Sen. McConnell: “Threat of Nuclear Option Is Really a Pretext for Power Grab”

Posted on May 22, 2013 by WFI Staff

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell recently made remarks on the Senate floor regarding what he termed a ‘culture of intimidation’ that exists in which Big Labor allies in the Senate, such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, are threatening to use the so-called “nuclear option” if they don’t get their way every time. Said McConnell:

“Recently, we’ve seen troubling signs that there are some in the Executive Branch who would use the power of the federal government to intimidate political opponents.

“It all points to a culture of political intimidation. But, unfortunately, it doesn’t seem that the culture of intimidation is simply confined to the Executive Branch.

“The Administration’s allies in the Senate are trying to intimidate their political opponents as well. What I’m talking about, is the persistent threat by the Majority to break the rules of the Senate in order to change the Rules of the Senate—in other words, to use the nuclear option—if they don’t get their way.”

View more of the Senate Minority Leader’s remarks below:

Posted in Big Labor Bailout, Big Labor Bosses, Congress, NLRB, Politics, Uncategorized, Unions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

House Committee Wants Due Diligence On Richard Griffin & IUOE Local 501

Posted on May 20, 2013 by WFI Staff

By WFI Staff

The U.S. House Education and the Workforce Committee is raising serious questions about National Labor Relations Board nominee and unconstitutional recess appointee Richard Griffin.  Griffin, a former general counsel for the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE), is embroiled in a racketeering and embezzlement lawsuit where he is a defendant.  The Board member is named in the portion of the suit dealing with a cover up.

As a result, Members of Congress appear to have serious concerns and questions about Griffin and have decided to take action.  The House Committee recently made a formal request to look further into allegations of illegal conduct inside IUOE Local 501.

Says a recent statement issued by the Committee:

“We are seriously concerned by allegations that the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE), its officers, and their co-conspirators aided and abetted in and/or embezzled and/or withheld millions of dollars from IUOE Local 501 and its members, prevented IUOE Local 501 from expanding its membership, and denied the members of IUOE Local 501 the right to freely select its own officers via a fair and honest election.  We respectfully request information, documents, and communications related to any agency action involving IUOE Local 501 or its trusts.”

With regard to Griffin, the Committee writes:

“We are deeply concerned by allegations that Richard Griffin, while serving as General Counsel of the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE), participated in a conspiracy to conceal the embezzlement of union funds from IUOE Local 501 and its members, as well as deprive those union members of a fair and honest election.  On January 9, 2012 President Obama recess appointed Richard Griffin to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) while the Senate was regularly meeting in pro forma session.  Most recently, on February 13, 2013 President Obama nominated Mr. Griffin for the NLRB.  We respectfully request information, documents, and communications concerning the allegations against Richard Griffin collected by the White House during his appointment and nomination process.”

Posted in Big Labor Bosses, Congress, NLRB, Politics, Unions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Yet Another Federal Court Blasts Obama NLRB Picks

Posted on May 16, 2013 by WFI Staff

By WFI Staff

With today’s developments, two federal appeals courts have found President Obama’s so-called recess appointments to be unconstitutional.  In a blistering opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that current NLRB nominees Richard Griffin and Sharon Block are indeed invalid.

Reports Tal Kopan in POLITICO:

The 2-1 decision Thursday from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (posted here) found that the presidential recess appointment power is limited to breaks between sessions of Congress, not breaks within sessions or other adjournments during which the Senate might meet in pro forma sessions.  The reasoning mirrors that in a ruling of the D.C. Circuit Court in January.

The opinion, written by Judge D. Brooks Smith, said the recess clause of the Constitution should be read not just to give the president executive power, but also to preserve the “advice and consent” role of the Senate.

Posted in Big Labor Bosses, Congress, NLRB, Politics, Unions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Filibuster Reform, Again?

Posted on May 14, 2013 by WFI Staff

By WFI Staff

Given the current political climate in Washington, D.C., the last thing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should be thinking about is putting additional limits on the filibuster.  But, that’s just what he wants and he’s being pressed to essentially eliminate the filibuster altogether by Big Labor bosses.

It’s a desperate tactic with enormous consequences.  After all, filibusters are one of many pillars in our democracy that offers lawmakers the expanded ability to do their job: oversight.  Without filibusters – along with the need to aggressively scrutinize nominees – the executive branch can essentially do what it pleases absent Congressional approval.  And we’re already witnessing way too many examples these days of the White House overreaching.

In the latest case, union bosses are pushing hard to have filibusters eliminated so they can push through controversial nominees like Thomas Perez for the Labor Department and unconstitutional “recess” appointees such as Richard Griffin and Sharon Block to the National Labor Relations Board.  Union bosses are actually on Capitol Hill making demands.  Reports Alexander Bolton in The Hill:

The option – which would involve Democrats changing Senate rules through a majority vote to prevent the GOP from using the 60-vote filibuster to block nominations – was raised during a private meeting Wednesday involving about 25 Democratic senators and a group of labor leaders.  The labor officials demanded that Democrats break the logjam by stripping Republicans of the ability to filibuster. 

WFI’s Fred Wszolek saw this coming.  Concerned that “filibuster reform” was just another ruse for a labor bosses in Washington to get payback, Wszolek wrote in Roll Call:

Brace yourself: The real winner in the renewed conversation on so-called filibuster reform is union bosses. Unsurprisingly, should Big Labor’s allies in the United States Senate change the rules regarding how federal nominations are handled, it will be at the expense of America’s small businesses.

Posted in Big Labor Bosses, Congress, NLRB, Politics, Unions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

HELP Committee Members Must Ask Tough Questions Of NLRB Nominees

Posted on May 9, 2013 by Fred Wszolek

by Fred Wszolek (originally appeared in Townhall.com)

On May 16th, the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) will conduct a hearing on the pending nominations to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). All five nominees will go before the committee seeking a vote in an effort to move their nominations to the floor of the U.S. Senate.

The legislative action comes on the heels of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit finding that President Obama’s so-called recess appointments of Richard Griffin and Sharon Block to the Board were unconstitutional due to the fact the Senate was not in recess, but convening regularly in pro-forma sessions.

The President rolled the dice with the recess appointments and lost. The Department of Justice is now challenging the Noel Canning v. NLRB decision in the United State Supreme Court. The White House’s effort to seek a vote on a full slate of nominees to the NLRB is a concession that the previous tactic of bypassing the same house of Congress the President served in was a failure.

Going before the HELP Committee will be the aforementioned Block and Griffin, but also Board Chairman Mark Pearce, and Republican nominees Harry I. Johnson III and Philip A. Miscimarra. Johnson currently serves as a partner with Arent Fox LLP, while Miscimarra is a partner with Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP and a senior fellow at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

The hearing later his month will offer Senators a unique opportunity to ask the current members of the Obama Labor Board tough questions about their background, and how and why they reached certain decisions.

With regard to Griffin, being he has never actually been vetted, it seems reasonable to query why he is suited for a taxpayer-funded job serving in a role akin to a judge refereeing disputes between labor and businesses in the private sector considering as general counsel of the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE), he was the chief legal representative for a union whose locals were overrun by organized crime.

According to Fox News, “[t]he rap sheet for members of the International Union of Operating Engineers reads like something out of Goodfellas. Embezzlement. Wire fraud. Bribery. That’s just scratching the surface of crimes committed by the IUOE ranks.”

“Public documents…show that more than 60 IUOE members have been arrested, indicted or jailed in the last decade on charges that include labor racketeering, extortion, criminal enterprise, bodily harm and workplace sabotage.”

“In some of the more egregious examples, federal prosecutors alleged in February 2003 that the Genovese and Colombo crime families wrested control of two IUOE locals, and stole $3.6 million from major New York area construction projects – including the Museum of Modern Art and minor league baseball stadiums for the Yankees and Mets in Staten and Coney Islands.”

Next, Griffin should explain how – as a defendant in a racketeering and embezzlement case specifically dealing with a cover up – he should serve on a federal agency.

According to The Wall Street Journal, “Mr. Griffin is named in a federal complaint filed in October by 10 members of IUOE Local 501, out of Los Angeles, which describes a ‘scheme to defraud [the local] out of revenue, cost savings and membership,’ by means of kickbacks, bribery, violent threats and extortion. The suit names dozens of IUOE officials as defendants, and Mr. Griffin is highlighted in a section describing an embezzlement and its subsequent hush-up.”

The Washington Free Beacon reports, “According to the lawsuit filed by 10 members of Los Angeles-based IUOE Local 501, which represents workers in Southern California and Southern Nevada, Griffin participated in a conspiracy to manipulate the operation of Local 501 ‘through a pattern of racketeering activity.’ Griffin was served with the complaint and a court summons relating to the lawsuit at his Washington, D.C., home on Dec. 4, according to documents filed in court.”

And the questions for Obama’s nominees to the NLRB shouldn’t stop there. Regarding Pearce, Senators should ask the NLRB Chairman why he told a media outlet in 2012 that the Board intended to “require businesses to hand over lists of employee phone numbers and emails to union leaders before an election.”

Pearce should be queried on why the Board sought to ram through an “ambush” election rule, which was later found to be invalid on technical grounds by a court. Quickie elections would afford a business owner less than three weeks to respond a unionization effort in their workplace and unnecessarily pressure employees, while limiting their ability to receive the necessary information to make a knowledgeable decision about forming a collective bargaining unit, which would have a profound impact on their workplace.

Also, Pearce and company should be asked about their intentions to pursue electronic off-site voting – a form of computerized card check – that would allow union organizers to scrutinize a worker’s vote in labor elections.

And lastly, the Board’s decision in Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile should be raised. It allowed for the formation of “micro-unions” and undid decades of precedent in labor law. The decision reached in August 2011 has the practical effect of placing various, mini unions under one employer’s roof resulting in increased labor relations costs and the balkanization of the workforce.

The only limit to the questions posed is the amount of time allotted for the hearing. Senators must ensure these important issues and others are raised before any serious consideration can be given to President Obama’s nominees to the National Labor Relations Board.

Posted in Big Labor Bosses, Congress, NLRB, Politics, Unions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 21 Comments

Big Labor’s Workplace Poster Woes

Posted on May 8, 2013 by WFI Staff

By WFI Staff

The cookie just keeps on crumbling for Big Labor.  Union bosses keep pushing their agenda, but they also keep hitting brick walls every step of the way.  The latest setback is in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit where a three-judge panel decided that Big Labor bosses can’t strong arm employers into posting workplace information about union organizing.

Tom Schoenberg in Bloomberg reports:

A three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington today said the National Labor Relations Board’s demand that employers provide information about union organizing, bargaining and protests was so-called compelled speech because it didn’t include opposing information such as how to decertify a union or avoid paying dues.

A big part of the problem here is that Big Labor, as it stuffs the rogue Obama Labor Board with nominees, expects employers to just roll over and let them impose their will in the workplace.  The federal courts are putting a stop to that, just like they’ve been putting a stop to President Obama’s so-called “recess” appointments to the NLRB, as well as “ambush” elections.  Forcing employers to post pro-union material and forcing workers to join a union against their will have both proven to be losers for labor bosses.  Clearly, the NLRB went over the top and we’re glad reasoned legal minds prevailed.

And if the NLRB had been truly interested in a balanced approach, maybe they would have considered our poster, which you can see by clicking here.

Posted in Big Labor Bosses, NLRB, Politics, Unions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

With Richard Griffin the NLRB is all Mobbed Up

Posted on May 3, 2013 by WFI Staff

As the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor Pensions (HELP) prepares to deliberate over President Obama’s nominees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), inquiring minds want to know: Who is Richard Griffin?

The White House would have us all believe that Griffin, along with Sharon Block – both of whom became Board Members when the President made so-called “recess” appointments – are simply government bureaucrats doing their jobs.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that the appointments were unconstitutional, yet both Griffin and Block are ignoring the judicial decision and remain on the Board.

Griffin, the former general counsel to the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) has served in a leadership role in a union that has been overrun by organized crime.  According to Fox News, “The rap sheet for members of the International Union of Operating Engineers reads like something out of ‘Goodfellas.’  Embezzlement.  Wire fraud.  Bribery.  That’s just scratching the surface of crimes committed by the IUOE ranks.”

And Griffin has additional problems which call into question his character and suitability to serve on the NLRB.  Earlier this year, the Washington Free Beacon reported, “According to the lawsuit filed by 10 members of Los Angeles-based IUOE Local 501, which represents workers in Southern California and Southern Nevada, Griffin participated in a conspiracy to manipulate the operation of Local 501 ‘through a pattern of racketeering activity.’ Griffin was served with the complaint and a court summons relating to the lawsuit at his Washington, D.C., home on Dec. 4, according to documents filed in court.”

A lawyer who represented a union with connections to the mob?  A defendant in a racketeering and embezzlement case dealing with a cover up?  This is who has been re-nominated to referee disputes between unions and businesses in the private sector?  At taxpayer expense?

To better illustrate the issue, below is a list of the convicted mob bosses and foot soldiers that infiltrated the union Griffin represented.  On May 16th, when the HELP Committee considers the nomination of Griffin, hopefully someone will ask: Why would the American people want you sitting on the NLRB?

Andrew Merola (IUOE Member - pled guilty in 2010 for wire fraud and not showing up at job)

 

Jamie DeRoss (IUOE member - pled guilty in 2003 for extortion)

James Roemer (IUOE Treasurer - pled guilty in 2003 for fraud)

 

Joel "Joe Waverly" Cacace (acting Columbo family boss - conspired with union members to get a paid no-show job for his son in 2003)

 

Kenneth Campbell (IUOE Business Mgr, Int'l VP - pled guilty in 2008 for embezzlement conspiracy)

 

Louis Moscatiello (High ranking Genovese crime family figure - pled guilty in 2004 to controlling three labor unions for organized crime)

Martin Taccetta (Boss of the Jersey Crew faction of the Lucchese crime family - charged with extortion and labor racketeering)

 

Posted in Big Labor Bailout, Big Labor Bosses, Congress, Politics, Unions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 50 Comments

A Few Thoughts On The NLRB’s Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari

Posted on April 26, 2013 by Fred Wszolek

By Fred Wszolek

The petition filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court by the U.S. Solicitor on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) breaks no new ground.  We fully support the court granting the petitioner’s petition, but the petitioner’s arguments for reversing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit are no match for the circuit court’s far superior rationale.

On the pivotal point in the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision, defining the meaning of the words “the recess,” the petitioner relies on the fact that some words in the U.S. Constitution use “the” for something that may happen multiple times.  No argument there.  But in an effort to prove its point the petitioner takes words out of context, ignores their plain meaning and the historical context in which they were used.  They site, for example, the words “in the absence of the Vice President” which obviously means whenever the Vice President is absent.  But that is different from the words “vacancies that may occur during the recess of the Senate.”  There is “the recess;” there is no “the absence.”  And, as the Court said, if “the recess” means any break or recess in an ongoing Senate session what is to prevent the President from making a recess appointment over lunch?

As with the President, petitioners argue with the facts.  They state for example, “The decision repudiates understandings of the Recess Appointments Clause that have been maintained and relied on by the Executive for most of the Nation’s history.”  Most?  The interpretation of the clause relied upon by the petitioners, that “the recess” means all recesses not just the intersession recesses, is found in an Attorney General’s opinion that was issued in 1921.  That’s a bit after 1776.  And only a few intra-session appointments were made prior to 1940 and some modern presidents made none.

Reminiscent of the Administration’s “the sky is falling” rhetoric over sequestration, petitioners say, “And because many of the Board’s members have been recess-appointed during the past decade, it could also place earlier orders in jeopardy.”

But parties have to raise the issue and but for the current Board and the recess-appointment of Craig Becker in 2010, no party has raised the issue and minimal standards of due process would clearly militate against their ability to do so now.

Bottom line: it is the President who “repudiates understandings of the Recess Clause that have been maintained and relied upon.”  Those understandings of the Executive and Legislative Branches over perhaps the last 50 years where far more permissive than the Constitution allows.  We have to thank the President for helping to bring this issue to the high court’s attention.

Posted in Big Labor Bailout, Big Labor Bosses, Congress, NLRB, Politics, Unions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment