Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2011 The Union Label Blog & Grassfire Nation
More on the waivers for Obamacare. A look at the president’s waiver list reveals he’s given waivers to 28 food workers union locals so that they can get out from under the oppressive, budget busting requirements in his take over of our nation’s medical system. Curiously enough, the PAC for those unions gave Obama $673,309 to his 2008 election campaign. Quid pro quo? Is there any doubt? Just a coincidence, right?
The list shows that Obama administration issued one-year waivers to 28 chapters of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW). These waivers exempt the union insurance plans from being forced to obey rules that prevent the plans from limiting what they will pay for employee’s healthcare coverage.
The UFCW was a vocal supporter of Obamacare and was part of a large coalition of unions pushing the bill early in 2010.
The UFCW was also a big, big supporter of candidate Obama in 2008 and Democrats generally.
The UFCW’s political action committee spent $673,309 in independent expenditures promoting the election of Barack Obama in 2008.
That PAC–the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union Active Ballot Club–also contributed $1.8 million to Democratic federal candidates in 2008 and $1.7 million to Democratic congressional candidates in 2010.
Previously we reported that Republicans intend to launch probes into these waivers.
List of UFCW waivers:
1. Indiana Area UFCW Union Locals and Retail Food Employers’ Health and Welfare Plan covers 6,885 enrollees.
2. UFCW & Participating Food Industry Employers Tri-State Health & Welfare Fund covers 107 enrollees.
3. UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund covers 77 enrollees.
4. UFCW Local One Health Care Fund covers 4,335 enrollees.
5. Local 888 UFCW covers 4,004 enrollees.
6. UFCW Local 1262 and Employers Health & Welfare Fund covers 3,028 enrollees.
7. Local 377 UFCW covers 1,142 enrollees.
8. UFCW Local 371 Amalgamated Welfare Fund covers 3,800 enrollees.
9. UFCW Allied Trade Health & Welfare Trust covers 68 enrollees
10. UFCW Local 227 covers 1,125 enrollees.
11. UFCW Maximus Local 455 covers 59 enrollees.
12. UFCW Local 1262 covers 5,390 enrollees.
13. United Food and Commercial Workers Retail Employees and Employers Health
and Welfare Plan covers 98 enrollees
14. United Food & Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund covers 821 enrollees.
15. United Food and Commercial Workers and Employers Arizona covers 516 enrollees.
16. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1000 and Kroger Dallas Health and Welfare Plan covers 7,389 enrollees.
17. Delmarva United Food and Commercial Workers covers 2,405 enrollees.
18. United Food & Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Local No. 348 Health & Welfare Fund covers 13,663 enrollees.
19. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1445 New Hampshire covers 148 enrollees.
20. The waiver for United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1459 and Contributing Employers Health and Welfare Fund covers just four enrollees.
21. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 464a covers 8,228 enrollees.
22. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 911 covers 582 enrollees.
23. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1000 covers 3,855 enrollees.
24. Wisconsin United Food & Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Health Plan covers 775 enrollees.
25. United Food and Commercial Workers Union (Mount Laurel, NJ) covers 4,100 enrollees.
26. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1459 covers 1,400 enrollees.
27. United Food and Commercial Workers and Participating Employers Interstate Health and Welfare Fund covers 6,780 enrollees.
28. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1995 covers 2,779 enrollees.
If you’ll recall, Big Labor was one of the biggest cheerleaders for Obamacare. Big Labor was insistent that Obama’s take over of our nation’s healthcare was the best thing since sliced bread, to be sure. But once Obamacare got passed into law, we’ve learned that dozens of unions have sought exemptions to get out from under the destructive dictates of the law and they have been given that pass by their pal in the White House. Republicans are vowing to probe these cynical exemptions.
The waivers the Obama administration bestowed upon his biggest donors and friends allows the insurance plans of unions and various Obama-friendly corporations to get out from under the annual limits on what they spend on their employee’s medical coverage. Obamacare bans annual limits, but 222 unions and corporations and other Obama buddies are now exempt from this ban.
Apparently, while they all clamored for the rest of us to suffer under Obamacare, they’ve decided that they shouldn’t have to. And who is the biggest beneficiary of these waivers? Unions, of course.
CNSNews.com previously reported that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued waivers to 222 entities – companies, unions and charitable organizations. Among those entities, 45 were labor union organizations. A total of 1,507,418 enrollees were affected by the waivers. More than one-third of the enrollees affected, 512, 315 people, were insured under union health care plans.
Three locals of the powerful Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which has spent heavily on elections in favor of Democrats, were among the biggest beneficiaries of waivers, CNSNews.com reported.
The largest beneficiary of waivers is the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), representing New York City public school teachers, with a plan that affects 351,000 enrollees. The UFT is a member organization of the American Federation of Teachers, a major contributor to Democrats. In addition, 10 locals of the United Food and Commercial Workers – also a major Democratic contributor – received HHS waivers.
Well, we might recall that there was a bit of a changing of the guard in Washington last November. Gone is the Democrat’s lock on power and in is a GOP controlled House, a Senate with a balance much closer to parity than it was previously, not to mention a much larger field of GOP controlled state legislatures and a newly involved conservative electorate itching to chastise this most arrogant of presidents. Obamacare’s days of assumed primacy may be numbered.
At least for Senator Charles Grassley (R, Iowa), no grass is growing under his feet on this business. Grassley has vowed that the GOP will begin to probe into these Obama pals and their little waivers.
“You’re going to find out that by the president doing that with the secretary of HHS, he violated one of his main principles when he ran for office–and that was that special interests were not going to have an in in his administration,” said Grassley. “And this is a perfect example of special interests having an in in his administration when they get those waivers.”
Grassley is the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee.
It’s about time we got some oversight and transparency in this administration that promised to instate the same, yet never did.
Be sure and check out CNSNews for the video of the interview with Grassley.
Senator Jim DeMint is announcing the introduction of the Secret Ballot Protection Act…
‘A basic American value we must protect’
Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) introduced the Secret Ballot Protection Act (SBPA), legislation that will guarantee the right of every American worker to have a secret ballot election on whether to unionize. The bill would guarantee workers the opportunity to cast a secret ballot before a union can be organized.
Seventeen cosponsors have joined DeMint to introduce the bill including Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee), John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), Richard Burr (R-North Carolina), Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia), Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi), Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), John McCain (R-Arizona), Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), James Risch (R-Idaho), Richard Shelby (R-Alabama), John Thune (R-South Dakota), David Vitter (R-Louisiana), and Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi).
“Last Congress, union bosses and their Democrat allies tried their best to deny workers their basic American right to a guaranteed secret ballot election,” said Senator DeMint. “Secret ballot voting is a basic American value that we must protect. This bill ensures every American worker gets to cast a secret ballot vote without pressure and fear of retribution from union organizers and coworkers looking over their shoulder. No American should be forced to join or pay dues to a union just to have the opportunity to work and provide for their family.”
“This legislation is essential to protect the workplace from unfair pressures to unionize,” said Senator Graham. “Every American worker should be able to cast their ballot for or against unionization in private and without fear.”
Under current labor law, employers can force a union on their own workers by recognizing a union as the exclusive bargaining representative based on a “card check,” or they can insist upon a secret ballot election administered by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). SBPA would require secret ballot elections. SBPA helps protect workers from the certification of unions through card check only, which some in Congress want to mandate through the Employee Free Choice Act. It also protects workers from card check certifications approved by their employer without their consent, which is permitted under current law.
Recently four states – South Carolina, Arizona, South Dakota and Utah — took steps to protect their workers and their economies from future “card check” legislation and are now coming under fire from the National Labor Relations Board. The threatening letter was written by acting NLRB general counsel, Lafe Solomon, who has not been confirmed by the Senate. Today, the states responded to the board in a letter stating: “These state laws protect long existing federal rights and we will vigorously defend any legal attack upon them. That the NLRB would use its resources to sue our States for constitutionally guaranteeing the right to vote by a secret ballot is extraordinary, and we urge you to reconsider your decision.”
“States shouldn’t have to fear prosecution from liberal bureaucrats in Washington for democratically passing laws to protect workers’ fundamental rights,” said Senator DeMint.
Less and less American workers are choosing to unionize. Researchers have found that unionized companies are often less innovative and more likely to lose jobs over time, and states with unions can take considerably longer than those that don’t to recover from recessions. Union membership has been cut in half over the past 20 years and organizers are scrambling to grow in any way possible. In 2010, only 11.9 percent of workers were union members, down from 12.3 percent in 2009. In a 2009 poll conducted by the Center for Union Facts found that 82 percent of non-unionized workers would not like their jobs to be unionized.
Numerous courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have criticized union attempts to intimidate workers through card check policy and have upheld the fundamental rights of workers to engage in secret ballot votes.
- “We would be closing our eyes to obvious difficulties, of course, if we did not recognize that there have been abuses, primarily arising out of misrepresentations by union organizers as to whether the effect of signing a card was to designate the union to represent the employee for collective bargaining purposes or merely to authorize it to seek an election to determine that issue.” (NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., Supreme Court of the United States, 1969)
- “Freedom of choice is a matter at the very center of our national labor relations policy, and a secret election is the preferred method of gauging choice.” (Avecor v. NLRB, D.C. Circuit, 1991)
Without question we are living through the worst economic times in generations and Barack Obama’s policies aren’t helping alleviate the pain. Pain is, indeed, the watchword, too. Nearly everyone knows someone that has lost his job. Nearly everyone has lost money for their retirement. Everyone is feeling the pain. And no one is very sanguine that it’s getting any better. Well, no one but unionized university professors in California, anyway. They are so sure that things are better than ever that they expect constantly growing pay and even richer benefits to be borne on the backs of the taxpayers.
There’s a lesson in this somewhere.
California’s university professor union, the California Faculty Association, has looked upon the crumbling state of California in the economic disaster that is the United States and instead of seeing a goad toward austerity, the CA sees greater spending as an answer to what ails them.
The gal these unionistas have.
J.P. Freire of the Washington Examiner tells us that the CFA has issued a report titled, “Quality Higher Education for the 21st Century,” in which they demand broad increases in spending on every level. More classes, more teachers, more students, more, more, more.
Freire notes that many students are no longer finding that the high cost of their college education is justified by the lower paying jobs that are now offered to graduates, not to mention the lower rate of return that whole careers are now offering.
A recent New York Times profile of a student named Courtney Munna graduated from New York University with nearly $100,000 of debt for her schooling. Yet her degrees seem to be meaningless in her search for employment. Freire finds this to be not only all too common, but finds that the CFA is not making any sense to address this new reality in its wild demands for greater spending and increases in state run education.
Professors like those at CFA think that this problem should be fixed by offsetting her [student Munna's] debt moreso, by allowing her to get that women’s education degree cheaper by providing a subsidy of some kind. The problem is that the market has spoken: Employers don’t value her education, and so its value is inflated.
The value is not just inflated. It is manufactured, fantastical, absurd. Let’s face it. Not everyone needs a higher education. We have over inflated the whole concept of what a college degree should represent and made every degree the lesser for it.
Unions have been at the vanguard of that inflation all so that they can milk ever-higher amounts of money from the state… and YOU, the taxpayer.
Employer Coalition Warns on NLRB Nomination
President Obama has renominated to the National Labor Relations Board Craig Becker — a man already rejected by the Senate.
Since taking over, the former SEIU attorney has pushed the federal government toward an agenda that would enrich Big Labor bosses — but has threatened to sue states where voters have tried to protect secret ballot elections and may define charter schools in such a way as to open them up to more union organizing.
WASHINGTON, D.C. // JANUARY 27, 2011 // Today the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW) decried President Obama’s renomination of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. The coalition warned that the decision has put the president’s recent statements on the importance of jobs and unburdening business directly at odds with his actions.
Based on wide-ranging concerns amongst business and elected leaders, the Senate has already rejected the president’s nomination of Becker to the NLRB once, but the administration nevertheless appointed him during a recess. As groups such as CDW warned, the former SEIU lawyer has taken on a radical agenda that has empowered Big Labor at the expense of employees, employers and job growth.
During Becker’s 10-month tenure, the Board has pushed unprecedented and disruptive changes to labor laws, including: stripping the right to secret ballots in cases where an employer signs an agreement; providing union agents access to an employer‘s property, even where the union is there simply harm the business; potentially opening the door to card check drives charter schools; and even authorizing the NLRB’s General Counsel to sue states in which voters have attempted to protect secret ballots. CDW warned that a renewed fight over Becker’s nomination to the NLRB, along with his continued presence, would directly contradict the president’s latest statements in support of employers and increasing jobs.
“The president said some encouraging words in his State of the Union address about the need to unburden business,” said CDW Chair Geoffrey Burr. “Unfortunately, no one has embodied government overreach like Craig Becker, who has used his seat on the NLRB to push Big Labor’s agenda at the expense of employees and small business.”
Burr continued, “Americans want some pretty simple things, including more jobs, a better economy, and basic fairness. The renomination of Big Labor’s man on the NLRB dooms all three of those goals. The president should rescind Mr. Becker’s nomination. Until he does, CDW and the broad employer community is going to be united in our opposition.”
About the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, www.MyPrivateBallot.com
The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace is a coalition of workers, employers, associations and organizations who are fighting to protect the right to a federally supervised private ballot when workers are deciding whether or not to join a union.
So, what is the first thing that you do when you find out that everyone hates you? What do you do when you finally come to terms with the fact that you have the worst reputation possible? Do you sit yourself down and reassess your actions to try and pinpoint why everyone thinks you are a jerk? Well, that might be what a serious person or group might do. So, what has the AFL-CIO, the SEIU and other big unions done upon this realization? Why, hired a public relations firm, of course.
After all, the unions can’t possibly be at fault can they? Why, it can’t be the union’s fault that everyone hates them, could it? It simply must be that people out there are too stupid to understand that unions are wonderful, right?
Recently the AP reported that Big Labor planned to launch a “multimillion dollar campaign to boost the image of government workers and fend off pay cuts and benefit rollbacks in states under fiscal siege.”
The PR campaign is needed, the unions feel, because public employee unions are getting a lot of flack for almost single-handedly destroying every state’s budget by overbearing demands, unduly high pay scales and exorbitant pension and health benefits — all at an unsustainable cost to already over burdened taxpayers.
State budgets are so far in the red that almost every state in the union is considering freezing public employee union pay, cutting benefits, and instituting two-tiered plans, one for existing members and a second for new hires. Some have even implemented some of these reforms necessary to balance their budgets.
These austerity programs are anathema to unions that have grown used to constantly demanding, and having satisfied, their ever greater requests for higher pay, higher benefits, and greater pensions. Unions are alarmed by the fact that usually pliant politicians that have traditionally acceded to every demand without question are suddenly realizing that unions are destroying the state and voters are finally starting to notice. Without every politician reliably in the union’s pockets, these worker overlords are finding their power put at risk.
But notice in all of this the unions are not suggesting that they need to face reality and cut back on their outsized demands on the taxpayers? Notice that the unions simply think that all they have to do is have a happy-talk PR campaign and everything will be juuuust fine?
The AP noted the second aspect of this campaign, as well. Instead of spending the millions this campaign will cost on new, sensible measures to fit in with the cutting back that everyone else in the country is forced to do, these unions want to spend the money to try and push members to learn how to lobby government and “galvanize workers at the local level and get them more involved in talking to lawmakers and making the case for unions.”
Instead of realizing that the high times and fraud are over and looking for ways to better understand and fit in to today’s economic climate, these unions think that amping up the pressure to continue past practices is what is needed here.
This, I’d reckon, is why unions have such a bad reputation. They’ve earned it, for sure.
Eric Odom (Media Director)
Warner Todd Huston