And for another perfect example of why teachers unions is antithetical to the welfare of the kids AND the budget of the state, we have a union that has forced the State of New York to spend $81 million dollars to pay teachers NOT to teach!
The New York Times gives us the wasteful tale of money paid for NO work.
The New Teacher Project, which estimates that the city has been paying $81 million over two years in salaries and benefits for teachers who have not been able to find permanent jobs.
Under the new free-market system, teachers who lose their jobs because of budget cuts, program curtailments or school closings are supposed to go into a reserve pool for a short time before they are hired elsewhere in the system. An overwhelming majority of more than 2,700 teachers sent into the pool in 2006 did just that.
So, these teachers are paid even if they don’t work?
This is the ultimate union job. Get paid a high salary, free health care, pension…. but not have to work AT ALL!
It doesn’t seem to occur to anyone that the solution is to fire teachers that you have no job for?
Accusations are flying thick as bats in the night sky between the Service Employee International Union (SEIU) and their affiliated union, the United HealthCare Workers-West (UHW-W-W), over claims made by the SEIU that the UHW-W misappropriated $6 million in member’s dues money. But, it’s hard to escape the feeling that the SEIU is really just trying to put a stake in the heart of the internal uprising that members of the UHW-W have implemented inside the SEIU by launching harassment lawsuits that seem to have little merit.
The UHW-W, as it happens, is captained by Sal Roselli, president Andy Stern’s chief rival for control of the SEIU. Supposedly the UHW-W used some of this $6 million to pay for a speech by that same Sal Roselli, the man that just so happens to be challenging SEIU president Andy Stern in the upcoming SEIU convention in Puerto Rico in the beginning of June. Roselli has been attacking Stern for his campaign of top down leadership and for his penchant for manufacturing the ouster of local leaders that don’t sign on to Stern’s policies. Many are claiming that this is just an underhanded effort by Stern to destroy his chief rival just before the SEIU convention.
In this case, some are also saying that Stern has launched this lawsuit as a first step to declaring the UHW-W’s leadership defective so that he can place his own appointed guys in power as trustees over the union while the “problems” are ironed out. In this way, Stern’s critics say, he can better assure that the UHW-W will acquiesce to his policies and another rebellious affiliate will be silenced before the convention.
The SEIU, however, maintains that the UHW-W segmented out millions of dollars without accounting for having done so to the union membership. If the SEIU is vindicated in this charge, it is an explosive one, indeed.
“The highest ranking UHW-W officers used millions of dollars in members’ dues money to run a shadow operation off the books and they intentionally deceived their own members and the federal government about how the money would be used,” said SEIU spokesperson Andrew McDonald. “It is unacceptable for a handful of people to control nearly 40 percent of a local union’s assets with no accountability to the members, no financial safeguards, no protections against fraud, and none of oversight required by law.”EIU local union United Healthcare Workers-West is advancing a program calling for increased union member democracy in other SEIU local unions and our national union.
The lawsuit also accuses the UHW-W of establishing a “well-financed entity with access to a ready source of funds beyond the reach of SEIU’s auditing, oversight and trustee powers.”
UHW-W representative, Noel Rabinowitz, says that Stern’s lawsuit is only an “act of retaliation designed to smear UHW leaders and squelch our dissent, without offering any new information.” Rabinowitz went on to say that, “the lawsuit is frivolous as the remedy it seeks is already set in motion.”
In recent months United Healthcare Workers-West (UHW) and its allies inside SEIU have launched a campaign, in the face of constant threats and retaliation, to reform our International Union.
The most recent act of retaliation is their announcement today of plans to sue UHW leaders. UHW’s elected executive board members created the education fund in question in full compliance with the law, and appropriately released all of the details of its actions. Last week, the fund’s board decided to dissolve the fund and return its resources to UHW. UHW notified SEIU yesterday of this action.
Further reports seem to show that the largest amount of this $6 million was never spent and still resides in union coffers.
Some members of the UHW-W are claiming that this new lawsuit is just retaliation for the one filed by UHW-W members against the SEIU on April 4th. Roselli’s associates filed suit claiming that the SEIU interfered with delegate elections in violation of federal labor law when president Stern made an unannounced visit to local 1021 and arranged for things to go his way.
What ever has happened with these funds at the UHW-W, it is obvious that SEIU president Stern has unleashed the long knives and has engaged in a ruthless campaign to stifle dissent against him. With as much passion and hard feelings as have been fanned during this internal fight, it’s hard to assume that everything will even be solved at the SEIU convention in June.
(Some coverage with some interesting replies posted can be seen at Open Left.)
The powerful union lobbies in the US have cornered their lapdogs in the Democrat Party and succeeded in killing the free trade agreement that we had brokered with Columbia. The main reason that unions twisted the arms of their Dem representatives is supposed to be because of Columbia’s admittedly horrid history of violence against unions and workers.
John Sweeney, president of the largest US federation of unions, the AFL-CIO, detailed the allegations in a Washington Post op-ed April 14: “In Colombia, joining a union or advocating for workers’ rights can be a de facto death sentence,” he said. “The human-rights atrocities against union activists and supporters are not isolated, rogue events; they are committed largely by the armed forces and paramilitary organizations with ties to elected officials close to President [Alvaro] Uribe.”
Now, who can deny that such a history is lamentable? I, for one, am one of those folks who complains that the US government works so closely with the murderous, inhuman Chinese, for example, so I can very much sympathize with the sentiment that we should not reward criminal nations that perpetrate such murderous and violent actions against their own people.
Yes, Colombia has a high murder rate. With much of the country still in the control of vicious leftist narco-terrorists (supported by Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez), you’d expect a high murder rate among any one group - from union members to midgets. That said, last year’s 17,198 homicides (among 45 million people) was a drop of 40 percent from the 28,837 in 2002.
Deaths among Colombia’s union members plummeted even farther - from a high of 275 in 1996 to only 39 last year. That’s a drop of 86 percent in a decade.
And that’s 39 killings (a figure the AFL-CIO itself cited last month) out of about 800,000 union workers - or about five murders per 100,000 union members. How does that constitute “a de facto death sentence” - when the murder rate for the population as a whole is about eight times higher?
Now, wait a minute. Isn’t it “improvement” and “success” and “effort” that leftists always claim to want to see to afford any rewards? How much better does Columbia have to do to show vast improvement than an 86% drop in the sort of murders that the unions here are complaining about?
In the end, it is all a lie by both the unions and their lapdogs in the Dem Party when they say that Columbia doesn’t deserve the free trade agreement because of how unionists are treated there. What American unions and the Democrats want to avoid is any success for the waning Bush Administration.
That is it.
They couldn’t care less about the lives of union members in Columbia. And by killing the trade agreement, the unions here are proving that they don’t care if Columbia’s union members get to keep their jobs, either!
The Illinois Constitution has an interesting provision in Article 14. It’s a rule where every 20 years a Constitutional Convention can be called to consider alterations and amendments to the state Constitution. The Convention itself isn’t called automatically, though. Only the question of calling or not calling the convention can be on the ballot at first. This is the time for the voice of the people to be heard…. unless unions have their way by preventing it!
Illinois has developed the reputation as one of the most corrupt anti-democratic state in the union and now we have this one small chance to change that. This is one chance, but a fleeting one, to finally have a say in what our politicians do. Do you want a chance to actually have a voice in state politics at long last? Vote yes on the ConCon.
Illinois DESERVES Better!
Naturally, there are very powerful people lined up to deny the citizens of Illinois from having their say after decades of being ignored, trodden upon and stolen from. After seeing politician after politician go to jail for corruption and graft.
These powerful folks don’t want their sweetheart deals and back room power-brokering to be upset by we lowly and forgotten citizens… you know, we who pay ALL of their bills with our exorbitant taxes?
So, guess who opposes the right of the people to have their say?
Unions stand against the people.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Workers are against the ConCon. Why? Why else but because it will threaten their overly cushy jobs and their bloated and illicit pension and healthcare plans– the sort of plans that no one in the private sector is ever able to get.
The The Illinois Federation of Teachers and the Illinois Education Association are against the ConCon. Why? Well, how could they continue to so mis-educate our children so blatantly without ever being called to account for their failures if the people were ever called to have a say on their shoddy efforts at education?
A Constitutional Convention threatens the undeserved perks and high spending jobs they have. No wonder they are afraid of the people having their say.
So, once again what we end up with is unions that stand against democracy! It seems to be one of their most common traits, lately, showing how far away they’ve moved from their claimed days of wishing to listen to the voice of the people.
Now that we’re finally getting around to fully upgrading the site and cleaning up the errors, it’s a good time to plug our friends in the union watch realm. Please welcome the following resources to our blog roll (located in the sidebar to the left), and add their RSS feeds if you get a chance.
Unions are strong-arming their Democrat hacks to agree to the “card check” system which will outlaw secret ballots for folks voting on union representation. If the Democrats and their union thug pals get their way, an employee will have to reveal to the whole world if he voted for or against a union at his work place.
Tell your political representatives that you OPPOSE the card check system.
Here are a few highlights we found when we searched the 2008 first quarter reports by client:
* The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees reported $480,000 in expenses.
* Change to Win, a coalition of seven unions including SEIU, reported $80,000 in expenses.
* The National Education Association reported $284,964 in expenses.
* The AFL-CIO reported $540,000 in expenses.
There are a few limitations to the reports. The amounts listed are estimates, and only organizations that spend at least $10,000 on lobbying during a quarter must report. Changes to the law in 2007 have forced organizations to disclose any affiliates that contribute $5,000 or more in any three-month period. For more information on the LDA and recent, related litigation, click here and here.
While these reports are not comprehensive in their approach to transparency, they at least provide another window into the inner workings of labor union political priorities and spending. Union members and the public should use the reports for increased union accountability.
George Lenard has a great little post at his “George’s Employment Blawg” about how the Teamsters are promising not to use violence, guns, knives, etc., in their protests against employers. But, here is the thing: they wouldn’t have to make these promises unless they either already HAVE done that stuff before or they have a propensity to do it.
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page (sorry, subscribers only), has an editorial entitled “The Teamster Promise” that excerpts from and links to the Teamsters’ NLRB settlement arising out of “a nasty–and ultimately unsuccessful–strike against Overnite Transportation Co.”
The posted notice, which is buried deep in the Teamsters’ website, is of course part of a “non-admit” settlement. The number of charges alone is mind-boggling. But, knowing NLRB practices, one must assume there was credible evidence some Teamster somewhere, engaged in every one of the following outrageous activities they have now promised not to do. I’m quoting extensively, as did the Journal, because it really covers the waterfront of union violence:
Good news Union Label readers! The Union Label Blog has undergone some “under the hood” maintenance and should now be running much better. We’ve stripped out a lot of code that was allowing spam, we’ve removed old and useless links from the sidebar, and we’ve added some link love and subscription options to the comment area of each post.
And finally, we’ve upgraded to Wordpress 2.5 to make sure you are reading us through the latest version of the software that powers this blog.
If you see any problems, or have any ideas that could/would enhance the site, please let me know ASAP.
The Center For Union Facts, put out a press release jabbing unions in the ribs for their unprincipled finger pointing at the high salaries of corporate heads like CEO’s, CFO’s, etc. But, as the CUF points out, union chiefs make the same sort of money and no one is pointing fingers at THEM saying that the bloated salaries of union scammers are too high. Where are the calls for union heads to give back their exorbitant salaries?
Here is a list of some union thieves’ grossly bloated salaries.
The Plumbers paid former General President Martin Maddaloni $1.3 million in total compensation, and Secretary-Treasurer Thomas Patchell almost $900,000 – after they were ousted for disastrous pension investments in a Florida hotel. According to the Association for Union Democracy, the buyout agreement included “salaries and benefits plus free use of cars and other perks through the end of 2006.”
AFSCME President Gerald McEntee recorded total compensation just shy of $585,000.
General President of the Laborers Terence O’Sullivan made more than $528,000.
National Education Association President Reg Weaver made almost $439,000.
The presidents of unions for players in the National Football League and the National Basketball Association made more than $1 million each. The NFL union head, Eugene Upshaw, made $2.4 million. Moreover, Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb received $900,000 from his AFL-CIO affiliated union as a player representative.
Wow. Seems rather hypocritical of these union folks who point fingers at corporate heads, doesn’t it?
And, as CUF Executive Director Richard Berman points out, the money that union chiefs get paid are from the dues of union members and NOT the profits from a company.
“While stockholders always have the option of showing their dissatisfaction with salary issues by dumping their stock, union executives have made it virtually impossible for a union member to escape paying for high salaries and perks through mandatory dues.”
Just so!
So, let me be one of the few that will call for these union thugs to pay back their undeserved salaries!
Looks like the California city of Vallejo is closer every day to bankruptcy. And one of the chief reasons is the unfunded mandates forced upon it by the unions that contract with the city workers.
City staff members have been unable to come up with a detailed, long-term financial plan because negotiations with the police and fire unions are still ongoing. The city is asking for steep concessions from the unions, whose members are among the highest paid in the Bay Area and whose salaries comprise about 74 percent of the city’s budget.
Naturally, the unions couldn’t care less about good fiscal policy and what is right for the people of Vallejo. They are too greedy for that.
Negotiations with the unions are not going well, according to city officials. The parties met three times last week and the city is expected to look at a proposal from the unions on Monday, but no meetings are scheduled after that, Davis said.
Yeah, I’ll bet “not going well” is an understatement.
Here is the reason why unions are anathema to good government. Unions are not interested in what’s best for the people, they are only interested in high salaries, whether the city has the revenue or not, for their members. Good government, good fiscal policy…. well those are things no union cares about.
Government workers should never be allowed to be under a union contract. This is perfect proof of that maxim, too.
This week a TV ad for Barack Obama was debuted. It was made by a union that supports Obama, the SEIU (Service Employees International Union). Last week, the SEIU sent 700 of its members to violently break into a conference being put on by a union supporting magazine called Labor Notes Magazine. Several women were injured by the violent protests sponsored by the SEIU.
WE CALL FOR BARACK OBAMA TO REPUDIATE HIS SUPPORTER’S VIOLENCE!
What sort of candidate would gleefully accept the support of a union that violently attacked other union members? This was no heated argument that just blew up, either, no accident of passions. It was a purposefully violent attack planned and executed. The SEIU organized hundreds of its members, rented 7 busses to transport them to their target site, and then unleashed them to push, shove and beat their way into a conference being held by the union supporting magazine. It was no accident that people were hurt. That was the SEIU’s goal.
It isn’t just one incident, either. SEIU members have been engaged in a campaign of violence and harassment and stalking of members of the California Nurses Association for many months now. The courts are even having to get involved.
And here we have Barack Obama blithely accepting the support of the violence prone SEIU without raising his own voice against the attacks!
It is outrageous and calls must be made for Barack Obama to repudiate the violence.
Let us turn our attention to the ad buy that the SEIU has favored Barack Obama’s campaign with:
One cannot help but wonder why a union that is supposed to be representing service workers (as well as millions of government workers on the state and federal level) is making ads about oil companies? Does the SEIU primarily represent the oil industries? The answer to that is no. What goes on in the oil industry has nothing whatever to do with the direct interests of the SEIU.
That aside, the most outrageous thing here is that Obama is accepting without comment the support of a union that is responsible for violence against union members in other unions. Does Obama support campaigns of violence between unions? Is this the sort of “new tone,” is this the sort of “new politics” that Barack Obama supports?
Well, here is the question: will Service Employee International Union president Andy Stern come out and forcefully denounce the violence perpetrated in Michigan in the name of the SEIU? Will Stern denounce the hundreds of SEIU members who were bussed in to disrupt the Labor Notes Magazine conference last week? Apparently, even the AFL-CIO has denounced this violence, but will the SEIU president be man enough to crack down on this nonsense?
One cannot help to be skeptical even if he does, however. The thing is, this was a huge, organized attack on the Labor Notes conference. 6 busses were rented, hundreds of SEIU members were contacted and brought together to get into those 6 busses. This was not just an “accident.” It was planned from the start to be a violent affair.
Obviously Stern has passed from mere political leader to insurrectionist thug here. How far will it go before the SEIU tosses him out on his rear end?
So, how much undemocratic, unAmerican thuggery can one union take and still claim to be interested in legitimately representing the people they claim as members? And, if the members themselves end up being revealed as supporting this sort on violence, what does that say about them? Are they any different than al Qaeda at that point?
At last YOU can have a say in Illinois! 
George Lenard has a great little post at his 
