Foundation VP Stefan Gleason sits down with Hot Air's Ed Morrissey to discuss disgraced Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's connection to union corruption:
Today's Washington Post has a good rundown of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's alleged pay-for-play deal with a high-ranking Service Employees International Union boss we've been tellingyou about. This paragraph is particularly revealing:
[SEIU president Andrew] Stern has emerged as a central player in the labor movement by pressing aggressively to expand union rolls, along the way irritating AFL-CIO leaders, whom he accused of being complacent, and leaders of some SEIU chapters who accuse him of cutting deals with business and government that enhance his profile while undercutting local chapters. Among his victories was Blagojevich's decision to let SEIU, and not the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, organize Illinois' child-care workers.
Stern's personal machinations to secure his own PR are entirely at odds with workers' interests. But more importantly, take a look at that last sentence again: "Among his victories was Blagojevich's decision to let SEIU, and not [AFSCME], organize Illinois' child-care workers."
Far Left magazine The American Prospectsummarized the SEIU-AFSCME battle in 2005. In Blagojevich's first race for governor in 2002, the SEIU provided a thousand volunteers in the weeks before the primary election, enough to push the Congressman over his nearest rival by just one percent. As governor, Blagojevich repaid the SEIU by issuing executive orders that effectively ensured that the SEIU (and not AFSCME) would "represent" the 5,000 home-care workers and 48,000 child-care workers in the state.
This potentially unconstitutional scheme to impose monopoly bargaining on home care providers has resulted in many hundreds of thousands of new forced union dues payers across America. It's a huge new cash cow for union bosses.
The fact is, if union bosses spend millions of dollars to get a candidate elected, they expect something in return. Blagojevich was happy to oblige.
Sometimes, that means giving union bosses like Andy Stern and his ilk close access to governors like Blagojevich to let them pick political appointments. Sometimes, it means legislative power grabs like the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (aka the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill). And, of course, union bosses use their political power precisely to gain even more revenue and political power.
And that's the bigger picture in the Blagojevich scandal -- Big Labor's influence wouldn't be possible without forced unionism.
The cover story of the September/October issue of Foundation Action covers efforts by the Foundation to expose an SEIU union political fundraising scheme that coerces workers to support union politics, and to get the Department of Labor and Department of Justice investigate the scheme.
Yesterday, a pro-Big Labor blogger at OpenLeft inadvertently highlighted the absurdity of the SEIU's apparently illegal fundraising scheme (emphasis mine):
If the local doesn't put enough money into the national PAC, they will have to pay a penalty of regular funds out of union dues to the international. PAC contributions are voluntary and only come when members feel empowered, whereas union dues are automatic, so this is a strong incentive for locals to organize and empower their members. It's a good policy move, and it was voted on and ratified at the SEIU Convention.
Surely the author realizes that there's some tension between "voluntary contributions" and an SEIU policy that penalizes local affiliates for failing to meet MANDATORY political fundraising targets? Actually, he does:
The requirement and penalty do somewhat cut against what it means to voluntarily give to political causes. A possible lawsuit might be viable.
For sure. Here's the relevant section of US code quoted in the National Right to Work Foundation's letters (.pdf) to the Departments of Justice and Labor (emphasis mine):
(2)For purposes of this section and section 79l(h) of title 15,[1]the term “contribution or expenditure” includes a contribution or expenditure, as those terms are defined in section 431 of this title, and also includes any direct or indirect payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money, or any services, or anything of value (except a loan of money by a national or State bank made in accordance with the applicable banking laws and regulations and in the ordinary course of business) to any candidate, campaign committee, or political party or organization, in connection with any election to any of the offices referred to in this section or for any applicable electioneering communication, but shall not include
. . .
It shall be unlawful—
(A)for such a fund to make a contribution or expenditure by utilizing money or anything of value secured by physical force, job discrimination, financial reprisals, or the threat of force, job discrimination, or financial reprisal; or by dues, fees, or other moneys required as a condition of membership in a labor organization or as a condition of employment, or by moneys obtained in any commercial transaction;
No political expenditures " . . . secured by financial reprisals or the threat of financial reprisals?" Sounds like a pretty explicit violation of U.S. law.
The SEIU's political fundraising apparatus is absolutely enormous. As the author of the OpenLeft post notes, its institutional clout and massive campaign expenditures dwarf other organizations' contributions. But coercing local SEIU affiliates into bankrolling a national campaign strategy has the potential to irreparably taint our electoral process. When even a pro-Big Labor mouthpiece concedes the viability of the Foundation's case, it's time for the Departments of Labor and Justice to take action.
ADDENDUM: Here's more commentary on the political implications of the SEIU's fundraising from QandO and Protein Wisdom.
Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal had a great editorial up on the hypocrisy of SEIU leadership. Andy Stern and his cronies are more intent than ever on blackmailing unwilling companies into forcing SEIU "representation" on their employees through a series of vicious corporate campaigns:
SEIU President Andy Stern is the drama king of Big Labor, and Thursday's publicity blitz will feature all of his signature choreography: Rallies in 18 states and even overseas, in which thousands of union activists will march against companies and politicians they don't like. Themes include "Buyout Monsters On the Loose" and "The War on Greed." To listen to Mr. Stern, this is about getting Congress to close tax "loopholes" for private equity firms, while funding national health care and "middle class" tax cuts.
That's a sideshow. The real targets are private equity firms such as Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Carlyle Group, which own companies that have resisted SEIU attempts to organize their workers. Mr. Stern wants to pound these firms with bad publicity and political retribution until they break.
What's worse, it turns out that the SEIU's activism is apparently being funded illegally. Just today, Foundation president Mark Mix requested a Department of Justice investigation into new SEIU directives allowing Andy Stern to impose financial penalties on any local affiliate that doesn't meet mandatory political fundraising targets. Not only that, but local unions may be forced to pay the SEIU's fines with money collected from nonmember employees' compulsory agency fees. We hope that the DoJ and the Department of Labor will move quickly to investigate this apparent criminal activity (the Foundation's press release is available here).
Given the SEIU's checkered past, these new developments aren't particularly surprising. But aggressive union activism does have a cost. Devoting untold sums of money to intimidating employers evidently comes at the expense of the union's so-called "representation":
Mr. Stern's "middle class" spin would be more believable if the SEIU did more for its own members, especially their pensions. Public records based on the SEIU's own filings show that the SEIU National Industry Pension plan – which covers some 101,000 workers – was only 75% funded in 2006. Put another way, the plan had only three-fourths of the money it needs to meet its retirement obligations. And the national chapter is only the start. Some 13 local SEIU pension plans in 2006 were less than 80% funded; several didn't reach 65%.
Some of this might be the result of poor investment performance, but the main problem is that the SEIU hasn't negotiated adequate employer contributions to the plans.
The SEIU's top brass, on the other hand, is guaranteed generous compensation funded by employees' mandatory dues-payments. Too bad the workers they're supposed to be representing don't receive similar benefits:
On the other hand, SEIU leaders are highly attentive to their own pension funding. A separate fund run by the national union, this one covering the benefits of SEIU officers, was 103% funded in 2006. The top SEIU guns are set for their golden years.
Regular Freedom@Work readers know that we've been following the SEIU's aggressive "growth at any cost" policies for quite some time.
This entry from the Philadelphia Inquirer alludes to the reality of what Big Labor seems to be offering these days -- help us or go bust. Although most of the article focuses on a failed attempt to unionize security guards, the author also describes the union's hostile relationship with Aramark, a food services vendor:
"In 2005, Aramark entered into a neutrality agreement with SEIU and
UniteHere, another union, Aramark spokeswoman Kristine Grow said.
Aramark, which provides food service at colleges, ballparks, companies
and schools, would remain neutral in union-organizing drives, if their
clients agreed.
In 2006, Aramark decided to terminate the neutrality agreement, which
expired last summer. Since then, SEIU has applied hard pressure to the company."
Aramark's experience highlights the dark underbelly of the SEIU's "corporate campaign" strategy. Having withdrawn from this so-called neutrality agreement designed to force unwilling workers into union ranks, Aramark found itself again targeted by a series of PR broadsides, including an SEIU-sponsored website where users anonymously post unverified attacks on Aramark's performance and services.
Folks, this is what union organizing has become: when workers aren't interested, just bloody the company until it essentially agrees to do the organizing for you. Par for the course when it comes to the SEIU.
An article in The New Republic points to the tens of millions of dollars being spent by union officials on politics and specifically focuses on the massive involvement by the so-called "Change to Win" union coalition in politics.
The article calls Change to Win's decision to endorse Obama an "about-face," citing Change to Win's early declarations that it would not focus on politics but on organizing. Yet, Change to Win's emphasis on politics (led by SEIU top boss Andy Stern) really wasn't that hard to predict.
In fact, back in 2005 when Change to Win union bosses split from the AFL-CIO union hierarchy National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason had this to say:
This political posturing within ultra-elite union hierarchies amounts to nothing more than a shell game by power-hungry union officials bent on control over more than $10 billion in compulsory union dues. In the end, it doesn’t matter who is steering Big Labor’s ship as long as individual workers continue to be strapped to the mast.
Ultimately, it is not Change to Win's flip-flop on its rhetoric about that political spending that is the real hypocrisy, but the split itself...
Change to Win left the AFL-CIO because Change to Win union officials objected to how dues money was being spent and they didn't like the representation they were receiving from the AFL-CIO. Yet, everyday individual employees who object to how their dues are being spent and to the representation that they are getting from union bosses are told to just pay up or be fired.
Following up on the recent upheaval within the SEIU union, a group of nurses from Nevada have recently put out a video decrying the disconnect between rank-and-file nurses and the union hierarchy.
Following up on the internal power struggle within the SEIU union, the gnashing of teeth continues. Today's San Francisco Chronicle says that a new letter from SEIU chief Andy Stern accuses his lead critic Sal Rosseli of misconduct. The article cites Rosseli and others:
"...said the allegations appear to be a prelude to a trusteeship, under which Stern would replace the union's elected leaders with his own appointees."
Sounds like quite the consolidation of power. Stern is a leading proponent of pouring massive amounts of forced union dues into coercive "card check" union organizing, and the outcome of this power struggle could have serious implications for American workers victimized by such campaigns.
If you haven't already, be sure to take a look at this video detailing the coercion inherent in union "card check" campaigns, and how the National Right to Work Foundation is helping employees fight back.
The Times article in particular shows how union officials often sell out workers' interests in exchange for a "card check" deal from an employer that will give them a toe hold in the workplace, and eventually the ability to compel dues from employees:
Michael Torres, a respiratory therapist at U.S.C. University Hospital
in Los Angeles, part of the Tenet Healthcare Corporation, said Mr.
Stern’s approach had hurt Tenet employees. He complained that union
leaders had sought to make a deal that called for not pushing for
pensions or retiree health coverage; in exchange Tenet would not fight
unionization of 23 facilities in Florida.
No wonder the dissention is reaching a fever pitch, with the group even running ads, brought to our attention by a reader, on the pro-forced unionism Daily Kos site decrying "top-down leadership."
