Bucks County AFL-CIO president Tom Bates posted a You-Tube video bragging about all the great things that a pair of Bucks County Democrats are going to do for unions. “Great” things like assuring heavy union contracting for country construction and shutting out non-union contractors and legislating health care plans crafted to union bosses desires.

But, even as the AFL-CIo has donated $47,000 to the Bucks county Democrat Party Campaign Committee, Democrats claim there is no quid pro quo.

But, someone forgot to tell good ‘ol Tommy Bates…

Nah. Dems aren’t going to pay the AFL-CIO back for all their campaign donations. REALLY they won’t!

First the left in the House led by Nancy Pelosi attacked the union watchdog group, the Office of Labor Management Standards, by trying to cut its budget. Even though it is one for the few successful government offices, prosecuting corrupt union officials, the Democrats in the House tried to cut its budget as a payback to unions that don’t like being held accountable. Now the Senate Democrats are getting into the act.

Amid debate on H.R. 3043, the FY2008 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, the Senate is patting itself on the back for providing in their version of the bill $9.6 billion more than president Bush requested. But there is one little area they want to cut: the OLMS.

While the both the Senate and the House are seeking to raise spending on all sorts of programs, including all those in this bill in question, the OLMS faces a 4 percent cut in its budget.

Gee, why do ya think that is? Why, its because the Democrats want to help unions escape prosecution for their wide spread fraud, of course.

As the NAM says:

Cutting the budget of OLMS will only serve to benefit union bosses at the expense of hard working, dues paying union workers. Again, we ask for your support of the Sessions amendment which would restore the much needed funding to OLMS so that this important agency can continue protecting America’s workers.

And who can argue with that logic?

Imagine the pressure of being asked by union thugs to vote for them to represent you. Then imagine that your ballot is open for them to see it after you cast it. Then ponder this question: how safe would you feel voting against a union thug if he could see your vote?

That is the purpose of the secret ballot. Cesar Chavez, the famed California farm worker organizer, fought long and hard for secret ballots. Of course, then it was to keep the corporate farmers from knowing if a potential union member voted in favor of the union. But, regardless, the secret ballot cuts both ways because now it is the union, rather than the employer, that has more propensity to abuse the worker’s best interests.

But, California’s farm workers already have the secret ballot, right? Yes, they do. But SB180 sponsored by the United Farm Workers wanted the secret ballot eliminated. And it is for the simple reason that they wanted to be able to intimidate any worker that would vote against the union.

Well, thankfully Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed this abomination.

As the NAM has it:

Congratulations to the Governor for vetoing that last bill, which would have deprived farmworkers of their right to determine their association via secret ballot. Cesar Chavez fought long and hard for the secret ballot, but organized labor now finds it inconvenient.

Just so. A victory for union members and democracy has been won.

It was claimed that 150 members of the Baltimore teachers union had gathered to protest in front of school system headquarters to protest an issue the union has with school Chief Andres Alonso. The story in the Baltimore Sun tries its best to make it seem a united cause by teachers but one upon reflection it becomes obvious that the 150 protesters were not who they pretended to be. In a teachers union of 12,000 members a showing of 150 is bad enough a representation but when many of the 150 protesters aren’t even teachers, well, doesn’t that say how little support this union has on the issue? So, if many of the so-called protesters at this rally weren’t even members of the union in question… just who IS the Baltimore teachers union representing?

At issue is whether the schools should require teachers to spend at least 45 minutes per week in planning sessions with colleagues. The union says that teachers don’t have time for planning for their own class work, much less time to be forced to meet with colleagues. Alonso claims he won’t budge from his position and therefore the union wants him fired.

Not earth shattering conflict, to be sure and the fact that the issue isn’t moving too many of Baltimore’s teachers to protest shows that. Yet, even as they can’t get much support from their own members the union is still pressing forward with their own agenda.

Here is what the Baltimore Sun says about the makeup of the 150 protesters. Two of the 150 were a city councilwoman and a national union official, neither of whom represent the actual teachers of Baltimore.

Continue reading »

The folks over at FreeRepublic have reported that at one of their pro-troops vigils in front of Walter Reed Army Hospital, a union member told them that he was ordered by his union to attend the nearby anti-war protest.

WASHINGTON, DC, September 28, 2007— The DC Chapter has suspected all along that the dwindling handful of anti-war protestors outside Walter Reed are paid to show up. This week, one of their newbies came by our troop-support rally at the gates by mistake, and spilled the truth: a labor union had recruited this worker to show up at the lefties’ phony “vigil.” The worker’s remarks clearly revealed that standing outside the Walter Reed Army Medical Center with anti-war signs wasn’t a personal choice, but a workplace commitment demanded by a union representative.

Our rally must have looked a lot more attractive, even at a glance—in fact, that’s what this unionized worker said. I’m going to avoid describing this person’s looks or gender, to avoid making trouble. Why? Because this office worker’s confusion appeared sincere, revealing that the decision to be there wasn’t intentional; in fact, the person didn’t really seem to know what either demonstration was about.

The fellow that the Freepers spoke to was a member of the O.P.E.I.U., the Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local no. 2.

So, why, exactly, is a union forcing their members to attend anti-war rallies?

Is that truly union business?

What is your concept of a union dues payment? Is it a single, democratic fee paid at the same rate for all members, a payment that ensures the equal treatment of all union members? If so, you’d be wrong if you were an SEIU member. Because, for the SEIU, your dues are not a single standard payment for all your members, but it is a payment calculated on how much you make… just like income taxes are.

According to a blog about the nursing profession the SEIU district 1199 is violating one of the most dearly help ideals of any union; that it is interested in “equal treatment” for all.

I obtained this information from the SEIU 1199 website. See http://ltc.seiu1199.org/HCFaq.aspx.

Dues in SEIU District 1199 are 1.75% of gross pay, or $1.75 for every $100 you make.

So for every $1,000.00 grossed, the dues will be $17.50. I have several clients who are Ohio IPs and these nurses can gross from $50,000 to $80,000.00 a year or more.

An Ohio IP Nurse with SEIU labor representation who grosses $50,000 year may pay $875.00 a year for labor dues. This is speculative at this point but based on the figure provided on the SEIU 1199 website, which doesn’t mention a cap.

So, does the higher dues paid by members who make more money assure them that they somehow get MORE services and representation by the union?

Um, no.

Do those nurses who make more money and have to pay more in dues get first consideration in union adjudications?

Certainly, no.

And, how could they? After all, a union is supposed to be working for ALL their members, not just the highest paid ones. If the union gave deferential treatment to their richest members, that would be just as wrong as if they ignored their highest paid members.

So, what reason could they possibly use to justify sticking a higher payment to their highest paid members? There is no greater benefit to the members… and aren’t the members what the union is there for in the first place?

This isn’t fair representation. It’s legalized theft.