The Inescapable SEIU-NLRB Connection

John Ranson, writing for TownHall.com, points out how the SEIU and their cronies have a heavy hand in the role that the NLRB's effort to punish companies for moving to Right to Work states: In just another example of the Obama administration making law by fiat, the National Labor Relations Board head Craig Becker is proposing new rules that would shotgun the formation of new union shops in as quick as ten days. After the defeat of card check at the legislative ballot box, the former SEIU goon [Becker] is acting creatively in order to implement portions of card check unilaterally. What would one expect from a guy appointed to his position despite his nomination being rejected by the Senate? Obama then made a recess appointment of Becker to the NLRB, the presidential equivalent of Enron accounting for political appointees. NLRB and Becker have been in the news lately because they’ve attacked Boeing for opening a plant in [Right to Work] South Carolina, a state that is less accommodating to union employment but more accommodating to workers and management with project deadlines to keep. But the attack on Boeing is nothing compared to the attack that Becker and organized labor are going to launch against the rest of us starting today.

NRTW Attorney to speak at NLRB public meeting on new Ambush elections rules

 From the Education & Workforce Committee's press release on its hearing regarding the NLRB's proposed Ambush Elections : Restricting an employer's right to communicate with his or her employees will undermine a worker's ability to make a fully informed decision in a union election. Larry Getts, an employee at a small auto parts packing and shipping company in Indiana, explained the consequences facing employees if the NLRB's propsal goes into effect. "In reality," said Getts, "under these rules, the additional burden on already busy workers will prohibit them from making an informed decision -- especially where there is an absence of information from employers, as was the case in my experience. These rule changes are aimed at furthering the interests of Big Labor at the expense of workers’ ability to make a fully informed decision on an important matter. They are intended only to make it easier for union officials to harass and force workers like myself into joining their union, into paying dues and increasing the union bosses’ power."  Schedule of speakers for July 19 public meeting on NLRB proposed election rule changes (NLRB link to watch open meeting):

Obama's Secretary of Labor sued for aiding union bosses concealment of personal benefits

With the help of National Right To Work Legal Defense Attorney Bill Messenger, UFCW former union steward Chris Mosquera seeks to force U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis to reverse her regulations that rescinded disclosure of union boss benefits, insider deals, and sources of receipts.  Forced-dues fill Big Labor treasuries with cash that all-too-often union bosses turn into private slush funds awarding themselves handsome benefits. From the Mosquera's Op-Ed in the Washington Examiner:  Without stringent disclosure requirements, union members and nonmembers alike are left at the mercy of union officials who have the power to collect dues without being held accountable for how that money is spent. The public reporting guidelines Solis jettisoned included several common-sense additions to the Labor Management Relations Disclosure Act of 1959. Under the proposed guidelines, union officials would have to disclose how much individual compensation they receive in the form of benefits, account for any travel and entertainment expenses, and identify union income streams. The fact is most workers want more information about how their money is being spent by union officials. Last year, a poll revealed that nearly 90 percent of union members support strong union transparency requirements. Disclosure is a simple but effective tool for fighting corruption and encouraging accountability. If union officials know their spending habits are part of the public record, they'll be less interested in expensive getaways and more interested in effectively managing their members' hard-earned dues.

Obama's Secretary of Labor sued for aiding union bosses concealment of personal benefits

With the help of National Right To Work Legal Defense Attorney Bill Messenger, UFCW former union steward Chris Mosquera seeks to force U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis to reverse her regulations that rescinded disclosure of union boss benefits, insider deals, and sources of receipts.  Forced-dues fill Big Labor treasuries with cash that all-too-often union bosses turn into private slush funds awarding themselves handsome benefits. From the Mosquera's Op-Ed in the Washington Examiner:  Without stringent disclosure requirements, union members and nonmembers alike are left at the mercy of union officials who have the power to collect dues without being held accountable for how that money is spent. The public reporting guidelines Solis jettisoned included several common-sense additions to the Labor Management Relations Disclosure Act of 1959. Under the proposed guidelines, union officials would have to disclose how much individual compensation they receive in the form of benefits, account for any travel and entertainment expenses, and identify union income streams. The fact is most workers want more information about how their money is being spent by union officials. Last year, a poll revealed that nearly 90 percent of union members support strong union transparency requirements. Disclosure is a simple but effective tool for fighting corruption and encouraging accountability. If union officials know their spending habits are part of the public record, they'll be less interested in expensive getaways and more interested in effectively managing their members' hard-earned dues.