Big Daddy-Steve Green dough running low for baby bro

September, 9, 2009 New York Post –by Maggie Haberman & David Seifman

Mark Green the front-run-ner in the four-way race for public advocate—is running on close to empty, according to financial filings released yesterday.

The Campaign Finance Board reported that Green took in $31, 892 over the last two weeks, but gave back $19,100 leaving him with a net of $12, 792.

Bill de Blasio, his chief rival, hauled in $116,477 and was sitting on nearly $600,000.

In the mayoral race, Comptroller Bill Thompson took in $98,961 vs. Mayor Bloomberg, who is expected to spend $100 million out of his own pocket.

Mark Green advocates for Steve Green and Gary M. Green

New York Post
Conflict cries over Green’s family ties

August 26, 2009


By Sally Goldenberg and Maggie Haberman

Public-advocate hopeful Mark Green has years-old financial ties to his real-estate mogul brother, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest if be wins back his old job this fall, experts told The Post.

The public advocate appoints a member to the City Planning Commission and a trustee to the city’s pension system, NYC-ERS, raising serious questions that should be brought to the Conflicts of Interest Board if Green is elected, said one government watchdog.

“If I were Mark, I would think long and hard about it. Even if it’s OK under the Charger, there’s still an appearance issue---the appearance is not good.” said Gene Russianoff, a senior attorney at the New York Public Interest Research Group.

Green adviser Anne Strahel said he “has always been independent of this brother” in his past stints as public advocate.

If he’s elected, Startle also said Green would seek COIB advisory opinion, “if that’s what it has to be.”

She said, properties belonging to Green’s brother’s company SL Green Realty Corp. are mostly commercial, so they would have little to do with the Planning Commission, which primarily deals with zoning issues.

“Mark Green has a very unique situation,” said Rep. Yvette Clark (D-Brooklyn), who has endorsed Green rival Bill de Blasio, adding it was fair to “ask the question about how independent Mark can be about the real-estate industry.”

Startle wouldn’t comment about Clarke’s statement, but said Green got a COIB opinion when he was public advocate in the 1990’s. At the time, he inherited his City Planning appointee Amanda Burden, and later reappointed her.

Green’s brother, Stephen is also the vice chairman of the Executive Committee of the Real Estate Board of New York, which is the city’s most powerful real-estate trade group.


Green received salaries between $100,000 and $250,000 apiece last year from two companies tied to his brother

Shyron Bynog vs Stephen L. Green (bookmark this page)

See, you know, every once in a while you just have to revisit these pages in order to get a really good belly laugh going. Because, until you see Steve L. Green on his private golf putting green in the front of his million dollar home out in Bridgehampton and then read about the poor little abused SEIU lobby starter who sued him and won (not cash that is but FREEDOM over tyranny) ---you really just don't appreciate a real NYC grassroots David and Goliath story. But then again, I must confess that I do manage to keep the old grey haired washed up squash pro well informed on my blog. What do you want to bet that he gets up at 4am to sneak a peek at my blog and contemplates sending out a team of Ninja’s from Gary Green’s, Alliance Building Services to take me out? That’s why I now live in Jersey City---there’s no room here for the ultra rich; they might catch some kind of disease or something from the little people.

Shyron Bynog v. SL Green Realty Corp., et al.
05 Civ. 0305 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y., December 22, 2005)

Court denies defendants’ motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin a former employee from publishing allegedly defamatory statements about defendants in a web site, in a blog, in emails sent to defendants’ employees, customers and other business contacts, and in flyers distributed at buildings managed by defendant SL Green Realty Corp. (“SL Green”).

Plaintiff had commenced the instant action against the defendants, accusing them, inter alia, of discriminatory and retaliatory conduct.

The Court held that defamatory speech can only be enjoined in the Second Circuit if “extraordinary circumstances” exist, which were absent here.

That such statements may injure the plaintiff in his business or property alone do not, held the Court, constitute sufficient grounds for the issuance of an injunction.

The injuries caused by defamatory speech can ordinarily be remedied by an award of monetary damages.

Here, the absence of any viable evidence of injury to defendants, combined with the potential to recover such damages from the plaintiff, led the Court to deny injunctive relief.

EFCA--just give the rest of your money to Andy Stern and Mike Fishman

THE AMERICAN.COM A Magazine of Ideas

The End of the Secret Ballot
By Thomas P. Gies

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Making sense of the central political objective of organized labor.

Whether the misleadingly named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA)—known as “card check”—is introduced in the next hour or next year, it remains the central political objective of organized labor. It was also championed as a domestic priority by President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats during the 2008 campaign. The EFCA would undercut the idea of a secret ballot in unionization drives and guarantee mandatory arbitration of many initial collective bargaining agreements. Canada’s experience with card check illustrates how it could further hobble the U.S. economy.

Card check would replace the government-monitored secret ballot election procedure, the cornerstone of federal labor law since the 1930s, with a regime requiring an employer to recognize a union if it is able to persuade a majority of employees to sign union authorization cards. Under card check, the secret ballot election regulated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) would go the way of the buggy whip. The EFCA also includes provisions that would impose dramatic changes in the rules governing private-sector collective bargaining by requiring mandatory arbitration of first contracts with newly certified unions if agreement cannot be reached on an unrealistic fast-track timeline. The legislation would also impose Draconian new penalties against employers found to have violated the law.

There are good reasons to be skeptical of the legislation. It lacks a serious intellectual rationale. Unions claim that the NLRB election procedure is responsible for the steady decline in private-sector union membership. They are mistaken. The union “win-rate” in NLRB-conducted elections has remained relatively constant for many years at more than 50 percent. Statistics show that unions won 67 percent of such elections held during the first six months of 2008. In a recently published monograph, University of Chicago law professor Richard A. Epstein analyzed the numbers on NLRB elections since 2000 against the loss in union jobs due to attrition. He concluded that the loss of union membership is best understood as a “lack of demand for union representation and not a defect in the election process.”

Card check proponents are also wrong in claiming that change is needed because of widespread violations of the law by employers. One oft-repeated claim is that employers unlawfully fire 25 percent of employees who are active in union organizing campaigns. The leading study containing this allegation is widely understood to overstate the problem, as it relies exclusively on unverified reports from union organizers whose bias is evident. Epstein reviewed more recent and objective evidence, including NLRB statistics, suggesting that the statistical likelihood of an unlawful termination is actually less than 3 percent. Card check proponents likewise exaggerate the length of time it takes to conduct an election under current law. NLRB statistics show that more than 90 percent of NLRB-conducted elections take place within 60 days of the filing of the petition. If anything, current law gives unions significant advantages over employers in organizing campaigns. And it is unlikely that President Obama’s appointees to the NLRB will be overly sympathetic to employers accused of being anti-union.

Imagine a political environment in which only one political party has access to the media. Or consider a scenario in which one of the competing political parties cannot begin its campaign until a week before the election.The reality, which the unions understandably do not like to acknowledge, is that organized labor has lost ground in the private sector for a variety of reasons having little to do with the current legal system. Among other trends, many employers have taken steps to make unionization unnecessary. Sophisticated managers know that the best way to avoid an organizing drive is to pay employees competitive wages and benefits and to treat them with respect and dignity. Most companies try to do the right thing by their employees while trying to remain (or become) competitive. In the end, the percentage of private-sector workers represented by labor unions has fallen below 10 percent in the last 20 years because employers have left union organizers with few grievances to exploit.

Card check proponents ignore obvious concerns about fraud and coercion associated with employees being pressured into signing union authorization cards. In a landmark decision upholding the appropriateness of the secret ballot in union elections, the Supreme Court described card check as “inherently unreliable” because of the “natural inclination of most people to avoid stands which appear to be nonconformist and antagonistic to friends and fellow employees.” Even organized labor recognizes that union authorization cards are an unreliable measure of employee sentiment. Experienced union organizers know that a significant number of employees will often vote against unionization after hearing both sides of the story, even if they had previously signed an authorization card. This is one reason why the standard goal of union organizing campaigns since the 1960s has been to collect signatures from 75 percent of employees if possible.

The Attack on the Secret Ballot

U.S. labor law is founded on the principle that employees should have the right to decide, free of coercion from either companies or unions, whether they wish to organize in order to bargain collectively with their employers. Under current law, the NLRB conducts a secret ballot election if at least 30 percent of employees in an appropriate unit sign union authorization cards. Elections, which are administered by the NLRB, are typically conducted within 40 days after a petition for an election has been filed. Employers and unions often engage in vigorous debate during this period.

Employers typically insist on their right to have the question of unionization decided in a secret ballot election to make sure employees hear both sides of the story. This is necessary to counter the significant advantages that current law provides the unions. Unions often begin to organize in secret, trying to convince a substantial number of employees that unionization would be to their benefit. In this effort, unions often make all sorts of promises—realistic and otherwise. Employers are forbidden from responding in kind, as it is unlawful for an employer to make either threats or promises to influence employee sentiment. In cases in which the union gathers strength before the employer knows about the organizing activity, the company will often start out far behind. However, once the campaign becomes public—normally through a petition filed with the NLRB—the employer then can exercise its statutory and First Amendment rights to communicate factually to the workforce about the issues. Through their own communications, employers are often able to provide critical information that helps employees put union promises in context. An effective factual presentation by an employer often causes a substantial number of employees who had previously signed union cards to end up voting against unionization in a secret ballot election. Union organizers recognize this. AFL-CIO internal surveys show that unions win fewer than half of the NLRB elections in which unions collect authorization cards from only 60 percent of eligible employees.

The current political debate over card check has been marked by significant exaggerations and misstatements about the current process. One of the most serious is the notion, commonly advanced by card check proponents, that the EFCA would not prohibit secret ballot elections but would merely provide employees with another option: certification by “majority sign-up” or card check. The argument is disingenuous. Under the EFCA, employees would have no meaningful choice between a secret ballot election and recognition by card check. That choice would be left to union organizers who will never opt for a secret ballot election if they can get authorization cards signed by a majority of the affected employees. The only scenario in which a secret ballot election would take place under EFCA would be the relatively rare situation in which a union organizer has gotten authorization cards signed by a minority of workers—that is, more than the 30 percent required for an election but less than the majority needed for automatic certification. Union organizers almost never file an election petition in these circumstances because they know that some of the employees who signed cards will not vote for the union after hearing the other side of the story. There is no reason to believe the union organizers would change their approach under a card check regime.

Dangers of Binding Arbitration under a Card Check Regime

Another EFCA provision—requiring mandatory arbitration of initial collective bargaining agreements—is even more problematic than the elimination of the secret ballot. Under the EFCA, a company and a union would have only 90 days to negotiate an initial collective bargaining agreement following certification. If they are unsuccessful, either party can demand mediation. If, after 30 days, mediation proves unsuccessful, a contract will be imposed on the company and the union by a panel of arbitrators through a process known as “interest arbitration.” The arbitrators would have the authority to dictate the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, including wages, benefits, and work rules. The contract thus created would be binding upon the parties for two years.

The percentage of private-sector workers represented by labor unions has fallen below 10 percent in the last 20 years because employers have left union organizers with few grievances to exploit.Interest arbitration is rarely used in the private sector, as employers routinely oppose any such union demand. They have been right to do so based on experience in the public sector. Interest arbitration developed in the public sector some 30 years ago in states that permit public employees to form unions and engage in collective bargaining. Because strikes are typically prohibited by state law, some initially believed that interest arbitration would be a quick and effective way to resolve collective bargaining disputes. Results have been decidedly mixed.

Michigan has had a form of interest arbitration for police officers and firefighters for decades, administered through a law similar to statutes enacted in many states with strong public-sector unions. Michigan’s law requires interest arbitration to be resolved quickly, with the arbitration panel being selected in less than three weeks and the first hearing being held within 15 days of the selection of the panel. Arbitration hearings are supposed to be completed in 30 days. The reality has been different. In the early 1990s, only one out of every six arbitration cases was resolved within 300 days. Although the pace has improved somewhat in recent years, on average, interest arbitration in Michigan takes almost 15 months from the date that a request is filed to the date that a decision is reached.

The experience with interest arbitration in Michigan and other states has led scholars to conclude that the process has significant net disadvantages. Interest arbitration is widely seen as having a chilling effect on meaningful voluntary collective bargaining, as both parties resort to posturing in the hopes of getting the best deal from the arbitrators. This, in turn, leads to what has been called the “narcotic effect” of interest arbitration, in which parties abdicate responsibility for resolving disputes in favor of resolution by third parties.

Collective bargaining at the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) has seen both the chilling effect and the narcotic effect at work. The postal strike of 1970 led to a reorganization of the old Post Office into today’s USPS, including a provision calling for mandatory arbitration of collective bargaining disputes in the event traditional collective bargaining reached an impasse. But impasses became standard: USPS and three of its major unions became chronically unable to reach agreements without going to arbitration. The consistent use of interest arbitration both inhibited the parties’ ability to reach agreement and exacerbated the historical pattern of adversarial labor-management relations at USPS.

Perhaps more important, the public-sector experience undercuts any claim that interest arbitration would result in the imposition of “reasonable” (that is, less costly) economic terms in collective bargaining settlements. Starting with California’s Proposition 13 in the mid-1970s, a principal cause of taxpayer revolt across the country has been the skyrocketing cost of public services and the resulting increased tax assessments. Increased costs imposed through interest arbitration of public-sector labor contract disputes have long been seen as a significant feature of out-of-control local government budgets. The President’s Commission on the United States Postal Service recounted similar evidence that USPS unionized employees enjoy a substantial total compensation premium over similarly situated private-sector employees.

The Supreme Court described card check as ‘inherently unreliable’ because of the ‘natural inclination of most people to avoid stands which appear to be nonconformist and antagonistic to friends and fellow employees.’As currently proposed, the EFCA is largely silent about how interest arbitration would work in practice. The bill contains no standards for the selection of arbitrators or guidance for deciding which economic terms should be imposed in arbitration. Nor are there any deadlines for concluding the process or rules as to whether economic terms awarded by arbitrators will be made retroactive. The lack of specificity on these and other key issues is troubling. The process contemplated by the EFCA would distort traditional collective bargaining by making it more likely that the employer would be subject to the whims of the arbitration panel. In the current system, parties to first-contract negotiations often fail to reach an initial contract in four months’ time. It often takes both parties (particularly unions) weeks to decide on their initial demands and the composition of their bargaining teams. A common reason why a first contract cannot be negotiated in a short time is that unions, consistent with the promises they make during the organizing drive, often make unreasonable economic demands that employers sensibly resist. The passage of time often helps to induce reality, leading to more reasonable union demands. Under current law, a union’s only realistic option is to call a strike, an action that is often exceedingly unpopular among the newly organized workers.

Interest arbitration would change all of that. The traditional give-and-take of voluntary collective bargaining would be replaced by the union’s bet that it can get a better deal from the arbitrators. The public-sector experience provides no reason to believe that the arbitration panel would have the courage to hold the line and say no to expensive union demands. It is a bad idea, especially in a recession, to put a company’s financial future in the hands of government-appointed arbitrators acting under the vaguest of standards.

Constitutional Concerns

There are also doubts about the constitutionality of the EFCA’s provisions. These begin with serious questions about the First Amendment right of association of those employees who may be opposed to unionization. Under card check, these employees are effectively denied any say in whether their workplace is unionized. Such an outcome is contrary to the Wagner Act, the original federal labor law enacted in the 1930s. The Wagner Act assumed that all employees would be able to participate fully in the unionization choice through voting in secret ballot elections after hearing both sides of the story. Epstein demonstrates that the Wagner Act made such participation a quid pro quo for the statute’s confiscation of an employee’s individual right to contract.

The almost complete lack of standards for mandatory arbitration of first contracts under the EFCA raises substantial due-process concerns, particularly in light of the fact that the statute is intended to take effect immediately upon enactment, rather than after promulgation of regulations. Epstein also posits that mandatory arbitration could amount to a “taking” of an employer’s property in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

A Compromise?

Trial balloons seen over Washington in recent weeks suggest that President Obama may be willing to compromise on one of the EFCA’s most troublesome features. The new administration might trade the card check feature of the EFCA for a “quickie election” scheme modeled on the procedures used in some Canadian provinces. While this proposal might be good politics for card check supporters, the business community and others concerned about reviving the economy should be wary. A careful look at the Canadian experience suggests that it has very little to recommend itself.

Today, one-third of Canadian private-sector employees are unionized. It is no coincidence that labor economists do not cite Canada as an engine of economic productivity.Labor relations policy in Canada is conducted at the provincial level. All Canadian provinces operated under some version of a card check regime until the 1980s, which enabled unions to organize large percentages of Canadian private-sector workers. Even today, one-third of Canadian private-sector employees are unionized. It is no coincidence that labor economists do not cite Canada as an engine of economic productivity. Economic growth in Canada, measured by GDP and traditional constructs of labor productivity, has lagged well behind the United States. For most of the last 20 years, GDP growth in Canada has been roughly 80 percent of that seen here.

The economic consequences of card check were not lost on Canadians. At various times over the past two decades, voters in six Canadian provinces supported conservative political candidates who enacted legislation calling for mandatory elections for certifying unions instead of card check. Studies show that union certification rates in those provinces promptly declined by about 20 percent. Indeed, some Canadian politicians have made the card check problem a key part of their agendas. After being elected premier of Ontario on an “open for business” platform in 1995, Mike Harris eliminated card check. Yet, even after these politically driven changes, the Canadian economy remains relatively burdened. The Canadian experience confirms the inverse relationship between union density and economic productivity. It is likely no coincidence that Canada’s unemployment rate has traditionally been two or three percentage points higher than that of the United States.

Adopting the Canadian process here would result in a substantial increase in organized labor’s success rate—perhaps to levels comparable to Canada’s. This is because, under the card check process, the union remains in control of the timing of the election by deciding when to file the petition. Those Canadian provinces that require elections limit the election campaign period to two weeks or less, compared to the 40-day period typically available in the United States. Business interests across Canada complain about having inadequate time to counter unions’ promises. They have tried, thus far without success, to get longer campaign periods enacted into law.

Sophisticated managers know that the best way to avoid an organizing drive is to pay employees competitive wages and benefits and to treat them with respect and dignity.While we wait to see when card check will be introduced, the new administration has not neglected its political supporters. President Obama has signed several executive orders covering various aspects of labor relations. Each encourages unionization in the important and growing government procurement sector of the economy. One of these orders expressly encourages the federal government to make wider use of so-called project labor agreements on large, federally funded construction projects. Such agreements effectively guarantee that all work on such projects will be performed by unionized contractors and subcontractors and thus inflate the cost of such contracts. Another order will require all government contractors to post notices that affirmatively spell out the right to organize. A third will change current government contract allowable cost rules and prohibit employers from charging government contracts for heretofore normal business costs incurred in connection with a unionization drive. The administration’s use of the executive order is a clear signal that the new president will look for ways to make it easier for unions to be successful in organizing drives.

Imagine a political environment in which only one political party has access to the media in order to make its promises, criticize the other side, and press its case. Or consider a scenario in which one of the competing political parties cannot begin its campaign until a week before the election. Neither the 21st-century U.S. economy nor American workers would benefit from changing the rules for union organizing in the manner currently proposed by card check supporters.

Card check should be seen for what it is: an attempt to rebuild the private-sector union movement by making it dramatically easier for unions to organize American workers. Adding card check to the already heavy burden of U.S. labor and employment law that companies face today will cost the U.S. economy additional jobs. This is hardly a recipe for getting the country through the current economic crisis without substantial additional damage.

Thomas P. Gies is an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a labor and employment lawyer at Crowell & Moring LLP. A version of this article appeared in AEI’s On the Issues series.

Andy Stern whines over the corruption he created.

Union Seeks Stronger Ethics Rules Amid Scandals

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

Published: September 2, 2008
The Service Employees International Union, the nation’s fastest-growing and most politically powerful union, said Tuesday it was setting up a high-level ethics commission after scandals at several of its largest locals.

Andrew L. Stern, the union’s president, said in an interview that this commission would be led by an outsider and would establish tougher ethics rules that all of the union’s leaders — at headquarters and in locals — would have to follow.
Mr. Stern announced the commission three days after the president of a local in Los Angeles representing 77,000 county workers stepped aside amid accusations that her local had paid thousands of dollars to her former boyfriend.

The announcement comes 11 days after a second Los Angeles local, representing 155,000 home-care workers, was placed into trusteeship because the local and its training center had paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to companies run by the wife, mother-in-law and friends of the local’s president.

“When we who have worked hard to rid ourselves of leaders who don’t respect our laws, when we hold ourselves out as people who expect companies to have high moral standards, and when we work for reforms in our union, our labor movement and our country, these things hurt,” Mr. Stern said.

Senator Barack Obama and the Democrats are looking to the service employees’ union and its 1.8 million members to provide more campaign help than any other union.
The revelations have come as Mr. Stern, who has ousted numerous corrupt officials in the past, has been preoccupied with politics, unionizing more workers and combining locals into larger, more powerful groups — actions that critics say have led to less accountability for local leaders.

Mr. Stern said the commission, expected to have 15 members, would consult anticorruption groups, including the Association for Union Democracy and Teamsters for a Democratic Union, to discuss what ethics rules to adopt and how best to enforce them.

“We will ask every local and every state council to immediately adopt as their minimum standards the international union’s code of ethics, which deals with conflicts of interest, self-dealing and gifts,” Mr. Stern said.
He announced the ethics measures after an internal discussion in which several top advisers urged him to take forceful action. According to e-mail messages obtained from a Stern critic, one longtime adviser, Matt Witt, wrote Mr. Stern that the scandals “will make it hard for you to pursue other opportunities outside S.E.I.U., whether with the administration or a foundation or whatever.” Mr. Stern said he had no interest in another job.

Mr. Witt added, “If you leave while what you built is steadily eroding, the blame will fall on you, not your successor.”

In another e-mail message, Jono Shaffer, a leader of the union’s Justice for Janitors campaign in Los Angeles, wondered why it had taken so long to uncover the problems in that city’s giant home-care local. “I wish I could say this is unbelievable, but for those of us in Southern California, the only surprise is that it took so long to make it to the public,” Mr. Shaffer wrote.
The Labor Department is investigating that Los Angeles local, and a Congressional committee has begun an inquiry about it.

Last week, the president of the union’s 55,000-member health care local in Michigan stepped aside amid accusations of financial wrongdoing. Also last week, the parent union served notice to a 130,000-member health care local in Northern California, threatening to place it into trusteeship because it set up a fund that the parent union says was used for improper purposes. That local is headed by a prominent Stern opponent, Sal Rosselli.

Mr. Rosselli and the other union leaders say they have been wrongly accused.
“By the time our board meets in January, we hope to have in place a world-class set of standards that make sure that the members’ moneys and rights are protected,” Mr. Stern said. “We want to articulate bright lines of right and wrong, and we want to enforce them.”

More Articles in US » A version of this article appeared in print on September 3, 2008, on page A22 of the New York edition.

SEIU- Pledge Gives 85 Million to DNC

Holding Up a Mirror to the SEIU

By DIANA FURCHTGOTT-ROTH | July 9, 2008

On July 17, in New York and 50 other cities, one of America's biggest unions, the Service Employees International Union, will try to demonize prominent New York financier Henry Kravis, a founding partner of the private equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts.

The SEIU already has attempted to besmirch Mr. Kravis on its Web site for paying too few taxes, even though it does not accuse him of illegal activity. It asserts that because of tax loopholes, Mr. Kravis's taxes are too low. It wants higher taxes for private equity partners, with the proceeds used for middle-class tax cuts and health care.

The pep rallies are another in a series of SEIU efforts to attack private equity firms. Apart from the silliness of making Mr. Kravis its target when its complaint really lies with Congress, the SEIU would do better to look in the mirror. In its own treatment of workers, especially worker pension plans, it falls short.

Among other activities, KKR buys companies and reorganizes them to make them profitable. It manages investments for pension funds of the SEIU, a union with an estimated 2 million members, many in low-wage jobs, such as office cleaning and nursing assistance.

SEIU local and national pension funds made up more than 30% of KKR's 2006 Fund, one of several investment funds in the firm's portfolio.

SEIU President Andy Stern is not above trying to use that business relationship as leverage to pressure KKR to embrace the SEIU's political goals, either by threatening to harm KKR's name, as with the July 17 rallies, or by controlling proxy votes in shareholder meetings.

The SEIU, which has pledged $85 million to Democratic campaigns this year, wants this pressure to lead to investment decisions by KKR that Mr. Stern asserts would benefit workers: reduced CEO compensation, higher rank-and-file wages, and more emphasis on environmentalism and politics, instead of profits.

Yet in 2006, the SEIU National Industry Pension Plan, a plan for the rank-and-file members, covering 100,787 workers, was 75% funded. That is, it had three-fourths of the money it needed to pay benefit obligations of workers and retirees.

In contrast, a separate fund for the union's own employees, numbering 1,305, participants was 91% funded. Even better, the pension fund for SEIU officers and employees, which had 6,595 members, was 103% funded.

Such disparity was not always the case. In 1996, the SEIU National Industry Pension Fund had close to 110% of the funds it would need to pay all promised pensions to its workers.

When the pensions of the rank-and-file are compared with those for SEIU officers and staff, neither poor market returns nor the weak economy explain the funding discrepancy. The three plans are merged into a single trust, and thus are managed in a similar manner. Poor performance should affect them all equally.

The major difference among the funds is that the decisions regarding contributions to the officers' funds are made by the trustees of the SEIU, instead of by several large employers pursuant to collective bargaining contracts.

The trustees alter contributions to the officers' fund from the SEIU locals so that it is actuarially sound. In contrast, they do not take sufficient care in negotiating adequate employer contributions for the rank-and-file plan, with the result that these plans are underfunded.

The success of the officers' funds shows the heads of the national organization know how to properly fund a pension plan if they so choose. There is no excuse for their inability to negotiate with employers to properly fund pensions.

The problem of poor funding occurs not only in the national SEIU pension plan. Thirteen local pension plans, whose beneficiaries are almost all rank-and-file members, were all less than 80% funded, and, of these, six were less than 65% funded. The Massachusetts Service Employees Pension Fund fell from nearly 110% to 70% funded in 10 years, and the SEIU 1199 Upstate Pension Fund fell from 115% to 75% since its inception in 1999.

Poor stock market performance could explain part of these failings, but Internal Revenue Service filings show that 10 of these funds received two-thirds less of their annual costs in employer contributions.

The SEIU trumpets its efforts to secure health and retirement benefits for service workers. Unfortunately, it is becoming clear that the SEIU is not truly securing these benefits. Workers covered by the union's national pension fund have their retirement incomes dependent on a fund whose adequacy has been falling from year to year.

For the SEIU to hold pep rallies to attack private equity funds, while allowing the pensions of their own rank-and-file members to perform worse than those of union officials, is sheer hypocrisy. On July 17, rather than taking back the economy, workers should insist that their pensions are actuarially sound. Who knows, perhaps KKR could help.

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute

I Want More Union Member's Money for Myself by Andy Stern

Are unions relevant? SEIU's Andy Stern thinks so, but also sees need for attitude adjustment

Monday, January 22, 2007

By Kris Maher, The Wall Street Journal

While most American unions are losing members, the Service Employees International Union is gaining them. The union has successfully organized workers in the South.

What's more, it has had success in industries, including health care and janitorial services, that are both growing and dominated by low-wage immigrant workers hoping for higher pay and health-care and retirement benefits.

As president of SEIU, which represents about 1.8 million nurses, security guards, janitors and others, Andy Stern has become one of the most recognizable and powerful labor leaders in the country. In 2005, Mr. Stern pulled his union out of the AFL-CIO in dramatic fashion at its convention, and has since helped form the rival Change to Win federation, which represents about six million workers.

Mr. Stern says he wants to remake the labor movement by shedding its old adversarial image and creating more labor-management partnerships. Last week, he announced a new partnership with the Business Roundtable and American Association of Retired Persons to push Congress to act on health-care reform.

At the same time, SEIU is feared by many employers, because of its high success rate at waging aggressive organizing campaigns that usually include support from elected officials, clergy and activists, in addition to punishing publicity for employers.

In an interview, Mr. Stern talked about why unions are still relevant, the impact of a Democratic-controlled Congress on health-care and pension policy, and whether unions will ever organize the U.S. employees of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Here are excerpts:

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: With 7.8 percent of U.S. private-sector workers belonging to unions today, down from about 35 percent 50 years ago, the U.S. has one of the lowest percentages of private-sector workers covered by collective-bargaining agreements of democracies around the world. Are unions still relevant in the U.S.?

MR. STERN: I think the need for unions is far greater today than almost at any time since the 1930s and '40s. I think American workers want a voice on their job. And the question is: Will unions change to become better partners with employers to respond to what is now a global economy, where more people went to work today in the U.S. in retail than in manufacturing?

WSJ: Do you think employers in the U.S. are much more anti-union today than 20 years ago?

MR. STERN: For one thing, I think unions missed the growth of the new economy, so huge companies and industries grew up nonunion -- in technology, all of Silicon Valley; in medical research, biotech. So there's not a history, and then when unions arrive they are dealing with very substantial employers. And second, I think as much as we try to be partners with our employers -- who told us we should change and understand their competitive issues and try to add value, not create problems -- the employers are not looking for any kind of union, even a good partner.

WSJ: Is the opposition you face during organizing campaigns tougher today than 10 years ago?

MR. STERN: It is much more sophisticated today. There are now a whole wide range of consultants, lawyers and strike breakers who have been battle-tested. I think the law, employers appreciate, has no remedial enforcement power so you can violate it somewhat without fear, and having learned that, it just only escalates people's willingness to do anything.

WSJ: How do you think most Americans view unions?

MR. STERN: What we know is that most people believe now that their children will be worse off than they are. Seven out of 10 Americans are living paycheck to paycheck and do feel like an organization, an association, or even a union would be helpful in changing that situation. At the same time, unions have an image of being old, not effective, in some cases not looking like the new work force. So we have an image problem. I would say the only way to change your image is to change reality.

WSJ: How do you convince a company that working with a union is good for its business, especially when so many companies are thriving by shedding union workers and offshoring jobs?

MR. STERN: I would say there are two sets of issues. One is the 50 million jobs, in transportation, health care, retail, technology, that are going to remain in this country. And there I think unions need to appreciate there are ways in which we add value and there are ways that we make them less competitive. So we need to understand markets, we need to understand their competition, we need to appreciate where we can be helpful, like increasing financing, or leveling the playing field so competition is about entrepreneurial activity, about quality, about efficiency and not about who can pay the least.

We want to find a 21st century new model that may look more like a European model, that is less focused on individual grievances, more focused on industry needs. But I think the employers are rather scared and unimaginative -- it's too much about cost and bottom lines and not enough about people and human relations.

WSJ: If you could gather the country's top CEOs in one room, what would you tell them?

MR. STERN: I would tell them the employer-based health-care system is dead. It's a relic of the industrial economy, and it makes them unable to fairly compete when America is the only country who asks its employers to put the price of health care on the cost of its products. I would say that employer-based pensions have the same problems, and that we need to create a new way that American workers do in fact have retirement security where employers are expected to contribute. And three, I would say we need in each of our sectors to find ways where we can better do training, quality, and give workers an opportunity to be involved in a dialogue about the services that are provided.

WSJ: What would you say to rank-and-file critics who say you're too quick to collaborate with management?

MR. STERN: I think most critics come from outside the union, because I don't hear our members say that. People don't go to work to have a fight. They go to work to provide a service, to build a community, to take care of their family. I don't hear most people say I can't wait to go to work to have a fight with that boss.

WSJ: Do you think unions will ever be able to organize Wal-Mart in the U.S.?

MR. STERN: The group SEIU's part of, Wal-Mart Watch, has not been trying to organize them but change their business model. And it's clear we have their attention. I don't think a traditional organizing drive is going to be successful because the laws, as I said, are so tilted on behalf of a company as big as Wal-Mart, and they probably are at the top of the line in terms of having an emergency-response team that flies out of Bentonville at the moment the word "union" is used in a store. At the same time, I think Wal-Mart has the opportunity to create an entirely new American model of worker representation. The question is do they want partners or do they want to be held accountable in a much more public fashion?

WSJ: You now face a Congress expected to be much more in sync with union viewpoints. What is the No. 1 issue unions want to see acted on by the new Congress?

MR. STERN: We think it's time for a new health-care system for every American. I think we're going to see some employer groups say this is the year to begin to create a call for action for health care. I don't think the Congress yet gets it, but I think by March they're going to see that this election in addition to Iraq had a lot to do with economic anxiety, and health-care costs are No. 1 on that list.

WSJ: What have you and SEIU accomplished since leaving the AFL-CIO, and are you satisfied?

MR. STERN: I'm never satisfied, because I think our union and the labor movement -- I'd say even a lot of our employers -- are really slow in making the change to a global economy, a very fast-paced 24/7 economy. We don't see our employers as enemies. We don't want to be attached to any single political party. Our attitude now is we need to build successful employers as part of that, you need to be involved and have a voice, and that everyone needs to share in the success of an employer, not just the shareholders and the executives.

WSJ: How do you measure success for yourself?

MR. STERN: I came to SEIU personally because I wanted to change people's lives. That's why I'm so passionate about health care at the moment. Because I think too many people are living each day with a sense of fear that something tragic could happen about their health which could also affect their economic security.

We are living through the third economic revolution, following the agricultural and the industrial revolutions. It's a very profoundly new moment, and America has no plan. We need to come together as a country and find new ideas and new solutions to make work pay and keep an incredible dream alive.

First published on January 22, 2007 at 12:00 am

Andy Stern's Little 527 Groups & Member Dues

From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro


The SEIU defended an affiliated pro-Edwards 527, which is running ads in favor of Edwards. Alliance for New America, funded by the SEIU, is running $750,000 worth of TV advertising in Iowa. An adviser to the group is Edwards' former campaign manager, and the group and Edwards have faced scrutiny for their involvement.

“While SEIU did not create the Alliance for a New America, the union supports the entity because it shares our goal of sparking a discussion of how best address the concerns of working people in America,” writes Dave Regan, SEIU president, in a press release. “The union's support for the Alliance for a New America has been given in full accordance with both the spirit and letter of the laws governing 527 political organizations. There has been no coordination or discussion of our support for the organization's work with any individual candidate or campaign at any time.

“SEIU leaders will continue to separate any 527 activities from any discussions with candidates. Moreover, a thorough review of the ads reveals that the ads are focused on the issues and do not attack any candidates.”

*** UPDATE *** The New York Times reports on its Caucus blog that "two campaign-finance advocacy groups -- Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center -- argue that the Alliance for a New America may be violating other campaign finance rules."

The Edwards campaign responded that "As soon as SEIU officials informed us, later on, that some of their staff would no longer able to communicate with us about the campaign, we immediately stopped all conversation with them, as we legally had to."

Here’s the full release:
"The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) today reiterated the importance of the Alliance for a New America, which enables working people to pool their resources to gain a voice on the key issues facing America as the country heads into the 2008 elections.

"SEIU members believe that everyone in America should be able to fully participate in the national discussion of issues in this election, not just the special interests who pour millions into campaign activities. SEIU members care deeply about fixing our broken healthcare system and ensuring economic equality and opportunity for everyone in America.

"For many years SEIU members have joined together to support public advocacy on issues that affect their families and communities. For example, the Americans for Healthcare campaign focused the attention of political candidates and the public on our nation's health care crisis. Similarly, the Justice for Janitors campaign advocated for the rights of low-wage workers. These public advocacy campaigns have proven to be a highly effective way to help keep the debate focused on the issues that matter for working people and their families.

"SEIU members have long supported the work of independent political groups, like The Alliance for a New America. While SEIU did not create the Alliance for a New America, the union supports the entity because it shares our goal of sparking a discussion of how best address the concerns of working people in America. The union's support for the Alliance for a New America has been given in full accordance with both the spirit and letter of the laws governing 527 political organizations. There has been no coordination or discussion of our support for the organization's work with any individual candidate or campaign at any time.

"SEIU leaders will continue to separate any 527 activities from any discussions with candidates. Moreover, a thorough review of the ads reveals that the ads are focused on the issues and do not attack any candidates.

"District 1199 represents more than 28,000 health care and social service workers across West Virginia, Ohio and Kentucky. The Union is a part of the Service Employees International Union, whose 1.8 million members make it the largest union in the country as well as the largest health care union in the nation."

Andy Stern and Steve L Green Twins Seperated at Birth

August 22, 2008

Did a Union Doublecross Its College Activists?

Student activists on several college campuses are speaking out against one of the nation’s largest labor groups, claiming they were deceived and used as “pawns” by the Service Employees International Union.

The students’ grievances, outlined in an open letter to SEIU leadership, allege a “disturbing pattern” wherein SEIU undercut students’ efforts to help organize service workers on at least four campuses.

“It is becoming increasingly clear that SEIU leaders often see students and campus workers as little more than pawns to use as they see fit,” the letter states. “SEIU has sought to maneuver these pawns in a way that brings new members and dues into the union in the short term but keeps workers in poverty and actually hurts our collective efforts to help unions grow at a massive scale.”

SEIU, the nation’s fastest growing union, has about 1.7 million members, many of whom work in cafeterias and dining halls on college campuses. On some of these campuses, students have organized rallies and even hunger strikes in support of workers’ rights.

The letter alleges that SEIU officials encouraged students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to help organize food services workers, while at the same time entering into a deal with the workers’ employer that would insure there would never be a union at North Carolina.

The SEIU agreement, first reported upon in May by the Wall Street Journal, grants the so-called “Big 3” service employers the right to determine where SEIU will organize workers. Aramark Corp., which provides food services to North Carolina’s campus, was among those included in the agreement, the Journal reported.

“The deal ensured UNC workers could not join SEIU by letting Aramark decide which workers could join the union,” the letter states. “Not surprisingly, UNC workers didn’t make Aramark’s list.”

SEIU officials refused to comment for this story. Asked about the letter, Aramark officials issued a statement, dismissing the allegations as part of a campaign against Andy Stern, the president of SEIU, who has been praised as a reformer by some and criticized by others for his methods.

“The information in the letter from the student organizations to Andy Stern is simply not true,” Aramark’s statement reads. “We would never even attempt to respond to such a document, which seems to be part of an anti-Stern campaign.”

Secret Deal Promises ‘Labor Peace’

A summary of the “Big 3” agreement, which was provided to Inside Higher Ed, details how SEIU allowed employers – not workers – to dictate where unionization would take place. The agreement, forged by SEIU and another union known as Unite Here, cedes the power to declare union sites to two major food service providers, Compass Group USA and Sodexho Inc. Along with Aramark, which had a similar agreement according to the Journal, Compass and Sodexho are the major food service providers on college campuses across the country.

In addition to empowering the companies to determine where workers can organize, the agreement insures that unionized workers won’t strike or even make derogatory remarks about the companies.

Union members were not informed of the deal, which specifically stipulates that secrecy is “critical to the success” of the agreement.

So what do the unions get from this deal? In the words of the agreement, the unions get “labor peace.” In short, the companies agree not to interfere with unionization efforts, as long as workers only organize on the sites the companies have approved.

The SEIU agreement may be unusual in that it so overtly empowers employers, but unions have been increasingly inclined to make painful compromises given the eroding strength of labor laws in the U.S., according to Nelson Lichtenstein, a professor of history at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

“It does have a bad odor to it, absolutely,” said Lichtenstein, who directs UC-Santa Barbara’s Center for the Study of Work, Labor and Democracy. “But I want to make the point that it’s just an extension of what unions have been forced to do.”

The controversy that’s accompanied news of SEIU’s agreement is part of a much larger philosophical battle within the labor movement, Lichtenstein notes. Andy Stern, the president of SEIU, has promoted labor “density” – driving up the percentage of unionized workers in a given sector – as the key to success in the fight for greater workers’ rights. But the union has pursued density at the expense of progress for workers, according to some students and critics within SEIU.

Chapel Hill Students Allege Betrayal

Student activists have proven reliable allies to labor groups in recent history, and SEIU eagerly solicited their support at Chapel Hill. But, according to the letter, students did SEIU’s bidding on campus only to be left in the lurch.

According to the letter, North Carolina students began organizing workers – at the behest of SEIU – in 2005. They were joined in these efforts by workers from the Southwest Workers Union, a joint labor venture of SEIU and Unite Here. But after working side-by-side with the students, who said they were subjected to Aramark executives’ intimidation, the union leaders abandoned the cause, the letter states.

“When summer break came, the SWU organizers left, promising to return the following year,” according to the letter. “After weeks of unreturned phone calls, students and workers learned that SEIU leaders had cut a deal with Aramark.”

Students who were involved in organizing workers at Chapel Hill did not respond to multiple e-mails sent to addresses listed in the university’s directory. An anonymous student, however, called the whole affair at North Carolina “a spectacular failure” in a recent article published by The Nation.

Aramark’s statement disputed claims that executives had engaged in acts of intimidation.

“Our employees have the right to choose whether or not to join a union in a process that is free from coercion or intimidation,” the statement says.

Labor Risks its Future

Lichtenstein, a longtime labor scholar, said SEIU risks alienating the future of the labor movement – even if compromises prove an effective long-term strategy for bolstering membership.

“The students are motivated by this kind of ideological, emotional and political vision of unionism — and correctly so — and I think SEIU is in danger of pushing that aside,” Lichtenstein said.

It should also come as little surprise that, given the choice, Aramark would not want unionization on a campus like Chapel Hill – a bastion of pro-labor sentiment with a history of grassroots organization and student activism, Lichtenstein added. But it would be in SEIU’s interest to have such campuses organized, he said.

“They should have insisted: We insist on North Carolina or Berkeley, one of the hotspots,” Lichtenstein said.

Chapel Hill’s chapter of United Students Against Sweatshops was particularly active in trying to organize Aramark workers on campus, and several members of the student group were among 15 signatories to the SEIU letter. But the national offices of Students Against Sweatshops did not endorse the letter’s criticism of SEIU, opting instead to quickly issue a statement of neutrality on the issue.

“We respect the right of each of our affiliates to act autonomously,” the letter states. “However, we as a national organization are committed to remaining neutral in SEIU’s internal conflicts and those of all our union allies.

SEIU and Students Against Sweatshops have close ties and have worked together on campaigns, and the student group gets most of its funding from unions. But Students Against Sweatshops and SEIU officials did not respond to inquiries about whether SEIU specifically provides money to the student group.

‘Appalling’ Actions in California

Student criticism of SEIU is not limited to the events that unfolded in North Carolina. As the letter notes, University of California at Irvine students had their own frustrations about SEIU’s interference.

According to the letter, SEIU nearly stymied an effort by the local union to have Aramark employees hired by the university, thereby granting the workers the same benefits as Irvine staff. At the height of the local union’s campaign in 2006, SEIU organizers – in apparent collusion with Aramark – tried to get the workers to join SEIU and abandon their local union, students said.

“We already had a relationship [with the workers],” recalled Carla Osorio, a former student who aided the local union. “We already had our campaign going on, and then this other union comes in that was shady.”

Despite SEIU’s attempts to woo workers, the employees ultimately stuck with their local chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. They were hired by UC-Irvine in September of 2006.

“This blatant effort by Aramark to undermine the workers [sic] efforts is not surprising, but SEIU’s complicity is appalling,” the letter states.

Elsewhere in California, students have also complained about SEIU’s treatment of union members at Stanford University and Santa Clara University. Since unionized workers on those campuses were transferred into Service Workers United – part of SEIU and Unite Here — they’ve “received little to no support,” according to the letter.

The unionized workers at Santa Clara and Stanford were employees of Bon Appétit, a company owned by Compass Group. Compass Group is one of the “Big 3” employers covered under SEIU’s controversial agreement.

Zev Kvitky, the former president of a local union that represents 1,500 workers at Stanford and Santa Clara, said SEIU is alienating young people at its own peril.

“I don’t want to see the union behave in a way that engenders distrust,” said Kvitky, who works with a group seeking SEIU reform. “I think it actually could result in long-term harm in the labor movement.”

Kvitky, who backs a group called SEIU Member Activists for Reform Today (S.M.A.R.T.), said students are right to have the impression that they have been used.

“I think there probably are clearly times where the union has kind of used students as leverage,” he said. “I don’t want to say as pawns, but certainly as leverage in order to win these agreements or win these campaigns. And I think that creates a lot of resentment on the part of students.”

— Jack Stripling

SEIU Corruption Crisis in California-Change to Lose!

California | Labor & Workers
Andy Stern-- SEIU Corruption Crisis Spills Into Political Races In S. California

By Garrett Therolf and David Zahniser, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
August 22, 2008

Andy Stern's hand picked "leader" of a 160,000 member local in California may have been illegally funneling union dues into political races in Los Angeles. Tyrone Freeman, Stern's appointed president of the Home Care Workers Local has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on his wife and relatives and is now being charged of raising dues to make illegal contributions for electioneering in LA races.

Stern SEIU Corruption Crisis Spills Into Political Races In Southern California-Stern's Operative Freeman May Have Used Union Dues Illegally In Electioneering

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-county22-2008aug22,0,7206602.story

Union leader's difficulties spill over into L.A. County supervisors race
Bernard Parks calls on his rival Mark Ridley-Thomas to return $4.5 million raised on his behalf by a labor alliance that included Tyrone Freeman, who is facing an inquiry.

Controversy surrounding a powerful Los Angeles labor leader threatened Thursday to alter the landscape beneath the county's hottest political race, which has been fueled by record amounts of union spending.

Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors candidate Bernard C. Parks, who trailed in the June primary, challenged opponent Mark Ridley-Thomas to return more than $4.5 million raised on his behalf by a labor alliance that included beleaguered union leader Tyrone Freeman.

Parks, a Los Angeles city councilman, also noted that county officials have accused Freeman's local of raising more than $5 million in illegitimate union dues from low-wage home healthcare workers, a charge that union attorneys have flatly denied.

"Mr. Ridley-Thomas, how do you feel about benefiting from the money of people who are hovering just above the poverty line?" Parks said. "Give the money back to the people who need it most."

Steve Barkan, a political consultant for Ridley-Thomas, called Parks' request "silly" and countered that Parks should return donations that he received from contractors doing business with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, where he is a board member.

"There's an investigation pending into the allegations against Mr. Freeman," said Barkan, who said Parks received a $500 donation from Freeman's union during his 2007 reelection campaign for City Council. "Whether the union wants to give the money back is clearly up to the union."

Two weeks ago, The Times reported that the union had paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to firms owned by Freeman's wife and his mother-in-law. Earlier this week, the labor leader took a leave of absence until the union's national office completes an internal investigation.

Most of the more than $4.5 million in labor money raised to support Ridley-Thomas, who is a state senator, came from other union locals that joined with Freeman's local to create an independent expenditure committee. As long as such a group does not coordinate with the candidate it supports, it can sidestep campaign finance laws that limit contributions to $1,000 a person. Because no union money was given directly to Ridley-Thomas, he has nothing to give back -- even if he wanted to do so.

However, Freeman's local has been one of Ridley-Thomas' most ardent supporters and gave the independent committee at least $468,000 to spend in the hotly contested primary campaign for supervisor.

The union dues allegation mentioned by Parks stems from complaints made by the Public Assistance Services Council, a county agency that employs 135,000 home healthcare workers. The workers' contract is negotiated by Freeman's union, but those employees who choose not to join the union have been allowed to pay a reduced rate of monthly union dues. However, the union recently raised their dues to the same rate as members'. The difference is what county officials consider excessive and in violation of the union's collective bargaining agreement, said the council's attorney, Richard Fisher.

"Is it any coincidence," Parks asked at his press conference, "that the charges began to be implemented in October, the same month Ridley-Thomas announced his candidacy for county supervisor?"

Since Ridley-Thomas declared for office, Freeman's SEIU Local 6434 spent at least $35,000 on radio advertising, putting spots on KJLH-FM, which bills itself as the city's No. 1 black-owned radio station.

The union also bought at least $22,000 worth of print advertising in the Los Angeles Sentinel, a newspaper with a heavily African American readership. Less than two weeks before the June primary, Freeman's union paid for five full-page ads promoting Ridley-Thomas' candidacy in the Sentinel.

The same edition also featured a sixth, full-page ad in color accusing Parks of seeking to roll back rent control; that ad was paid for by the unions' independent committee, the Alliance for a Stronger Community.

Even before the supervisorial campaign had gotten underway, Freeman used his union's money to improve Ridley-Thomas' name recognition in the black media. One full-page advertisement that ran in the Sentinel in January -- not listed as a campaign expense but paid for by SEIU Local 6434 -- served as a "salute" to Ridley-Thomas and his "unyielding commitment to strengthening our community."

"Mark has, for more than a decade, been one of long-term care workers' greatest allies," said Freeman, who appears with a broad smile in the advertisement, just below three photos of Ridley-Thomas.

Scott Mann, a spokesman for SEIU Local 6434, dismissed Parks' request to return any of the money to union workers. "Mr. Parks' call certainly sounds like another effort to silence the voice of working people," he said.

DNC Sponsored by George Soros

Friday, August 22, 2008

BARACK OBAMA, HORSERACE

No Business or Entrepreneurs Speaking at the Democrat Convention

Looking over the complete list of speakers at the Democratic convention, I note... that there is not a single businessman, entrepreneur, or private sector innovator speaking in the entire four nights, barring some last-minute addition.

Groups represented include the SEIU, the NEA, AFT, NARAL and Planned Parenthood. But not one representative of any company - just politicians, representatives of unions, and leaders of abortion groups. (I suppose some wag will say that Al Gore counts, as the innovative inventor of the Internet and creator of that television channel.)

By comparison, the GOP convention features EBay CEO Meg Whitman and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina. And this isn't even counting Mitt Romney, co-founder of Bain Capital.

UPDATE: I'll give a little credit where it's due, Mark Warner makes the cut as well as Romney does — former managing director of Columbia Capital Corporation, early investor in Nextel, founder of a large technology-based venture capital fund...


Monday's speakers will include:

* Former President Jimmy Carter

* Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi

* Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. of Illinois

* Humanitarian Clint Borgen

* Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper

* Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar

* Miami Mayor Manny Diaz

* Illinois state leaders Alexi Giannoulis, Dan Hynes, Lisa Madigan

* Tom Balanoff from Illinois SEIU

* NEA President Reg Weaver

* AFT President Randi Weingarten

* NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan

* Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri

* Former Indiana Representative Lee Hamilton

* Chicago City Clerk Miguel del Valle

* Maya Soetoro-Ng - Barack Obama's half-sister

* Jerry Kellman - "Mentor and long-time friend of Barack Obama"

Tuesday: The theme for the day is "Renewing America's Promise." "Senator Hillary Clinton will be the headline prime-time speaker and former Virginia Governor Mark Warner will deliver the keynote address on Tuesday night."

The speakers will include:

* Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy

* West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin, Chair of the Democratic Governors’ Association

* Iowa Governor Chet Culver

* California State Controller John Chiang

* Change to Win’s Anna Burger

* AFL-CIO President John Sweeney

* Planned Parenthood of America President Cecile Richards.

* Pay Equity pioneer Lilly Ledbetter

* Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana

* Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts

* Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas

* Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona

* Governor Jim Doyle of Wisconsin

* Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania

* Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio

* Governor David Paterson of New York

* Senator Bob Casey, Jr., of Pennsylvania

* Former Secretary of Energy and Transportation Federico Peña

* House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer

* House Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel

* Representative Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Assistant to the Speaker of the House;

* Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chair Chris Van Hollen

* Representatives Nydia Velazquez (D-NY)

* Linda Sanchez (D-CA)

* Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)

* Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)

Wednesday: The theme for the day is "Securing America's Future" and will feature the Vice Presidential candidate's speech. Representative Patrick Murphy (D-PA) and Iraq War veteran Tammy Duckworth will offer a tribute to war veterans.


* Former President Bill Clinton

* Governor Bill Richardson

* Massachusetts Senator John Kerry

* Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle

* Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed

* Chicago Mayor Richard Daley

* Senator Evan Bayh

* Senator Joe Biden

* Senator Jay Rockefeller

* Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

* Convention home state Senator Ken Salazar

* House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn

* Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL)

Thursday: Barack Obama will accept the nomination in a speech at INVESCO Field at Mile High on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech. He will be joined by Former Vice President Al Gore.

Andy Stern, of SEIU, King of Back Room Regulations

SEIU Proposes New Rules for Private Equity Investments in Nation's Struggling Banks

WASHINGTON, Aug 22, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX

-- Principles unveiled by fastest-growing union would protect working families, consumers from risky buyout firms' practices, strengthen long-standing consumer protections, and ensure safety of nation's biggest banks.

With private equity firms publicly calling for radical change to banking regulations that would ease their investment into the nation's struggling banks, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) today proposed new rules to protect consumers and working families against the buyout firms' riskiest practices, strengthen long-standing consumer protections, and support stronger banks.

The new principles called for by SEIU -- the fastest-growing labor union in the Americas and a leading advocate for better private equity and banking practices -- directly address recent moves by a number of leading private equity firms to win special treatment by the Federal Reserve allowing them to take over commercial banks but avoid the current transparency and oversight rules by which other investors must abide.

"The biggest buyout firms are used to gaming the system to turn a profit--it's no surprise they want special rules now to take over another sector of our economy," said Andy Stern, SEIU International Executive President. "Working families who get up and go to work everyday are struggling to stay afloat in our economy, and they need higher standards and stable banks, not backroom regulations that subsidize risky behavior by profiteering buyout firms."

Allowing private equity to purchase controlling stakes in large banks would undermine long-standing banking regulations and consumer protections by permitting buyout firms to access subsidized funding in the form of FDIC-insured deposits.

Special rules could allow buyout firms to sell themselves their own debt at a discounted rate from the banks they want to control.

Under the terms called for by the private equity industry, buyout firms would remain exempt from oversight and transparency rules governing bank holding companies.

This kind of special treatment from the Federal Reserve could open the door for private equity firms to assume little responsibility if a bank fails, adding unacceptable risk to taxpayer bailouts of banks deemed "too big to fail" by federal regulators.

The new banking principles, entitled "SEIU Principles for Safe Banks and Fair Lending," are available on www.BigBadBanks.org.

With 2 million members, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is the fastest-growing labor union in the Americas. Together with consumer advocacy organizations nationwide, we're working to hold big banks accountable to working families and our communities.

SOURCE Service Employees International Union
http://bigbadbanks.org/