Senate Snag: Obama’s Labor Secretary Nominee Won’t Answer Basic Questions
The confirmation of radical unionist Hilda Solis, Democrat congresswoman from Los Angeles, to be Obama’s new Secretary of Labor has hit a snag.
While the Senate has approved other Cabinet nominees left and right — including a Treasury Secretary who has admitted to failing to pay income taxes — Solis has yet to make it out of the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. The Pasadena Star-News has more:
At least one unidentified Republican senator is using a parliamentary procedure to holdup Solis’ confirmation, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, alleged from the Senate floor Thursday.
The anonymous hold — as the informal delay tactic is known — essentially prevents the full Senate from voting on Solis’ confirmation by threatening a filibuster. It could be lifted at any time.
The hold was placed on the nomination because of Solis’ support for legislation aimed at facilitating union organization and regarding pay-discrimination, and for non-responsive answers during her confirmation hearing, the Washington, DC-based Congress Daily reported Friday.
President Obama is asking the Senate — and the American people — to approve as Labor Secretary a Congresswoman who chose not to — or can’t — answer questions about worker freedom, secret ballots, or prevailing wage laws. As we recently wrote, Solis told the HELP Committee that she is "not qualified" to discuss Right to Work.
Solis has made a political career of carrying Big Labor’s water — first in the California legislature and more recently in the U.S. House of Representatives. She sports a 100 percent lifetime AFL-CIO rating. In fact, the union bosses hand-picked Solis in 2000 to challenge then-incumbent Congressman Marty Martinez (D-CA) because Martinez "only" voted with Big Labor 80 percent of the time.
Here is what she said at the recent U.S. Senate confirmation hearing in which Solis dodges questions on basic issues any Labor Secretary nominee should be able to address — issues like card check and Right to Work. Check out the video below:
Naked Advocate of Forced Unionism Named NLRB Chair
This week, President Obama named Wilma Liebman chair of the National Labor Relations Board, the quasi-judicial body which administers the National Labor Relations Act. A former union lawyer, Liebman has used her seat on the Board to do Big Labor’s bidding and trample upon employee freedom.
In a statement, Liebman said
I am honored by President Obama’s designation to serve as Chairman, and I look forward to continuing my service on the Board with my colleague, Peter Schaumber, and ultimately with a full complement of Board Members.
I wish to thank Member Schaumber for his own outstanding service as Chairman. His leadership and collegiality, coupled with the efforts of dedicated agency staff, have enabled the Board to operate productively this past year.
The Board’s work matters, just as it did when the National Labor Relations Act was passed in 1935. Democracy in the workplace is still basic to a democratic society, and collective bargaining is still basic to a fair economy. The statute we administer is the foundation of America’s commitment to human rights recognized around the world.
Emphsis mine.
As for "the statute [the Board members] administer," Liebman appears to have forfeited her objectivity by urging Congress to amend that law by passing the woefully misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (a.ka. the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill). As we asked earlier this month, how can an employee trust Liebman to impartially administer the NLRA when she is also working to amend it to effectively eliminate the secret ballot in workplace unionization drives?
Moreover, Liebman’s so-called "committment to human rights" does not appear to include any conception of individual freedom. In fact, she has shown an ugly disdain for individual rights, writing in one "academic" journal:
[A]n exclusive orientation toward an individual-rights regime could
have troubling political and social consequences.Workers may view the
employment relationship in purely individual terms and may fail to
grasp common economic interests and the potential of collective action
at work, as well as in the public sphere. Collective action at work
encourages engagement in the community and in politics. Without a
functioning collective bargaining system, fundamental economic issues
are placed off the table: distribution of wealth, control, and
direction of economic enterprises. What institution will be as
effective in efforts to minimize the randomness of fortune of
democratic capitalism? And without a strong independent trade union
movement, what institution will stand effectively as a counterweight in
our democracy to the growing political influence of corporations? What
institution will speak for working people—indeed for the middle
class—as effectively?
The truth is that Wilma Liebman thinks she knows more about what is in a worker’s best interest than the individual worker does. That’s why she feels is it good public policy to force as many workers into union collectives as possible. As far as she is concerned, individual free choice is irrelevant.
Foundation attorneys look forward to getting her Board’s rulings slammed down by the federal appellate courts.
Tell President Obama Not to Hand Over Even More Power to Big Labor!
The National Right to Work Foundation has launched an online petition to President Barack Obama advising him that his election did not give him a “mandate” to impose draconian policies that will dramatically increase the power and money of the Big Labor Bosses.
We need your participation — Click here.
After spending record sums to put Obama in the White House, the union bosses are expecting the President to return the favor. And as Obama wrote in his memoir, The Audacity of Hope,
"I owe those unions… When their leaders call, I do my best to call them
back right away. I don’t mind feeling obligated."
The potential payback could start with the woefully misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (a.k.a. the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill). Sign the petition to urge the President NOT to advanced such a policy which would, among other things:
DENY workers the right to a secret ballot when voting on whether or not they want to be part of a union (this is at the top of the agenda for Big Labor, because it would enable union organizers to forcibly unionize millions more workers into dues-paying union ranks)
Please sign the petition NOW, by clicking here.
U.S. Supreme Court Misses Opportunity to Expand Protections for Employees Forced to Pay Union Dues
Today’s ruling highlights the need for Right to Work laws, which end forced unionism
Washington, DC (January 21, 2009) — Today, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Maine state employees can be compelled under penalty of losing their jobs to pay into an international union’s litigation slush fund – even where all the litigation expenditures are made outside of their own bargaining
unit.In doing so, the High Court affirmed a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirming a loose standard of protection under the U.S. Constitution for employees forced to pay dues as a condition of employment.
“America’s workers were not well served by this ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court missed an obvious opportunity to apply explicitly the same ‘strict scrutiny’ standard that applies under the First Amendment to other content-based government restrictions on free speech,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation, which provided free legal aid to the employees asserting their rights.
Read the rest of the Foundation’s press release here.
U.S. Supreme Court Misses Opportunity to Expand Protections for Employees Forced to Pay Union Dues
Washington, DC (January 21, 2009) — Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Maine state employees can be compelled under penalty of losing their jobs to pay into an international union’s litigation slush fund – even where all the litigation expenditures are made outside of their own bargaining unit.
In doing so, the High Court affirmed a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirming a loose standard of protection under the U.S. Constitution for employees forced to pay dues as a condition of employment.
“America’s workers were not well served by this ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court missed an obvious opportunity to apply explicitly the same ‘strict scrutiny’ standard that applies under the First Amendment to other content-based government restrictions on free speech,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation, which provided free legal aid to the employees asserting their rights.
“Forced unionism is an outrageous situation. It results from actions by politicians to pay back the union bosses who got them elected by handing them the forced union dues of millions of employees in America.”
The employee petitioners in Daniel Locke et al. v. Edward Karass et al., asked the U.S. Supreme Court to provide much-needed clarity to the criteria it had established previously that determine what union activities employees can be lawfully forced to fund.
Unions spend billions of dollars each year on activities such as politics, organizing, litigation, lobbying, and a wide range of other ideological and non-bargaining activities. Yet union officials often claim that non-union members must foot the bill for these activities or be fired from their jobs.
The High Court’s ruling dealt with a special situation where, according to lower courts, employees who pay into a national litigation pooling arrangement could theoretically at some time benefit from litigation expenditures for their own bargaining unit.
“Because of the narrowness of the issue involved, we are optimistic that collateral damage to employee rights will be minimized,” continued Mix. “More fundamentally, however, this decision also highlights the need for state Right to Work laws which prevent union officials from extracting any compulsory dues from individual employees as a condition of employment.”
Locke is the 14th case brought by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Worker Killed As Union Monopoly Bargaining Undermines Public Safety
When US Airways Flight 1549 crash-landed in the middle of the Hudson River last week, union apologists quickly claimed that the passengers’ harrowing rescue was a result of union procedures. I wonder what they’d say about this troubling story from the Boston Herald?
A bitter feud between Mayor Thomas M. Menino and the firefighters’ union blocked swift action to fill critical maintenance jobs until doomed Ladder 26 barreled into a building killing a Boston jake, both sides acknowledge.
Local 718 president Ed Kelly called the mayor’s move to fill slots open since 2007 a smokescreen for months of inaction ended by Lt. Kevin Kelley’s death.
Why wasn’t the firefighters’ equipment properly maintained? Instead hiring independent mechanics, city union bosses were more concerned with shoving workers into Big Labor’s forced dues-paying ranks (emphasis mine):
Menino yesterday ordered Fire Commissioner Roderick Fraser to fill long-vacant mechanic positions nearly eight months after Fraser publicly raised concerns about inadequate staffing at a City Council hearing.
“I don’t think we’re adequately prepared to maintain our apparatus fleet the way we should,” Fraser told councilors at a May budget hearing.
Asked why it took so long to authorize Fraser to hire outside of the firefighters’ union, Menino said union rules blocked him but now he was taking bold action to assure firefighter safety.
“With a union workforce, you have to negotiate any changes,” Menino said. “I see an emergency and I’m going to do something about it.”
Menino’s action could spur a union grievance. The new mechanics will belong to a city union but not Local 718.
Kelly supports hiring mechanics but insists anyone responsible for firefighter safety belong to Local 718.
So the union boss put the expansion of his forced dues revenue stream before the safety of the public — and even the firefighters he claims to "represent." Just another example why forcing our nation’s public safety officials into union’s compulsory unionism ranks is a bad idea.
Cameraman Challenges Pervasive Entertainment Industry Scheme to Force Workers into Union Ranks
New York, NY (January 16, 2009) – Today, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed unfair labor practice charges for an independent cameraman who was threatened with blacklisting unless he joined a union and paid a $5,950 initiation fee.
The case challenges a common, though illegal, practice in the entertainment industry that union officials use to compel actors, employees, and independent contractors to join or pay dues to a union even though they have not continuously worked for an individual employer for the 30 days required by statute.
Brian Johnson, a cameraman employed by ESPN, is occasionally designated as a «daily hire» for the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) when ABC broadcasts ESPN sports programming. ABC and the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians Local 16 – Communication Workers of America (NABET-CWA) union are party to a monopoly bargaining agreement that governs terms of employment for freelance workers. Under this agreement, workers employed by ABC for 20 days in a year or more than 30 days over a two year period are required to become union members.
However, federal law states that employees cannot be legally forced into a union’s monopoly bargaining ranks unless they work for 30 consecutive days for a single employer. Johnson was never employed by ABC for longer than the prescribed 30 day period. Nevertheless, NABET-CWA Local 16 ordered him to join the union on December 3, 2008.
Union officials also informed Johnson that formal union membership was a condition of future employment with ABC. Under the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Communication Workers v. Beck, however, employees cannot be compelled become formal, full dues-paying union members as a condition of employment. Workers can be forced to pay certain union fees related to workplace bargaining.
Adding insult to injury, union officials attempted to extract an exorbitant “union initiation fee” of $5,950 from Johnson.
“Even though the entertainment unions’ ‘30 days in two years’ standard has no basis in law, union bosses frequently use this rule to extort money from freelance and part-time workers,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation.
“This kind of union dues shake-down scheme is all too common in the entertainment business, and we aim to stop it,” added Gleason. “Workers should be free to decide for themselves whether or not to join a union – and they certainly shouldn’t be shoved into union ranks just to keep a job.”
Proposed Change to Win – AFL-CIO Merger Promises More of the Same: Union Politicking with Workers’ Forced Dues
The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder reports that the SEIU-dominated "Change to Win" coalition and the AFL-CIO are considering a merger. The stated rationale for the proposed deal — to improve "organizing" activities — is all the more ironic in light of Change to Win’s original decision to break-off from the AFL-CIO. Top bosses from the SEIU, Teamsters, and several other unions claimed left the AFL-CIO to form Change to Win because they wanted to focus on workplace organizing.
The result of this decision speaks volumes about the priorities of union bosses: instead of adressing workers’ needs, Change to Win used forced union dues to become one of the most powerful and aggressive political organizations in the United States. According to Stan Greer, a policy analyst at the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, the SEIU hierarchy even implemented a national call center for worker complaints last year in order to free up virtually all union bosses to do full-time electioneering.
The moral of the story? Any union boss reorganization plan is purely cosmetic — it’s all a big side show. The SEIU, Teamsters, and the AFL-CIO will continue to focus their efforts on expanding the scope of compulsory unionism through the political process no matter what.
Podcast: NEA Illegally Launders Teachers’ Dues into a Political Action Committee Focused on Electing Barack Obama
Foundation VP Stefan Gleason sits down with Professor Bruce Cameron, a Foundation litigator and member of the Regent University Law School faculty, to discuss a money laundering scheme used by the National Education Association to help elect Barack Obama. The MP3 is here.
According to a complaint being submitted by Foundation attorneys to the Federal Election Commission, the NEA illegally laundered teachers’ dues into a union political action committee. Adding insult to injury, when confronted by teachers, union officials tried to dupe them into thinking they were contributing to a "children’s fund."
UAW Tries to Block Employee Election to Toss Out Union at JCIM Grand Rapids
UAW Tries to Block Employee Election to Toss Out Union at JCIM Grand Rapids
Meanwhile, UAW operatives work to pressure employees at Holland JCIM plant into union ranks
Grand Rapids, MI (January 13, 2009) — A majority of Johnson Controls (JCIM) employees at the Talon Court facility in Kentwood have filed a decertification petition seeking an election to oust the United Auto Workers (UAW) union as the JCIM workers’ monopoly bargaining agent, but UAW union lawyers argued in a formal hearing yesterday that the employees should be barred from access to a decertification election.
JCIM worker Dawn Lambert filed the decertification petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking a secret ballot election to determine whether or not a majority of the workforce wants to retain the UAW union as their monopoly bargaining agent. Under federal labor law governing the private sector, when a union hierarchy has been granted monopoly bargaining authority, it is illegal for any present or future employees – whether they are members of the union or not – to negotiate with their employer for themselves unless they can prove that the union hierarchy does not retain majority support.
A clear majority of the employees at the Talon Court facility in Kentwood have now expressed their intent to remove the UAW. National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have also sent a letter to JCIM management demanding that it cease further contract negotiations and also withdraw recognition of what is now a minority union at Talon Court. Under the law, recognizing and negotiating with a union that does not have majority support is an unfair labor practice.
