“The court has validated our decision to file this lawsuit using the federal racketeering statute,” said Sodexo General Counsel Robert Stern. “This ruling clears the path to discovery and trial, allowing us to present evidence the SEIU has conspired to extort Sodexo by threatening financial damage unless we cave in to its demands. The SEIU’s campaign was designed to illegally threaten our company. We will continue to challenge the SEIU’s illegal behavior until it ends.”

The food services corporation has accused the SEIU of engaging in nefarious activities intended to harm the company, some of which include:

• Hacking into a Sodexo education website, in knowing violation of federal computer crime laws, and posting a link to one of the union’s own websites where malicious and disparaging claims were made about Sodexo
• Infiltrating, under false pretenses, a prestigious medical conference and throwing plastic roaches onto the food being served by Sodexo
• Falsely claiming that the Company’s food production plants have “rodent problems” and scaring hospital patients by insinuating that Sodexo USA food contained bugs, rat droppings, mold, flies and maggots, and that Sodexo provided linens contaminated with the “remnants of someone else’s hospital waste”
• Harassing Sodexo USA employees by threatening to accuse them of wrongdoing

The complaint also describes, among many other things, activities that are similar to other instances of the SEIU’s exploitation of college students to manufacture outrage against Sodexo and opposition to the company’s food services on campus.

You might also recall that, upon learning of Sodexo’s complaint, SEIU issued a statement blaming the Kochs and Scott Walker, and invoking the aftermath of Anonymous’ HBGary hacking in its response.  (Maybe that’s why this tweet today sort of made me chuckle a little).

Well, as the discovery process proceeds, it will be interesting to see how the labor union that has shaped so much of the current administration’s policies will respond to the accusations when the facts and the evidence are finally presented in a court of law.  If the evidence holds up in court, there’s nothing Media Matters will be able to do to rescue their purple-shirted partners from this one, no matter how much money the SEIU gives them.

The full press release is below.

*****************

Court Decides Sodexo’s Racketeering Claims Against
Service Employees International Union Will Proceed

Decision Clears Way for Sodexo to Present Evidence of Extortion

GAITHERSBURG, Md., July 27, 2011 – A federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia has ruled that Sodexo’s claims of extortion against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) may proceed under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act. United States District Judge Claude Hilton ruled yesterday that Sodexo “has stated a claim upon which relief can be had”.  This decision denying the SEIU’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit clears the way for Sodexo USA to prove SEIU’s orchestrated campaign to carry out threats against Sodexo is illegal.

“The court has validated our decision to file this lawsuit using the federal racketeering statute,” said Sodexo General Counsel Robert Stern. “This ruling clears the path to discovery and trial, allowing us to present evidence the SEIU has conspired to extort Sodexo by threatening financial damage unless we cave in to its demands. The SEIU’s campaign was designed to illegally threaten our company. We will continue to challenge the SEIU’s illegal behavior until it ends.”

Sodexo filed the civil racketeering lawsuit against the SEIU and other defendants in March 2011 seeking to stop the illegal campaign of extortion that the SEIU has been waging in the U.S. for more than a year. The lawsuit alleges the SEIU engaged in blackmail, vandalism, trespassing, harassment and lobbying law violations, which were designed to steer government and private contracts away from Sodexo in order to damage the Company’s business.

The complaint also alleges that the SEIU is trying to force Sodexo into a scheme that would deny its employees the right to vote for or against unionization in a secret-ballot election conducted by the federal government. This scheme would virtually guarantee the SEIU exclusive representation rights over tens of thousands of Sodexo employees and prevent any other employee choice for labor union representation.

“We are committed to protecting our business and the rights of our employees,” Stern said. “We believe that pursuing this litigation is in the best interests of our business, employees, and customers, as well as the millions of people we serve each day.”

As an industry leader, Sodexo is deeply committed to operating its business responsibly, engaging with local communities and improving the quality of life for its employees across the globe and the millions of people the company serves each day. Sodexo recognizes the value of union activity and has built positive relationships with more than 30 different unions. Over 15 percent of Sodexo USA’s workforce is unionized, which is more than twice the national average for the private sector, and the company has more than 300 collective bargaining agreements.

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.

The Service Employees International Union’s (SEIU) membership has risen from about 1.5 million to more than 1.8 million and its annual receipts are up to about $75 million since 2005, according to government records. SEIU has in turn contributed $5.7 million to support the coalition, which is far more than any other coalition member. By contrast, the other six unions that split off from the AFL-CIO to form Change to Win have either flatlined or declined.

In 2006, the first year Change to Win filed Labor Department financial disclosure forms, the coalition claimed over 5.3 million members but its most recent filing in 2008 shows it had less than 4.8 million members; that’s a decline of almost 11 percent. In 2006, Change to Win listed $11.7 million in assets, a figure that dropped to $8.8 million in 2008. During that time, liabilities spike by more than 130 percent from about $550,000 in 2006 to more than just $1.25 million in 2008.

Annual receipts have also plummeted, falling from $18.7 million in 2006 to just $6.5 million in 2008. In 2006, revenues far exceeded expenditures, but this ratio was turned upside down in 2008 with Change to Win’s spending outpacing its revenues.

“Despite being a coalition of several unions, Change to Win has been of material benefit to one union only, and that is the SEIU,” Glenn Spencer, the executive director of the Workforce Freedom Initiative with the Chamber of Commerce has observed.   “The coalition started with great fanfare and was meant to be an alternative to the AFL-CIO – the new front of labor organizing, but it just hasn’t worked out that way.  It’s now an organization struggling to justify its existence.”

Instead of serving as a catalyst for a renewed labor movement, Change to Win has evolved into a vehicle for enhancing the power of the SEIU and its former president Andy Stern who is still listed as part of the coalition’s leadership council.

“The best evidence we have to show that Change to Win is really a union of one is the common personnel between the two organizations,” said Nathan Mehrens, a counsel with Americans for Limited Government. “Anna Burger is both the Secretary/Treasurer of SEIU and the Chairman of Change to Win. Then we have Stern who was the SEIU President until a few weeks ago and it appears he is still an active board  member with Change to Win.”

Over the past few years, SEIU  has also served as the number one union benefactor for the ACORN organization and its affiliates donating $8.7 million since 2005, disclosure documents reveal. Change to Win also emerged as one of the single largest donors to the network of community activists formerly known as the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now.

In 2009, Change to Win funneled $181,355 into an ACORN California affiliate for representational activities and $40,000  into a Washington State affiliate. In 2008, the coalition donated $45,000 to the Washington affiliate and $7,800 to a branch in Oakland, Calif.

An internal memo The Politico recovered last year from ACORN’s California branch shows that the organization’s leadership has recognized for some time now that its tarnished name could complicate fund raising efforts and undermine support on Capitol Hill. Apparently ACORN and its number one union benefactor both see great value in operating under different names so as to avoid media scrutiny and deflect criticism.

“SEIU views Change to Win as a useful mouthpiece and it can use it as a pathway to funnel money to shady groups like ACORN without putting its own name on the check,” Spencer suggested.

UNITE-HERE, the International Brotherhood  (IBT) of Teamsters, the Laborers’ International Union of Northern America (LIUNA), the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, the United Farm Workers of America (UFW), the United Food and Commercial Works (UFCW) are also part of the original Change to Win coalition.

However, UNITE-HERE virtually collapsed during the time it was partnered with Change to Win losing almost 90,000 members, according to disclosure records. This was particularly acute blow in that UNITE-HERE was viewed as a model for the new organizing methods championed by Change to Win. The merger between textile workers (UNITE) and hospitality workers (HERE) would produce a single strong union out of two weaker ones that would be in a better position to pressure employers, or so the thinking went.

A little history is in order here.

While speaking at a July 25, 2005 press conference that addressed coalition’s formation, the top officials associated with Change to Win issued a number of audacious pronouncements that do not square with financial reality.

“Our goal is not to divide the labor movement, but to rebuild it so working people can once again achieve the American Dream,” Stern declared.

James Hoffa, the Teamsters president, was equally audacious. “Today’s decision means that we have chosen a course of growth and strength for the American Labor Movement based on organizing new members…This is just the beginning of a new era for American workers.”

UFCW President Joe Hansen proclaimed, “We have an historic opportunity and obligation to organize and lead a new movement for the 21^st Century.”

Fast forward five years later and UNITE-HERE, or what’s left of it, has rejoined the AFL-CIO. Meanwhile, the Carpenters Union has also announced that it will leave Change to Win and the Laborers Union is reportedly considering a renewed partnership with the AFL-CIO.

“Change to Win issues a lot of press releases and takes a lot of cheap shots at different organizations and businesses, but as an organizing outfit for all practical purposes it is defunct.  Organizing was their original purpose, but they simply don’t do any of that,” Spencer, the Chamber of Commerce spokesman said.   “It’s really just a communications and marketing device for SEIU that has very little real substantive value.”

The UFCW is one of few remaining coalition members that has remained on an even keel although it certainly has not profited. It has experienced just a 0.6 percent increase in membership since 2005.

However, UFCW has donated a substantial sum to ACORN over that same period. This includes over $1 million to a New Orleans affiliate in 2008 and almost $430,000 in 2007 for representational activities.

“Change to Win was supposed to be a great organizational operation but these donations make it clear the coalition was outsourcing these activities to ACORN,” Mehrens, the ALG  counsel noted. “I thought unions were against outsourcing.”

The President of the World Luge Federation said the track is too fast and thinks it is a planning mistake, while Australian luger Hannah Campbell-Pegg questioned whether athletes were being treated as “crash test dummies“.  The shocking footage of the accident was replayed all throughout the day and evening yesterday, leaving horrified viewers focused on discussion about the safety of the track.

But in all of this shock, horror and sadness over the tragic death of an athlete in his prime and the dangers of the track on which he lost his young life, what has the SEIU focused on?

Food safety. (Translated =  unionizing)

Reports of the horrible accident in Vancouver began surfacing in the press as early as 12:30 pm EST  Friday.  Yet, the SEIU still felt their unionization Food Safety concerns were so paramount that they went ahead and issued a press release anyway, after 5:00 pm EST:

“PRESS RELEASE:  Healthcare Union Raises Concerns Over Safety Of Food to be Served to Olympic Athletes at Vancouver Olympics“

“Sodexo is providing catering services for athletes during this key moment in their sporting careers, and we’re concerned about the food they will be providing,” charged the SEIU in Friday’s press release.

It’s not as though the SEIU could not have known about the tragedy  – the story had been broadcast all over the news for at least five hours before SEIU pushed out its attack.  If they didn’t know, then they’re even more disconnected from reality than we thought they were.

As many are already aware, the SEIU has been incessantly battering Sodexo since 2007, in its desire to unionize some of its nearly 400,000 employees, many of them hotel and food service workers.  Sodexo is one of the largest food services and facilities management companies in the world, and is the provider of choice for most schools, universities, companies, hotels, prisons and other facilities that outsource their cafeteria and food catering operations, and for those that outsource industrial cleaning services.

The other target though, since 2003, has actually been another union, UNITE HERE, the former combination of the Union of Needle trades, Industrial and Textile Employees and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International union.

There has been a longstanding war amongst the three, where SEIU once partnered with UNITE to attack HERE, then eventually betrayed UNITE as well.  The prize of course being hotel and casino workers, cleaners, garment workers, and potentially even bank tellers.  The epic battle is not exactly secret, nor is it new, although there have been significant recent escalations in their ongoing war.  It’s all like a soap opera, but that’s an article for another day.

Lately, with so much more now at stake, like every possible piece of the health care legislation to which the labor union can superficially associate itself, including food & wellness (yeah, remember the SEIU Lunchladies video I posted, where SEIU insists that kids are obese and unhealthy because non-union workers from outsourced companies like Sodexo are serving their food?), SEIU bosses have significantly amped up the Sodexo attacks in recent months.  Perhaps you’ve recognized their usual tactics in action:  the corporate smear campaign website, non-stop blog attacks on the company and on those who support them, frequent press releases, artificial “reports” and “statistics”, robocalls and mailers, and using partners like ACORN to plant dissatisfied workers in the media.

Oh, and don’t forget – their fellow unions are fighting back against Andy Stern and the SEIU corporate bosses.  Even rank and file union workers want the nonsense to stop.

Which all brings me back to yesterday’s press release.

C’mon, SEIU.  First, do you honestly think the American people are so ignorant that they don’t see through your fake intentions?  Maybe the mainstream media is, as they blindly report on your press releases like robots.  But not the rest of us.  Food Safety?  Really, SEIU? Really?

More importantly, where is your soul?

You claim to care about all of these rank and file workers you support, but then you betray them.  Bad move.  Then, on a tragic day when all eyes are focused on the death of a young athlete in Vancouver and on the safety of the track on which he died, you send out a press release hours after the accident about…not construction safety, not facility safety, not even worker or athlete safety…but about Food Safety.  Really bad move.

In the end, it’s not even about Food Safety at all.  It’s a shameless part of a typical corporate campaign against a company whose workers you are trying to unionize.  And some of those Sodexo workers have been providing food and hospitality to these Olympic athletes all week.  Give them a day to process what just happened before you start attacking.

Shame on you, SEIU bosses.  Shame on you.

SEIU Debt Ceiling

Debts are increasing at every level of the SEIU purple conglomerate. SEIU’s national headquarters reported that at the end of 2008, its total liabilities grew to $156 million, a total debt increase of $36 million from the prior year. And, about $60 million of its assets are receivables owed to it by SEIU affiliates.

Even though SEIU’s national headquarters reports receiving $247 million in dues revenue called “per capita taxes”, much coming from workers who would be fired if they did not pay, its combined “Representational,” “Political,” “General Overhead,” “Union Administration,” “Benefits,” and “Gifts” activities cost the union $285 million.

With the ACORN kerfuffle staining SEIU’s purple branding and causing it to spend resources on an unanticipated public relations problem combined with a continuing costly push for ObamaCare, SEIU resources are under increasing pressure.

And like the politicians he endorses, Stern continues to spend and borrow rather than live within the union’s means or pay down debt. Clearly he is focused on the mother lode of SEIU public sector membership drives, also known as ObamaCare or PelosiCare. SEIU’s own public estimates reveal that nationalization of health care could quadruple its membership, even if it costs a million of its current members their jobs.

But, are these ceaseless campaign cycles and continuous pumping of SEIU’s income into politics going to payoff?

The number of places where Stern can borrow millions is diminishing and may explain SEIU’s progressively more cozy relationship with Amalgamated Bank’s holding company, also known as UNITE-HERE. In 2008, SEIU’s national headquarters borrowed $15 million from Amalgamated.

Corzine Could Open Up BofA Doors to SEIU Organizers

In his years as Governor, Corzine gave Big Labor pretty much everything it demanded (not to mention his special gifts to one union boss), and he may consider helping out SEIU bosses for old time’s sake.  He could quickly enter into a card-check forced unionism agreement with Stern that would eliminate the opportunity for employees to vote in a secret ballot certification election.  This is a cornerstone to SEIU’s corporate campaigns and BofA has been an SEIU organizer’s target in the past.

Would Corzine as Bank of America CEO help SEIU out of its loan? Corzine perfectly fits the SEIU politician mold. William F.  Buckley, Jr. described Corzine as the “Universalist Candidate … to read from his own campaign literature: Universal health-care coverage; ‘Universal long-term care;’ ‘Universal quality public education;’ ‘Universal gun registration and licensing;’ ‘Universal access and opportunity.’”

Yes, a move to Bank of America could create a delicious opportunity for Mr. Stern. However with a $45 billion U.S. taxpayer investment in BofA and another $118 billion in assets guarantees, it is an expensive opportunity that should be avoided.