Right to Work Blog

Big Labor is making its presence felt at the Democrat convention in Denver and it hasn’t gone unnoticed by the Wall Street Journal.

We all know of Big Labor’s desperate effort to enact the Card Check Scam Law. But wait, there’s more:

Card check is merely the start. Next on the agenda is a campaign to repeal “right to work” laws in the 22 U.S. states that have them. Right to work laws allow employees to decide for themselves whether to join or financially support a union. Former Michigan Congressman David Bonior told a union event in Denver on Monday that limiting right to work laws is essential both to lifting union membership and promoting more Democratic political victories. He pointed out that John Kerry didn’t win a single right to work state in 2004, while Al Gore won only one — Iowa — and only by a few thousand votes in 2000.

With Washington State quickly developing a reputation as a big labor fiefdom, SEIU boss Andy Stern has set his sights on the Evergreen State in his effort to limit the state’s investment in private equity companies.

The Wall Street Journal notes:

The SEIU recently filed a citizens initiative to the Washington legislature to limit the state’s investment in private equity companies. Under the proposed SEIU-drawn rules, the State Investment Board, which manages $62 billion in public pension money, would be required to consider certain “societal criteria” before it could invest in the likes of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts or the Carlyle Group.

On the SEIU political checklist are a private equity firm’s “lack of transparency, poor employment practices, environmental impacts and other indicators of irresponsible corporate behavior.” The Investment Board would also have to encourage private equity to comply with the SEIU’s vision of “corporate responsibility.” That means firms would have to release data on revenues, taxes, and executive compensation, provide “living wages and benefits,” recognize a “collective bargaining representative” at each portfolio company, and mitigate “climate risk,” which is to say be politically correct on global warming. The Investment Board itself would also have to “support changes to tax laws that eliminate unfair advantages” to private equity, and more.

In other words, Washington state pension funds would for all practical purposes be barred from investing in private equity. State Investment Board Executive Director Joe Dear concluded as much when he told a local newspaper that “No private equity firm that we want to do business with will do business with us under these terms.” He predicted this would “cost taxpayers and beneficiaries millions in higher taxes and contributions.”

And he has the data to prove it. Nearly $14 billion of Washington’s investments are in private equity, which has provided returns of 12.6% over the past decade, compared to 7.9% for pension holdings as a whole. Barring private equity would “destroy our ability to invest in our highest-returning asset class,” said Mr. Dear. The losers would be union pensioners who depend on those returns for retirement income.

Mr. Stern’s real agenda here is to coerce private equity firms into giving his union a free hand in organizing workers at their portfolio companies. Having failed to organize those workers in elections, or to negotiate unionization deals with private equity management, Mr. Stern is now seeking political retribution. His strategy is to demonize the industry in public and promote damaging legislation until the companies give in. . . .

Investment boards should be focused in on one goal — achieving the best return for investors and taxpayers possible. Playing Big Labor politics with seniors’ retirement funds is a recipe for disaster.

It is no surprise that union officials have been given amazing access to the podium at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. The forced-dues dollars that have flooded into support and sponsor the Convention should buy something. Among those who will call on the delegates to support more forced unionism among other themes will include:

* Tom Balanoff from Illinois SEIU

* NEA President Reg Weaver

* AFT President Randi Weingarten

* Change to Win’s Anna Burger

* AFL-CIO President John Sweeney

Massachusetts labor bosses are used to getting their way, especially from Gov. Deval Patrick. But labor activists are throwing up the red flag at Patrick’s proposed idea to use civilian flaggers on highway work projects instead of state troopers. Massachusetts is the only state in the nation that uses police officers instead of civilian flaggers at nearly all road and utility construction sites, giving union officers a way to make overtime pay. In fact, nearly five percent of the state highway construction budget went to pay state troopers.

Patrick’s draft regulations, which could go into effect as soon as October, would encourage the state to use less expensive civilian flaggers or electronic signs on roads with a 45 mph speed limit or less, and the AFL-CIO isn’t happy about it.

AFL-CIO spokesman Tim Sullivan, who blasted the plan as unsafe and questioned the cost savings, said the union would fight the regulations. “Who’s going to pay for these flagmen to be trained, who’s going to pick up their unemployment insurance? We just don’t think the cost savings are there,” Sullivan said.

This, of course, raises a more important issue in the eyes of David Tuerck of the Beacon Hill Institute. Under Massachusetts Prevailing Wage Law, the state pays about $40 an hour to police officers who do flag work. Union activists note that the law would require civilians to be paid the same amount — thus create no savings to the taxpayers.

Tuerck correctly argues, “By making this argument, the unions have done us a service. If a law compels the state to spend the equivalent of $80,000 a year for someone to flag down oncoming traffic, then it’s time to rethink the law.”

As you watch the Democrat convention in Colorado, keep in mind that over one quarter of all delegates are union activists. With a receptive audience, the AFL-CIO promises to “. . . charge up delegates for the convention and a hard-fought election season. They’ll discuss the Labor 2008 grassroots political program and key issues in the election, . . . ” including the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill.

Big Labor’s organizers will brief delegations as to why the law is priority number one for the union bosses.

It’s sad but true, the party that claims to champion voting rights for all now supports repeal of secret ballot elections for some. With so many union operators pulling the strings at the convention, there is little hope the Democrat party will stand up for workers’ right to choose whether or not they want to join or pay dues to a union.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation issued a news release announcing parallel federal lawsuits concerning illegal forced dues:

With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, three UPS employees in Kentucky and two UPS employees in Ohio filed federal lawsuits Friday and Monday, respectively, against national and local Teamsters officials for illegal extraction of forced union dues.

In the lawsuits, the nonmember employees claim that the national and local unions breached their duty of fair representation and violated the employees’ First and Fifth Amendment rights by charging and collecting fees used for organizing nonunion workers throughout the United States and financing a members-only “Strike and Defense Fund.” . . .

As pointed out by Charlie Butts of OneNewsNow.com: “A considerable amount of funds raised toward defeating California’s Proposition 8 — which would define marriage as between one man and one woman — has come from two unions.” But despite the fact that California is not a Right to Work State, workers can do something about it.

In an interview with OneNewsNow.com, Stefan Gleason with the National Right to Work Foundation explains that:

“In this situation, many teachers may be very outraged to find out that their money is being diverted into this kind of a left-wing and controversial social cause,” he contends.

Gleason says union members need to learn their rights because unions are not letting them know. He explains that if members object on religious grounds, they need to submit a list of two or three organizations they can support, and they then agree with the union on a charity. “And the union may or may not agree to that. There may be some back-and-forth, but it has to be a mutually agreed upon charity,” Gleason adds. “It has to be one that does not conflict with the employee’s religious beliefs.”

The California Teacher’s Association is one of the unions supporting retaining homosexual marriage, which in May was legalized by the state supreme court.

Harrisonburg, Virginia’s Daily News-Record has it right on the “woefully misnamed Employee Free Choice Act.”

. . . Called the “card check bill,” it would effectively deprive workers of the right to decide whether or not they want a union by secret ballot. Instead, such a measure would allow laborers at a workplace to organize if a majority check a box on a card for that purpose. . . .

Mr. Obama has affirmed he would make such a bill “the law of the land when I’m president.” Presumptive Republican candidate John McCain staunchly opposes the legislation, correctly noting that it would sunder workers’ preciously held right to make such a decision democratically via private ballot — without labor organizers peering over their shoulders and knowing how they vote. . . .

In an August 18, editorial, “No on Card-Check,” the Daily News-Record went on to urge Virginia’s two senatorial candidates to speak out now on how they stand on the “card check” legislation:

. . . Of foremost concern is how Virginia’s two senatorial candidates — former governors Mark Warner, a Democrat, and Jim Gilmore, a Republican — view this legislation. Virginia has long been a right-to-work state, and proudly defends this beneficent tradition as one of the foundation stones of its prosperity. That said, we can scarcely fathom a statewide candidate endorsing any measure antithetical to this tradition — without losing favor among Virginia voters.

Of Mr. Gilmore, on this score, we have no qualms. Facing an uphill battle toward election as it is, the GOP candidate would commit political suicide by abandoning right-to-work and the secret ballot. His conservative political philosophy mitigates against such a move anyway.

Mr. Warner is, or could be, another story. He may feel compelled to follow the lead of Mr. Obama, whose campaign considers Virginia, which has voted Republican in every presidential election since 1968, definitely up for grabs this November. What’s more, roundly favored to win the seat held since 1979 by retiring Republican John Warner, he may believe he can do so and still avoid political fallout.

But endorsing “card-check” would be a grave disservice to a people and a state that has profited mightily from its right-to-work status. In addition, backing this legislation would, we feel, cut across Mr. Warner’s grain as an entrepreneur. And a highly successful one, at that.

Thus, we ask Mr. Warner — and, for the record, Mr. Gilmore as well — how say you on this bill, the erroneously (and grossly so) named Employee Free Choice Act?

It’s one of the most competitive races for the House of Representatives this year and Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy will do almost anything to get Big Labor to rain money on her behalf – including, perhaps, rig a bid for a union construction company.

The Columbus Dispatch has the story:

Workers for W.G. Tomko Inc. are being blamed for a construction foul-up that undermined a section of the new county ballpark and caused damages of at least $150,000.

But those really to blame are Franklin County Commissioners Mary Jo Kilroy and Marilyn Brown. They ignored their own construction experts’ best judgment, then manipulated the county bid process to reject a well-qualified low bidder and award a plumbing contract to Tomko, all for political reasons.

Tomko, an out-of-state contractor with a shady background, had one thing going for it: It is a union contractor, and the low bidder isn’t. Kilroy and Brown, both Democrats, used the contract award as a political payoff to cement the support of labor as Kilroy runs for Congress.

Tomko workers dug a trench that caused a section of the stadium to sink, but Kilroy and Brown put those workers on the job site.

Before the contract was awarded, ballpark construction manager Turner Construction and owner’s representative Nationwide Realty Investors highly recommended the low-bidding competitor, TP Mechanical Contractors. Awarding the contract to TP Mechanical would have saved private investors and taxpayers $215,000 on the cost of the contract.

To her credit, Commissioner Paula Brooks, also a Democrat, questioned her colleagues’ rejection of TP Mechanical. She said that the county policy that Kilroy and Brown used to justify rejecting TP Mechanical should be a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule.

Kilroy and Brown said that four prevailing-wage-law violations in 2005 disqualified TP Mechanical from bidding on the contract. Those violations added up to a mere $4,000 in wage mistakes in projects for which the entire payroll was $5.3 million.

Yet, Tomko, the winner, previously had been fined $23,000 by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration for four serious safety violations related to an accident that killed a worker in 2006.

Tomko also had failed to pay a worker’s pension while he served in the military in Iraq. In 2007, a Pennsylvania court forced the company to pay $48,568 in pension money and attorney fees in that case.

Tomko lost its president in 2004 when he was sentenced to jail for tax evasion. He had been laundering the bills for improvements to his 8,000-square-foot mansion through his company. The president’s son now runs the company.

When the county’s policy doesn’t weigh those transgressions when awarding contracts, something is seriously wrong with the policy. And with the officials applying it.

As former House Rep. Jill Long Thompson takes on sitting Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, it appears that infighting amongst the Big Labor bosses in the state is hampering Long Thompson’s campaign for office.

The Associated Press reports that a split between the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the AFL-CIO is a battle over membership and dues money. The SEIU has already contributed $1 million in workers’ dues toward Long Thompson’s election campaign. Long Thompson is pledging to give the union bosses the power to negotiate for more taxpayer money if elected, but the AFL-CIO wants to be the lead negotiator.