Michelle Malkin: Obama’s Big Labor ethics loophole

[stream provider=youtube flv=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D8ia-l1RASG8 img=x:/img.youtube.com/vi/8ia-l1RASG8/0.jpg embed=false share=false width=350 height=250 dock=true controlbar=over bandwidth=high autostart=false /] Michelle Malkin highlights the non-existent ethical standards applied to Obama Big Labor politcal appointees like  SEIU/AFL-CIO lawyer Craig Becker who Obama appointed to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB): Everything you need to know about President Obama’s fraudulent ethics pledge can be summed up in four words: SEIU lawyer Craig Becker. It’s no surprise that Becker now refuses to hold himself accountable for the ethics pledge he himself signed in April. As the past two years have taught us, Team Obama’s operational slogan is: Rules are for fools. The contractual ethics commitment states: “I will not for a period of two years from the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.” Yet, Becker has participated in numerous NLRB cases involving the SEIU and its affiliates — and is parsing the definition of “former employer” by arguing that local SEIU chapters are “separate and distinct legal entities” that don’t fall under the ethics rules. The National Right to Work Foundation, which has fought both national and local SEIU officials in court on behalf of rank-and-file workers’ rights, eviscerates Becker’s lawyerly blather. SEIU’s own constitution considers local affiliates “constituent subordinate bodies” of the national union, the foundation notes. “Moreover, in 2009 over 85 percent of the SEIU’s receipts came from a per capita tax on the locals’ membership dues and fees. The national union even has the power to assume control over its locals if they do not conform to International policies.”
Obama Labor Bureaucrats to Bypass Congress?

Obama Labor Bureaucrats to Bypass Congress?

'Electronic' Voting Would Facilitate 'Card Check'-Style Abuses Three of the four current NLRB members who were appointed or reappointed by President Obama are veteran union lawyers. All three are expected to vote in lock-step to expand Big Labor's forced-unionism privileges. (Source: July 2010 NRTWC Newsletter) Since the beginning of 2009, Big Labor has had a cheerleader in the Oval Office. At the same time, ample majorities of both chambers of the U.S. Congress have been willing to vote for virtually any power grab sought by union officials, as long as they could do so without running into intense, across-the-board constituent opposition. Consequently, top union bosses have expected to see enacted in the current Congress legislation that would help them sharply increase the share of all private-sector workers who are under union monopoly-bargaining control. Their original vehicle for achieving this objective was S.560/H.R.1409, the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act." Sponsored by union-label Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Congressman George Miller (D-Calif.), S.560/H.R.1409 would grease the skids for Big Labor workplace takeovers in several ways. Most famously, it would effectively end secret-ballot elections in union organizing drives, replacing them with so-called "card checks." That means, if S.560/H.R.1409 became law, union organizers would have far more
Primary Voters Rebuke Issue-Dodging Republican

Primary Voters Rebuke Issue-Dodging Republican

Senate candidate Trey Grayson (facing forward) refused to oppose legislation promoting union monopoly bargaining over public employees. He thus reinforced voter concerns that he was a Big Government Republican. Credit: AP (Source: June 2010 NRTWC Newsletter) Refusal to Respond to Right to Work Survey 'Raised Concerns' Just a few months ago, Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson was widely considered the favorite to win the GOP nomination this year for the U.S. Senate seat now held by pro-Right to Work Republican Jim Bunning, who is retiring after two terms. A number of pundits contended that the strong support of Mitch McConnell, Kentucky's senior U.S. senator and the head of the GOP minority in the upper chamber of Congress, would practically guarantee Mr. Grayson's nomination. However, the Grayson campaign made serious misjudgments during the final weeks before Kentucky's May 18 primaries. Most important to pro-Right to Work Kentuckians, Mr. Grayson refused to pledge to oppose several of the top power grabs now being advanced on Capitol Hill by Organized Labor, the #1 pro-Big Government special-interest group in America today. More broadly, many voters who were deeply concerned about the rapid growth in federal spending under the George W. Bush Administration as well as under the current one became convinced Mr. Grayson lacked the intestinal fortitude to fight to reduce spending from its current stratospheric level. 'Any Genuine Opponent of Big Government Would Eagerly Oppose' Police/Fire Scheme
Tweedle Dee Lincoln and Tweedle Dum Halter

Tweedle Dee Lincoln and Tweedle Dum Halter

(Source: June 2010 NRTWC Newsletter) Both Candidates in Arkansas Democrat Run-Off Back Forced Unionism Shortly after this month's National Right to Work Newsletter goes to press, incumbent U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln will face a run-off contest against Lt. Gov. Bill Halter as she seeks her Democratic Party's nomination for a third term. Ms. Lincoln and Mr. Halter ran neck-and-neck in Arkansas's May 18 primary, and neither received a majority of the votes. (That is why the June 8 run-off is required under Arkansas law.) Most election observers expect the run-off will also be close. But one thing is already clear in advance of the Lincoln-Halter showdown: The victor will have a track record of supporting forced-unionism power grabs and giving the back of the hand to the overwhelming majority of Arkansas citizens who support their Right to Work law and oppose tampering with it. The only substantial difference between Ms. Lincoln and Mr. Halter on the forced-unionism issue is that the senator has very recently, with an eye toward the general election this fall, tried to obscure her long history of pro-forced unionism votes. Ms. Lincoln is now suggesting to freedom-loving Arkansas employees and employers that she is an "independent" voice on labor-policy issues.
Forced-Unionism Expansion, by Hook or Crook

Forced-Unionism Expansion, by Hook or Crook

Big Labor 'Organizing' Strategy Reliant on Washington, D.C. (Source: May 2010 NRTWC Newsletter) Nationwide unemployment hovers near 10%.  (U.S. DOL reports unemployment rate of 9.9% for April 2010) Across America today, there is widespread hardship resulting from most businesses' lingering inability to hire more workers profitably even as the country emerges from the 2008-2009 recession. What is the response of Big Labor politicians in Washington, D.C.? Sadly, they appear determined to make matters worse. Last month, union-label U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill (Mo.) admitted to the Hill, a D.C. Beltway publication, that she and other members of her chamber's Democratic majority were working behind the scenes to concoct an "alternative" version of the mislabeled "Employee Free Choice Act" for floor action this year. In its current form, this legislation (S.560/H.R.1409) is designed to help union bosses sharply increase the share of all private-sector workers who are under union monopoly control by effectively ending secret-ballot elections in union organizing campaigns. However, the National Right to Work Committee and its allies have mobilized massive public opposition to the measure, greatly lowering its prospects for passage in its current form. Monopoly Unionism Negatively Correlated With Private-Sector Job Growth In response, as Ms. McCaskill recently acknowledged, Big Labor politicians and union lobbyists are now concocting new legislation designed to accomplish the same objective through somewhat different means.