Extortion By Any Other Name: Behind the Teachers' Union Pay to Play in MD

America has become used to Democrat politicians pandering to "buy" union support, but more often than not, the term buying support is a loosely fitting phrase to mean pledging allegiance to a union or promising their souls to the demi-gods of Big Labor.  Typically, the expected favors curried in exhange for union support include promises of putting more money into union treasuries public employees' salaries through hiring more union members public workers.

That seems to be the way of influence-peddling politicians and the special interest that union bosses have become.  It is, therefore, somewhat surprising to read that, in at least one part of the country, politicians are actually buying favor with a union...literally...as in money, greenbacks, dinero!

According to the Washington Post, the teachers' union in Montgomery County, MD has taken political influence peddling to a whole new level:  Politicians are actually paying for buying donating to the teachers' union with money to curry its favor.

MOST CANDIDATES for local office in Montgomery County covet the endorsement of the county teachers union more than any other, and all of them know the drill: Appear at union events, fill out the union questionnaire, submit to the union interview. The union, representing 11,000 teachers, helpfully provides a road map to candidates seeking its blessing, including 11 criteria spelled out in painstaking detail online. Just one thing is missing from this handy guide: Candidates who receive the union's stamp of approval are also then expected to pay.

As far as we know, this arrangement is unique; in elections elsewhere, unions and other special interests contribute to candidates, not vice versa. But such is the overweening power of the teachers union in Montgomery that the usual rules are turned upside down. And it's no coincidence that the union's toxic influence in local elections is matched by its success in squeezing unaffordable concessions from the county in contract negotiations -- at taxpayers' expense.

In the latest elections for the Montgomery County Council, in 2006, most candidates on the union-approved (and trademarked) "Apple Ballot" coughed up the maximum contribution allowed by state law, $6,000, to a PAC run by the Montgomery County Education Association, as the teachers union is known. Union-backed candidates for the Board of Education also paid handsomely. Supposedly, these funds covered the cost of the union's mailings to constituents and other activities on behalf of its anointed candidates -- although there is no real accounting on a campaign-by-campaign basis. In theory, these contributions are voluntary. In fact, several sources told us that the MCEA's chief political strategist, Jon Gerson, made it clear that he expected candidates, once endorsed, to pay what they "owed" for the union's campaign on their behalf. One candidate, asked to explain the decision to pay, answered concisely: "Fear."  [Emphasis added.]

But what happens if one of the union-backed BoE members bucks the union?

A case in point is Nancy Floreen, the current County Council president, who suggested, during a budget crunch in 2003, that the union make some concessions on compensation. That probably cost her the MCEA endorsement in the 2006 primaries, in which she barely managed to retain her council seat. This year, facing reelection and even more dire budgetary circumstances, Ms. Floreen has been quiet as a mouse on the subject of union concessions, even though negotiations on a new contract for teachers are underway.

[snip]

Some MCEA-backed candidates, and the union, portray this as a win-win arrangement whereby teachers and the candidates who support them help one another out.

[snip]

Most elected officials, too fearful of the union to object, rubber-stamp the teachers' contract and the county budget, thereby repaying the union for its backing. Other big public employees unions in the county, jealous at the terms extracted by the MCEA, use the teachers' contract as a benchmark for their own negotiations, creating a self-perpetuating spiral of unaffordable concessions by the county. Little wonder that the county is facing staggering deficits -- $600 million on a budget of $4.3 billion in the fiscal year starting this summer. [Emphasis added.]

With politicians buying union support, it certainly is a "win-win" arrangement for the politicians and the union, but an arrangement where taxpayers are big losers.
-------------------------------

"I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes." Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

Follow LaborUnionReport on Twitter.

For union-related news, visit LaborUnionReport.com

Why so Socialist?

Last year, the mainstream media (un-affectionately known as the MSM) and a number of pundits on the left were caught completely off guard when posters of President Obama began appearing mysteriously in Los Angeles and Atlanta.  It was a brief story, but it made a big splash around the internet.

Well, seemingly unrelated to the "joker poster story" is a Gallup poll released last week that revealed that over a third (36%) of Americans view socialism positively.  Moreover, over half (53%) of Democrats who were polled view socialism positively.

"Socialism" was one of seven terms included in a Jan. 26-27 Gallup poll. Americans were asked to indicate whether their top-of-mind reactions to each were positive or negative. Respondents were not given explanations or descriptions of the terms.


Americans are almost uniformly positive in their reactions to three terms: small business, free enterprise, and entrepreneurs. They are divided on big business and the federal government, with roughly as many Americans saying their view is positive as say it is negative. Americans are more positive than negative on capitalism (61% versus 33%) and more negative than positive on socialism (36% to 58%).

So, overall, only 10% view 'free enterprise' and 'entrepreneurs' negatively and an overwhelming 95% of Americans polled view small business positively.

It seems incongruous that a majority of Democrats could favor socialism and an even larger majority favor free enterprise.  The leads one to wonder, do Democrats really understand socialism?

Definition of socialism:

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

If a majority of Democrats favor socialism and, by a wider margin, favor free enterprise too, it seems that either many Democrats don't understand that there can be no 'free enterprise' under a socialist system.

This leads us back to the mysterious joker posters.

Following the erruption over the emergence of the posters, Robert Dougherty wrote a good piece, correctly pointing out that the Obama as the joker comparison is inaccurate:

The Joker was many things, but he was hardly a socialist. In fact, the Joker is the polar opposite of a socialist, and anyone who watched The Dark Knight would know that. Socialism is the result of an all-powerful central government that runs every aspect of life -- but the Joker subscribes to anarchy, one of socialism's polar opposites.


If the Joker was a socialist, he would be destroying Gotham in the name of an all-powerful state. Instead, the self-described "agent of chaos" nearly brought down the state itself, and all of its most cherished institutions, so that nothing could bring order to Gotham.

Like the inaccuracy of confusing the Joker's anarchism with socialism, so too it seems are people confusing socialism with freedom.  You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

This raises a very concerning question:  We know that many Democrats favor big government.  We know that many of the policies of a big government tend to lead to the state control of commerce (aka socialism).  The questions is, do those who support socialism realize that, in doing so, they are eliminating their freedom?

Read the entire Gallup poll article here.

-----------------------------------

"I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes." Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776


Follow LaborUnionReport on Twitter.
 
For news & reviews on today's unions, go here.

Unemployment Report: Reading Beyond the 9.7% Headline

This morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its monthly unemployment report.  Surprisingly, the official unemployment rate dropped from 10.0% to 9.7%.

However, several of the Commissioner's statements give pause to immediate jumps of joy:

1. The unemployment rate declined from 10.0 to 9.7 percent in January. Nonfarm payroll employment was essentially unchanged (-20,000) and on net has shown little movement over the last 3 months.
2. In January, job losses continued in construction and in transportation and warehousing, while employment increased in temporary help services and retail trade....Employment in temporary help services grew by 52,000 over the month. This industry, which provides workers to other businesses, has added nearly a quarter of a million jobs since its recent low point last September.
3. With revisions released today, job losses since the start of the recession in December 2007 totaled 8.4 million, substantially more than previously reported.
4. Federal government employment rose in January, partly due to hiring for the decennial census.
5. ...both the number of unemployed persons (14.8 million) and the unemployment rate (9.7 percent) declined in January. However, the share of those jobless for 27 weeks and over continued to rise.
6.  Accounting for revisions during the benchmark and post-benchmark periods, the previously published level of total nonfarm employment for December 2009 was revised downward by 1,363,000. [Emphasis added.]

A most important take-away from the job numbers is this (in Reuters):

A sharp increase in the number of people giving up looking for work helped to depress the jobless rate. The number of 'discouraged job seekers' rose to 1.1 million in January from 734,000 a year ago.

Temporary agencies and the federal government seems to be where the bulk of the hiring was in January although manufacturers also added 11,000 jobs.

Before we break out the bubbly though, we’ll wait to let more able experts parse the jobs numbers. In the meantime, it seems to us that celebration may be a bit premature 

----------------------------------
"I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes." Thomas Paine December 23, 1776

Follow LaborUnionReport on Twitter

UAW Members on the UAW: 'They're Hiding Something...'

As a follow-up to our previous post, the soon-to-be unemployed United Auto Workers members at the former GM/Toyota NUMMI partnership in California are seriously questioning how the UAW is unfairly targeting Toyota, instead of GM.

Since Government General Motors is partially owned by the UAW, these members are questioning the UAW's conflict of interest, as well as its desire to withhold union dues from their severance packages (as the union bosses go to Palm Springs).

[Note: According to one of the members, they pay $3 million per year in union dues.]

As one UAW member states: "They're hiding something."

Union meetings have been cancelled, violating the union's bylaws, and members are angry about the failure of the union to represent them. Many feel that the 17.5% investment in GM is the reason the union has left GM off the hook.

In the words of another member: "Don't blame Toyota. And don't blame this membership...because that union is what's really wrong with this situation."

Though the video is nearly an hour long, it is worth watching

WARNING: Strong language in certain parts.




---------------------
"I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes." Thomas Paine December 23, 1776

Follow LaborUnionReport on Twitter.

On NLRB Nominee Becker: Someone is NOT Telling the Truth In Washington!

As we scan through all of the posts, comments and critiques surrounding union bosses' President Obama's controversial nominee to the National Labor Relations Board, the SEIU's Craig Becker, we could not help but notice some BIG inconsistencies in the comments made by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and the AFL-CIO's mouthpiece Stewart Acuff.

The inconsistencies are over whether or not Craig Becker will can push to use his (possible) position on the NLRB to push for provisions contained in the all-but-dead Employee Free Choice Act.

On Tuesday, AFL-CIO front man Acuff blogged on Huffington Post that...

"It [sic]we aren't able to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, we will work with President Obama and Vice President Biden and their appointees to the National Labor Relations Board to change the rules governing forming a union through administrative action..." [Emphasis added.]

Yet today, Senator Harkin stated at Becker's hearing that...

“As you are all aware, I’m a supporter of the Employee Free Choice Act, and I hope to see it passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. But I don’t have any illusions that those important changes can somehow be accomplished administratively, and neither does Craig Becker.

“He has clearly and consistently explained, on numerous occasions, that all three major reforms proposed in EFCA—card check, binding arbitration for first contracts, and treble backpay for illegally fired workers—cannot be accomplished without a change in the statute. And as we all know, statutes can only be amended by those of us elected to Congress, not Executive Branch appointees."

So, either EFCA can be rammed down Americans' throats accomplished can be done through administrative action, or it cannot.

Which one is it?

Senator?

Mr. Acuff?

Someone's not telling the truth here.

Which one is going to step forward?
---------------------------
"I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes." Thomas Paine December 23, 1776

Follow LaborUnionReport on Twitter.

Senate (not much) HELP Committee Votes on SEIU's Becker

As a follow-up to last night's post, SEIU attorney Craig Becker's confirmation is organized labor's "highest priority."

Earlier today, the Senate HELP Committee voted along party lines (13-10) to approve the SEIU's President Obama's nominee to the National Labor Relations Board.

As the NAM's Carter Wood notes:

Ranking Member Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) detailed his opposition to the anti-employer views of Becker, an SEIU associate counsel, and questioned the Senate’s rush to approve controversial, labor-backed nominees before Scott Brown of Massachusetts could be seated as a Senator.

Enzi supported Becker’s nomination at an October 2009 markup as part of a package that included Buffalo law labor Mark Pearce and Brian Hayes, a Republican staffer on the HELP Committee. The Senator’s opposition signals united Republican opposition and makes Becker’s confirmation much less likely in the full Senate because Brown will be sworn in before a cloture vote. [Emphasis added.]

According to the Hill:

A spokesman for Enzi said it was unclear whether Republicans would follow through with a filibuster of Becker’s nomination, though opposition to him remains strong among party members.

On Becker's nomination, HELP Committee Chairman (and big labor buddy) Tom Harkin (D-IA) stated:

“As you are all aware, I’m a supporter of the Employee Free Choice Act, and I hope to see it passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. But I don’t have any illusions that those important changes can somehow be accomplished administratively, and neither does Craig Becker.

“He has clearly and consistently explained, on numerous occasions, that all three major reforms proposed in EFCA—card check, binding arbitration for first contracts, and treble backpay for illegally fired workers—cannot be accomplished without a change in the statute. And as we all know, statutes can only be amended by those of us elected to Congress, not Executive Branch appointees.

“Mr. Becker is on the record about all of this. We could not have a more extensive record of where Mr. Becker stands. But now we’ve gotten 144 more written questions that my Republican colleagues have submitted, largely covering similar ground. That’s more than 420 written questions total. 200 more written questions than were submitted to Justice Sotomayor during her confirmation hearings, and she was seeking a lifetime appointment! That’s when I start to wonder whether these questions are legitimate inquiries, or just tactics for delay.

“So while Mr. Becker is diligently answering these additional questions, and expects to have more answers available soon, it is time for this Committee to move forward."

While Scott Brown's early arrival in Washington may aid the Republicans in blocking Becker, it is still possible for President Obama to appoint Becker as a "recess appointment."

If this occurs, this will only serve to delegitimize Craig Becker's role on the Board, as well as the NLRB itself.
-----------------------------
"I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes." Thomas Paine December 23, 1776

Follow LaborUnionReport on Twitter.

Cross-posted.

GAME CHANGER! Brown Likely to Head to DC Thursday to Block Becker, Reid & Co.

Great Scott! * **

Things in Washington seem to be changing by the hour!

Ever since Scott Brown won the Massachusetts special election last month, Harry Reid and his Democrat cohorts have been gaming the system, trying to rush through Big Labor's President Obama's controversial nominations like Patricia Smith (as the Department of Labor's solicitor) and Craig Becker before Brown could be seated.

Now, Scott plans to try and stop Reid in his tracks, saying he wants to be sworn in immediately, not next week and Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick appears ready to certify Brown as early as tomorrow at 9:30 am.

Patrick is planning to certify the results at 9:30 a.m. Thursday, said governor's spokesman Kyle Sullivan. "This will ensure that Senator-elect Brown’s request to receive the final paperwork by 11 a.m. tomorrow is fulfilled," Sullivan said in a statement.

Vice President Joe Biden would have to administer the oath of office, and top Senate Democrats appeared ready this afternoon to move on Brown's request.

“Once he gets the certificate in hand, he can be sworn in,” said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate majority leader Harry Reid. “We are working to swear him in as quickly as possible, which would be as early as tomorrow afternoon.”

There are several votes coming up within the next week that are expected to be controversial, including nominees for solicitor of labor and the US General Services Administration. A vote could come next week on whether to confirm Craig Becker, a Chicago-based union attorney who was nominated by President Obama to the National Labor Relations Board.

Votes on a major jobs bill could also come next week.

If Scott Brown is seated tomorrow, it is not a moment too soon.

Needless to say, however, union bosses are really, really mad.

The labor community is fuming over the expedited plan to seat Senator-elect Scott Brown (R-Mass) this Thursday afternoon, arguing that Democratic leadership is torpedoing one of its most important causes -- the nomination of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board.

[snip]

"Democrats were outmaneuvered yet again," emailed a labor source who was granted anonymity to speak freely. "I'm used to us caving, but they didn't even [try to delay Brown's seating]. They just hit the mat.

"I love how we cave to the Republicans and won't seat our Senator, [Al] Franken. Then we reverse cave and seat their senator. I mean forget the analogy of one is playing checkers and the other playing chess. It's like one is playing chess while the other is sitting there picking their nose."

As the NAM's blog Shopfloor notes:

Caterwauling, too. There’s caterwauling.

Organized labor has elevated the importance of Becker’s nomination, logically viewing him as their man on the NLRB. This afternoon, in an e-mail to Senate staff, the SEIU declared, “This is the highest priority for organized labor…”

We note this background paragraph in Stein’s story:

An associate general counsel for the Service Employees International Union since 1990 and previously counsel for the AFL-CIO, Becker was targeted immediately by GOP lawmakers for being too sympathetic to labor for a post at the NLRB. The White House urged unions not to launch a public campaign around his appointment, arguing that it would pass Congress via an “inside game,” a source working on the process told the Huffington Post.

Was he targeted immediately? We don’t recall that. But if so, perhaps it’s because Becker wrote one of the Obama’s Administration’s first executive orders to slant federal regs toward organized labor.

Purple heads must be spinning and pea soup flying over at the SEIU right now.

* pun intended

** Emphasis added throughout post

-----------------------

"I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes." Thomas Paine December 23, 1776

Follow LaborUnionReport on Twitter.

Cross-posted.

AFL-CIO Mouthpiece Admits Big Labor's Strategy is to Use NLRB to Push Americans into Unions

As Big Labor's nominee to the National Labor Relations Board, Craig Becker, has his Senate hearing this week, Stewart Acuff, the AFL-CIO's main point person in pushing the delusionally-dubbed (and recently doomed) Employee Free FORCED Choice Act shared the Big Labor backdoor strategy on Huffington Post.

It [sic] we aren't able to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, we will work with President Obama and Vice President Biden and their appointees to the National Labor Relations Board to change the rules governing forming a union through administrative action to once again allow workers in America access to one of the most basic freedoms in a democracy--the freedom of speech and assembly and association so that workers can build the collective power to challenge the Financial Elite and Get America Back to Work. [Emphasis added.]

As we noted yesterday, the leopard (Becker) isn't likely to be changing its spots--despite what he tells the senators in Washington.

This is also why the Communications Workers of America is pushing to get Craig Becker confirmed at the NLRB before Scott Brown gets seated in the Senate.
-----------------------------

"I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes." Thomas Paine December 23, 1776

Follow LaborUnionReport at Twitter.

Cross-posted.

Big Labor's NLRB Nominee Promises He'll Change His Spots...

In following the hearing of the Senate Democrats' attempt to rush SEIU Associate General Counsel Craig Becker onto the National Labor Relations Board before Scott Brown gets seated to the Senate, it is interesting to read that Mr. Becker, despite years of writing for compulsory unionism, working and advocating for a union that believes in compulsory unionism now says he can be "fair and impartial":

Labor lawyer Craig Becker tried to allay Republican objections today to his nomination for the National Labor Relations Board, telling a Senate committee that he would leave behind his past advocacy for unions.

“The ability to be fair and impartial is, of course, absolutely critical to the credibility of the board,” said Becker, who has represented unions and has taught labor law as a professor. He added, “I completely understand that, if I’m confirmed, the role I will play will be different from those roles.”

Never say never, but can we really believe this leopard will change his spots?
----------------------------
"I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes." Thomas Paine December 23, 1776


Follow LaborUnionReport at Twitter.
 
Cross-posted.

Very Funny Video: Where Everyone Knows the Union Bosses' Name

For those who don't know the National Right to Work Foundation, the NRTW is an organization of tireless individuals (including attorneys) who advocate for workers who become victims of union abuse--most notably when unions violate workers' rights regarding forced union dues.

The NRTW posted this hilarious video last week that we thought we'd share with you.



-----------------------------
"I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes." Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

Follow LaborUnionReport on Twitter.