“Friends Like These” NLRB Email Suggests ACORN, Union Ties To The Board

Posted on April 20, 2012 by WFI Staff

“Friends Like These” NLRB Email Suggests ACORN, Union Ties To The Board

“Friends Like These” NLRB Email Suggests ACORN, Union Ties To The Board April 20, 2012 Cause of Action An email produced via FOIA to Cause of Action in documents regarding the Boeing case before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) suggests a close relationship among union leaders, ACORN, and the NLRB. In an email dated Wednesday, April 27, 2011, in response to Acting Counsel Lafe Solomon’s forwarding of email support from Wade Rathke and a union attorney, Nancy Cleeland, Director of Public Affairs at the NLRB declares: “Friends like these…”

Posted in Big Labor Bailout, Big Labor Bosses | Tagged , , , | Comments Off

WFI Launches Missouri Radio Actuality

Posted on April 19, 2012 by WFI Staff

Voice:

The Coalition to Protect Missouri Jobs was recently launched to educate voters across the state on important workplace issues that, it believes, will play a central role in federal races this November. The coalition’s state-director, Jason Klindt, discusses what he calls a critical upcoming vote in the Senate that would stop implementation of a ruling from the National Labor Relations Board that the coalition says would allow for reckless ambush elections.

CPMOJ:

Members of Missouri’s Congressional Delegation – particularly Senator McCaskill – will have an opportunity to let their constituents know if they stand with Washington Big Labor bosses or, instead, with Missouri job creators.  A joint resolution of disapproval that’s expected to be voted on in the Senate soon would protect Missouri workers, by stopping the NLRB rule that would both expedite union elections to as few as seven to 10 days and disallow workers from making an informed decision.

Voice:

The Coalition also argues that Missouri’s small businesses would benefit from enactment of the Senate resolution because it would ensure that employers have equal time to educate their workers on the impact of unionization.

CPMOJ:

This NLRB ruling was nothing more than a payback to union bosses to help stem their declining membership and makes a mockery of the secret ballot.  Passage of this resolution would ensure that employers are able to fairly tell their side of the story especially since many of them can’t afford the proper counsel to deal with complex labor laws.  More importantly, the resolution would ensure that the freedoms of workers and small businesses are protected.  Missourians will be watching to see how Senator McCaskill votes on these ambush elections.

To learn more, visit www.protectmojobs.com.

Posted in State Coalitions | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off

WFI Requests NLRB Inpector General Investigate General Counsel & Board Communication

Posted on April 17, 2012 by WFI Staff

David Berry
Inspector General
National Labor Relations Board
1099 14th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20590

Re: Request to Investigate Communications by the General Counsel-side and Board Side of the NLRB on the Pending Boeing Complaint

Dear Inspector General Berry:

I am the Executive Director of Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI).  WFI is an organization devoted to educating workers, employers and other citizens on important issues affecting the workplace.

It was recently disclosed that former National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Chairman Wilma Liebman engaged in communications with the General Counsel-side of the agency with regard to the unfair labor practice complaint filed by the Acting General Counsel against the Boeing Company.  Redacted copies of the e-mail exchanges were recently disclosed in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by Cause of Action.  See Letter dated April 9, 2012 from Lafe Solomon, Acting General Counsel (by Amber Taylor, Senior Attorney) to Cause of Action.  These e-mails reveal that the former Chairman was engaged with the Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon and others on the General Counsel’s side of the agency in devising a strategy to cause more favorable media coverage to the Boeing Complaint and the extraordinary Board order it was seeking, the merits of which the former Chairman could participate in deciding.

The General Counsel of the NLRB is an independent prosecutor who has unreviewable prosecutorial discretion.  The merits of the complaints he files are decided by the Board.  For this reason, communications between the General Counsel-side and the Board-side of the agency with regard to pending unfair labor practice complaints filed by the Acting General Counsel, such as the Boeing Complaint, are strictly forbidden.

Specifically, 20 CFR 102.126 and 29 C.F.R. Section 102.127 prohibit any “interested person outside [the] agency” from making any ex parte communications to the board and any “interested person outside [the] agency” is defined as including “the general counsel or his representative when prosecuting an unfair labor practice proceeding before the board pursuant to Section 10 (b) of the Act.”

In light of the above, we respectfully request that you investigate all communications between the former Chairman, her staff and senior officials employed on the Board-side of the agency with the Acting General Counsel on matters pending or that could become pending before the Board from the time Mr. Solomon was appointed Acting General Counsel until mid-night on August 27, 2011, the date former Chairman Liebman’s term ended.

In addition, we request that you opine on the propriety of the General Counsel’s side of the agency deciding whether these communications were proper and exempt from disclosure. The agency’s response is signed by Amber Taylor for the Acting General Counsel, Lafe Solomon.  Clearly, neither Mr. Solomon, nor anyone he supervises, should be opining as to propriety of communications the Acting General Counsel and the General Counsel-side of the agency participated in.   This responsibility should have been referred to another agency.

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

Fred Wszolek
Executive Director
Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI)

Posted in WFI Letters | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off

Ambush Election Vote: Senators Either Stand With Small Business Owners Or Big Labor Bosses

Posted on April 17, 2012 by WFI Staff

Fred Wszolek
April 17, 2012
Townhall

After a few weeks of recess, Members of Congress will return this week to address a number of issues, including the budget, transportation bill and Buffet Rule. One of the issues that will likely come to a vote in the U.S. Senate in the coming weeks is a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which seeks to reverse a recent regulation promulgated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The change amends workplace election procedures limiting the ability of employers, especially smaller ones, from obtaining the fair representation and legal counsel they need to communicate with employees about the consequences of unionization. The new rule significantly minimizes the amount of time for union elections in private workplaces and deprives workers of their right to make an informed choice free from pressure or intimidation.

All of this comes as the nation continues to struggle and the backbone of America’s economy, small businesses, need greater confidence and certainty about the future. Unfortunately, though, unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. are less concerned with job creation and instead focused on paying back union bosses who were President Obama’s top political contributor in 2008 and have committed more than $400 million in support of his campaign in 2012. In cutting the amount of time for union organizing elections at least in half, Obama’s labor board has taken steps to implement by regulatory fiat the failed Employee ‘Forced’ Choice Act, which does not have support in Congress and is adamantly opposed by the American public.

It is a breathtaking overreach that completely ignores the will of both employees and employers. The NLRB, which is stacked with members who have direct ties to Big Labor, decided last year to completely ignore the will of the majority who submitted 65,000 comments largely in opposition to undoing decades of Board law in favor of ambush elections.

Senator Mike Enzi, the author and sponsor of S.J. Res. 36 and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, recently wrote in The Washington Times, “This resolution will not change current law, which allows employees to call an election to persuade their colleagues to agree to form a union. It simply will protect employee privacy and the rights of employers from an aggressive federal agency pushing a pro-labor agenda. Failing to act will leave employers without the ability to comment in a timely manner on union promises or simply have a fair chance to give their side.”

Enzi notes that the NLRB recently released its annual report showing union elections normally only take 38 days, which is below the agency’s goal of 42 days. In fact, 92 percent of elections in the workplace take place in fewer than 56 days. So, it certainly appears the NLRB ambush election rule is not only reckless, but completely unnecessary.

The vote on this matter is of the utmost importance because it will send a signal to citizens whether the rhetoric employed by those seeking office is genuine. Everyone is for jobs. No one is opposed to local small businesses. Yet, how do they vote when legislation is before them that undoes a harmful rule issued by individuals most of whom have never once created a single job, instead they have spent their entire careers working for labor bosses or within government?

Members of the U.S. House and Senate and those seeking office to those bodies can’t have it both ways. Either they stand with employers in their states or they stand with Big Labor bosses in Washington, D.C.

The NLRB’s ruling on ambush elections is so disturbing to most Americans because the issue of unionization is critically important to workers’ livelihoods and they should have the time to make an informed decision. Furthermore, the Board’s own data demonstrates the ruling is a solution in search of a problem. Also, the expedited process makes a mockery of secret ballot elections and saddles business owners – already struggling to keep their heads above water – with additional costs they may not be able to afford. The funds associated with an employer seeking legal counsel to make a fair case to their employees against paid union organizers would have much greater impact on the economy if they were used hire new workers, purchase equipment or expand services.

Also, the reckless ambush election rule follows a long line of job-killing acts on the part of the NLRB, which have traded away hard-earned worker freedoms and rewarded union bosses. Last year, the Board also allowed the creation of “micro-unions,” which are units for the purpose of collective bargaining made up of as few as two or three people. The NLRB decision undid three quarters of a century of American labor law and will result in division, discord and disharmony in the workplace as little unions negotiate against one another, while business owners become entangled in an expensive mess of union red tape and competing demands.

Next, the NLRB is seeking to allow union organizers to obtain the personal contact information of employees during labor elections. This would expose workers to unnecessary coercion and bullying, and given the long history of union boss violence, is simply wrong.

As Senator Enzi noted, the vote on S.J. Res. 36 addresses many of these issues, “Congress soon will have a chance to stop these misguided ideas by approving a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act. I introduced this legislation along with 44 of my Senate colleagues. If enacted, this resolution will have the full force of law and roll back these onerous regulations as well as prevent the implementation of any substantially similar ones. In the Senate, only a simple majority is needed to pass this resolution and send a strong, bipartisan message to the NLRB. This agency must understand that its job is to ensure fair elections and a level playing field, not compromise employees’ free choices and privacy to benefit one side over the other.”

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

It’s Time To Hold Big Labor’s Lafe Solomon Accountable

Posted on April 12, 2012 by WFI Staff

At some point, we have to ask: when is someone going to hold Big Labor’s Lafe Solomon accountable?

You know Lafe, the National Labor Relations Board’s Acting General Counsel … for life, it seems.  He’s the NLRB’s Teflon lawyer because despite a long string of gaffes, missteps and outright violations of federal law, he’s still where he and Big Labor want him to be.  His union boss and lobbyist friends are doing all they can to make sure it stays that way.

We’re watching it unfold with a certain level of astonishment.  Nonpartisan government watchdog Cause for Action recently uncovered inappropriate email exchanges between Solomon and former NLRB Member and Chair Wilma Leibman.  In what the organization describes as “ex parte communication,” Solomon and Liebman were discussing a media response strategy for the NLRB’s case against aerospace company Boeing.

Reports Cause for Action:

“ … Solomon and Liebman were communicating about a press strategy regarding the case that the NLRB brought against Boeing. As Cause of Action has previously pointed out, the NLRB’s own ex parte rules prohibit communications with outside, interested persons. In this case, Liebman and Solomon should have had no communications about the Boeing case, as Solomon was the acting counsel on the case.”

But that’s against the rules. Soloman, who acts in the role of prosecutor, should not be communicating with Leibman, who as a board member acts in the role of a judge, about a matter pending before the board.

Cause for Action notified the NLRB’s own inspector general about the emails – back in November 2011.  Solomon’s office responded by stating:

“The previously redacted portions of these documents, in fact, demonstrate that Agency’s internal deliberations were structured to specifically respond to the two questions posed by the CNN producer.”

The IG, obviously, is not only taking its time to investigate the incident, but it’s also not pushing the case any further.  Solomon, again, gets a free pass and the NLRB keeps advancing Big Labor’s job-killing agenda unabated.  Yet, this is one of the most unprecedented examples of a federal regulatory agency gone rogue, even in defiance of its own rules.  We are left wondering what it will take to stop

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

As Union Pensions Go Bankrupt, Union Bosses Spend Heavily On Political Activities

Posted on April 11, 2012 by WFI Staff

Lawmakers in Washington and candidates measuring Capitol Hill drapes will have to make a choice this election cycle: do they support bailing out union bosses and a reckless agenda that has even bankrupted the pension plans of their workers or do they support fairness in the workplace for both employees and employers?

It shouldn’t be a tough choice.  Choosing Big Labor over struggling American workers and small businesses means letting union bosses push our nation over the fiscal cliff.  From violating workers’ private information to micro-unions and ambush elections, union bosses are invading the workplace – and taking the economy down with it.

Dumping more salt on an open wound, the Financial Times reports that a “… hole in the pension plans of U.S. labor unions now stands at $369 billion.”  Reports Dan McCrum and Ajay Makan in FT:

This raises the prospect of higher pension contributions for employers and deteriorating industrial relations.

Multi-employer pension schemes, managed by trade unions on behalf of members working for many different employers, are now just 52 percent funded, the bank calculates with most of the burden to close this gap likely to fall on small and midsize companies.

Yet, while Big Labor leaves the rest of us carrying their big debt, union bosses are about to spend nearly half a billion dollars in campaign canvassing and ads to help President Obama’s reelection effort.   Sam Hananel in the Associated Press reports:

Unions have long been known as one of the most reliable supporters of Democratic candidates and their efforts have increased with every election as the threats to organized labor grow.

Our elected officials have some serious thinking to do over the next several months as the election nears.  Let’s hope they make the right decision.  That’s why WFI launched state coalitions in Missouri and Montana last week and will soon launch new efforts in Virginia and West Virginia. It is critical that candidates for federal office vow to protect the workplace and promote pro-growth policies. Accompanying the introduction of these state-based organizations are detailed questionnaires (i.e. MT and MO) that are being provided to candidates in an effort to secure their stances on important workplace fairness issues.

Candidates in these states will soon have an opportunity to tell us where they stand on these issues.

Posted in Big Labor Bailout, Big Labor Bosses | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

WFI RESEARCH: Obama’s Billion Dollar Bosses Big Pension Problem

Posted on April 11, 2012 by WFI Staff

Union Pension Deficit Continues To Grow
“US Union Pensions Hole Deepens To $369 Billion”:

“The hole in the pension plans of U.S. labor unions now stands at $369 billion, Credit Suisse has calculated with the aid of new reporting standards.  This raises the prospect of higher pension contributions for employers and deteriorating industrial relations.  Multi-employer pension schemes, managed by trade unions on behalf of members working for many different employers, are now just 52 percent funded, the bank calculates with most of the burden to close this gap likely to fall on small and midsize companies.” (Dan McCrum & Ajay Makan, “US Union Pensions Hole Deepens To $369 Billion,” Financial Times, 4/8/12)

Labor Bosses Have Spent Close To A Billion Dollars For Obama

Labor Bosses Plan To Spend $400 Million Dollars For Obama During 2012 Presidential Election:

“Unions are gearing up to spend more than $400 million to help re-elect President Barack Obama and lift Democrats this election year in a fight for labor’s survival.” (Sam Hananel, “Unions Gearing Up To Spend Big In 2012 Election,” The Associated Press, 2/22/12)

Labor Bosses Spent Half A Billion Dollars For Obama During 2008 Presidential Election:

“There has been nothing coy about the Democratic presidential candidates’ courtship of Big Labor.  After all, union endorsements come with armies of door-knocking, phone-calling, sign-waving foot soldiers; union leaders will spend about half a billion dollars on political campaigns this election cycle.” (Tim Miller, “Giving Away The Store,” The New York Post, 12/17/07)

Union Pensions Have Been Underfunded For Years

Union Pensions Funds Are Grossly Underfunded:

“The average union pension has resources to cover only 62 percent of what is owed to participants, according to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp.  Pensions with less than 80 percent of the assets needed to cover present and projected liabilities are considered ‘endangered,’ while those that fall below a 65 percent threshold are classified as ‘critical’ under the Pension Protection Act of 2006.” (Kevin Mooney, “Unions Want Washington’s Help With Pension Funds,” The Washington Times, 3/25/10)

Nearly Half Of All Major Union Pension Plans Are Underfunded:

“Almost half of the nation’s 20 largest unions have pension funds that federal law classifies as ‘endangered’ or in ‘critical’ condition due to being underfunded, an Examiner review of federal actuarial reports …  Eight of the largest unions have underfunded plans, according to the most recent 5500 reports, including the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Laborers International Union of Northern America, the International Association of Machinists, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, the International Union of Operating Engineers, and the National Plumbers Union.  The average union pension has resources to cover only 62 percent of what is owed to participants, according to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC).  Less than one in every 160 workers is covered by a union pension with required assets.” (Kevin Mooney, “Nearly Half Of Major Union Pensions Are Underfunded,” Washington Examiner, 6/9/09)

Unions Admit Their Pension Plans Are “Facing Difficulties”:

“Michelle Ringuette, a spokeswoman for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), acknowledged that pension funds for her union and for others were facing difficulties but said the fault lies with businesses, not the unions.  ‘SEIU’s pension funds – like all pension funds – were hit hard when the market collapsed in late 2008.  The union is deeply concerned about the instability big banks and the high-finance industry have created in the markets and throughout our economy, and we take very seriously all threats to the retirement security of our members and people who work for a living,’ said Ms. Ringuette, who represents the nation’s largest union by number of members.  Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a scholar with the Hudson Institute, dismissed that explanation.   ‘A lot of these plans were in trouble even before the stock crash, and the members are entitled to know,’ she said, adding that ‘there should be a law against putting out information about pension funds that is simply false.’” (Kevin Mooney, “Unions Want Washington’s Help With Pension Funds,” The Washington Times, 3/25/10)

Labor Boss Pensions Fully Funded, While Worker Plans Go Bankrupt

Unions Bosses Receive Generous Benefits, While Dues-Paying Members Are Hurt:

“Union officer benefits are also far more generous than anything dues-paying workers enjoy.  Consider again the SEIU, probably the country’s most powerful union.  Their officers and employees get a yearly 3% cost of living increase, but SEIU members get none; officers qualify for an early pension at 50 or after more than 30 years of service, but workers can’t retire early with a pension; officers qualify for disability retirement after a year’s service, but workers need 10 years.  In the land of union retirement, some workers are more equal than others.” (Editorial, “Union Pensions In The Red,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/26/09)

“Union Officers’ Pension Plans Are Significantly Better Funded Than The Plans They Negotiate For Their Rank-And-File Counterparts”:

“Union officers’ pension plans are significantly better funded than the plans they negotiate for their rank-and-file counterparts, raising questions about whether union members have been manipulated by those they trust to bargain for them.  The average union staff plan is funded at over 95 percent, while the average funding percentage of a rank-and-file member’s pension plan is 79 percent, according to a September study by the Hudson Institute.  None of the staff pensions are on the Department of Labor’s list of critically underfunded pension plans, while more than half of rank-and-file pension plans are endangered.  (A pension is considered ‘endangered’ by the government when it contains less than 80 percent of the assets needed to cover its liabilities.)” (Aleksandra Kulczuga, “Unions Pat Themselves First, Rank-And-File Second (And Less)” The Daily Caller, 4/7/10)

“Pension plans for union officers remain healthy and well-funded even as rising liabilities threaten to consume the savings of their rank and file counterparts who participate in different funds within the same labor organization, according to a Hudson Institute study.  This disparity became evident from a sample of the 21 largest union and staff pension plans from the same organizations.  They are: The Service Employees International Union, UNITE-HERE, the United Steelworkers, the United Food and Commercial Workers, the Plumbers and Pipefitters, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Sheet Metal Workers and the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union.” (Kevin Mooney, “Union Officer Pension Funds Remain Flush As Rank-And-File Retirement Plans Deteriorate,” Washington Examiner, 6/11/09)

“As of 2005, none of the rank-and-file pension plans were fully funded, seven were in critical condition and 14 had less than 80 percent of their needed assets, the study showed.  By contrast, 23 officer and staff funds from the same unions were much better off, Furchtgott-Roth said.” (Kevin Mooney, “Union Officer Pension Funds Remain Flush As Rank-And-File Retirement Plans Deteriorate,” Washington Examiner, 6/11/09)

Labor Bosses Laugh All The Way To The Bank, While Workers Suffer

Labor Bosses Earn “More Than Twice As Much As The Average Union Worker”:

“In the past five years, pink slips have descended upon tens of thousands of union workers in Michigan, while others have seen their health care and pension benefits gutted and wages frozen or cut.  But in many cases, labor’s pain stops at the union hall door.  During the toughest economic times for organized labor in decades, union leaders are more likely to keep their jobs and get raises than the members they serve.  A Detroit News analysis of U.S. Department of Labor data revealed a growing pay divide between labor bosses and the rank and file who pay their salaries with their dues … The pay gap between the state’s 50 top-paid labor leaders and union workers has grown by $18,000 since 2002 — an economic chasm expanding by almost $10 a day.  Records supplied to the Labor Department by the unions themselves show that the state’s 50 top-paid union officials now earn an average of $186,000.  More than 1,000 labor officers and staffers in Michigan made more than $100,000 in 2006, more than twice as much as the average union worker.” (Mike Wilkinson & Ron French, “Labor Bosses Don’t Share Workers’ Pain,” The Detroit News, 8/14/07)

Obama Administration Supports Big Labor Bailouts

Obama Labor Board Supports “Ambush” Elections:

“In a win for organized labor, the National Labor Relations Board on Wednesday approved sweeping new rules that would speed the pace of union elections, making it easier for unions to gain members at companies that have long rebuffed them.  Business groups quickly denounced the move, saying it limits the time employers have to present their own case to workers about the impact of joining a union.” (Sam Hananel, “Business Groups To Fight New NLRB Rules,” The Associated Press, 12/21/11)

Obama Labor Board Supports “Micro-Unions”:

“In a case known as Specialty Healthcare, the board decided that the union could seek to organize a group that consists only of nursing assistants, a blow to the employer, which wanted to include other nonprofessional employees in the unit.  Employer groups had been concerned the board would use the health-care industry case to endorse the formation of so-called mini-bargaining units in a range of workplaces, which they said would allow unions to target small groups of workers the unions know would support unionization.  The Democrats on the board, in their written decision, used the case to clarify what they said has been longstanding policy in various industries when determining what constitutes an appropriate group of workers to organize.  They said that when an employer disagrees with a union’s proposal to organize a narrower group of employees, the onus is on the employer to prove the excluded workers share ‘an overwhelming community of interest’ with those in the proposed unit.  The board’s lone Republican, Brian Hayes, disagreed with this assessment in his dissent.” (Melanie Trottman, “NLRB Sides With Unions In Three Cases,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/30/11)

Obama Labor Board Supports Invasion Of Worker Privacy:

“A proposal by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to include workers’ email addresses and phone numbers on voter lists for union elections could become the next flashpoint in the war between labor and business.  Originally proposed as part of the NLRB’s union election rule in June last year, the provision was shelved when the labor board passed other portions of that rule in December.  But opposition to sharing workers’ contact information has begun to grow on Capitol Hill and among business groups over worries that the NLRB may bring the proposal back.” (Kevin Bogardus, “NLRB Plan To Share Workers’ Email, Phone Numbers Under Fire,” The Hill, 3/24/12)

Big Labor’s Bailouts Denounced

The Denver Post: “Here we go again.  Rule changes proposed this week by the National Labor Relations Board that would make it easier for unions to organize are yet another effort to tilt the playing field in favor of labor.  The new rules would drastically shorten the time that workers have before being asked to vote on unionization.  They’re unfair to employers and employees alike, and they ought to be rejected.  While the changes are the latest endeavor to give unions advantages in organizing, they certainly aren’t the only effort.  Since Barack Obama was elected president with broad union support, Big Labor has relentlessly tried to collect on the work it did to get him into office.” (Editorial, “Editorial: NLRB Should Back Off Plan To Shorten Union-Vote Time,” The Denver Post, 6/23/11)

The Wall Street Journal: “The descent of the National Labor Relations Board from independent referee to a wholly owned AFL-CIO subsidiary is speeding up.  Now its two Democratic appointees are attempting to ram through a new rule requiring quickie organizing elections, with barely any notice and little consultation with its sole GOP member … This is Big Labor’s version of speed dating, and no wonder.  Union membership is down to some 7% of the private workforce, and falling.  Fewer workers want to join unions as they see what has happened to the competitiveness of union-dominated industries.  Labor’s response is to rig the rules so that companies have little time and fewer resources to educate workers about the risks posed by unions.  When unions couldn’t get a ‘card check’ bill banning secret-ballot elections through even a Democratic Congress, they turned to the NLRB for this and other dirty work.” (Editorial, “The NLRB Putsch,” The Wall Street Journal, 11/28/11)

The Washington Times: “Big Labor played such an essential role in delivering the White House to President Obama that the head of the influential government workers union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, told The Washington Times after the election that the union was expecting ‘payback.’  Payback’s name is H. Craig Becker.  That’s who President Obama nominated for a seat overseeing federal labor laws on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).  Mr. Becker’s record as a top lawyer for both the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO is so troubling that even Democrats such as Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Louisiana and Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska thought someone else should be found for the job.  Though the Senate has consistently refused to confirm Mr. Becker, the president has no intention of abandoning Big Labor’s champion.” (Editorial, “Obama’s Big Labor Payback,” The Washington Times, 3/26/10)

Las Vegas Review-Journal: “What was the federal government’s role in labor-management relations, again?  To maintain a level playing field?  The National Labor Relations Board has approved a new rule requiring private employers to display posters telling workers about their right to form a union, as well as their right to distribute union literature and engage in other union activities without reprisal … Make no mistake, this is merely another step toward a goal long advanced by union activists, which is to receive the government’s blessing to ignore private property rights, setting up union recruitment tables inside the hallways and cafeterias of every targeted workplace in America.  Who knows, maybe that’ll even be part of President Obama’s newest ‘jobs’ program.” (Editorial, “National Labor Relations Board Oversteps Role With New Rule,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, 8/29/11)

Posted in Big Labor Bailout, Big Labor Bosses, Campaigns & Elections, Congress | Comments Off

Wszolek: The Battle of Student Forced Unionization

Posted on April 11, 2012 by WFI Staff

by Fred Wszolek
April 10, 2012
The Michigan View

The Michigan Legislature has acted to defend university graduate student research assistants (GSRAs) who were the target of a forced unionization campaign by labor bosses desperate to increase their ranks. Michigan families and university students should be thankful for their quick action to thwart a money-grab by labor bosses who will stop at nothing to gain more dues paying members and increase their power.

In May of 2011, the University of Michigan’s Board of Regents undid a 30-year old policy which classified GSRAs as students admitted to the university – not employees hired by it. Despite strong opposition by numerous individuals including U-M’s president, provost, and the deans of every college, Big Labor-friendly Regents voted to consider GSRAs university employees.

Labor bosses swore their efforts were to ensure students had their rights defended – yet the GSRAs did not call for this action. To the contrary, many openly opposed it. They recognized this was about subjecting more individuals to forced payment of union dues. In Michigan, union employees are forced to pay dues whether they support the union or not. If they refuse, they can no longer work, for example, as a graduate student research assistant at U-M.

“Some of the [Graduate Employees Organization] GEO’s employees once paid me a visit. I asked them what sort of benefits the union would offer,” says U-M student and research assistant Mike Palazzolo. “They gave me a canned response about how they won’t know until a contract is negotiated. That’s the best they can do – ask me for hundreds of dollars and promise they’ll try to make it worth my while. No thanks. ”

Concerned, the Michigan House and Senate worked quickly to affirm that students are students – not employees. Though government often moves too slowly, this was a terrific exception. Both chambers quickly passed this important legislation, and Governor Snyder signed the bill into law the very next day.

Big Labor’s allies – MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, for one – struck back with accusations that the Legislature’s actions were somehow illegitimate.
“Many of the points made by Maddow . . . were factually inaccurate, based on political propaganda and/or a deliberate attempt to mislead her audience,” responded House Speaker Jase Bolger in a statement. “The truth is that the Michigan House of Representatives is following the state Constitution and the House Rules during all operations.”

To prove the point, MIRS reported that “liberal MSNBC host Rachel MADDOW went on the warpath this week on the. . . issue, but bungled her facts. (Maddow claimed) that Republicans are doing something radical – even though the practice has been used under leadership from both parties for years.”

These arguments over the rules of the legislature are best left to the legislature. They shouldn’t be used as a smokescreen to hide what this issue is really about: union bosses extracting perhaps a million dollars a year out of the paychecks of graduate student research assistants.

Governor Rick Snyder, House Speaker Jase Bolger, and Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville deserve our thanks for the strong action to protect graduate student research assistants from forced unionization. With all the things students have to contend with, being forced into a union shouldn’t be one of them – no matter what labor bosses and Rachel Maddow think.

Fred Wszolek is a Michigan native and spokesperson for the Workforce Fairness Institute in Washington, DC

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