funds and tampered with witnesses.

It claims that they took more than $1,000 at a pop from multiple employers, extorting them “by instilling … fear” that the Fazios and others would harm their businesses unless they paid it.

The grand jury indictment, whose foreperson’s name is blacked out, seeks forfeiture of assets and other penalties.

In addition to the what the accused are alleged to have made through their “unofficial” union duties, according to financial reports on file with the US Department of Labor, the Fazio family did pretty well for themselves in their official capacities. According to the local’s reports, in what appears to be a game of musical chairs (and double dipping) in 2010, the Fazio family paid themselves as follows:

• Anthony Fazio, Jr., the local’s new president was paid $172,257 in total compensation
• Anthony Fazio, Sr., the local’s past president was paid $149,772 in total compensation
• John Fazio, Jr. the local’s new secretary-treasurer was paid $168,712 in total compensation
• Anthony Fazio, Jr., the local’s past secretary-treasurer was paid  $86,129 in total compensation
• John Fazio, Jr., the local’s past vice president was paid $84,357 in total compensation

Note: The above compensation was listed as having been paid out in 2010.

Other Compensation: In addition to the above, John Fazio, Sr, also was paid as a trustee of the union’s health and welfare fund. In 2009, Fazio, Sr. was paid $65,000. It is unknown how much he was paid in 2010.

A copy of the indictment is here.

You may remember that within hours of arriving in the Oval Office, President Obama dispatched orders to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). These orders were not to immediately begin turning around the economy or start finding ways to encourage employers to hire more people. No. Obama’s orders were much less bold and more typical of Tammany Hall payback to Big Labor Bosses who threw a billion dollars’ worth of forced-dues assets (Time, Talent, and Treasure) behind Obama and Democrat political campaigns.

Before the Big Labor insiders at DOL made time to “help” employees and the unemployed, they set about rescinding the January 2009 union financial disclosure reform; they declared the agency would no longer enforce the 2008 union officer conflict-of-interest reports; they stopped state teacher unions’ financial disclosures; and they rescinded the requirement that unions disclose non-union enterprises that they control.

Mr. Mosquera’s actions are both courageous and necessary, not only for workers who live in forced-unionism states such as Maryland and Indiana, but for any employee who is or may be covered by a collective bargaining contract with an LMRDA-covered labor union.

Mr. Mosquera stands as a shining torch to light way for others across the U.S. to challenge the Obama Administration in court whenever the Empire exceeds its authority.

Brief Background of the Lawsuit Issue

When Labor Secretary Hilda Solis rescinded the January 2009 LM-2 Final Rule regarding union financial disclosure she exceeded her power because:

1. She cannot use burden as a justification for rescission
2. She replaced the rescinded LM-2 rule with a rule that actually increases opportunities to evade and circumvent the LMRDA, and;
3. The LMRDA specifically requires the reporting and disclosure of “receipts of any kind and the sources thereof.” [201(b)(2)] When Secretary Solis rescinded the January 2009 LM-2 final rule, she eliminated disclosure of the “sources” of most receipts, in direct contradiction of the Act’s statutory language.

When Congress enacted the LMRDA, it created a one-way regulatory ratchet that requires the Secretary of Labor to limit changes to reporting and disclosure that will increase either reporting or disclosure, or increase both. Congress explicitly does not authorize the Secretary to reduce public reporting or disclosure, even for supposed “burden” claims by the Secretary. The burden claims are weighed in the regulatory process that created the 2009 LM-2 final rule. The statutory language specifically states:

SEC. 208 . The Secretary shall have authority to issue, amend, and rescind rules and regulations prescribing the form and publication of reports required to be filed under this title and such other reasonable rules and regulations (including rules prescribing reports concerning trusts in which a labor organization is interested) as he may find necessary to prevent the circumvention or evasion of such reporting requirements. (Emphasis added)

Last year, for example, there was the incident of the longtime employee who tried to unionize the United Federation of Teachers, only to be fired. There was also the incident just a couple of month ago when the staff reps at UFCW Local 400 petitioned to unionize, only to be called ”completely clueless, unappreciative, and incompetent” by a member of the UFCW’s management. Of course, there was incident of the UAW imposing cuts on its own union staff last year, as well as the Teamsters’ Jim Hoffa getting tough when the union staff at the Teamsters headquarters threatened to walk off the job in 2009.

Despite all of these examples (and more), it is somewhat unusual, though, for union bosses to get caught so blatantly seeming to act in concert to bust a union within their union as the Amalgamated Transit Union bosses have been accused of doing:

Union Leader Accused of Firing Employee for Organizing Union Staff

Unfair Labor Practice Complaint with National Labor Relations Board Charges Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) International President and AFL-CIO Executive Council Member Larry Hanley with Discriminatory Discharge of Union Employee for Organizing In-House Union for ATU Professional Staff, and Other Protected Activities, in Violation of the National Labor Relations Act

David Highnote, the former Assistant Director of Communications of the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on April 12, 2011, alleging that the ATU first threatened and then fired him for organizing the professional staff at the AFL-CIO affiliated union. His charge also requested expedited review as a “discharge organizing campaign” matter. NLRB Case 5-CA-36561

The ATU and newly-elected International President Larry Hanley are currently under investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) for allegations of illegal and corrupt election practices during the bitterly contested election that brought Hanley into the Union’s leadership. Among the list of serious allegations were that Hanley and his supporters threatened and intimidated supporters of the candidates who opposed him and his slate of candidates. (DOL OLMS Case 540-08636-03)

Highnote said that he experienced similar intimidation. Only two weeks after Highnote signed his union card and started an organizing campaign, a senior advisor to Hanley allegedly threatened, “I only want to say this once. Larry (Hanley) is sensitive to all of the things going on in and outside of the office. If we find out that you are discussing workplace conditions with co-workers or anyone else, then one strike and you’re out.” Other senior Hanley advisors are also alleged to have harassed and attempted to deter him from organizing, but he continued to work to form an in-house union to represent the professional staff as a bargaining unit of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild.

The ULP charge also alleges that the ATU’s reason for terminating him was pretextual. No “restructuring” took place, and two business days after his termination, the ATU hired someone into Highnote’s position.

Highnote stated, “People were scared of losing their jobs when Larry Hanley came in. Now that he has pushed out a number of staffers, they’re terrified.” [Emphasis added.]

With unions all around the country clamoring about “union busting,” perhaps they should aim those bullhorns into their own house first.

_________________

“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.

When unions in San Diego failed to convince the San Diego City Council and San Diego residents that a ban on big box retail was necessary to “protect” that municipality from the horrors of low-priced consumer goods and hundred of jobs, union leaders decided to take their crusade statewide in an effort to ban Wal-Mart completely from the West Coast.

Less than 24 hours after the San Diego City Council rescinded a law requiring costly economic impact reports from developers of big-box superstores, a South Bay lawmaker says he wants some restrictions in a bill he plans to introduce at the state level.

Sen. Juan Vargas, D-San Diego, said his bill, like the local measure, will target proposed stores 90,000 square feet and larger that dedicate 10 percent of floor space to groceries.

Vargas couches his opposition in the traditional rhetoric that banning Wal-Mart is a boon to the surrounding community, preventing harm to a local economy and small businesses. It’s clear from surrounding evidence, though, that the effort to ban Wal-Mart from San Diego, and subsequently the the state of California, is a smokescreen for isolationist – and arrogant – union policies meant to preserve and protect union jobs at all costs to the communities they claim to serve.

In the case of San Diego, the ban on big box retail was against the wishes of the community itself, and against the recommendations of the City Attorney, the city’s planning commission, San Diego’s Developmental Services Department, the code monitoring team and an independent budget analyst who warned the “overly restrictive” ban would lead to dramatic economic consequences. The city council originally adopted the ordinance only to have the mayor veto the measure. Faced with the death of the bill, union leaders waged an eleventh-hour effort with the city council to over-ride the mayor’s veto just before new city council members – who supported the mayor – were sworn in.

In response, citizens of San Diego, who according to polling data overwhelmingly opposed the Wal-Mart ban, collected nearly 60,000 signatures asking the measure be revisited. Only then, did the city council officially end the ban.

Not content to honor the will of the people, the unions are taking their battle to preserve their own jobs statewide – a goal they seem at ease announcing publicly now that the San Diego law has met it’s end. One union leader, the head of the UFCW in San Diego, even took to Twitter to throw down a gauntlet, taunting, “Today we found out which Democrats on the City Council have balls… and guess what? It wasn’t the boys.” (The only council member to vote against repeal was a woman), and “Dear Wal-Mart, We are relentless. In case you didn’t notice. Love, Lorena.”

Now, turn the tables for a moment. If Wal-Mart’s CEO took to social media to taunt union executives, there would not only be endless Congressional investigations, where union labor-shunning big box retailers were hauled before panels of Democrats who would question them endlessly on their “over-the-top” efforts to push their agenda on the American people, but the National Labor Relations Board would spend the greater part of the next month looking up new ways to fine Wal-Mart and it’s allies. It’s up to the citizens of California here, instead, to police the union agenda and ensure that the UFCW and others do not get their way at the expense of the California economy and California jobs.

Now, though, another gang of astro-turfing thugs has targeted (yes, targeted) the private home of a real estate developer for the audacity of building a WalMart that will employ up to 1200 DC-area residents.

With unemployment in Washington, DC at 10.2%, it is hard to imagine anyone not wanting to see jobs added. That is, unless that someone is a union that doesn’t like the fact that WalMart operates its U.S. stores union-free.

The Power of Persuasion or the Persuasion of Power?

A group of of so-called “activists” has launched an anti-WalMart site called WalMart-Free DC in an attempt to keep WalMart out of Washington, DC. While the group claims no affiliation, its tactics are reminiscent of the thug-like tactics of the SEIU and UFCW. In fact, while the links on the site link to SEIU and UFCW funded groups like WalMartWatch, the WalMart-Free DC has decided they are entirely opposed to all-things WalMart:

Wal-Mart Free DC is a group of DC Residents who have come together to say NO to Wal-Mart.

We are not interested in negotiating the terms of Wal-Mart’s arrival. We know the harmful impact that Wal-Mart always has, from thousands of case studies around the country, and around the world. We believe in our hearts, and in our minds, that DC must continue to be Wal-Mart Free.

Apparently happy with a closed-down Chevrolet dealership standing on the site where the proposed WalMart would be built, the vehemence of their hatred has led the astroturf group to believe it has the right to target and tread on another person’s property.

As the Leftist group clearly has its sight set on targeting Mr. Knapp’s home on Saturday, it will be curious to see whether or not the police will be doing their jobs by protecting his property, or being the paid escorts for the protesters.

We’ll also see if the Left becomes as outraged about the target on the anti-WalMart group’s poster as they are about other targets.

Photo credit: Nina Easton

__________________

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

Most Americans also remember (though many did not believe) the promises that health care reform would make health care “affordable for all.” And no one can forget how the legislation was sold to Americans:

The Chairmen of the three Committees with jurisdiction over health policy in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced comprehensive health care reform legislation today that will reduce out-of-control costs, encourage competition among insurance plans to improve choices for patients, and expand access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans.

Well, on March 23rd (not quite six months ago), the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed into law. That same day, a jubilant Andy Stern even recorded this video for his SEIU members, congratulating them on ow the SEIU “changed America forever.” That was then… The Chickens Start to Come Home (aka the Law of Unintended Consequences) Almost immediately after the passage of what is now called “ObamaCare,” like a pebble thrown into calm waters, waves began to develop. Karma. The first sign of trouble began when a number of companies began taking hundreds of millions of dollars ($1 billion in AT&T’s case) in write downs due to the projected cost of ObamaCare, making Congress and the Administration furious. In fact, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) was so furious that he ordered a show-trial hearing to be held and then he abruptly cancelled it.  It soon became clear why, as noted by the Daily Caller [emphasis added]:

Publicly, Waxman said the investigation showed the companies’ disclosures were properly filed. But a new report from committee Republicans reveals the documents Waxman obtained included embarrassing evidence that the health-care law could drive up insurance premiums and force employers to dump employees from their health plans. “Turns out Obamacare means if you like your health plan you can lose it. The president didn’t have to actually strong-arm companies into dumping their employee health insurance because his bill carried financial incentives to virtually guarantee that result,” Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Rep. Joe Barton, Texas Republican, said. Most significantly, documents unearthed by the investigation highlight companies that are considering dumping employees from their current health-care plans in the face of new costs from the health-care law. President Obama repeatedly promised his health-care law would let Americans keep their current insurance if they’re happy with it.

The dumping begins… Over the past couple of weeks, months after Henry Waxman’s initial embarrassment, a big problem has begun to emerge for the Democrats who worked so hard to pass ObamaCare.  News has begun to break that companies are, in fact, beginning to dump their employees (or retirees) health care benefits.

• WSJ: 3M Co. confirmed it would eventually stop offering its health-insurance plan to retirees, citing the federal health overhaul as a factor.
• WSJ: McDonald’s Corp. has warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.

And then, the strangest thing happened. ObamaCare’s purported benefits and savings evaporated and, due to the rules imposed by ObamaCare, costs have begun to soar.  This prompted the Department of Health and Human Services to grant waivers to those companies and groups:

Nearly a million workers won’t get a consumer protection in the U.S. health reform law meant to cap insurance costs because the government exempted their employers. Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald’s (MCD) and Jack in the Box (JACK), won’t be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees. The Department of Health and Human Services, which provided a list of exemptions, said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn’t lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop health insurance altogether.

At least five of those “companies” weren’t actually companies, but unions—including the United Federation of Teachers, the Painters’ union (IUPAT), and the Transport Workers.  According to the New York Post:

The United Federation of Teachers — one of President Obama’s key political backers — is the biggest beneficiary of a White House sweetheart deal that will exempt certain outfits from complying with new health-care rules, officials revealed yesterday. “Big labor spent millions of dollars pushing ObamaCare, which they made sure was stuffed full of union giveaways,” said Patrick Semmens, spokesman for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which represents businesses. “So the fact that the largest waiver now belongs to New York teachers union bosses might be funny if the rest of America wasn’t stuck complying with the bill’s onerous mandates.”

Amazingly, the unions that had pushed so hard for ObamaCare are now asking to be exempted from its effects. SEIU Members Begin to Pay the Price Earlier this week, the American Spectator’s Jeffrey Lord wrote a piece detailing how ObamaCare is negatively impacting three hospitals in Northeastern Pennsylvania. Lord described how Cincinnati’s Catholic Healthcare Partners is putting up for sale three of its hospitals:

The three Catholic hospitals involved are: Mercy Hospital in Scranton; Mercy Special Care Hospital in Nanticoke, both in Kanjorski’s 11th District. And the Mercy Tyler Hospital in Tunkhannock, located in Carney’s adjacent 10th District. The Cook announcement was big news in Northeastern Pennsylvania. The Sisters of Mercy had opened Mercy Hospital in Scranton, a major facility for the city, in 1917 — 93 years earlier.

According to Scranton’s WNEP:

Mercy Hospital in Scranton is up for sale. Those who run the place and all other Mercy facilities in our area said Wednesday they are already in talks with organizations interested in buying. Mercy Health Partners hopes to have a buyer by the end of the year. Officials said there are numerous reasons for the sale. One big one is the heath care reform bill signed into law this year. The potential sale includes Mercy Hospital in Scranton, Mercy Tyler Hospital in Tunkhannock and Mercy Special Care Hospital in Nanticoke. [snip] They said much of that required investment is the result of the health care reform bill passed in Washington. The CEO said it means the need for more spending and less federal reimbursements. “Health care reform is absolutely playing a role. Was it the precipitating factor in this decision? No, but was it a factor in our planning over the next five years? Absolutely,” Cook added.

While the controversy about the hospitals’ sale still unfolds, there is one item of consequence that has been overlooked and that is the fact that all three hospitals are represented by the Service Employees International Union, 1199P.  The SEIU, of course, was one of the biggest—if not the biggest—proponent of ObamaCare. In one of the biggest twists of irony is the fact that SEIU members, whose dues were used to lobby for the passage of ObamaCare, are now seeing their employer put their place of employment up for sale.

The UFCW and Its Coming Crisis Elsewhere, in yet another example where union members may start paying the price of their leaders’ dalliances into nationalizing health care, the United Food & Commercial Workers is girding its members for a contract fight because of increased costs imposed by…ObamaCare. According to this letter, UFCW Local 75 is girding its members for potential battle with their employer over the costs of ObamaCare.

[via the Virtuous Republic]

Here’s the money quote:

While health care reform will expand coverage for many working people, this new law comes at a price. Bearing this in mind, Local 75 included increases to co-premiums as part of our comprehensive proposal. The company, however, has included a number of changes to increase your out-of-pocket costs, as well as higher co-premiums. We recognize that compromise is a part of the bargaining process and are hopeful that both sides will make efforts to reach a fair contract.

Translation for UFCW members: You will be paying more for your health care, thanks to ObamaCare (or, you may wind up out on strike). [Isn't that the 'change' you voted for?]

While the word Karma springs to mind, the reality is, ObamaCare is not even six months old yet.  There will be many more stories like these in the months and years ahead. Like all Americans who will be paying for this monstrosity, union members won’t be exempted forever from the effects of the legislation that they pushed for and we’re all paying for.  Like others, union members are already beginning to feel the pinch of ObamaCare. Karma. __________________ “I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.”  Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776