DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL)/ELECTIONS & POLITICS House Cuts Funding for Union Oversight Agency Those who read this publication soon enough come across the acronym, "OLMS" - as in the Office of Labor-Management Standards.  It's the agency within the U.S. Department of Labor that processes union financial disclosure forms, and where necessary, investigates irregularities.  It's a relatively low-cost way to keep union bosses, employees and associates honest.  But the Democrat-controlled 110th Congress, not unexpectedly, is on the verge of clipping its wings.  Almost all union political spending - and lots of it - goes to Democratic candidates or party committees.  On late Tuesday night, July 17, the House of Representatives voted 237-186 to reject an amendment sponsored by Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., to restore a cut in OLMS funding to the overall Labor, Health & Human Services, and Education fiscal 2008 appropriations bill (H.R. 3043).  The current OLMS budget is $47.8 million; the approved measure would reduce that sum to $45.7 million.  That might not seem much of a cut, but it should be put into context.

The Labor Department created the Office of Labor-Management Standards pursuant to the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, also known as the Landrum-Griffin Act.  That legislation was the result of high-profile hearings headed by Sen. John McClellan, D-Ark., that revealed much of organized labor, particularly the Teamsters, to be under the thumb of organized crime.  OLMS is to unions what the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) is to publicly-traded corporations, an oversight agency designed to promote transparency and accountability.  OLMS is authorized to conduct civil and criminal investigations, and refer cases to the Justice Department.  It also enables union members to hold their leaders to account.  Given that DOL now requires annual reports to be submitted and made available for viewing online, transparency would seem to be more within reach than ever. 

But OLMS is an overworked agency.  At present, it has the resources to audit less than 5 percent of the 15,800 labor organizations required to file disclosure forms.  Yet lawmakers proceeded to reject the Kline amendment, which was a good deal more modest than the Bush administration's planned OLMS budget of $56.9 million.  That the proposed nearly $3 trillion federal budget is in need of trimming ought not to be at issue.  Yet the House could have looked elsewhere.  When the Senate meets in September to take up the House-passed spending bills, it should restore OLMS funding.  There are several compelling reasons why.

First, the House singled out the Office of Labor-Management Standards for a spending cut out of all agencies within the Department of Labor.  The Labor portion of the spending bill raises total DOL spending by $935 million over its fiscal 2007 level of $46.7 billion.  Simple math says that OLMS accounts for a mere one-tenth of 1 percent of the departmental budget.  Other portion of the department would appear to be better candidates for the axe.  Indeed, President Bush reportedly plans to veto the Labor/HHS/Education appropriations bill because it would exceed the White House budget request by $11 billion, thus making substantial spending reductions a necessity.      &nb sp;

Second, as OLMS is analogous to the Securities & Exchange Commission, it is noteworthy that the recent House Financial Services appropriations bill increased SEC spending by $15.9 million over the current year.  Labor Secretary Elaine Chao charged that the House action with respect to OLMS would "impede effective enforcement of the law that protects union democracy and financial integrity for rank-and-file members."  Put another way, if going after potential corporate thieves is a worthwhile endeavor, then so is going after potential union thieves. 

Third, OLMS is an agency that delivers tangible results.  Since fiscal 2001, its investigations have increased by 20 percent, and convictions are up 26 percent.  Courts have convicted more than 775 union officials, employees and associates of fraud, embezzlement and other crimes, and ordered about $72 million in restitution payments.  These cases, brought forth with overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing, did not railroad people into a guilty plea or jury conviction.  Nor did they arbitrarily remove union officials from their posts.  With funding restored, the overworked OLMS could pursue more cases where lawbreaking likely has occurred.  During fiscal years 1985-95, the number of full-time employees at OLMS actually fell from 464 to 299 before rising to its present level of 351, still well below the peak.

Fourth, OLMS is fulfilling its legislative mandate of communicating information about union revenues and spending to members and the public at large.  During a recent 12-month period, the OLMS website (www.unionreports.gov) received nearly 800,000 hits, or more than 2,100 per day.  The mandate for transparency, more than anything else, is what keeps union officials fitfully on their toes.  OLMS reported that last year 93 percent of unions met their reporting requirements.  But even if all of the other 7 percent were not guilty of lawbreaking - highly unlikely - certain union spending patterns ought to be troubling.  Nearly 50 employees at AFL-CIO headquarters in Washington, D.C., for example, received compensation in excess of $130,000.  The National Education Association donated more than $65 million to political advocacy groups bearing no tangible relationship to the interests of school teachers or their students.  With total assets estimated at $22 billion in 2005, America's labor leaders hardly can plead poverty or ignorance if some of their members ask inconvenient questions about where their money is going. 

Unions counter that Congress has been cutting Labor Department funds, but at the expense of unskilled and unemployed workers.  "The department has consistently fought increases in it core enforcement powers while increasing the budget for OLMS," said Deborah Greenfield, associate general counsel to the AFL-CIO.  Greenfield said that the administration reduced the budget for DOL's wage and hour division by 5 percent during fiscal years 2001-07.  She added that funding for the Workforce Investment Act, which houses DOL workforce-training programs, was cut by 21 percent over that period, while the department's employment service was cut by 25 percent.  The department counters that funding for all labor enforcement agencies has increased over the last six years in current dollars.  "Specifically, the wage and hour budget has increased by 12 percent," said a DOL spokesperson. 

Greenfield argues that corruption data are faulty.  "The statistics are cooked," she says of figures for OLMS-generated convictions and restitution.  She notes that Labor Department counts different prosecutions within the same case as though they were different cases in order to inflate the appearance of corruption.  Yet regardless of how the numbers are tallied, the number of corrupt union officers and auxiliary personnel would remain the same.  And if unions these days are less tied to the criminal underworld, that's a product of aggressive investigation, prosecution and monitoring.  The AFL-CIO, meanwhile, appears to have a numbers exaggeration problem of its own.  A few years ago, when the federation went to federal court to rescind the new DOL rule requiring a more detailed LM-2 financial reporting form (the form used by the largest unions), it claimed that compliance would cost all unions a combined "more than $1 billion," and the AFL-CIO alone $1 million.  As it turned out, the AFL-CIO spent a mere $54,150 to comply with the form, the constitutionality of which was upheld in appeals court in May 2005.  

Given all this, the House of Representatives' decision to reduce OLMS funding seems unjustified and even vindictive.  The Senate should correct the problem when it votes on Labor Department appropriations in September.  At least House Democrats know which side their bread is buttered.  During the 2006 election cycle, House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., collected $260,000 from unions that had contributed at least $10,000 to her re-election campaign.  House Appropriations Labor Subcommittee Chairman David Obey (Wisc.) received more than $100,000 in union donations.  And Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (Calif.) reported getting $191,000.  All three key lawmakers supported cutting the OLMS budget.  Friendship is indeed a two-way street.  (Wall Street Journal, 7/17/07; New York Sun, 7/18/07; Washington Times, 7/18/07; The Hill, 7/19/07; other sources).      &nbs p;         ;      

SERVICE EMPLOYEES (SEIU)
California Health Care-SEIU Contract Rift Widens
Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, has a dream:  to make organized labor mighty again.  He views huge increases in membership, most of all in his own 1.8 million-member union, as central to this campaign.  And with a hike in rank and file must come a new approach to collective bargaining, with unions being more businesslike in running their organizations and less adversarial in their negotiations with employers.  The May 7 issue of Union Corruption Update, relying on an earlier story in the San Francisco Bay Area alternative newspaper, SF Weekly, reported that the SEIU, with strong guidance from Stern, has put together sweetheart deals with dozens of California health-care providers.  The result has been severely substandard contracts for workers employed at dozens of health care facilities and a 140,000-member Oakland-based SEIU affiliate, United Healthcare Workers West (UHW), left out in the cold.  UHW chieftain Sal Rosselli already has denounced the agreements as sellouts.  Now he's taken his fight to a higher level.     

In a May 29 letter signed by 15 top officials of United Healthcare Workers West, Rosselli demanded an end to what he sees as undemocratic decision-making by SEIU top brass back in Washington, D.C.  "Some in the national SEIU are negotiating an agreement with nursing home employers - in California and nationally - and have repeatedly excluded UHW nursing home members and elected representatives from the process," he wrote.  "Those agreements could restrict our nursing home members' voices on the job and be implemented without affected members even having the right to vote."  It's not as if he doesn't have a case.  Four years ago the SEIU and major California nursing home operators reportedly reached a secret agreement:  The union would use its Democratic Party connections to expand state MediCal nursing home subsidies, but minus patient quality-of-care requirements - and employee collective-bargaining rights.  Workers no longer could negotiate on their own issues of wages, benefits or working conditions.  Carol Criss, a medical transcription specialist and UHW shop steward at Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara, is leading a petition demanding that Stern scrap a plan to put international union representatives in charge of local bargaining.  "Stern wants working relations with corporate America where they would accept unions, but they would be weak, ineffectual unions," she said.

The UHW at this point appears to have nothing to lose.  The SEIU now has stripped the union of all authority to represent nursing-home employees, reorganizing all affiliated locals into a new bargaining unit to be run by Stern ally Tyrone Freeman, head of Local 434B in Los Angeles.  Still, the union insists it is adhering to democratic process, issuing the following statement:  "SEIU has established a Nursing Home Unity Council where every local union, including UHW, is represented.  Members through their locals on the Unity Council make decisions about any future national and state agreements with nursing home employers, and members will have the opportunity to vote on those agreements."  Neither side, however, appears willing to address a larger long-term obstacle to bargaining power:  the high share of immigrants, especially from Mexico and other Hispanic countries, in the health care work force.  Lacking in education and English-fluency relative to native-born workers, they are unable to press demands in the labor market.  Nursing home operators surely are as aware of this as any union.  That's why they can afford to be stingy, secure in the knowledge that state taxpayers will bear the tab for higher MediCal costs.  (SF Weekly, 6/13/07; other sources).      &nbs p;

California Union Ordered Out of Kaiser Permanente Organizing If the United Healthcare Workers West (UHW) had free reign - that is, freedom to operate independently of its SEIU overlords back east - what would be the result?  Very likely, it would be an expansion of the Service Employees' penchant for aggressive card-check procedures to organize employees.  What Sal Rosselli and UHW organizers weren't counting on was worker resistance, and successful resistance at that.  On July 9, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled in favor of four Kaiser Permanente employees in Southern California who had filed unfair labor practice charges against the union only weeks earlier.  The workers alleged that the UHW had engaged in a deceptive card-check campaign, telling nonunion employees that signing a card was merely a request for more information about unionizing rather than a formal endorsement of union recognition.  What's more, UHW-SEIU organizers allegedly engaged in unlawful bargaining over employee wages and working conditions before the employees had a chance to select the union as their representative.

The lead plaintiff, Lisa Eklund, and three co-workers were angry over the formal union recognition last December by Kaiser on the basis of that card check.  They requested that the union identify which employees were inside and outside the collective-bargaining unit.  Organizers were unable to do this.  At that point, the dissenting workers went to the NLRB, whose probe concluded that the union had manipulated the size of the bargaining unit and secured signatures from ineligible employees.

The case will affect up to 400 Kaiser Permanente employees throughout the Southern California area, only a small fraction of the company's total work force.  But it sends a clear message that organizing drives have to stay within reasonable bounds.  That's a safeguard that recent card check legislation in Congress failed to incorporate, a major reason why the Senate on June 26 failed to muster the necessary 60 votes to bring the measure to a full-floor vote.  The Springfield, Va.-based National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which assisted the plaintiffs, sees the decision as a victory for worker freedom.  "SEIU officials have been repeatedly caught red-handed running roughshod over employee rights during these coercive organizing drives," said Stefan Gleason, foundation vice president.  "These campaigns give employees two basic choices - union "yes" or union "yes."  (National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, 7/9/07).  

ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS/OPERATING ENGINEERS NYC Developer Sentenced, Fined in Mob Kickback Scheme Several years ago Frederick Contini realized that resistance would do him no good.  The developer of the New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority's (MTA) new headquarters, located at 2 Broadway, pleaded guilty to various federal charges in March 2003 and July 2004.  Now he's been handed the tab.  This July 11, Contini was sentenced in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to five years probation and ordered to make more than $8 million in restitution.  The punishment was based on his guilty plea of March 31, 2003 to conspiracy to receive, possess and dispose of money obtained by fraud and transported across state lines, obstruction of justice, and engaging in unlawful monetary transaction.

Contini had hired employees from International Union of Elevator Constructors (IUEC) Local 1 and International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 14.  These "workers" proved to be fictitious.  He billed the MTA for $14.3 million to cover the ghost-worker payroll, nearly $10 million above actual labor costs, and laundered the proceeds through shell companies controlled by the Gambino crime family, in particular soldiers Edward Garafola and his son, Mario Garafola.  The project was part of a large Gambino project network.  Several dozen of its members eventually were indicted for fraud, extortion and kickbacks.  Contini's sentencing follows a joint investigation by the U.S. Labor Department's Office of Labor-Management Standards, the FBI and several officials of IUEC Local 1.  (OLMS, 7/16/07).      &nbs p;         ;      

LONGSHOREMEN (ILA)
Bowers Steps Down as President, No. 2 Man Hughes Takes Over For the last two years the International Longshoremen's Association has been operating under a Justice Department civil racketeering indictment.  But whether the change in leadership at New York City headquarters this month suggests the feds will drop its suit remains to be seen.  As expected, John Bowers resigned on July 26 as president of the ILA at the union's quadrennial convention in Hollywood, Fla., having held the job since 1987.  Bowers, 84, had been indicating for some time that he would not seek re-election.  His close ally, Richard Hughes, Jr., 74, the ILA executive vice president, takes over at the top spot, having run uncontested.  Hughes's replacement is Harold Daggett, assistant general organizer and president of the nearly 2,000-member Local 1804-1 across the river in New Jersey, long under control of the Genovese crime family.  Daggett had been acquitted in November 2005 after an emotionally draining waterfront criminal trial that saw, among other things, the discovery of the dead body of missing witness Lawrence Ricci.  Daggett got his job as a replacement for Albert Cernadas, who retired after pleading guilty in the case. 

The game of musical chairs that often accompanies the retirement of a top person may or may not affect the ongoing 83-page RICO suit filed in the summer of 2005 in Brooklyn federal court.  Bowers and Daggett were among several union officials named in the indictment.  The suit seeks to place the 65,000-member ILA under federal oversight in an arrangement similar to that governing the Teamsters since 1989.  The case has stalled, as lawyers have debated over such key issues of pretrial depositions and admission of evidence.  The defense plans to file a motion on July 31 to dismiss the case.  The Justice Department in 1990 had filed a RICO suit trying to link Bowers to the mob, producing only several minor consent decrees from New York and New Jersey officials, including Daggett.  This may be a case of aiming too high.  (Journal of Commerce, 7/13/07; Traffic World, 7/23/07).      &nbs p;     

AUTO WORKERS (UAW)
Former Local Financial Secretary in Michigan Pleads Guilty Willie Haynes had enjoyed a three-year streak until he pushed his luck too far.  On Monday, July 9, Haynes, formerly financial secretary of United Auto Workers Local 362 in Bay City, Michigan, pleaded guilty in federal court to falsifying union records.  Prosecutors had not charged him with embezzlement, yet made clear that his alteration of financial reports was intended to cover up thefts.  As such, he faces up to six months in prison, the same sentence he would face if he had been charged with stealing between $5,000 and $10,000. 

During fiscal years 2001, 2002 and 2003, Haynes, now 61, knowingly made false statements on the Department of Labor's LM-2 annual financial reporting form.  His lawyer, Peter Jensen, thinks this is all a misunderstanding.  His client, he argues, had taken about $10,000 over the three-year period, got caught by DOL auditors, and repaid the money by the end of 2004.  Yet in the face of this, Labor Department investigators alerted the Justice Department, which in turn decided to prosecute.  Haynes merely had taken advantage of a system that allowed his to take time off to conduct business for the union, which represents roughly workers at the General Motors Powertrain plant in Bay City; the plant assembles engine and transmission components.  The union was supposed to pay him for the time on the condition that GM would not.  Yet Haynes never took four-hours-per-week time off as he had promised, and collected the money anyway, something even his attorney admitted.  Haynes, unavailable for comment, had denied stealing funds until now.  (Bay City Times, 7/11/07).      &nbs p;  

STEELWORKERS (USWA)
Financial Secretary in Tennessee Sentenced for Embezzlement
On July 7, Larry Haislip, former financial secretary for Local 09-7509-S of the United Steelworkers of America, was sentenced in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee to six months probation for embezzling union funds in the amount of $1,702.97.  His real take, however, was much higher; the court also ordered him to pay $49,428.78 in restitution.  The sentencing comes after a Labor Department investigation.  (OLMS, 7/16/07).  

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (AFGE)
Former President in Oklahoma Charged with Filing False Report
On July 2, Brenda Sue Myers, also known as Brenda Sue Barnett, formerly president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 2282, was charged U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma with an information count for false reporting.  She had indicated in union records that the Oklahoma City-based union had disbursed $21,500 in loans, knowing that this statement was materially false.  In fact, she had diverted the money to pay for personal expenses.  (OLMS, 7/16/07).    

LONGSHOREMEN (ILA)
Business Manager in Texas Sentenced for Embezzlement On June 22, Anthony Price, former business manager and recording secretary for Local 1316 of the International Longshoremen's Association, was sentenced in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to five years probation and ordered to pay $11,804 in restitution and a $100 special assessment.  Price had pleaded guilty in March to embezzlement of funds from the Port of Beaumont-based local.  (OLMS, 7/16/07). 

GLASS WORKERS (GMP)
Texas Secretary-Treasurer Charged with Destroying Records On July 2, James E. Douglas, former secretary-treasurer for Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics & Allied Workers International Union Local 220, was charged in an information count in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas with concealing, holding and destroying union records.  (OLMS, 7/16/07).

POSTAL WORKERS
Texas Secretary-Treasurer Charged with False Record-Keeping On July 2, Jose Ocasio, former secretary-treasurer of National Association of Letter Carriers Branch 404, was charged in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas with making false entries in union records.  The local is based in Waco.  (OLMS, 7/16/07).


http://www.nlpc.org/list/r....

Open-shop laws threaten unions

A great article on why Right to Work laws help workers!

http://asp.usatoday.com/_co... href="javascript:;"> http://asp.usatoday.com/_co... href="javascript:;"> http://asp.usatoday.com/_co... href="javascript:;" class="vaLink">Enlarge By Rebecca Cook, Reuters Chester Youmans, right, a retired autoworker still active in the UAW, joins in a rally this week seeking health care reform outside the Detroit location where union and GM negotiators are discussing new job contracts. http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/... class="vaOuter">  UNION DENSITY States with open-shop laws tend to have fewer people represented by unions. • Indicates state with open-shop/right-to-work law State Pct. of workers represented State by unions Per capita real GDP1 • Alabama 8.8% $29,697 Alaska 22.2% $43,748 • Arizona 7.6% $33,441 • Arkansas 5.1% $27,875 California 15.7% $41,663 Colorado 7.7% $41,798 Connecticut 15.6% $50,332 Delaware 10.8% $59,288 Dist. of Col. 10.3% $124,363 • Florida 5.2% $33,718 • Georgia 4.4% $35,362 Hawaii 24.7% $38,083 • Idaho 6.0% $30,896 Illinois 16.4% $39,514 Indiana2 12.0% $34,058 • Iowa 11.3% $35,662 • Kansas 8.0% $34,242 Kentucky 9.8% $29,842 • Louisiana 6.4% $32,923 Maine 11.9% $30,305 Maryland 13.1% $39,161 Massachusetts 14.5% $46,721 Michigan 19.6% $33,468 Minnesota 16.0% $41,295 • Mississippi 5.6% $24,062 Missouri 10.9% $33,297 Montana 12.2% $27,942 • Nebraska 7.9% $36,441 • Nevada 14.8% $39,813 New Hampshire 10.1% $37,666 New Jersey 20.1% $44,885 New Mexico 7.8% $31,986 New York 24.4% $46,617 • North Carolina 3.3% $36,489 • North Dakota 6.8% $34,446 Ohio 14.2% $34,609 • Oklahoma 6.4% $29,545 Oregon 13.8% $37,633 Pennsylvania 13.6% $34,828 Rhode Island 15.3% $36,292 • South Carolina 3.3% $29,642 • South Dakota 5.9% $35,842 • Tennessee 6.0% $34,321 • Texas 4.9% $36,920 • Utah 5.4% $32,357 Vermont 11.0% $34,472 • Virginia 4.0% $41,702 Washington 19.8% $39,616 West Virginia 14.2% $24,748 Wisconsin 14.9% $35,390 • Wyoming 8.3% $39,130 1= 2006 estimates; 2= open shop for school employees only. Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Economic Statistics

Exactly 364 days later, frustrated by his meager paychecks and sweltering in the desert heat, he and his wife, Debbie, headed back to Michigan.

He blamed his family's inability to make a living in Arizona on the state's open-shop, or right-to-work, laws, which hinder union growth. Even with cheaper housing, he couldn't make ends meet on $12.25 an hour, and the work environment rankled him.

"You're not treated with any respect," Sioui says, who is happy to be back in Michigan even though he is currently laid off. "You're just dispensable, and they know it, so they treat you that way."

Sioui is among the blue-collar workers who are dismayed that business leaders and politicians are talking about making Michigan the country's 23rd state with an open-shop or right-to-work law. Right-to-work is the phrase union opponents use to describe what unions call open shops. Under such laws, union membership is not required to get a job, and workers can choose whether they want to be in a union, even if a company is unionized. That makes it harder for unions to organize new members in already-unionized plants and makes it more difficult to bring unions to new sites. Ultimately, unions say, it means more non-union workers earning lower non-union wages.

That the discussion is even happening in Michigan, which ranks fourth in the nation for its number of union-represented employees, is dramatic. Union pride — and influence — runs deep here, the birthplace and current home base of the United Auto Workers. It's a state where holidays are extended by union days off, such as the Monday after Easter and a week around July Fourth. And where even non-unionized white-collar workers admit their wages and benefits wouldn't be where they are without the influence of the UAW.

Yet the issue has come up, including in the Michigan Legislature. And not at a good time for the UAW. Although in early stages — and perhaps without much hope for taking effect — the right-to-work movement is another pressure on the union, which has just launched negotiations on new contracts with Detroit's struggling automakers. The UAW and the automakers will spend the rest of the summer hashing out what may be monumental changes for union workers' wages, job security and health care benefits.

Proponents say a right-to-work law will help Michigan revive its economy because businesses will be more amenable to moving to the state. States with such laws, they argue, are among the fastest-growing in the country.

Waning hope

Michigan is a state that is quickly losing hope. It is in its longest stretch of job losses since the Great Depression, say economists at the University of Michigan. From 2000 to 2006, the state lost 336,000 jobs and is predicted to lose an additional 33,000 by the end of 2008. Its unemployment rate in June was 7.2%, the highest in the nation.

And the state's largest industry, automotive, shows little sign of turning around. Because of the cyclical nature of the auto industry, people in Michigan are used to economic ups and downs. But the downs are becoming longer-lived than the ups.

To regain some of its economic health, Michigan needs to attract different industries, such as alternative fuel production, health care and tourism. But right-to-work proponents say the strong union presence keeps new industry away. A weaker union base would help attract more businesses, they argue.

"We've got to do something bold, something dramatic," says Lawrence Reed, president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a conservative think tank in Michigan that promotes business interests. "This is the one best thing that can break the perception around the country that Michigan doesn't have a friendly work environment. Nothing would do that better than a right-to-work initiative."

Republican state Rep. Jack Hoogendyk introduced a right-to-work bill in March. It would change the state's closed-shop laws, which compel hourly employees in unionized workplaces to join the union. Although the bill likely won't go anywhere — it remains stuck in the Democrat-controlled House Labor Committee — there is a chance that a citizen's group could put a right-to-work initiative on the ballot.

"If Michigan were to become a right-to-work state, it would do a lot to move us in the right direction to become economically viable," Hoogendyk says. "Michigan has the most talented workforce, the best entrepreneurial spirit and work ethic. But the ones who make the investment decisions are not making the decision to come to Michigan."

The fact that lawmakers and business leaders feel comfortable introducing the idea of open-shop laws in Michigan demonstrates how much weaker unions already are in the state, which in the past dozen years has seen violence erupt over labor issues, as in the Detroit newspapers strikes in the mid-1990s. Job losses in the auto industry have trimmed UAW ranks to about 500,000 today from 1.5 million in 1979, making the union less of a threat as it shrinks.

Unions not sitting back

Still, the unions, which made up 19.6% of Michigan's workforce in 2006, aren't going to sit by and let the state enact rules that will weaken them. The day after Hoogendyk introduced his legislation, an e-mail from the AFL-CIO hit the inboxes of all of the state's representatives and staffers outlining the downsides to open-shop laws.

While UAW President Ron Gettelfinger dismissed the issue as a non-starter in Michigan, James P. Hoffa, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, said his union is ready to fight.

"We will mobilize our members," says Hoffa, whose union has a smaller presence in Michigan than the UAW does. "Right-to-work causes divisions among the workers when the workers need to be united."

Oklahoma is the most recent state to enact open-shop laws. In 2001, with 8% of its population represented by unions, compared with a national average 12%, state Republicans took on the battle to enact right-to-work with support of businesses including Wal-Mart (WMT), the state Chamber of Commerce, and most of the state's newspapers. Labor groups led the opposition. The two sides spent $11.4 million in the showdown over a ballot initiative. Supporters of right-to-work painted the issue as one of individual liberty, arguing that workers should not be compelled to join a union if they don't want to. Opponents argued that the law would lead to lower wages and benefits.

The issue drew nearly a million votes, passing with 54% of the vote.

Since it became Oklahoma law in 2003, "The effect has probably been rather minimal, plus or minus either way," says Mickey Hepner, associate professor of economics at the University of Central Oklahoma.

Personal income in Oklahoma grew 7.6% last year, the third-highest growth in the nation, according to the Department of Commerce, but that was attributed to growth in the oil and gas industry, which has been in Oklahoma for decades. Businesses have invested $2.5 billion in the state since 2001, according to the Oklahoma Department of Commerce, and about 28,000 jobs have been added.

Yet, there have been some big hits to the economy, as well. General Motors (GM) closed its Oklahoma City plant in February 2006, eliminating 2,000 jobs. Bridgestone Firestone closed its Dayton Tire plant in Oklahoma City in December. And the clothing manufacturer that makes Wrangler jeans shut a Seminole, Okla., plant in 2003, moving operations to Mexico. Union membership in Oklahoma is now 5.4%.

Right-to-work laws make less sense as businesses become more globalized, Hepner says. "We're competing against Mexico and China and Honduras and India for labor, and frankly, no matter how far labor costs go down (in the USA), it's still going to be cheaper to produce things over there than here in Oklahoma. Right-to-work is not going to stop that globalization process."

Michigan's prospects

Proponents of right-to-work could be helped by a growing dissatisfaction in Michigan with the unions. A recent spate of automaker buyouts that gave hourly workers up to $140,000 in some cases or paid-in-full college educations in others irked white-collar workers at the same companies, many of whom were laid off without any safety net at all.

And the automaker jobs bank — which preserves hourly workers' jobs even when there is nothing for them to do — has earned the UAW the derisive nickname "U Ain't Working."

In the past few years, the UAW also has drawn criticism from some labor sup

National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights petition calling on the 110th Congress to oppose Edward Kennedy and George Miller' Bill "Employee Free Choice Act" 

The Employee Free Choice Act was defeated because the American people through petitions like this one stood against it.  But Sweeney and the other Labor Bosses do not care about you-- they wont stop till every state looses its workplace democratic rights too--

Whereas, The United States honors the time honored and Democratic Secret Ballot election for employees seeking union representation or not, and
Whereas, unions pressure employees in public to sign unfairly "card checks" to win union elections without a free and open secret ballot election, and
Whereas, Unions and their Democrat allies by passing the Employee Free Choice Act subvert the collective bargaining process harming the good faith relationship between employee and employer by utilizing outside arbitration for first contracts instead.

Be it Resolved, oppose Kennedy-Miller "Employee Free Choice Act" by any means and protect the worker and employer rights and freedom of the American People in their workplace where ever they may work.

Sign our petition now!


www.ipetitions.com/petition/EFCA/signatures.html

Call your Governor to veto S.180 to help farmers keep their rights against Union tyranny

People are actively engaging their co-workers and neighbors in this fight with their union harassment stories and subsequent outreach efforts. Read the testimonials below about their courage and frustration in the face of union harassment. Their voices are echoed in a call to action for all Americans to step forward and demand freedom and privacy at the workplace.

Statement of Mike Ivey Materials Handler Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation Click Here

Testimony of Karen M. Mayhew Employee of Kaiser Permanente Click Here

Declaration of Clarice K. Atherholt Employee of Dana Corp. Click Here

Statement of Edna Dawson Team Leader Collins & Aikman Plant Click Here

Declaration of Faith Jetter Employee of Renaissance Hotel Click Here

“One gentleman told me that the union had told him we know where your wife works and she is at another union hotel. If you don’t sign the card, we will have her fired. I had one gentleman, I promised I would keep quiet, apologize to me because he said that union representatives had come and told him, 'We know where you work, we know where your wife works and know where your kids go to school. Accidents can happen.' “People were being harassed in their dressing rooms while they were dressing for work, which to a lot of people, that is privacy at most. And they were signing these cards at that point, saying that is it, I am signing it, let me out of here, get away from me. These are just some of the things we put up with. “If you don’t sign a card and we get in, you lose your job. If you are non-union you lose it. You lose your benefits.” - Bruce G Esgar, Employee, MGM Grand Hotel, Las Vegas, NV “I was the UAW chairperson at Omega Pultrusions in Aurora, Ohio for 2 years. During my time as chairperson, not one grievance went to arbitration. I wrote over 100 grievances, most had more than enough merit and worth to be presented before an arbitrator; however, the decision was not mine. In fact, on the one occasion where a grievance came very close to arbitration, I was called into a member of Omega's management team's office. Upon entering the office, I recognized my UAW international representative amicably chatting with the human resource director of Omega. I was asked to take a seat, so I did. At that time I was presented with a document that our human resource director and the international representative had previously signed. The document was an agreement that would settle the grievance that was to go to arbitration. I read the document then I refused to sign it because I felt that would not be in the best interest of the Omega employees that I was chosen to represent. The international rep. asked the human resource person to excuse us for a moment, so she exited the office. After her departure, the international rep. told me that I have "no choice but to sign the document" he stated, "you are a representative of the UAW before you are a representative of the employees". He showed me where the union and the company had already joined into an agreement, so I signed something that I felt in my heart was wrong.” - Andrea LaCivita “I am writing today because my rights to a democratic election were violated. The rights of my co-workers were violated as well. In March 2002, we had a secret ballot election at Freightliner Parts Manufacturing Plant in Gastonia, NC and the workers chose not to be represented by the UAW. Instead of respecting our wishes UAW officials cut a secret deal with Freightliner to force us to become a unionized plant. Company management and union organizers worked together to pressure us to sign cards saying we wanted to join the union that we had just voted against. To get us to sign cards, we were forced to attend meetings conducted by company and union management. At those meetings union organizers passed out authorization cards. It was a peer pressure situation and a majority of the people being pressured signed cards to keep from being harassed. Also, our home addresses were given to union operatives and they continued to harass us at home. Eventually, the company and the union announced that we would be represented by the very union we rejected less than a year earlier.” - Tim Cochrane “During my time as UAW chairperson at Omega Pultrusions, it was my responsibility to distribute union authorization cards. Our contract clearly stated that employees were to hold probationary status until their 90th day; therefore, I did not believe it was just to hand out these cards until that time. Over the course of 2 years, I was reprimanded more times than I can count by the UAW local president because the union wanted the cards signed and in by the 30th day. I debated this because I felt it unjust to collect union dues from a person for 2 months before I was able to represent them. I was told that these employees were "reaping the benefits of the union contract"; therefore, they are required to pay union dues. When I questioned whether I would be able to represent them if they were terminated BEFORE their 90th day, I was repeatedly told no. I never handed out a card before the 90th day-I resigned the chairperson position, but I have seen numerous UNION DUES PAYING EMPLOYEES TERMINATED ON THE 89th DAY who had no union representation due to their probationary status. These people did not receive one cent of that dues back nor did they get their job back; the union makes easy money this way at the expense of the American worker who is forced to join the union because he needs a job. I accepted the chairperson position because I had always heard that unions were "good, united, and made the workplace a better environment for employees". I resigned when I seen the truth behind the lie; the truth speaks for itself in all of the corruption that unions try to hide.” - Andrea LaCivita

The Employee Free Choice Act

By a vote of 51-48 the Employee Free Choice Act was defeated in a Senate cloture vote after passing the House 241-185. EFCA will sure to be an issue in the 08 Presidential Race as all Democrat candidates supported stripping workplace freedoms away from employees and employers.

Labor Bosses having failed in the US Senate on EFCA seek to bring  EFCA's anti-democratic  "Card Check" elections to California and its Farmworkers. Please support a veto of S.180 now.

What EFCA Would Do

There are three main components of EFCA. The central feature of the bill would outlaw secret ballot elections by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) among employees to decide whether to be represented by a union. Instead, the EFCA would permit unions to inveigle employees to sign “authorization cards” agreeing to labor representation in front of union agents. Second, the bill would give unions the power to invoke outside arbitration to gain a first contract, abandoning the American tradition of letting the parties settle their differences through good faith collective-bargaining. In other words, Business owners would suddenly have no one to negotiate on “first contracts” they would be removed from the Bargaining process and forced to accept due to EFCA an outside arbitration process without their input and the one sided and unfair employment contracts with the unions that this would imply. Third, the bill would increase penalties against employers for certain labor law violations, requiring reimbursement three times the amount of wages lost by an employee and imposing civil fines of as much as $20,000 per incident, yet would not levy harsher sanctions for union misconduct.

Why Authorization Cards Cannot Substitute for a Secret Ballot Election

• Authorization cards are inherently far less reliable because they require employees to make a public rather than a confidential decision about unionization, thus subjecting them to peer pressure, harassment, coercion, and misrepresentation. One study showed 18% of employees who sign cards don’t want the union.
• Unions can obtain commitments from employees without the employer’s knowledge and thus gain representative status before the employer is able to make a case as to why unionization is not in the workers’ best interest.

Key Union Arguments in Favor of EFCA and Why They are False

NLRB election processes are too slow. According to NLRB statistics, in FY 2005, the median time between a union’s petition for a representation election and the holding of the election was only 38 days, and 94.2% of all elections were conducted within 56 days of a petition.

Employers engage in massive illegal conduct to defeat unions, discriminating against 20,000 employees per year, and the NLRB is too slow respond. In FY 2005, the NLRB reports that it issued complaints of unlawful conduct against employers in only 1,160 cases – a ten year low - and ordered only 2,842 employees reinstated. In FY 2005, 97.2% of cases having merit were promptly settled; the median length of time to issue complaints in other cases was only 95 days.

It is too hard for unions to get initial contracts with employers. Employers are already required, under penalty of law, to bargain with unions in good faith. Employers should not be forced to submit to onerous terms imposed by a third party that may jeopardize jobs and profitability.

Contact: Will Fine 202-492-3196
For Immediate Release:
July25th, 2007
http://www.freeworkplace.or...

National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights demands Governor Schwarzenegger save Secret Ballot Elections for workers in California:
urges veto of Senate Bill 180 robbing our workplace freedom that many have died to keep

S. 180 is a bill denying civil liberties to the most vulnerable people in California--those who work the farms of our state. Farm workers deserve better than to loose their hard earned rights to the schemes of the labor bosses. Under this bill, labor bosses would be allowed to unionize through intimidation farmworkers to gain more members and their forced dues. Under threats of job loss these workers would be compelled to sign the "card checks" in their homes. It does not matter that these workers do not often know what they are signing or that union thugs coerce them untill they get their cards signed.

It is obvious under these harsh conditions for workers why the United Farm Workers Union looses more than half of all elections through Secret Ballot Elections. There is no doubt that SB 180 is a payoff to the union to save it by increasing membership at the expense of workers rights. Passing S.B 180 means the State of California would allow more workers to loose their election rights to the labor unions. How long would all Californians be free when every voter did not have the right to a secret ballot election in private and force was used to control the outcome of every vote?

"Do not listen to the calls and schemes from labor bosses on card check, Governor Schwarzenegger. Close your ears and turn away. Listen instead to the Americans that have sacrificed their lives to come to California to live in freedom. Why should S. 180 be forced on farm workers to make them give up their right to an election that should be private and free? Say no to these union shock troops that hold farmers hostage through Card Check, Governor, and veto S. 180. In vetoing this Bill, you send a message across the country; workers rights can never be compromised to the labor mobs again." said Will Fine, Executive Director of the National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights.

S. 180 is likely to pass the California Senate soon and move onto to the Governor for a veto. The Governor has not yet stated a position on the Bill.

END