There’s No Silver Lining in Tim Kaine’s Big Labor Friendly Legacy

When Former Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine decided to “cede control of Northern Virginia’s most ambitious public works project to a ‘dysfunctional’ Washington, D.C., board,” there are signs that he probably did so at the behest of his union boss friends.

“The $6 billion Dulles Rail project has been the subject of controversy for high toll rates, delayed construction, and union favoritism that could send jobs to out-of-state firms. Republican officials trace the source of the problems to Kaine, who ceded the Virginia toll road to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) in 2007,” reports Bill McMorris in the Washington Free Beacon.

It gets worse …

“The news worsened … when the Department of Transportation’s inspector general released a scathing report on the MWAA, detailing a culture of secrecy, lavish spending, and potential corruption.  The audit found that MWAA’s 12-member Board of Directors, appointed by officials in Virginia, Maryland, and the District, operate outside of federal regulations, allowing them unlimited use of taxpayer-funded travel with limited accountability.”

Want to learn more?  Read the full article here.

Posted in Big Labor Bailout, Big Labor Bosses, Campaigns & Elections | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Court Takes A Stand On Ambush Elections – But Will U.S. Senators?

A federal judge gets it.  So, what’s up with the U.S. Senate?

Yesterday, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled the National Labor Relations Board’s attempt to force “ambush elections” on America’s workplaces is illegal. Yet, a handful of prominent Senators are still siding with Big Labor and against workers.

Will this decision prompt them to finally say the ambush rule would result in division, discord and disharmony in workplaces?

Under the NLRB rule, unions could force an election in as few as 10 days, dramatically undercutting the time employers and workers would have to respond or make their case. Monday’s ruling finally gives workers and employers a short reprieve from the full-scale union boss assault on their rights.

Those who support fair unionization elections are working in Congress to ensure the NLRB can never enact this rule again. However, Big Labor’s allies on Capitol Hill are fighting hard to stop any attempt to undermine the NLRB’s forced unionization agenda.

Senators like Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Jon Tester of Montana have backed the union boss agenda by voting in favor of ambush elections in the U.S. Senate.  And former Gov. Tim Kaine, who is running for the Senate from Virginia, won’t state his position.

Do they believe that a unionization election can be fairly conducted in only 10 days?

Perhaps, for them, it’s just a simple matter of not wanting to bite the hand that feeds you.  They don’t want to stand with employees and employers because it would offend the union bosses who have promised to provide generous funds for their campaigns this year.

Is this the type of political courage you want in the U.S. Senate?

Posted in Big Labor Bailout, Big Labor Bosses, Campaigns & Elections, Congress, Unions | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What Do Union Bosses Want Now?

What Do Union Bosses Want Now?

Trumka on labor helping Dems: “Won’t be as much as it was in the past.”

Facts:

Labor Bosses Plan To Spend More Than $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)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Union Bosses & Obama Administration Join Together In Effort Against Worker Rights

by Fred Wszolek

The true extent of the campaign being waged against worker rights by the Obama administration and union bosses came into greater clarity over the course of the last several months with the president attacking right-to-work laws before the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations’ (AFL-CIO) Building and Construction Trades Department just as he kicked off his campaign for reelection. Mr. Obama said, “I believe when folks try and take collective bargaining rights away by passing so-called ‘right to work’ laws that might also be called ‘right to work for less,’ laws, that’s not about economics, that’s about politics.”

But the politics at play were those exhibited by the president, who was clearly pandering to a special interest he is relying on to fund his campaign. Union bosses have committed to spending nearly half a billion dollars for Obama’s re-elect, which follows a similar investment in 2008 — totaling nearly $1 billion in five years. And if that’s not enough, the Obama Campaign is virtually begging them to spend tens of millions more on the Democratic convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, a right-to-work state.

Obama and labor bosses have locked arms and made similarly dubious and inaccurate comments concerning right to work as of late. The president’s comments completely disregard basic facts between right-to-work and forced unionization states. For instance, in saying workers earn less in right-to-work states, Obama contradicts the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis annual 2011 personal income data “show[ing] that Right to Work states continue to enjoy a substantial income growth advantage over forced-unionism states. The Right to Work growth advantage is especially strong when it comes to private-sector compensation – that is, the wages, salaries, bonuses and benefits businesses provide for their employees. From 2010 to 2011 alone, private-sector compensation increased by 2.2% in the 22 Right to Work states, after adjusting for inflation with the U.S. Labor Department’s consumer price index (CPI-U). In the 28 compulsory-unionism states, real private-sector compensation increased by just 1.7%.”

The president is not alone in making inaccurate and borderline ridiculous comments about right to work.  Recently, labor bosses argued the right-to-work law passed in Indiana was somehow not legal because in denying them worker dues, it infringed on the free speech rights of unions. The argument demonstrates the lengths Big Labor will go to force workers into unions and gain access to their paychecks to pad their own pockets, and in turn, fund political endeavors.

This follows the actions of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which outdoes itself in leveraging the powers of the executive branch to reward union bosses. The Board, which is supposed to be an unbiased agency administering to issues between labor and employers in the private sector, as well as conducting workplace elections, is made up of unelected bureaucrats. The current NLRB contains members who were never confirmed by the U.S. Senate and were recess appointed even though the Congress was convening in pro-forma sessions.

The Obama administration went to extraordinary lengths to ensure their top political contributor could obtain the “payback” they have stated they are owed. Big Labor bosses have been clear they believe the NLRB is the vehicle by which they will secure elements of the Employee ‘Forced’ Choice Act, which failed to receive a vote in the last Congress and wasn’t even introduced in the current session.

Union bosses expect Obama’s labor board to go further than the previous one that decided in favor of “micro-unions” which are units for the purposes of collective bargaining with as few as two or three people.  These micro-unions create division, discord and disharmony in the workplace as little units negotiate against one another, while business owners become entangled in an expensive mess of union red tape and competing demands.

The Board also issued a rule in favor of “ambush elections” which rushes workers into making an uninformed decision on an issue critically important to their livelihood and makes a mockery of secret ballot elections.  All this while business owners struggle to get access to the resources they need to make a fair case against paid union organizers who do this for a living.

The current NLRB – stocked with its non-recess appointments – is now planning on handing over the private contact information of workers to union organizers. Given the long history of violence and intimidation on the part of labor bosses, it’s simply wrong to disclose fundamentally private information like worker phone numbers and email addresses, putting them at risk. No one other than an employer has a right to such personal information and this would be nothing other than another sop to Big Labor.

In the end, the preponderance of evidence leads to only one conclusion: the president and his regulators are engaged in an effort to bail out union bosses at the expense of American employees and employers. The Obama Administration is working hand in glove with labor bosses to issue job-killing policies that punish workers and businesses despite a stagnant economy with nearly 40 months of unemployment greater than eight percent.

By attacking states that have passed right-to-work legislation and putting forward rules and regulations that kill jobs, President Obama has staked his lot with Big Labor and against America’s job creators.

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

Kline’s Statement on Challenge to Ambush Elections Rule

U.S. House Committee on Education and Workforce Chairman John Kline released a statement today regarding his challenge of the rogue NLRB’s ambush elections rule. The rule dramatically limits the time business owners have to prepare for unionization  drives and limits the ability for works to understand the impact of unionization.

Kline’s full statement is below:

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce Chairman John Kline (R-MN) today sent a letter to National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon demanding additional information on newly implemented policies that require NLRB regional offices to schedule pre-election union representation hearings just seven days after receiving notice of an election petition.

“The NLRB’s unelected and unaccountable acting general counsel recently imposed a significant change on union election procedures without the consent of Congress and without the endorsement of President Obama’s labor board,” said Chairman Kline. “With this change, Acting General Counsel Solomon has taken another step toward implementing a backdoor ambush election scheme that will overwhelm small business owners and deny workers an opportunity to make a fully informed decision in a union election. At a time when job creators are struggling to get by and millions of workers are unemployed, the Obama NLRB continues to put the priorities of union bosses before national interests.”
The NLRB has been pushing to implement an ambush election scheme since June of 2011, when the Obama labor board proposed a plan that would have allowed union elections to occur in as few as 10 days.
Last December, ignoring objections raised by countless organizations representing workers and employers, the board approved several components of its ambush election scheme. However, the NLRB stated at the time that the proposed seven day pre-election hearing requirement merited additional deliberation.
As Chairman Kline notes in the letter:
Despite this clear statement that further deliberation by the board was necessary, on April 26, 2012, you implemented a similar seven day pre-hearing requirement…Under the new guidance, a postponement of seven days or less “will not be granted unless good and sufficient grounds are shown,” and a postponement of more than seven days will only be granted in “extraordinary circumstances.” This new requirement could impede a fair pre-election hearing, particularly for small employers; reduce opportunities for compromise and agreement; and undermine a worker’s ability to make an informed decision.

Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives approved bipartisan legislation to protect the rights of workers and employers during a union organizing campaign. The Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act (H.R. 3094) would ensure no pre-election hearing is held in fewer than 14 days and no union election is held fewer than 35 days from the filing of an election petition. To learn more about H.R. 3094, click here.

Posted in Big Labor Bailout, Big Labor Bosses | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Obama Plots His Second Term With Big Labor Boss

Judging from the policies he’s promoted, we’ve always suspected that President Obama was working arm-in-arm with Big Labor to enact its forced unionization agenda.

And AFL-CIO boss Richard Trumka has not been shy telling us about it.  He recently said that he spoke with someone from the White House every day.

Just the other day, Trumka reiterated that he has been working closely with the president, the president’s staff and the cabinet… this time to shape the agenda of Obama’s second term.

When asked by an interviewer whether he’d talked with President Obama about his second term, Trumka replied: “I’ve had conversations with the president. I’ve had conversations with his staff, his cabinet, about things of that sort.”

While Trumka and other union bosses have free access to the White House to plot strategy, do you think the president is also listening to the small businesses and workers who are victimized by Big Labor’s job-killing policies?

Trumka didn’t reveal what exactly they discussed, but one can only imagine.

The Obama Administration and its appointees on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have worked overtime to enact new laws and regulations that make it easier to force workers into unions. Whether we’re talking about the Employee ‘Forced’ Choice Act, micro-unions, ambush elections, allowing union bosses to access workers’ personal information, or any of the other initiatives undertaken by unelected government bureaucrats in Washington, it’s clear that as far as President Obama is concerned, what Big Labor wants, Big Labor gets.

With all the bad ideas promoted during his first term, what sort of schemes can the president and union bosses be planning for his second?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Senators Fail Their Constituents With Ambush Vote

Senators Fail Their Constituents With Ambush Vote

Fred Wszolek
May 2, 2012
Real Clear Policy

Last week, the U.S. Senate voted on a joint resolution of disapproval that would have undone a rule issued late last year by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The regulation changes workplace election procedures and inhibits the ability of employers to obtain fair representation and legal counsel when communicating with their employees about unionization. It also severely diminishes the amount of time for workplace elections.

The impact of the rule will be felt by all businesses in the private sector, particularly ones with fewer employees and less revenue, as they will have fewer opportunities to make their voices heard and achieve balance during union organizing campaigns. The result will clearly be that workers will deprived of information and unable to make a decision free from pressure or intimidation at the hands of union organizers.

Known as the “ambush election” rule, the Obama labor board’s regulation will now take effect on April 30th. Senators who failed to oppose the regulation sided with unelected bureaucrats doing the bidding of Big Labor bosses, and punished local workers and job creators whose interests they claim to defend.

With a struggling economy and extended unemployment over 8 percent, many job creators have come to believe policies originating in Washington reflect a disconnect when factored against the tumultuous business environment they confront. This detachment was exacerbated by last week’s vote and the administration’s message that they would have vetoed the joint resolution of disapproval had it passed the U.S. Senate and House.

It’s not surprising to most that President Obama would stand with his labor board, particularly since he is relying on nearly half a billion dollars from union bosses to win re-election and tens of millions more to finance his convention in Charlotte. Numerous senators, claiming independence from the administration, followed suit and chose to stand with Big Labor over their constituents and they will ultimately need to answer for their decision.

A good example of someone who will likely come to regret his decision is former governor and current senator Joe Manchin. Over the weekend, Manchin published an op-ed in The Charleston Gazette titled, “Sen. Joe Manchin: Born A W.Va. Democrat, Will Always Be A W.Va. Democrat.” In his article, Manchin writes, “All my life, I’ve been proud to say that I’m a West Virginia Democrat.  I am not a Washington Democrat. Being a West Virginia Democrat means that I’m a commonsense, responsible Democrat — and I always will be.”

Well, it certainly appears Manchin is playing one role in Charleston and another in the nation’s capital. While in West Virginia, Manchin rails against overreaches by the federal government, particularly its executive agencies, yet in Washington, he votes to allow them to eliminate worker rights and forcibly unionize Mountain State employees. Manchin will have a tough time sustaining that argument when his vote on S.J. Res. 36 is brought to the fore.

Next is Senator Claire McCaskill. In advance of the vote on “ambush elections,” the Coalition to Protect Missouri Jobs received responses to its questionnaire from many of her election opponents, including Representative Todd Akin, former State Treasurer Sarah Steelman, and businessman John Brunner, all of whom opposed the NLRB’s gross overreaches including ambush elections, but also the formation or micro-unions and handing over private employee contact information to union organizers. While McCaskill has refused to answer questions regarding her stances, she sent a clear message to Show Me State employers that she sides with union bosses over them with her vote on S.J. Res. 36. And it is not all that surprising considering McCaskill has accepted $581,250 from Big Labor since 2007. Once again, she will have difficulty articulating how she supports local businesses going forward.

Lastly, Senator Jon Tester has questions to answer. Tester rode a wave of anti-incumbency to office in 2006, but appears to have quickly learned the ways of Washington. With an easy smile and rural, down-home background, Tester thinks Montanans will be fooled and ignore his voting record.  Well, the Treasure State’s junior senator is sorely mistaken if he thinks Montanans are going to overlook his support for job-killing regulations. Tester has failed to return the Coalition to Protect Montana Jobs’ questionnaire in spite of the fact his likely opponent, Representative Denny Rehberg, has, and answered by opposing the burdensome and unnecessary mandates undertaken by Obama’s labor board.  Like McCaskill, Tester has not been shy in accepting big checks from union bosses totaling $439,100 since 2007.

In the end, these senators and many of their colleagues have some explaining to do about how their anti-jobs vote on S.J. Res. 36 is consistent with an election centered on economic growth.

Fred Wszolek is a spokesperson for the Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI).

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

President Obama Attacks Right-To-Work States

President Obama, speaking before Big Labor bosses and lobbyists at the recent AFL-CIO conference, threw a political cheap shop at states that help their economies with “right-to-work” laws.

Not only was it desperate political pandering to his union boss base during an election year, but it was an example of a president dismissing the right of states to determine what’s best for their economy.

President Obama put on a show for one of Big Labor’s most eager audiences and blasted right-to-work laws while at it.  Obama ignored economic statistics showing right-to-work states experiencing greater prosperity than their counterparts.

“I believe the economy is stronger when collective bargaining agreements are protected,” said Obama, calling the successful laws “… right-to-work-for-less.”

“That’s not about economics – that’s politics,” added Obama.

Really?  Because we could have sworn he was giving a political speech at a union boss conference bragging about how good it was “to be among friends” and bashing a policy that actually works.  Remember, these are billion dollar bosses who spent a combined five hundred million dollars to elect him in 2008, and are on track to spend that much again this year.

Of course, Big Labor hates to hear about laws that actually help workers and small businesses.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics – from Obama’s own Department of Labor – found that right-to-work states experienced a net gain of nearly four million jobs over the past decade compared to a net loss of a million jobs in union-dominated states.  And the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reports that right-to-work states experienced 46% higher business growth than other states.

“Right-to-work-for-less,” says Obama?  According to the BEA, real per capita income growth in right-to-work states grew 40% compared to 35% in forced unionization states.

It might be a good idea for the president to check with his Labor Department’s own analysts before going on a rant against good policy.

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