Featured Posts

The Latest

Obama Labor Department: A School For Scandal

Obama Labor Department: A School For Scandal

Union Consultant Charged With Overseeing Union Financial Reports (Source: May 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) On his first full day as U.S. President, Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13490, otherwise known as the Ethics Executive Order. Under E.O.13490, presidential appointees are required to sign a pledge affirming that, for two years after the day they are appointed, they will not "participate in any particular matter involving a specific party that includes a former employer or former client." "Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," Mr. Obama vowed. Unfortunately, almost from the day E.O.13490 was first issued, the Obama Administration has repeatedly ignored its letter as well as its spirit when it comes to appointees whose job is to oversee and regulate labor unions. Thousands of Union Bosses to Be Exempted From Disclosing Any Conflicts of Interest Last month, the National Right to Work Committee issued a report on one of the most egregious examples of an Obama appointee making policies that clearly benefit his former union-boss clients: John Lund, now the director of the U.S. Labor Department's Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS). Mr. Lund is a former employee of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE/AFL-CIO). And he is currently on unpaid leave from the Madison-based University of Wisconsin School for Workers, of which the AFL-CIO and many other unions, as well as many union benefit funds, are clients. But now Mr. Lund is responsible for overseeing federally-mandated union financial disclosures and criminal investigations regarding union financial irregularities and embezzlement!
SEIU's Stern and

SEIU's Stern and "Ruthless" Tactics

  Testifying before a House Committee, David Bego described the tactics of the SEIU as 'ruthless." That is no surprise to anyone who has followed the antics of the purple shirted thugs.  From Claire Courchane of The Washington Times: When officials from the Service Employees International Union tried to organize his management-services business in December 2005, David Bego’s refusal to sign a neutrality agreement with union organizers before the vote landed him in a battle he says took four years and cost him $1 million. “I was appalled by the tactics and the ruthlessness they used,” the Indiana businessman told a House committee hearing Thursday. “It was psychological warfare.”
SEIU's Stern and "Ruthless" Tactics

SEIU's Stern and "Ruthless" Tactics

  Testifying before a House Committee, David Bego described the tactics of the SEIU as 'ruthless." That is no surprise to anyone who has followed the antics of the purple shirted thugs.  From Claire Courchane of The Washington Times: When officials from the Service Employees International Union tried to organize his management-services business in December 2005, David Bego’s refusal to sign a neutrality agreement with union organizers before the vote landed him in a battle he says took four years and cost him $1 million. “I was appalled by the tactics and the ruthlessness they used,” the Indiana businessman told a House committee hearing Thursday. “It was psychological warfare.”

Where the Boeing Controversy Was Born

The Wall Street Journal's editorial page connects the dots to discover that the NLRB's complaint against Boeing and companies moving to Right to Work states is not the actions of a rouge General Counsel but the suggestion of the Chairman of the Committee Wilma Liebman. The Obama-era National Labor Relations Board has tilted so heavily toward union interests that companies might be forgiven for thinking the process is rigged against them. A recent missive from one of the agency's top lawyers shows why. In a May 10 memo to regional staffers, Associate General Counsel Richard Siegel discusses a March case in which the NLRB sided with telecommunications company Embarq Corp. in a dispute over its decision to close a Las Vegas call center and open a bigger facility in Florida. The company refused to explain to its union the rationale for the move. In America, business decisions are made by owners or executives and are rarely subject to compulsory bargaining, while unions confine their concerns to working conditions, pay and benefits. NLRB Chairwoman Wilma Liebman, a long-time union lawyer, doesn't like that balance. "The Board's task would be easier, and more importantly, the [National Labor Relations] Act's policy of promoting collective bargaining might well be better served, if employers were required to provide unions with requested information about relocation decisions whenever there was a reasonable likelihood that labor-cost concessions might affect the decision," she wrote in her concurrence to the Embarq case. Translation: Ms. Liebman wants to force far more companies to consult unions when they want to relocate, because unions might theoretically be able to offer concessions to avert a move if they had more information. Never mind that such a rule change would be an unprecedented intrusion into boardrooms, or that unions might use collective bargaining to request reams of data, such as payrolls and tax returns, to increase their negotiating leverage. In a "future case," Ms. Liebman added, "I would be open to modifying" the rule. Wink, nudge.
Trumka's Tirade

Trumka's Tirade

AFL-CIO boss Dick Trumka speech where he issued the hollow threat to the Democrat Party to take his fidelity elsewhere, is being called Trumka's Tirade by the Pittsburgh Tribune: Big Labor boss Richard Trumka has issued an ultimatum to unions' lackeys in Congress: Meet our unrelenting demands or find another sugar daddy to fund your campaigns next year. "We will spend the summer holding elected leaders in Congress as well as the states accountable on one measure: Are they improving or degrading life for working families (of union members)?" says the AFL-CIO's Mr. Trumka. And Trumka says Democrats may be "controlling the wrecking ball" that's hurting unions. How's that for gratitude? Whereas unions, given their substantial contributions to Democrats in the last presidential election, didn't get everything on their quite lengthy wish list, they've made substantial inroads with Team Obama at the federal level. Those inroads lead to the National Labor Relations Board.