THAT GREEN GIRL'S BLOG

Herman Cain is running for president!!!

2011-10-10T07:00:00.000-07:00

Herman Cain is running for president. He’s not a career politician (in fact he has never held political office). He’s known as a pizza guy, but there’s a lot more to him. He’s also a computer guy, a banker guy, and a rocket scientist guy.
Here’s his bio:

Bachelor’s degree in Mathematics.
Master’s degree in Computer Science.
Mathematician for the Navy, where he worked on missile ballistics (making him a rocket scientist).
Computer systems analyst for Coca-Cola.
VP of Corporate Data Systems and Services for Pillsbury (this is the top of the ladder in the computer world, being in charge of information systems for a major corporation).

All achieved before reaching the age of 35. Since he reached the top of the information systems world, he changed careers!
Business Manager. Took charge of Pillsbury’s 400 Burger King restaurants in the Philadelphia area, which were the company’s poorest performers in the country. Spent the first nine months learning the business from the ground up, cooking hamburger and yes, cleaning toilets. After three years he had turned them into the company’s best performers.

Godfather’s Pizza CEO. Was asked by Pillsbury to take charge of their Godfather’s Pizza chain (which was on the verge of bankruptcy). He made it profitable in 14 months.

In 1988 he led a buyout of the Godfather’s Pizza chain from Pillsbury. He was now the owner of a restaurant chain. Again he reached the top of the ladder of another industry.

He was also chairman of the National Restaurant Association during this time. This is a group that interacts with government on behalf of the restaurant industry, and it gave him political experience from the non-politician side.

Having reached the top of a second industry, he changed careers again!
Adviser to the Federal Reserve System. Herman Cain went to work for the Federal Reserve Banking System advising them on how monetary policy changes would affect American businesses.

Chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank. He worked his way up to the chairmanship of a regional Federal Reserve bank. This is only one step below the chairmanship of the entire Federal Reserve System (the top banking position in the country). This position allowed him to see how monetary policy is made from the inside, and understand the political forces that impact the monetary system.
After reaching the top of the banking industry, he changed careers for a fourth time!
Writer and public speaker. He then started to write and speak on leadership. His books include Speak as a Leader, CEO of Self, Leadership is Common Sense, and They Think You’re Stupid.

Radio Host. Around 2007—after a remarkable 40 year career—he started hosting a radio show on WSB in Atlanta (the largest talk radio station in the country).
He did all this starting from rock bottom (his father was a chauffeur and his mother was a maid). When you add up his accomplishments in his life—including reaching the top of three unrelated industries: information systems, business management, and banking—Herman Cain may have the most impressive resume of anyone that has run for the presidency in the last half century.

What? Americans Don't Like Songs About Communism?

2011-01-25T16:25:00.000-08:00

Top of the Ticket
POLITICAL COMMENTARY FROM ANDREW MALCOLM

Chinese pianist Lang Lang puzzled his White House song about defeating U.S. military 'jackals' offends

January 24, 2011 | 4:44 pm

Lang Lang. Gee, those Americans are really touchy.

Who would have thought that a Chinese pianist entertaining at the Obama White House state dinner last week to promote Chinese-American friendship with Chinese President Hu Jintao could possibly offend anyone by tickling the old ivories with a favorite song about the Chinese People's Liberation Army enduring great hardships but finally killing sufficient enemy troops to win a 1952 Korean War battle against American soldiers?

What's to be offended by such a musical choice unless, perhaps, you're not a Chinese Korean War vet?

The 28-year-old Chinese pianist Lang Lang says he wanted to "bridge cultures" using music. He attempted to explain his musical choice by saying: "It has been a favorite of mine since I was a child," adding, "It was selected for no other reason than for the beauty of its melody."

For sure.

The music comes from a 1956 Chinese movie, "Battle on Shanggangling Mountain," about the heroic people's army following the instructions of the beloved leader and, despite setbacks, becoming victorious in the 1952 Battle of Triangle Hill during the Korean War.

Which, btw, 58 years later still has just a ceasefire, no peace treaty.

A spokesman for the Obama White House says any suggestion that it's an insult to play a patriotic Chinese song that refers to American troops as "jackals" in the U.S. president's house is "just flat wrong."

Good luck selling that one in Wisconsin come Wednesday's presidential trip to Manitowoc.

Our sharp-eyed colleague Paul Richter notes that a Chinese blogger has posted a comment about the song's performance, saying playing it before the U.S. president was "deeply meaningful." But, he adds, "I don't know if the Americans can understand. Ha ha."

As it happens, Lang Lang is scheduled to perform Tuesday evening with the Pacific Symphony in Costa Mesa, Calif. So, that would seem to preclude a heroic encore during the president's State of the Union Address to Congress.
-- Andrew Malcolm

The Galactic Alignment - 21st December

2010-12-26T16:39:00.000-08:00

The Galactic Alignment – 21st December

Gateway to 2012: Winter Solstice Lunar Eclipse 2010
By ADMIN | Published: DECEMBER 16, 2010

This is an interesting article on the forthcoming Winter Solstice Lunar Eclipse – written by Nick Kollerstrom.

Its a special Full-Moon lunar eclipse that falls upon the midwinter solstice next week. The Sun and Moon will then be right on zero degrees Cancer-Capricorn the grand Galactic Axis as they oppose each other, at 8 o’clock in the morning of Tuesday 21st. (We don’t get to see this eclipse, it’s in the daytime) Later that day, around midnight, the Sun exactly crosses over that Galactic Axis and that is the moment of solstice.

Around the turning of this millennium, three planes formed a cross, they were in square to each other for the only moment in human history. The line through the middle of the Milky Way galaxy as we see it in the sky, is the Galactic Equator. The line through the middle of our solar system, as we see in the night sky, is the ecliptic. Strictly that is the plane of Earth’s orbit but it is more or less the same as the general plane in which our solar system revolves.

These two planes form an exact sixty-degree angle to each other, which is rather pleasant. As our solar system slowly moves around the Milky Way it keeps that same sixty degree angle of tilt. We’re in a position now where the centre of the galaxy, thirty thousand light-years away, appears as quite close to the ecliptic, i.e its well inside the ‘zodiac’ which is a band of several degrees either side of the ecliptic. Around Saturday 18th December the Sun is closest to the Galactic Centre.

If we imagine one other plane, of Earth’s equator, extended in space, that will gradually move round against the galactic reference due to precession, one degree per 72 years. The plane of Earth’s equator cuts the zodiac at zero Aries-Libra, these are the equinoxes. That line of intersection forms a 90°-angle to the Galactic Axis of zero Cancer-Capricorn. Together they form a grand cross in the sky, on the plane of the ecliptic, a galactic grand cross. That galactic grand cross defines the unique and irrevocable moment of human history, in which we live.

There is a widespread belief that this ‘Galactic Alignment’ is connected with the Mayan calendar reaching its end-date. As the Epoch of the Sixth Sun dawns, the ‘baktuns’ of this ancient calendar will click into a dramatic row of zeros: Friday 21st December 2012 is 13.0.0.0.0, then the next day will be 0.0.0.0.1. As arithmetic that is quite scary, but I suggest cosmically speaking it’s this coming Tuesday that counts. When 25 centuries ago the mysterious cogs of the Mayan long-count calendar were set in motion, no-one knew the rate of precession of the equinoxes, that wasn’t discovered till a thousand years later. It could not have been intended to terminate now at the galactic moment, or could it?

The celestial planes intersect to form the Galactic Grand Cross, but also the plane of the lunar orbit is tilted at 5°-6° to the ecliptic, and revolves once round Earth per 18-19 years. The line where these two planes intersect makes the lunar nodes and these travel round the ecliptic. That line will also align with the galactic axis on the solstice axis zero Cancer-Capricorn, only once ever in human history, and that is next Tuesday on 21st December.

That line of intersection of the nodes with the galactic axis had to happen once during the Galactic alignment, if that event lasts something like twenty years, or maybe a bit longer. But what didn’t have to happen but is just so to speak a coincidence is that the Moon crosses over that axis just then, i.e. an eclipse is formed. So if you want to believe in what David Icke used to call the ‘photon belt’ which we are entering or crossing, this alignment is the astronomical event which expresses whatever that might mean.

Look out at midnight to where the Milky Way and zodiac cut each other. You have to be away from cities to see the Milky Way. In winter we see clearly the horns of Taurus and on the other side of the Milky Way the four stars of Gemini. That’s where the Milky Way crosses. You are then gazing away from the Galactic Centre, away from the Sun. In the summertime one can only partially see the Galactic Centre region of the sky, its so low on the horizon (in the UK). Its in-betwen the stars of Sagittarius and the Scorpion.

It Is What It is: Nukelar Wins

2010-12-25T19:01:00.000-08:00

We misunderestimated him: Bush's memoir sells 2m copies in a month - nearly as many as Bill Clinton's sold in six years
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER

Last updated at 8:29 PM on 23rd December 2010

Move over, Wordsworth! Former President George W Bush, famous for his 'Bushisms', has sold two million copies of his memoir
For someone who mangled words on a regular basis, it's an impressive feat.

Former U.S. President George W Bush's memoir has sold an astonishing two million copies since it was released in early November - and it's not even in paperback yet.
'Decision Points', published both in hardcover and e-book form, is flying off the shelves, the Crown Publishing Group says.

By contrast, former president Bill Clinton's memoir, 'My Life', has logged sales of 2.2million copies since it was first published in 2004.

A spokesman for Crown called the performance remarkable.

He claimed he could not think of any other hardcover nonfiction books in 2010 that had sold even one million copies, much less two.

In 'Decision Points,' Mr Bush recounts the inner workings of the White House and his administration following the September 11 attacks, including decisions that led to the wars in Afghanistan in Iraq.

He recounts parts of his childhood, speaks lovingly of his family and wife, and wonders about how history will judge him.

As for whether there are any of the infamous Bushisms in it - you'll have to read it to find out.

Gotcha, Bill: Mr Bush's book, left, has sold nearly as many copies in a month as former President Bill Clinton's has in six years

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1341229/Bushs-memoir-sells-2MILLION-copies-just-month--nearly-Bill-Clintons-sold-years.html#ixzz19BN81eTP

Let the Chips Fall Where They May. Morya El

2010-12-17T11:13:00.000-08:00

Dec 15 2010 3:28PM
The Psychopath's Kettle Is Boiling

Like the frog in the kettle, the most notorious criminal gang in the world is coming to a boil. Their games are over and paybacks reside just over the horizon.
The Elitist’s One World paradigm is wracking apart under internet exposure, astounding failures in climate change, cap and trade, profligate bond and currency printing disasters and shocking new public relations failures by pseudo authorities to explain away the obvious. These bad boyz have been caught red-handed and even Chopper Ben admitted so in recent televised hearings.

A disconnect between these elitists and the common man seems a gulf too wide. Those that would control the world with stolen money, power and politics have finally met their match. At this juncture as they continue to flail away with old tools of fear, threats and illegal seizures, the herd on the ground has begun to fight back. We would suggest the cat’s out of the proverbial bag. The shaving crème is out of the can. Particularly in the USA, a new and nasty pushback has begun with a new internet army; and this is an army of revenge with many being armed to the teeth.

The battle has begun slowly but the tide has definitely turned. The internet turned out to be a weapon more powerful than atomic bombs expanding into a massive, news monster shining very bright lights on these conspirators, their henchmen, their actions, and their other lackeys on the ground. How ironic the net was designed as a defense department security and safety device. In the end its original plan may prove to be exactly that-the savior of our American nation.

Why was it reported Goldman Sachs employees are carrying guns for protection? Why was Mr. Bernanke having cold sweats and near collapse during his recently famous 60 minutes interview when he had the gall to tell us he wasn’t printing money? Why did former Treasury Secretary Paulson order preparation of written documents exculpating him from criminal prosecution before he approved TARP and handed out billions to his banker buddies who were busted and destroyed into insolvency by their derivative adventures?

Once their confidence of power has broken-up around these Boyz, their very small but formerly powerful international army will run in fear. At this point, it’s early in their unexpected disaster. They are really quite ticked at the audacity of “The Little People” who dare to expose them and to fight back. How dare they?
Here comes a nasty surprise, mister. And, the scary part is it might go way beyond a few visible bankers and politicians. It could go much deeper into the realm of associated hangers-on many of them innocents. If this gets out of hand, it’s going to be a take no prisoners and sort ‘em out later as in the old western movies. If you think I’m nuts just watch! I understand the American people.

We’ve got some news; the common man will not only dare, but he is coming for the instigators. If I were in their shoes I would be very afraid. The world is a small place and the Bubba’s are not going to take it any more. With their hard-earned savings, pensions, jobs and homes being destroyed, some of the more radical loose cannons will get busy with revenge. We think violence is the wrong approach. Legal prosecution and humiliation in the courts is the correct method but we suspect the Bubbas are out of patience and want retribution right now; not in five years.
We have some news for this Club of One Worlder’s and their nasty tools hidden in the U.N,, World Bank, IMF, Council on Foreign Relations, the Illuminati, and the northeastern USA university establishment that spawned so many of these types. Their others including a mercenary financial collection of bankers, investment bankers and other attached hangers-on are also in the guilty pile.

History tells us when economic disasters of this magnitude visit the people, all hell is going to break loose, socially and morally with one big and very violent ending as in World War III. We’ve predicted this long ago, but now unfortunately, our prediction; our vision is coming true.

The criminal cabal of banking elites have been in charge for hundreds of years. History tells us the typical life of a nation-state is 250 years. The United States is now 234 years old. Sadly, it seems the end of the road is in sight. This does not mean however, that it’s the end of the world or the conclusion of the grand and noble experiment of my free America. It just means that we are nearing a point where we need to a renew fight to retain what we had. Is this the time for Refreshing The Tree Of Liberty? All good logic would say this is the case.

Obviously, its time to cleanse this world and flush the bowl. Thankfully we have the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights to guide us. I have confidence that while things will be very ugly for awhile, that the ending will be a good one and those espousing unbridled greed and naked power shall meet the fate of so many like those who came before them.

First comes annoyance, then comes a small worry, then comes a new fear in the night that says yes, this could get out of control. Then comes the grand finale; the denouement, the indelicate erasure of the nasties. As we wrote in a recent essay about post World War I Germany and Austria, hundreds of bankers and politicians met their maker. Read “When Money Dies” by Adam Fergusson. This book tells the true story of life on the ground for the common man and woman in Europe during those tumultuous times. I say we just repeat this history.
What Are Some Signals This Trend Has Begun?

The bad boyz games are being exposed at a faster pace and the Sheeple are standing up to them using the net and other means. They are not going to take it any more-witness the Wiki-leaks thing.

Failed wars in the Middle East have been largely exposed for the real meaning and reasons; to steal oil and hold a political presence. Further, the defense industry prospers making all the expensive stuff that gets blown-up and destroyed.

Central banker games of QE2-3-4 or whatever are not working and the herd on the street has discovered where the money is really going- into insolvent banks, politicians pockets and for pay-offs to various voting supporters.

Global warming has proven to be about as dangerous as a warm, steaming cow pile in a field. The real danger is the heat from those agitating tree-huggers, greenies and the let’s save the world from cows, horses and corporations gang. They are playing games to take taxpayer funds to fund and promote these stupid projects. Corn-ethanol is another one that should be deleted.

The morons attending the Cancun, Mexico climate change conference all agreed the US and its partners should give them $100 Billion for defeating global warming in developing nations. These disturbed children are in obvious need of some serious therapy.

Those dopes running the European Central Bank want German citizens to hand over hard -earned billions to their bankrupt neighbors who have been on vacation since the Spanish-American War. Wolfgang Schaeuble, the German Finance Minister, whom we thought had his act together has now descended into the murk of those chortling, “The Euro Won’t Fail.”

Of course it’s failing. It already has as the ECB buys crappy bonds of failing countries like Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Ireland. Iceland raised the middle digit to the Euro-Bankers and we hope the Irish do also as Mr.Cowan, “The Coward” sold out his own people.

So what would those bankers do if these financial victims-nations just refused to pay? Iceland found out. They are doing just fine thank you very much. It’s quite disagreeable and difficult for a banker cabal to sue a nation and get re-paid. It ain’t gonna happen. Too bad for the bankers.

Another situation that cannot be thwarted in our view is the American gun and weapons population and those owning them. Most western-like nations in Europe and Canada along with a few others do not have the firepower of USA citizens. Instead of retreating, this group has been expanding as they fear the implementation of rules and regulations regarding gun ownership. Nobody knows for sure the number of guns in America. We sure don’t but having traveled a bit its obvious where the hunters and squirrel shooters reside. We would suggest that when things get terminally lousy and we are not there yet but working it, this is going to be a game changer.

Should the One Worlder’s expect to take-over the USA by force using their UN army or foreign mercenaries, it would turn into Vietnam again with the good old boyz being the natives and the blue helmet crowd on the losing side of the fence.

Reports we get say those sympathizers for the One Worlder’s reside mostly on the left and right coasts of America. Since they are about 20% of the national population it would seem they are out-numbered.

In an interesting test of politics and perhaps some push and shove politics, who do you think wins that one?

One very smart writer thinks the One Worlder’s might try to install a new global or international leader or Let’s-Pretend-King to rule the world. I think that one fails as his days on this earth would probably be cut short quite abruptly. Probably Bubba and his friends would just pay a vacation visit.

Another early sign the bad boyz are under siege is the newer riots in Greece and some brand new ones in Rome. These are mostly kids who are very angry about losing all their free stuff which they feel they are entitled to as they pursue higher learning? at the university. These are not to rough and generally controllable with tear gas and clubs as the kids break windows and start fires. They usually end quickly until another one breaks out.

I say it really gets nasty next summer when the very bad and poor sections of America’s largest cities start to riot over FOOD. People have to eat and while 43 million are on food stamp aid, the distribution is not moving fast enough to feed the needy. Also, while the new tax extension bill comes with another few week’s of unemployment aid payments taking some out to three years’ coverage, there are as yet too many more in critical condition receiving nothing. If you thought the Detroit race riots were interesting in 1967 and the Rodney King California riots later on, watch what happens next year.

In Summary:
Astute analysts and observers watching this stuff have agonized over the amount of unbelievable damage the bad boyz have done so far. While it seems they are unstoppable, they are not for the reasons we’ve just discussed. Further, we think the forthcoming bond market crash removes their power and money and the entire global system caves in on itself. Then watch as the patriots and freedom fighters world-wide begin to take power. This is going to be the most interesting movie ever produced.

Now, more than ever, it is important to take the immediate necessary precautions to protect yourself and your families and friends. Traders and investors should be buying precious metals and select shares right now. In our newsletter we have a great list of trading and investing ideas for you. Meanwhile, you can never go wrong buying physical precious metals and holding them for security. We’ve had a constant run of nearly ten years in gold rising 15% per year so this remains a good trade. In the last twelve months, gold rallied over 34% and is going ever faster.It’s not going to stop any time soon. In fact, we predict those annual percentages will rise even more and this offers a chance, arriving only once in 25 years on the historical cycles.

Roger Wiegand
Editor Trader Tracks Newsletter
The Jay & Rog Blog at webeatthestreet.com

*****
Roger Wiegand is Editor of Trader Tracks Newsletter for gold, silver and energy traders. Roger provides recommendations for short and longer term traditional stock shares, futures and commodities trading with specifics for individual trades. See webeatthestreet.com for more information. Listen to our Traderrog Daily Market Close on the Korelin Economics Report website http://www.kereport.com/
Contact Claudio Bassi, at Trader Tracks New York City publishing offices for an introductory 30-day trial subscription for only US$49.00. This is half the monthly rate our subscribers pay. Call us at 718-457-1426
Monday through Friday, 9:00 am to 4:30 pm (EST) for details. You can also e-mail our office manager, Claudio Bassi at cbassi@miningstocks.com for more information.

A perfect picture of returning karma! OUCH!

2010-08-28T06:25:00.000-07:00

Updated: Sat., Aug. 28, 2010, 4:32 AM
Vultures circling Cipriani
By CHUCK BENNETT

Last Updated: 4:32 AM, August 28, 2010

Posted: 2:34 AM, August 28, 2010

Cipriani is making them salivate -- but it has nothing to do with the $56.95 veal Milanese.

Capital One Bank's impending auction of the cash-strapped Cipriani restaurant empire's assets -- from "signature recipes" to the flatware -- is bringing bargain-seeking investors to the table.

"I'm interested in bidding on some of the Cipriani fixtures," said Gregory Blotnick, a trader with Doubloon Capital, an investment firm specializing in distressed companies.

The firm was founded by Tom Hudson, whose other enterprise, Pirate Capital, has the slogan "Surrender your booty."

Capital One said it will sell off the entire inventory of two Cipriani locations, Downtown and Harry Cipriani, in New York to pay off an outstanding $4 million debt.

The McLean, Va.-based bank already seized $368,000 from the personal bank account of heiress Giovanna Cipriani and $285,515 from 20 bank accounts attached to various Cipriani business entities.

The 42nd Street and Wall Street locations will not be part of the auction, according to the Cipriani corporation.

But at the other sites, everything will be for sale, including kitchen equipment, tables, chairs, chandeliers, ice machines, sound systems and even the Cipriani brand itself.

"I'm interested in anything that is going cheaply," said James Vanasek, principal of the hedge fund VN Capital Management. "It's more personal than anything else."

The auction is scheduled for Sept. 7 at a Midtown law office.

Cipriani yesterday filed legal papers to block the auction, corporate spokesman Matthew Hiltzik said, adding that no one from the bank has done any inventory yet.

"It's great that everyone values Cipriani so highly, but there is no auction. We're focused on our customers and staff and providing our unique, highly-valued Cipriani experience," said Hiltzik.

"We're doing everything we can to resolve this matter, despite Capital One's utter disregard for the potential ramifications of its actions."

The restaurant empire, known for its high-priced menus, has also filed a lawsuit against Capital One challenging the debt, and demanding that the bank reimburse Giovanna because she lost the security deposit on her Rome apartment after her assets were seized.

"I hate to feed on someone's misfortune, but I'm interested in their antique clocks," said Don Chetkin, who runs the Chetkin Gallery in Red Bank, NJ. "I always have an eye out for antique clocks, and I assume these wealthy Europeans have nice ones."

The name itself may be the biggest draw.

"Cipriani is a big name. It will get worldwide attention," said veteran restaurant auctioneer Michael Amodeo. "It will be bigger than the closing of the Playboy Club in 1983."

chuck.bennett@nypost.com

NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc.

nypost.com , nypostonline.com , and newyorkpost.com are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc.

Copyright 2010 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy | Terms of Use

YOUR Tax Dollars at Work.

2010-07-14T17:57:00.000-07:00

CNSNews.com
Obama Administration Approves First Direct Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Through New High-Risk Insurance Pools
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden react to cheers as they arrive in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, March 23, 2010, for the signing ceremony for the health care bill. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)(CNSNews.com) - If you want proof that President Obama's Executive Order on taxpayer-funded abortion was a sham, look no further than Pennsylvania, says House Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio).

Boehner and other Republicans point to reports that the Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state.

"The fact that the high-risk pool insurance program in Pennsylvania will use federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions is unconscionable," Boehner said in a statement on Tuesday.

“Just last month at the White House, I asked President Obama to provide the American people with a progress report on the implementation of his Executive Order, which purports to ban taxpayer-funding of abortions. Unfortunately, the President provided no information, and the American people are still waiting for answers."

President Obama pledged that under his health care plan “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”

In a May 13 letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Boehner asked if her department has provided guidance to the states on how to implement the president’s Executive Order on abortion funding. Boehner also asked Sebelius if the new federal high-risk pools would exclude abortion coverage.

He says his questions remain unanswered.

"Millions of Americans care deeply about this aspect of the new law and its implementation, and no progress report is complete without detailed information about it,” Boehner wrote to Sebelius.

The conservative Family Research Council says the $160 million in taxpayer funds for Pennsylvania is the first known instance of direct federal funding of abortions through the new high-risk insurance pools.

The abortion funding for pool participants validates the arguments pro-life groups made throughout the health care debate – that taxpayer dollars will fund abortions, said Tom McClusky, senior vice president of the Family Research Council’s political action arm.

“For our efforts to remove the bill's abortion funding, we were called 'deceivers' by President Obama and 'liars' by his allies. Now we know who the true deceivers and liars really are,’ McClusky said.

"This action by the Obama Administration also exposes the worthlessness of President Obama's Executive Order that supposedly would prevent federal funding of abortion, but which both sides, including Planned Parenthood, agreed was unenforceable.

"While the American people deserve an apology from President Obama for his deception, we should only be satisfied when this Pennsylvania abortion funding is rescinded and the health care law repealed.

McClusky noted that the new health care law also includes $12.5 billion for community health centers, and $6 billion for co-ops, both of which can fund abortions. And some people will use tax credits to help them pay for plans that cover abortion.

Even before it’s fully implemented, the Democrats’ health care plan “is already being exposed as a high-taxing, poorly thought-out, and taxpayer-funding-of-abortion monstrosity,” McClusky said.

Republican leader Boehner says House Republicans would codify the Hyde amendment, thus prohibiting all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. Under the Republican plan, any health plan that includes abortion coverage would not receive federal funds.

Obama's Rise and Spectacular Fall--Stay Tuned!

2010-07-12T17:36:00.000-07:00

Home > Opinion > Mort Zuckerman: Obama Is Barely Treading Water

Mort Zuckerman: Obama Is Barely Treading Water
The president's problem is simple: the economy and jobs
By Mortimer B. Zuckerman

Posted: July 2, 2010

The hope that fired up the election of Barack Obama has flickered out, leaving a national mood of despair and disappointment. Americans are dispirited over how wrong things are and uncertain they can be made right again. Hope may have been a quick breakfast, but it has proved a poor supper. A year and a half ago Obama was walking on water. Today he is barely treading water. Then, his soaring rhetoric enraptured the nation. Today, his speeches cannot lift him past a 45 percent approval rating.

There is a widespread feeling that the government doesn't work, that it is incapable of solving America's problems. Americans are fed up with Washington, fed up with Wall Street, fed up with the necessary but ill-conceived stimulus program, fed up with the misdirected healthcare program, and with pretty much everything else. They are outraged and feel that the system is not a level playing field, but is tilted against them. The millions of unemployed feel abandoned by the president, by the Democratic Congress, and by the Republicans.

The American people wanted change, and who could blame them? But now there is no change they can believe in. Sixty-two percent believe we are headed in the wrong direction—a record during this administration. All the polls indicate that anti-Washington, anti-incumbent sentiment is greater than it has been in many years. For the first time, Obama's disapproval rating has topped his approval rating. In a recent CBS News poll, there is a meager 15 percent approval rating for Congress. In all polls, voters who call themselves independents have swung against the administration and against incumbents.

Even some in Obama's base have turned, with 17 percent of Democrats disapproving of his job performance. Even more telling is the excitement gap. Only 44 percent of those who voted for him express high interest in this year's elections. That's a 38-point drop from 2008. By contrast, 71 percent of those who voted Republican last time express high interest in the midterm elections, above the level at this stage in 2008. And these are the people who vote.

Republicans are benefiting not because they have a credible or popular program—they don't—but because they are not Democrats. In a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, nearly two thirds of those who favor Republican control of Congress say they are motivated primarily by opposition to Obama and Democratic policy. Disapproval of Congress is so widespread, a recent Gallup poll suggests, that by a margin of almost two to one, Americans would rather vote for a candidate with no experience than for an incumbent. Throw the bums out is the mood. How could this have happened so quickly?

The fundamental problem is starkly simple: jobs and the deepening fear among the public that the American dream is vanishing before their eyes. The economy's erratic improvement has helped Wall Street but has brought little support to Main Street. Some 6.8 million people have been unemployed in the last year for six months or longer. Their valuable skills are at risk, affecting their economic productivity for years to come. Add to this despairing army the large number of those only partially employed and those who have given up their search for work, and we have cumulative totals in the tens of millions.

Many people who joined the middle class, especially those who joined in the last few years, have now fallen back. It's not over yet. Millions cannot make minimum payments on their credit cards, or are in default or foreclosure on their mortgages, or are on food stamps. Well over 100,000 people file for bankruptcy every month. Some 3 million homeowners are estimated to face foreclosure this year, on top of 2.8 million last year. Millions of homes are located next to or near a foreclosed home, and it is the latter that may determine the price of all the homes on the street. There have been dramatically sharp declines in home equity, representing cumulative losses in the trillions of dollars in what has long been the largest asset on the average American family's balance sheet. Most of those who lost their homes are hard-working, middle-class Americans who had lost their jobs. Now many have to use credit cards to pay for essentials and make ends meet, and they are running out of credit. Another $5 trillion has been lost from pensions and savings.

But it is jobs that have long represented the stairway to upward mobility in America. For a long time, it was feared they were vulnerable to offshore competition (and indeed still are), but now the erosion is from economic decline at home. What happens as those domestic opportunities recede? Middle-class families fear they have become downwardly mobile and have not hit the bottom yet. The financial security that was once based on home equity and a pension has been swept away.

In a survey just released, the Pew Research Center explored the recession's impact on households and how they are changing their spending and saving behavior. Nearly half the adults polled intend to boost their savings, cut their discretionary budgets, and cut their debt loads. The report concludes that the present enforced frugality will outlast the recession and its overhang. Fully 60 percent of those ages 50 to 61 say they may delay retirement. What does that mean for the young would-be employees entering the labor force over the next few years?

The administration's stimulus program, because of the way Congress put it together, has created far fewer jobs than anyone expected given the huge price tag of almost $800 billion. It was supposed to constrain unemployment at 8 percent, but the recession took the rate way above that and in the process humbled the Obama presidency. Some 25 million jobless or underemployed people now wish to work full time, but few companies are ready to hire. No speech is going to change that.

Little wonder there has been a gradual public disillusionment. Little wonder people have come alive to the issue of excess spending with entitlements out of control as far as the eye can see. The hope was that Obama would focus on the economy and jobs. That was the number one issue for the public—not healthcare. Yet the president spent almost a year on a healthcare bill. Eighty-five percent in one poll thought the great healthcare crisis was about cost. It was and is, but the president's bill was about extending coverage. It did nothing about the first concern and focused mostly on the second. Even worse, to win its approval he accepted the kind of scratch-my-back deal-making that suggests corruption in the political process. And as a result, Obama's promise to change "politics as usual" disappeared.

The president failed to communicate the value of what he wants to communicate. To a significant number of Americans, what came across was a new president trying to do too much in a hurry and, at the same time, radically change the equation of American life in favor of too much government. This feeling is intensified by Obama's emotional distance from the public. He conveys a coolness and detachment that limits the number of people who feel connected to him.

Americans today strongly support a pro-growth economic agenda that includes fiscal discipline, limited government, and deficit reduction. They fear the country is coming apart, while the novelty of Obama has worn off, along with the power of his position as the non-Bush. His decline in popularity has emboldened the opposition to try to block him at every turn.

Historically, presidents with approval ratings below 50 percent—Obama is at 45—lose an average of 41 House seats in midterm elections. This year, that would return the House of Representatives to Republican control. The Democrats will suffer disproportionately from a climate in which so many Americans are either dissatisfied or angry with the government, for Democrats are in the large majority in both houses and have to defend many more districts than Republicans. In any election year, voters' feelings typically settle in by June. But now they are being further hardened by the loose regulation that preceded the poisonous oil spill—and the tardy government response.

The promise of economic health that might salvage industries and jobs, and provide a safety net, has proved illusory. The support for cutting spending and cutting the deficit reflects in part the fact that the American public feels the Obama-Congress spending program has not worked. As for the healthcare reform bill, the most recent Rasmussen survey indicates that 52 percent of the electorate supports repeal of the measure—42 percent of them strongly.

It is clear that the magical moment of Obama's campaign conveyed a spell that is now broken in the context of the growing public disillusionment. Obama's rise has been spectacular, but so too has been his fall.

God Help Us!

2010-06-25T16:44:00.000-07:00

Subject: FW: Message From Grand Isle, Louisiana

Everywhere Obama goes the event is staged to make him look good by the media and the expenses we pay for his shows are unbelievable.

Not so "unbelievable" but what a farse!

Subject: Message from Grand Isle, Louisiana

I witnessed something yesterday I wanted to share with my friends.

It was disappointing, to say the least, but not at all surprising. I was in Grand Isle yesterday when we were visited by our president. Our street has about a dozen camps, one permanent resident on it; and yesterday we had a fair crowd of people. The first incident that was brought to my attention was four bus loads of, I guess you could call them workers, was spotted at the Bridge Side marina and looked as if they had come from New Orleans.

For you who do not know, Bridge Side is the first marina coming onto Grand Isle and this is where the buses stopped and the WORKERS got off. I later witnessed not four but five buses pass our street on Hwy 1 going to the end of the island where our president was to visit. I made a statement to my neighbors that they were probably going to stage a scenerio where a large amount of people were working on our oil spill problem and guess what, I was right. Liz and I witnessed this on one of the specials when I got home and a large number of men had rakes and were dressed in white hazardous suits working on the beach. But where did they go; No one had seen these guys before yesterday and no one can find them now. I was told WWL is getting question after question about this today, go figure our leader not being truthful and staging something like this.

The next thing I really found unusual was that no one cared if he was on the island. I later saw 38 cops on motorcycles, yes I did count them, and many other police vehicles escort what I am sure was the president in his motorcade of black suburbans. I was told he landed in Fouchon, about 10 miles from Grand Isle, then was brought to Grand Isle in the motorcade. I did see his helicopter and the escorts fly north of us to meet him at the Coast Guard facility were he spoke. My point is when he went down Hwy 1, not one person made an attempt to see him. There wasn't any one taking pictures, no one even looking in his direction, no one lining the streets and waving flags, no one cared. I really think if it had been any of our prior presidents, even Clinton, an attempt would have been made to be along the side of the road and cheer or wave. It is really sad that this country is being run by a man that no one likes or has any respect for. God help us get through the change.

John Munnerlyn, a friend of Grand Isles

"Vladimir Obama,"--- to the rescue.

2010-06-22T16:03:00.000-07:00

Updated: Tue., Jun. 22, 2010, 8:12 AM

Another craven corp.
By RICH LOWRY

Last Updated: 8:12 AM, June 22, 2010

Posted: 12:41 AM, June 22, 2010

The Brits are upset that President Barack Obama has been referring to disgraced oil giant BP as "British Petroleum," a name it shed long ago.

But what else should Obama call an enormous Britain-based petroleum company? To ask such an innocent question betrays ignorance of the ways of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. The marketing gurus at the firm -- led by über Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg -- helped conceive and execute one of the most perverse rebrandings of all time for BP.

British? So yesterday. Petroleum? Not very green. A logo of a shield emblazoned with "BP"? Disturbingly martial. In 2000, newly christened BP ditched all these negative associations by adopting the slogan "beyond petroleum" and emblazoning itself with a sunflower-like logo that could be mistaken for the symbol of the Green Party of Canada.

It worked so brilliantly a Theodore White of marketing should write a blow-by-blow account, "The Selling of BP." Greenberg Quinlan Rosner bragged that its work for BP "included extensive testing of advertising and evaluating the global response toward pioneering positions on the environment, climate change, and energy efficiency." The case study outlining this extraordinary marketing success has since been removed from the firm's Web site. (Greenberg et al. are image-conscious people, after all.)

BP knew how to play the game. It repeated all the environmentally correct platitudes that tickle the fancy of "NGO leaders, journalists, political elites," in the words of the case study. It supported the fashionable reform of the day, cap-and-trade, knowing that the system would favor the big and connected, like itself. And it showered campaign contributions on the candidate of Hope and Change (its employees gave Obama about twice as much in donations as they did John McCain in 2008).

BP couldn't have been notionally greener if Al Gore were its CEO. The group chief executive of BP, Lord John Browne, warned of the dangers of hydrocarbons, a little like the city fathers of Newcastle in the 19th century inveighing against coal. In a speech at Stanford in 2007, Browne advocated an "international climate agency" that would entail "a move beyond the limitations of national sovereignty."

This green one-worldism was awfully rich coming from an executive of an oil company that couldn't even drill responsibly. Despite all the hokum, BP spent vastly more resources on fossil fuels than green energy. In so doing, it compiled an atrocious safety record that made the poor decision-making that led to the blowout in the Gulf unsurprising to industry insiders.

And now tens of thousands of barrels of petroleum a day are fouling the Gulf, courtesy of the corporation that spent so much convincing people it was "beyond" it.

Rep. Joe Barton's quickly retracted apology to BP for the administration's strong-arm tactics was horribly misconceived. Fundamentally, we don't want a free market and a system of laws to protect corporations, but to protect us from both government and corporations, especially in league with one another. Corporations like BP tend to be craven, unprincipled and willing to use government for their own ends -- all qualities evident in its spectacular green marketing campaign.

The bigger and more complex government is, the more incentive corporations have to politicize themselves and get in bed with Washington. If they have resources to do it (not everyone can afford Stan Greenberg), they'll protect themselves from the worst while disadvantaging their competitors. This accounts for the corporatist paradox of the Obama administration. The president is so arbitrarily anti-business that The Economist dubs him "Vladimir Obama," yet the same industries he demonizes support key elements of his "reform" agenda.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel argues that Barton's apology to BP is the sum total of Republican thought on the economy, and that the fall election is a choice between Obama-style hyperactive government, or the depredations of the execrable BP. To which the only rational answer can be, "None of the above."

comments.lowry@ nationalreview.com

NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc.

Oil Spill + Community Organizer = DISASTER

2010-06-18T16:47:00.000-07:00

DEMS TURN ON OBAMA

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on DickMorris.com on June 16, 2010

Printer-Friendly Version

To the left, the oil spill is not an index of presidential competence or an issue in the political sphere. It is a daily gushing of poison into the Earth's waters as a direct result of the president's failure to stop it. They blame BP. But they already hate oil companies. And they blame Obama, too. And they are coming to dislike him.

When Obama attempts to recoup this damage to his political base by pushing new legislation on the environment or by resurrecting his cap and trade legislation or by bringing criminal charges against BP or by setting up a liability fund for the spill's victims, it does not solve his political problem. With each day, 60,000 gallons gush into the Gulf, Obama's equivalent of the body count in Iraq that caused the left to loathe George W. Bush. Rhetoric or programs or visits to the Gulf or posturing won't assuage the negatives. Only plugging the hole in the bottom of the ocean can do it.

The right and center of American politics turned off Obama over health care. And now the left is leaving him over the oil spill.

Why can't Obama plug the hole?

Because he has no administrative experience. I often saw Bill Clinton, as governor and as president, call in experts and ask the tough questions when he faced a new disaster. In Arkansas, it was tornadoes or floods or fires. In Washington, it was Oklahoma City. But, each time, he thoroughly familiarized himself with all the technical issues. He took a bath in the science and substance of the hazard and became as knowledgeable as those who had spent a lifetime studying it. So he knew what questions to ask.

Any CEO or COO or manager has similar experience. But a community organizer, law professor, state senator, US Senator, and president doesn't have the requisite experience. He doesn't know not to trust his own bureaucracy. He hasn't been burned enough to realize that he needs to intervene to waive restrictions, set aside regulations, and open up the process to new solutions. He's like JFK during the Bay of Pigs. He doesn't know how to avoid being betrayed by his own bureaucracy and the industry it's supposed to regulate.

Why did he not waive the Jones Act (he still hasn't) to allow foreign vessels to ply our waters to clean up the spill? Not because he was against it. He couldn't have been against so obvious a course as waiving it. It was likely because nobody told him about it and he never knew to ask.

Why did he let the bureaucracy use only US contractors to dredge the Gulf and build the berms that Louisiana wanted? Why did he spurn the offer of Dutch assistance (half the country has been dredged from the sea and is below sea level)? Not because he wanted the jobs to go to Americans. That would have been an insane consideration in the face of this crisis. it is probably because he never realized that our capacity for dredging needed augmentation. Because he never asked.

To the right and the center, these failings show that Obama is in over his head. But to the left, which bleeds for each drop of water in the Gulf and cries over every turtle or shrimp or sea bird, it is an unpardonable sin.

It is the nature of things that presidential mistakes metastasize into presidential character flaws. Bush's inaction over Katrina comes across as insensitivity. Now Obama's incompetence and inexperience is causing liberals to see him as arrogant, aloof, removed, conceited, suspicious of outside advice, and even lazy. Long after the oil has stopped spilling, these supposed character defects will haunt the president, just as Carter's reputation of timidity and inability lasted long after the Iran hostages came home. These defects will last until 2012 and beyond.

Go to DickMorris.com to read all of

POTUS Reporting For Duty?

2010-06-06T13:03:00.000-07:00

W.H. political team stumbles, bumbles
By: Jonathan Allen and Carol E. Lee
June 3, 2010 04:46 AM EDT

They toppled Hillary Clinton, crushed John McCain and managed to get the first black man elected president of the United States.

But now a series of recent missteps just keeps getting worse for Barack Obama’s political operation, already under fire from inside the party for losing its golden touch.

The second-guessing of the White House political shop — which is coming in part from top House Democrats — was sparked anew late Wednesday by news that the White House tried and failed to coax another Democratic Senate candidate out of making his race by dangling administration jobs in front of him.

In a possible repeat of the Joe Sestak episode in Pennsylvania, insurgent U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff of Colorado said deputy White House chief of staff Jim Messina reached out to him — with a wince-inducing e-mail that is now public — with three possible jobs in September 2009. Obama wanted to keep him out of a race against Sen. Michael Bennet, the White House’s favored candidate.

Taken together, the Sestak and Romanoff cases suggest a White House team that is one part Dick Daley, one part Barney Fife.

They undercut the Obama’s reputation on two fronts. Trying to put the fix in to deny Democratic voters the chance to choose for themselves who their Senate nominees should be is hardly consistent with the idea of “Yes we can” grassroots empowerment that is central to Obama’s brand.

And bungling that fix is at odds with the Obama team’s image — built around the likes of Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, David Plouffe and Obama himself — as shrewd political operatives who know the game and always win it.

Well-connected Democrats are complaining that the Obama political operation since the 2008 campaign has been more clumsy than clever.

Obama’s been rebuffed by would-have-been top-tier Senate candidates in states – North Carolina and Illinois – where Democrats now face an uphill fight this fall.

House Democrats lost a special election in the liberal Hawaii district Obama grew up in, and they have griped that the president didn't do more to help ease one of the candidates out.

And the White House failed to head of bitter Senate primaries for three Democratic-held Senate seats – in Arkansas, Colorado and Pennsylvania – that Republicans could snatch away this fall. Last fall, Obama vacillated on how much to help Democratic gubernatorial candidates in New Jersey and Virginia—he worked hard in one case, and kept his distance in another—and the party was routed in both instances.

One senior House Democrat said it is baffling "how one group of people can be so good at campaigning and so bad at politics" — a phrasing nearly identical to that of a second veteran House Democrat who expressed the same sentiment.

Lawmakers say the White House seems capable of handling only one issue at a time — a stunning contrast to the candidate whose campaign promised that he could "walk and chew gum" at the same time in 2008.

Now this senior House Democrat said he's worried that the White House isn't able to handle multiple major challenges.

"They're paralyzed," he said. "It potentially loses the House."

The White House political director is Patrick Gaspard, a former community organizer with long ties to organized labor. But the political operation is heavily influenced by several more senior aides—including Emanuel, Axelrod, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, and Plouffe, an outside adviser who in recently re-engaged with Obama political operations after writing a memoir celebrating his role in the 2008 campaign.

In the Romanoff case, it was Messina, a former top aide to Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) who plays an important behind-the-scenes role at the White House, who took the lead.

Romanoff on Wednesday the email sent to him by Messina, a page-long document listing job descriptions for three posts, including two at the U.S. Agency for International Development.

On Thursday morning, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs offered a fuller explanation of the White House role – confirming that in fact Messina had called Romanoff in September to see if he were still interested in a USAID job and “to determine if it was possible to avoid a costly battle between two supporters.”

Gibbs said Romanoff had initially applied for a position at USAID during the Obama transition, filing his application through the on-line application process and even following up by phone with White House aides. But Gibbs said Romanoff was no longer interested by September – and said that Romanoff wasn’t offered a job at the time.

The timing of the Romanoff news is especially unwelcome, since Obama is already under fire for a similar case involving Sestak and for his handling of the BP oil spill, which is drawing rebukes even from some fellow Democrats.

The new case seems likely to step up Republican calls for afull investigation of the White House political operation. Seven Republicans from the Senate Judiciary Committee have already asked the Justice Department to open an investigation into the Sestak matter, and Republican National Chairman Michael Steele called for independent investigation last night.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) who has spearheaded the charge for an investigation into White House actions, said the revelation has "irrevocably shattered" the Obama brand.

"Clearly Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff aren't isolated incidents and are indicative of a culture that embraces the politics-as-usual mentality that the American people are sick and tired of," Issa said in a statement.

The damage to Obama’s brand might have been lessened if the White House gambits had been successful. But Sestak defeated Sen. Arlen Specter, despite endorsements from both Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, who recruited Specter to change from Republican to Democrat. Earlier this year, Sestak talked derisively of being approached about a job by the White House to keep him out of the race against the five-term incumbent Specter.

The White House confirmed on Friday that it was chief of staff Emanuel who asked former President Bill Clinton to approach Sestak with a discussion about an unpaid advisory position.

In Colorado, Tim Knaus, a former two-time state Democratic chair, said while negotiating jobs with potential candidates is nothing new in politics, the White House made tactical errors in their overt approach to Romanoff.

He said the perception that the White House attempted to nudge Romanoff out of the race could give the cash-strapped former House Speaker a needed jolt of momentum at a critical point a little more than two months before the Aug. 10 primary against Bennet, who is leading in the latest polls.

"This just has to give him a second wind. It gets volunteers going. I don't know who told the White House they should stick their nose into Colorado politics. What a dumb thing to do,” Knaus said. “The activists don't want to be told what to do. They don't want it shoved down their throats or they'll do the opposite.”

David Catanese contributed to this story.

© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC

The Emporor Has No Clothes. Period.

2010-06-01T17:52:00.000-07:00

Subj:The Amerian Thinker.
Date: 6/1/2010 10:59:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time

June 01, 2010

The Smallest President
By Geoffrey P. Hunt

Would someone remind us again why the nation elected this man to be president? A man with no resume, a man with no experience in running anything other than a political campaign, a man who is ignorant of history, economics, and technology? A man who is shallow and lazy? A man who shares neither character nor temperament with the American people in this vast republic? How did this happen?

Voters were smitten by the ideological handmaidens of identity politics and the promise of big government. The identity politics substituted a cosmetic profile for character and experience. The promise was that big government has the benevolent power and enlightened expertise to remake America from the top down into a more capable, more caring, kinder, gentler, and more respected place.

What we've received instead was on display at the president's long-awaited press conference in the last week of May. Only a partisan or a fool could deny the irredeemable failure of these ideological handmaidens, the genius of Obama's shrinking presidency. No amount of posturing, buffing up, or Q&A briefing book drills could hide the reality that this man is on a raft at sea accompanied by an equally bewildered boatload of companions who have no idea how they arrived in such deep water, hundreds of miles from land, and with no clue that they are in trouble, let alone what to do about it.

What we've received instead from the ideology of identity politics and big government has been the spread of competency and accountability so thin that the federal government is utterly incapable of defending our shores and borders from invasion -- one by sea in the form of a massive crude oil slick, the other by land in the waves of illegal immigrants flooding Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. In utter exasperation, the citizens of Arizona finally took matters into their own hands, only to be vilified by Obama and his cohorts, who have neither the will nor the capacity to do anything about it.

Identity politics is where grievance-mongering and class resentment intersect with entitlement agitation and representational profiling. Those who use the currency of identity politics appeal to the ideals of justice and fair distribution of resources and outcomes. But in reality they prey on those who are underprivileged and dependent, making claims of dispossession against those who have enjoyed success and independence derived from their own sweat, equity, and competence.

Leaders who devote all of their energy and emotional capital to identity politics instead of creating a competent, skills-based organization soon discover that when critical decisions need to be made and highly skilled resources need to be mobilized, nobody is around who knows how to do it. Such leaders, eventually tuned out and abandoned by even their former acolytes, become irrelevant, easily overwhelmed by events and rivals, taking their organizations -- even a nation -- down with them.

ObamaCare was the progeny of a shrinking president preoccupied with identity politics accompanied by big government ideology and not much else, floated on the emotional chaise of justice and fair distribution. Yet its proponents thoroughly disregarded the vast, complex, and highly skilled bureaucracy needed to attain those ideals in a brand new, centralized, top-down social engineering monstrosity. It will require a bureaucracy ten times the size of the Pentagon.

And now we are watching in slow-motion agony the failure of identity politics and big government unwilling and unable to cope with the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster, gradually revealed like a developing image from a Polaroid instant print. Identity politics assured that no one with any skills or experience would occupy the top jobs in Obama's administration needed to navigate a crisis of this magnitude.

And where oh where is the president, anyhow? Playing another round of golf and hosting the Duke University women's basketball team.

Obama's presidency is finished because identity trumped competency. And without competency, his big government is dysfunctional and destructive.

So what's the alternative? Simple. The ideology of limited government. Why? Because limited government is the antithesis of identity politics. The ideology of limited government wouldn't need to rely on overextended organization competencies to manage vast and complex bureaucracies because those bureaucracies would be unnecessary and wouldn't exist. Without identity politics, people who actually know what they're doing could occupy key jobs.

Limited government has to assemble and target just those competencies needed to carry out the limited duties envisioned in the U.S. Constitution, such as providing for the common defense, facilitating interstate commerce and a monetary system, and defending the rights reserved to the people. Everything else can be better-managed by private enterprise, where distributed self interest can gather competencies in units small enough to accomplish something useful.

Identity politics combined with incompetence have exposed the absurdity in the ambitions of big government and made Obama the weakest, most anemic and flaccid president in the modern era. The Latinate word would be diminutive. In simple Saxon tongue, the word is small. This is Obama's presidency.

Let Us Free The People Who Are Not Enslaved First

2010-05-27T16:29:00.000-07:00

Question: "What is Liberation Theology?"

Answer: Simply put, Liberation Theology is an attempt to interpret Scripture through the plight of the poor. It is largely a humanistic doctrine. It started in South America in the turbulent 1950s when Marxism was making great gains among the poor because of its emphasis on the redistribution of wealth, allowing poor peasants to share in the wealth of the colonial elite and thus upgrade their economic status in life. As a theology, it has very strong Roman Catholic roots.

Liberation Theology was bolstered in 1968 at the Second Latin American Bishops Conference which met in Medellin, Colombia. The idea was to study the Bible and to fight for social justice in Christian (Catholic) communities. Since the only governmental model for the redistribution of the wealth in a South American country was a Marxist model, the redistribution of wealth to raise the economic standards of the poor in South America took on a definite Marxist flavor. Since those who had money were very reluctant to part with it in any wealth redistribution model, the use of a populist (read poor) revolt was encouraged by those who worked most closely with the poor. As a result, the Liberation Theology model was mired in Marxist dogma and revolutionary causes.

As a result of its Marxist leanings, Liberation Theology as practiced by the bishops and priests of South America was criticized in the 1980s by the Catholic hierarchy, from Pope John Paul on down. The top hierarchy of the Catholic Church accused liberation theologians of supporting violent revolutions and outright Marxist class struggle. This perversion is usually the result of a humanist view of man being codified into Church Doctrine by zealous priests and bishops and explains why the Catholic top hierarchy now wants to separate itself from Marxist doctrine and revolution.

However, Liberation Theology has moved from the poor peasants in South America to the poor blacks in North America. We now have Black Liberation Theology being preached in the black community. It is the same Marxist, revolutionary, humanistic philosophy found in South American Liberation Theology and has no more claim for a scriptural basis than the South American model has. False doctrine is still false, no matter how it is dressed up or what fancy name is attached to it. In the same way that revolutionary fervor was stirred up in South America, Liberation Theology is now trying to stir up revolutionary fervor among blacks in America. If the church in America recognizes the falseness of Black Liberation Theology as the Catholic Church did in the South American model, Black Liberation Theology will suffer the same fate that the South America Liberation Theology did; namely, it will be seen as a false, humanist doctrine dressed up in theological terms.

The Tea Party Strikes Again!

2010-05-23T08:45:00.000-07:00

Djou wins U.S. House seat

The GOP trumpets a victory on Obama's home turf, while Dems promise to regroup
By B.J. Reyes
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, May 23, 2010

The celebration at Hawaii Republican Party headquarters was barely 15 minutes old as Charles Djou, the GOP's newest darling, had already moved past the historic victory and turned his sights toward the general election in November.

"I know there are going to be pundits out there who are going to try to minimize the significance of tonight's election," Djou told a crowd of jubilant supporters after winning the special election to fill the vacancy in Hawaii's 1st Congressional District.

"These pundits are going to say the only reason this evening occurred is because of unique political circumstances," he added. "These pundits are going to tell you to ignore the results of what happened here tonight. We're here to tell them they are wrong."

Djou won with close to 40 percent of the vote in the mail-in special election, beating Democrats Colleen Hanabusa, with 31 percent, and Ed Case, 28 percent.
He now will head to Washington to take over Office 1502 in the Longworth Building, once occupied by Democrat Neil Abercrombie. The last of Abercrombie's staff packed up last week.

"I congratulate Mr. Djou," Abercrombie said in a statement. "Serving in the United States House of Representatives, for whatever period of time, is a great honor and an even greater responsibility."

He added, "The majority of voters in the district supported Democratic candidates in this special election. I am confident that a Democrat will win the congressional race in the general election."

The two Democrats also turned their eyes toward the party primary in September, as both vowed to continue the fight for the right to face Djou in a one-on-one vote in November.

The applause from Djou's victory party could be heard six time zones away in Washington, D.C., where national party leaders trumpeted a victory on President Barack Obama's home turf.

"I congratulate Charles Djou for his victory and a successful campaign based on the widely shared values of cutting spending, shrinking government and creating real, permanent American jobs," said U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, chairman of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. "I have no doubt that Hawaii families will be well-represented in Congress as he joins our fight to return common sense economic policies and fiscal sanity to Washington."

Although Djou emerged the victor, he still could be considered the underdog, as Hanabusa and Case combined for 59 percent.

Democrats will be looking to regroup and recapture the seat behind a single candidate in November.

The party will have to overcome a divide that many, including the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, blamed for handing the election to the GOP.

Most of Hawaii's Democratic establishment, led by U.S. Sen. Dan Inouye, backed Hanabusa, the state Senate president, while also exhibiting an open dislike of Case for his failed 2006 Senate run against U.S. Sen. Dan Akaka. National Democrats appeared to favor Case as the more electable candidate but shied away from picking either.

Inouye plans to continue backing Hanabusa.
"Naturally, notwithstanding the polls and notwithstanding the odds, I was hoping that Colleen would win," Inouye said. "However, I'm certain that this fall, this November, she will do very well."

Although recent polls showed Djou comfortably ahead, followed by Case, Hanabusa benefited from strong union support that is likely to show up again this fall.
"This campaign had to overcome a lot of adversity to finish where we did," she said. "We had people saying we didn't have a chance and we should drop out.
"It showed everyone that no matter what is being said, the bottom line was that voters in the 1st Congressional believed in us."

Case had hoped for a late surge in voters to help push him over the top, but it never materialized.

"We took $1 million of attack ads from Hanabusa and Djou," Case said. "Clearly, Charles leveled all of his fire at me for the last three to four weeks -- Hanabusa was unscathed -- and I think that probably had a significant impact."

The DCCC, which spent $300,000 in attack ads against Djou but pulled resources out of Hawaii this month because of the local party's failure to rally behind one candidate, tried to downplay Djou's victory.

The celebration at Hawaii Republican Party headquarters was barely 15 minutes old as Charles Djou, the GOP's newest darling, had already moved past the historic victory and turned his sights toward the general election in November.
"I know there are going to be pundits out there who are going to try to minimize the significance of tonight's election," Djou told a crowd of jubilant supporters after winning the special election to fill the vacancy in Hawaii's 1st Congressional District.

"These pundits are going to say the only reason this evening occurred is because of unique political circumstances," he added. "These pundits are going to tell you to ignore the results of what happened here tonight. We're here to tell them they are wrong."

Djou won with close to 40 percent of the vote in the mail-in special election, beating Democrats Colleen Hanabusa, with 31 percent, and Ed Case, 28 percent.
He now will head to Washington to take over Office 1502 in the Longworth Building, once occupied by Democrat Neil Abercrombie. The last of Abercrombie's staff packed up last week.

"I congratulate Mr. Djou," Abercrombie said in a statement. "Serving in the United States House of Representatives, for whatever period of time, is a great honor and an even greater responsibility."

He added, "The majority of voters in the district supported Democratic candidates in this special election. I am confident that a Democrat will win the congressional race in the general election."

The two Democrats also turned their eyes toward the party primary in September, as both vowed to continue the fight for the right to face Djou in a one-on-one vote in November.

The applause from Djou's victory party could be heard six time zones away in Washington, D.C., where national party leaders trumpeted a victory on President Barack Obama's home turf.

"I congratulate Charles Djou for his victory and a successful campaign based on the widely shared values of cutting spending, shrinking government and creating real, permanent American jobs," said U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, chairman of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. "I have no doubt that Hawaii families will be well-represented in Congress as he joins our fight to return common sense economic policies and fiscal sanity to Washington."

Although Djou emerged the victor, he still could be considered the underdog, as Hanabusa and Case combined for 59 percent.

Democrats will be looking to regroup and recapture the seat behind a single candidate in November.

The party will have to overcome a divide that many, including the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, blamed for handing the election to the GOP.
Most of Hawaii's Democratic establishment, led by U.S. Sen. Dan Inouye, backed Hanabusa, the state Senate president, while also exhibiting an open dislike of Case for his failed 2006 Senate run against U.S. Sen. Dan Akaka. National Democrats appeared to favor Case as the more electable candidate but shied away from picking either.

Inouye plans to continue backing Hanabusa.

"Naturally, notwithstanding the polls and notwithstanding the odds, I was hoping that Colleen would win," Inouye said. "However, I'm certain that this fall, this November, she will do very well."

Although recent polls showed Djou comfortably ahead, followed by Case, Hanabusa benefited from strong union support that is likely to show up again this fall.
"This campaign had to overcome a lot of adversity to finish where we did," she said. "We had people saying we didn't have a chance and we should drop out.
"It showed everyone that no matter what is being said, the bottom line was that voters in the 1st Congressional believed in us."

Case had hoped for a late surge in voters to help push him over the top, but it never materialized.

"We took $1 million of attack ads from Hanabusa and Djou," Case said. "Clearly, Charles leveled all of his fire at me for the last three to four weeks -- Hanabusa was unscathed -- and I think that probably had a significant impact."
The DCCC, which spent $300,000 in attack ads against Djou but pulled resources out of Hawaii this month because of the local party's failure to rally behind one candidate, tried to downplay Djou's victory.

The Ventriloquist in the White House

2010-05-02T18:05:00.000-07:00

The Wall Street Journal by Eddie Sessions:
Date: 5/1/2010 4:39:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time

A "deadly" article regarding Obama, at the Wall Street Journal, which today is the most widely circulated newspaper in America .

"I have this theory about Barack Obama. I think he's led a kind of make-believe life in which money was provided and doors were opened because at some point early on somebody or some group took a look at this tall, good looking, half-white, half-black, young man with an exotic African/Muslim name and concluded he could be guided toward a life in politics where his facile speaking skills could even put him in the White House.

In a very real way, he has been a young man in a very big hurry. Who else do you know has written two memoirs before the age of 45? "Dreams of My Father" was published in 1995 when he was only 34 years old. The "Audacity of Hope" followed in 2006. If, indeed, he did write them himself. There are some who think that his mentor and friend, Bill Ayers, a man who calls himself a "communist with a small 'c'" was the real author.

His political skills consisted of rarely voting on anything that might be deemed controversial. He went from a legislator in the Illinois legislature to the Senator from that state because he had the good fortune of having Mayor Daley's formidable political machine at his disposal.

He was in the U.S. Senate so briefly that his bid for the presidency was either an act of astonishing self-confidence or part of some greater game plan that had been determined before he first stepped foot in the Capital. How, many must wonder, was he selected to be a 2004 keynote speaker at the Democrat convention that nominated John Kerry when virtually no one had ever even heard of him before?

He outmaneuvered Hillary Clinton in primaries. He took Iowa by storm. A charming young man, an anomaly in the state with a very small black population, he oozed "cool" in a place where agriculture was the antithesis of cool. He dazzled the locals. And he had an army of volunteers drawn to a charisma that hid any real substance.

And then he had the great good fortune of having the Republicans select one of the most inept candidates for the presidency since Bob Dole. And then John McCain did something crazy. He picked Sarah Palin, an unknown female governor from the very distant state of Alaska . It was a ticket that was reminiscent of 1984's Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro and they went down to defeat.

The mainstream political media fell in love with him. It was a schoolgirl crush with febrile commentators like Chris Mathews swooning then and now over the man. The venom directed against McCain and, in particular, Palin, was extraordinary.

Now, nearly a full year into his first term, all of those gilded years leading up to the White House have left him unprepared to be President. Left to his own instincts, he has a talent for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. It swiftly became a joke that he could not deliver even the briefest of statements without the ever-present Tele-Prompters.

Far worse, however, is his capacity to want to "wish away" some terrible realities, not the least of which is the Islamist intention to destroy America and enslave the West. Any student of history knows how swiftly Islam initially spread. It knocked on the doors of Europe, having gained a foothold in Spain .

The great crowds that greeted him at home or on his campaign "world tour" were no substitute for having even the slightest grasp of history and the reality of a world filled with really bad people with really bad intentions.

Oddly and perhaps even inevitably, his political experience, a cakewalk, has positioned him to destroy the Democrat Party's hold on power in Congress because in the end it was never about the Party. It was always about his communist ideology, learned at an early age from family, mentors, college professors, and extreme leftist friends and colleagues.

Obama is a man who could deliver a snap judgment about a Boston police officer who arrested an "obstreperous" Harvard professor-friend, but would warn Americans against "jumping to conclusions" about a mass murderer at Fort Hood who shouted "Allahu Akbar." The absurdity of that was lost on no one. He has since compounded this by calling the Christmas bomber "an isolated extremist" only to have to admit a day or two later that he was part of an al Qaeda plot.

He is a man who could strive to close down our detention facility at Guantanamo even though those released were known to have returned to the battlefield against America . He could even instruct his Attorney General to afford the perpetrator of 9/11 a civil trial when no one else would ever even consider such an obscenity. And he is a man who could wait three days before having anything to say about the perpetrator of yet another terrorist attack on Americans and then have to elaborate on his remarks the following day because his first statement was so lame.

The pattern repeats itself. He either blames any problem on the Bush administration or he naively seeks to wish away the truth.

Knock, knock. Anyone home? Anyone there? Barack Obama exists only as the sock puppet of his handlers, of the people who have maneuvered and manufactured this pathetic individual's life.

When anyone else would quickly and easily produce a birth certificate, this man has spent over a million dollars to deny access to his. Most other documents, the paper trail we all leave in our wake, have been sequestered from review. He has lived a make-believe life whose true facts remain hidden.

We laugh at the ventriloquist's dummy, but what do you do when the dummy is President of the United States of America?"

Ben Domenech & The Sword of Truth

2010-04-24T12:11:00.000-07:00

Frayed nerves with WH press corps
Armstrong Williams
Monday, April 19, 2010

It seems the love affair the Obama administration currently enjoys with the mainstream media has recently hit some bumpy spots that might make Tiger Woods blush. Well, it’s not that bad. Yet.

Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post has an interesting piece today on how the White House has lashed out at CBS News for posting an online column from a right-leaning blogger leveling some serious allegations.

The blogger, former Bush official Ben Domenech, states Obama would certainly “please” his base by naming the first openly gay justice to the highest court in the land.

He’s referring to the sexual orientation of the current Solicitor General Elena Kagan, widely believed to be one of the president’s leading candidates to replace Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court.

When the blog was initially posted, CBS refused to take it down, prompting many at the Casa Blanca to bluntly question the journalistic standards of CBS.

This latest kerfufle is symptomatic of larger behind-the-scenes backbiting between the White House press shop and its press corps.

Just last weekend, the Post sent out a system-wide email to its readers on how the president had given them all the slip and ducked out of town for a few hours. The horror! He went to watch his daughter’s soccer game, yet the inference was a major new presidential protocol was being established.

The AP story the Post relayed led with the headline, “Obama breaches years of president/press tradition” and then later went on to state (oh so humbly!): “The White House press corps traditionally travels with the president anywhere he goes, inside and outside the country, to report on the president's activities for the benefit of informing the public and for historical record.”

Just this week, the Post further highlighted the growing tensions in a profile piece of White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, complaining the administration’s top spokesman is notoriously difficult to get on the phone as deadlines approach and that the White House is turning more to social networking tools to make news.

It ended by saying a group of news organizations will meet with Gibbs later this month to express what they feel is the administration’s “contempt for the press.”

A few observations here: First of all, White House journalists are blowing this way out of proportion. The Obama administration has contempt for the MSM? Give me a break! This has been the biggest love-fest since Ike was elected and John Kennedy was running around town philandering while photographers looked the other way.

But I get it. The fact Obama is doing more soft news shows such as Ellen and Sesame Street upsets the likes of David Gregory and Helen Thomas. The MSM needs to complain a little in order to get the focus back on its members’ inflated egos. Why else do they whimper like babies when the POTUS doesn’t show to their biggest party of the year – the White House Correspondents Dinner?

The casual observer would say a mutual distrust between the media and the White House is healthy – it keeps both sides honest and engaged, with neither taking the other for granted.

Personally, I’ve felt the WH press corps hasn’t done enough to cover the stories that would potentially cast a shadow on this president. Don’t believe me? Just compare the West Virginia coal mine tragedy or Toyota recalls to Bush and his handling of Katrina. All were domestic incidents of national awareness. Yet the press corps intentionally kept Toyota and West Virginia industry- and state specific pieces, respectively, with little mention of White House involvement, and certainly not the president’s.

With Katrina, liberals sensed a Pulitzer in the offing and felt compelled to psychoanalyze the souls of President Bush and his team to question their allegiance to a city so dominated by another race. Please.

Is this latest incident with White House journalists a tempest in a tea pot? You bet. And the sooner Obama slips into the briefing room and the two sides kiss and make up, the sooner we can go back to dissecting Tiger Woods’ infidelities.

Who are the I AM Race and what is their mission?

2010-04-10T14:49:00.000-07:00

American Thinker

The Rape of America by Robin of Berkeley

Let's start by analyzing the mind of a rapist. His goal: Domination and absolute power, through any means necessary.

His motivation: punishing another, degrading her, feeling superior and God-like. Making her feel like an object, nothing, a no-thing.

What else propels him? Taking what he wants just because he wants it. Feeling the surge of power, the adrenaline rush, the thrill of stealing a piece of her.

Anything else? Feeding primitive, twisted impulses; expressing sadistic needs; the savage excitement of subjugating and controlling another.

Those most likely to rape? Someone who was sexually abused himself, an outsider, a person robbed of a normal childhood. A man who has carved an identity out of rage and envy and resentment. Someone who feels entitled to take whatever he wants.

What fosters rape? Parents missing in action. A culture that thumbs its nose at God.

And a society that minimizes crime, that even heralds certain criminals as heroes. (Some Black Panthers were rapists, yet they're revered as idols.) A culture where punishment is weak and politicians are moral cowards, fearful of the ACLU.

What else? A media that celebrates debauchery, that entertains through degrading and objectifying. Popular rap songs and cool hip-hop artists whose words slice and dice women. Films where anything goes, where hot lesbian sex scenes are as omnipresent as those boneheaded authority figures.

And the aftermath of rape? The destruction of something in the victim that will never return: a feeling of safety in the world, in her own body. The nightmare of being treated as an animal -- no, worse than this, since animals are now venerated. And from this nightmare she may never completely awaken.

This, in a nutshell, is how rape works. But words alone can never capture the enormity, the horror, the soul-crushing evil of rape. And not only females can be victims; men and little boys are violated, with women, on rare occasions, as perpetrators.

The word "rape" has an intriguing history. It originally denoted the violent seizure of property. I'm going to use the term in both the historic and modern sense to convey what is happening today.

This country is being raped.

It's no coincidence that the race for the presidency began with vile behavior against Hillary Clinton -- a high-tech wilding of sorts, with her body and sexuality defiled.

But the abuse of Clinton was a walk in the park compared to what has been done to Sarah Palin. Because she's a conservative, and an attractive, younger woman, the debasement has progressed at a fever pitch.

And just like in a gang rape, people who could have done something about it didn't. In fact, the liberal media and many Democrats have stood around watching, egging on the players.

Can someone explain to me how the Democrats' complicity is any different from what happened a few months ago at Richmond High School? There, a gang of boys raped and beat a girl as a crowd not only snickered, but filmed the assault.

We also have the economic rapes, the constant shrieks of "Gimme, gimme." Give me what you have because I want it. Whether it's the iPod torn from your ear, or a big chunk of your income, or your standard of living, no matter. I want it, I demand it, give it to me.

Or the intrusions into our very bodies by ObamaCare's Biggest of Big Brothers. Our medical records, our personal information, our physician/patient relationship, our DNA -- they want it, so they will take it from us.

And now that the Left has finally appropriated our health care and our student loans, our banks and newspapers and automobile companies, are they happy? Satisfied? Grateful, for God's sake?

No, the mocking continues, the outright threats and the violence escalate. Suddenly conservatives are not simply opponents exercising First Amendment rights. We're delusional, crazy, violent, not quite human.

This is what happens when miscreants get away with immoral behavior. In the criminal arena, when the bad guys are given a wink-wink, or a "boys will be boys," or, "He's a victim of white privilege," the perp becomes more emboldened. And he's even more contemptuous of a culture that lets him get away with, quite literally at times, murder.

Still not convinced that what's going on is a Rape of America?

What about the queering of children, our School Czar having a history of teaching kids about fisting and water sports? Or schoolchildren being subjected to graphic talks by transsexuals or transvestites or promoters of the sexuality du jour?

What about forcing their way into young, impressionable minds, teaching them to hate? Like Palestinian children programmed to despise Israelis, our kids also learn animosity -- but toward America.

Still not sure that the sexualization of children, the wilding of women, the looting of the economy, and the intrusions into our bodies constitute the Rape of America?

I have one final piece of evidence. A majority of citizens are shouting "No," from the rooftops. No! to ObamaCare. No! to socialism. No! to trashing the Constitution.

And yet, to Obama and the Left, the assertion of "No" does not matter. Smug and entitled, drunk with power and giddy when they see our fear, they take what they want anyway.

A frequent AT contributor, Robin is a recovering liberal and a psychotherapist in Berkeley.

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

2009-03-10T15:10:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-09-24T19:10:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-27T12:08:00.000-07:00

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

Andy Stern's Little 527 Groups & Member Dues

2008-08-22T19:18:00.000-07:00

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."

SEIU Corruption Crisis in California-Change to Lose!

2008-08-22T17:51:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-22T17:36:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-22T17:08:00.000-07:00

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/

Noreen & Jeanique Win a Years Supply of Bellini's

2008-08-07T06:11:00.000-07:00

BOOZE BOSSES BLESS CIPRIANI
TAX-DODGING EATERY FAMILY UNCORKS A WIN

August 7, 2008
Susan Edelman and Leonard Greene
New York Post

Bellini lovers, rejoice. Cipriani's is still in business.

The State Liquor Authority yesterday voted to accept a record-setting $500,000 tax-evasion penalty instead of revoking booze licenses at the Italian eating empire's nine restaurants and catering halls.

The high-stakes hearing followed an admission last year by Giuseppe Cipriani and his father, Arrigo, that they used a complex scheme to evade $10 million in state and city taxes. They agreed to pay it back, and were spared jail.

The 2-1 vote spared them the prospect of shutting down their dining dynasty, which has drawn such celebrities as Jay-Z, Jennifer Lopez and Leonardo DiCaprio.

The Ciprianis could not, however, avoid the wrath of SLA chairman Daniel Boyle, a former Syracuse police chief, who opposed the settlement.

"They can't buy their way through the system, just because some people have power or influence," he said. "These are very, very serious charges. For us to sit here as a board and ignore these charges is just unbelievable."

The Ciprianis pleaded guilty to the tax-evasion charges after an investigation that also led to the conviction of an executive, Dennis Pappas, who collected disability insurance while working off the books.

The restaurant magnates continued to pay him his yearly salary of nearly $1 million while he collected an equal amount from Social Security and private insurance.

Prosecutors also linked Pappas, a disbarred lawyer, to organized crime.

SLA members Noreen Healey and Jeanique Greene, a new member who cast the deciding vote, said they were more concerned about the workers than white wine cocktails.

The loss of their liquor licenses would have jeopardized more than 1,000 jobs.

Greene also said she took into account that Cipriani's owners had no prior offenses.

After the vote, Cipriani's representatives were celebrating in the hallway.

"We are grateful that this resolution ensures that service will continue uninterrupted at Cipriani's world-class locations across New York City," the company said in a statement.

susan.edelman@nypost.com

SEIU's Political Action Committee spends your dues!

2008-07-29T05:54:00.000-07:00

Wall Street Journal

Docking Paychecks for Politics--SEIU

July 28, 2008; Page A14

The mighty Service Employees International Union (SEIU) plans to spend some $150 million in this year's election, most of it to get Barack Obama and other Democrats elected. Where'd they get that much money?

That's a question the Departments of Labor and Justice are being asked to investigate by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Specifically, the labor watchdog group wants Justice to query a new SEIU policy that appears to coerce local workers into funding the parent union's national political priorities.

The union adopted a new amendment to its constitution at last month's SEIU convention, requiring that every local contribute an amount equal to $6 per member per year to the union's national political action committee. This is in addition to regular union dues. Unions that fail to meet the requirement must contribute an amount in "local union funds" equal to the "deficiency," plus a 50% penalty. According to an SEIU union representative, this has always been policy, but has now simply been formalized.

No other major institution could get away with its bosses demanding that every single one of its workers step in line behind its political preferences. This is the sort of imposed political obeisance that infuriates so many workers and turns them away from unions.

The SEIU political mandate may also violate federal law. Union and corporate PACs are supposed to rely on "voluntary" contributions, and it is illegal for them to use money secured by the "threat" of "financial reprisal." It's hard to see that an SEIU mandate enforced by financial penalties of 50% isn't a "threat" or would qualify under any definition of "voluntary."

There's more. As many workers who would rather not join a union realize, employees can be required to join a union or to pay dues as a condition of employment. It is illegal, however, for a union to take these compelled union dues and use them to affect federal elections.

SEIU locals will no doubt try to fulfill their national commitment with voluntary contributions. But the SEIU's amendment suggests that unions that fail to meet that obligation will be required to pay for both the shortfall and penalty with member dues and agency fees. Any use of that dues money in a PAC would be a federal no-no. Meanwhile, use of dues from nonunion members (those who must pay dues even though they refuse to join a union) for any political activity, a PAC or otherwise, is prohibited.

The SEIU has in the past run close to the edge with the campaign-finance crowd. In the last Presidential cycle, SEIU President Andy Stern was among the founders of America Coming Together (ACT), one of the 527 groups that has sprung up to influence elections while avoiding individual campaign donor limits. Along with billionaire George Soros, the SEIU was among the largest contributors to that 527, raising some $26 million to elect John Kerry in 2004.

The Federal Election Commission later imposed a $775,000 penalty on ACT for violating campaign finance laws, the largest ever against a 527. Big as it was, the fine equaled less than one cent on the dollar for the $100 million that ACT improperly used to influence a national election. Mr. Stern was only a founder of ACT. But the political lesson is that the benefit of breaking the rules and potentially winning an election far outweighs a minuscule financial penalty well after the outcome is decided.

That's why the feds should take this complaint seriously. The SEIU contribution demand isn't just another technical violation of campaign-finance rules but may break serious rules about labor operations and union dues. The time to investigate this is before the election.

Union employees have every right to participate in elections. Union chiefs don't have the right to coerce them.

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.

And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

Carla Katz--- whines typical union boss.

2008-07-12T14:32:00.000-07:00

JON'S AXED UNION GAL STRIKES BACK--By TOM HESTER Jr.

New York Post July 12, 2008
Carla Katz, the ousted chief of New Jersey's state worker union, filed a federal lawsuit yesterday against the Communications Workers of America, charging that the national group wrongfully booted her.

The lawsuit alleges the CWA violated its constitution and federal labor laws by removing Katz, Gov. Jon Corzine's former girlfriend, along with the executive board of CWA Local 1034 on Monday.

The national union claimed Katz and the board engaged in fiscal malpractice and suppression of dissent within the 16,000-member local.

The complaint - filed not only by Katz but by 13 other Local 1034 officials - asks a judge to prohibit the national union from taking over the local and to restore Katz and other officials to their positions. It also asks the judge to schedule "a full and fair" hearing on the CWA's charges against Katz and the 1034 board.

The lawsuit asks a judge to prevent national CWA officials "from overthrowing the democratically elected leaders of the local and from seizing control of the local from its members based upon erroneous, distorted and vindictive allegations."
CWA spokesman Bob Master said the national union stands by its actions.

"We are confident that when the court reviews the facts in this case it will concur with the determination of the CWA executive board that a temporary administratorship was absolutely necessary to protect the dues and the democratic rights of Local 1034," Master said.

National CWA officials could not immediately be reached for comment yesterday. On Thursday, CWA spokeswoman Candice Johnson said the union "determined that the best interests of the members would be served by appointing a temporary administrator for Local 1034."

A July 3 report by Larry Cohen, national Communications Workers of America president, found "a clear and ongoing pattern" of fiscal wrongdoing by Katz.
Katz is also embroiled in a fight in state courts to stop e-mails between her and Corzine and his staff from being disclosed. The e-mails were exchanged during state worker contracts talks. AP

SEIU slams Lazard over elder care. (pot calls kettle black)

2008-07-08T06:32:00.000-07:00

http://www.behindthebuyouts.org/ Also, see behind the BehindTheBuyOuts.org

New York Post, --By HOLLY M. SANDERS

July 8, 2008
A major health care workers' union is running Web ads accusing Lazard kingpin Bruce Wasserstein and his firm of exploiting the elderly in pursuit of profits.

The spots, created by the Service Employees International Union, blame a Lazard Ltd.-linked buyout fund for rent hikes, staffing shortages and lapses in care, among other problems, at Atria Senior Living facilities.

Atria, based in Louisville, Ky., is owned by Lazard Real Estate Partners, a private-equity fund affiliated with Lazard Ltd.

The ads mark the latest phase in the union's attempts to organize workers at Atria, which operates more than 130 facilities in 27 states. The union, which claims roughly 2 million members, has also held protests at Lazard's Rockefeller Center offices.

The ads, which popped up yesterday on sites such as the New York Times and the New York Post, claim that while rents for Atria residents have skyrocketed the company has cut back on costs and the level of care.

At first glance, the ads look like a pitch for a financial product. When users click on them, they are directed to a site, www.improveassistedliving.org, where the lead item reads, "Gouging Grandma: Billionaire Bruce Wasserstein."

Wasserstein "buys companies, cuts costs, and drives up their value - often for a quick profit at the expense of customers, consumers and workers," the site said, adding "he is worth more than $2 billion."

Lazard maintains the real estate fund that owns Atria is part of a separate company - Lazard Alternative Investments - that was spun off in 2005, and that it has no control over the fund or Atria's management.

The union argues the real estate fund is an affiliate of Lazard and that the firm's Byzantine structure serves to obscure the relationship.

Employee Free Choice Act (Introduced in House)

2008-07-04T09:51:00.000-07:00

Employee Free Choice Act (Introduced in House)

HR 1696 IH

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1696
To amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 19, 2005
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California (for himself, Mr. KING of New York, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. OWENS, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. CLAY, Mr. CARNAHAN, Mr. WU, Ms. KAPTUR, Ms. MCKINNEY, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. WAXMAN, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. WEXLER, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Ms. HOOLEY, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. SHERMAN, Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota, Mr. BACA, Mr. CHANDLER, Mr. WEINER, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Ms. WATERS, Mr. CASE, Mr. NADLER, Mr. COOPER, Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. KIND, Mr. CAPUANO, Ms. SOLIS, Mr. VISCLOSKY, Mr. SIMMONS, Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LYNCH, Mr. OLVER, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. ACKERMAN, Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania, Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. BERRY, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Mr. CARDOZA, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. MATHESON, Mr. STUPAK, Mr. ROSS, Mr. HOYER, Mr. STRICKLAND, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. WYNN, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. ALLEN, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Ms. MATSUI, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr. CRAMER, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. DINGELL, Mrs. MALONEY, Mrs. MCCARTHY, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. FORD, Mr. STARK, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. MURTHA, Mr. HIGGINS, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mr. BOSWELL, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. MOORE of Kansas, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. DICKS, Mr. HONDA, Ms. ESHOO, Ms. WATSON, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. JEFFERSON, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. MOLLOHAN, Mr. HOLT, Mr. DOYLE, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr. BECERRA, Ms. LEE, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. COSTELLO, and Mr. KUHL of New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A BILL
To amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Employee Free Choice Act'.

SEC. 2. STREAMLINING UNION CERTIFICATION.

(a) In General- Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).

`(7) The Board shall develop guidelines and procedures for the designation by employees of a bargaining representative in the manner described in paragraph (6). Such guidelines and procedures shall include--

`(A) model collective bargaining authorization language that may be used for purposes of making the designations described in paragraph (6); and

`(B) procedures to be used by the Board to establish the authenticity of signed authorizations designating bargaining representatives.'.

(b) Conforming Amendments-

(1) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD- Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 153(b)) is amended, in the second sentence--

(A) by striking `and to' and inserting `to'; and

(B) by striking `and certify the results thereof,' and inserting `, and to issue certifications as provided for in that section,'.

(2) UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES- Section 8(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158(b)) is amended--

(A) in paragraph (7)(B) by striking `, or' and inserting `or a petition has been filed under section 9(c)(6), or'; and

(B) in paragraph (7)(C) by striking `when such a petition has been filed' and inserting `when such a petition other than a petition under section 9(c)(6) has been filed'.

SEC. 3. FACILITATING INITIAL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.

Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(h) Whenever collective bargaining is for the purpose of establishing an initial agreement following certification or recognition, the provisions of subsection (d) shall be modified as follows:

`(1) Not later than 10 days after receiving a written request for collective bargaining from an individual or labor organization that has been newly organized or certified as a representative as defined in section 9(a), or within such further period as the parties agree upon, the parties shall meet and commence to bargain collectively and shall make every reasonable effort to conclude and sign a collective bargaining agreement.

`(2) If after the expiration of the 90-day period beginning on the date on which bargaining is commenced, or such additional period as the parties may agree upon, the parties have failed to reach an agreement, either party may notify the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of the existence of a dispute and request mediation. Whenever such a request is received, it shall be the duty of the Service promptly to put itself in communication with the parties and to use its best efforts, by mediation and conciliation, to bring them to agreement.

`(3) If after the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the request for mediation is made under paragraph (2), or such additional period as the parties may agree upon, the Service is not able to bring the parties to agreement by conciliation, the Service shall refer the dispute to an arbitration board established in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Service. The arbitration panel shall render a decision settling the dispute and such decision shall be binding upon the parties for a period of 2 years, unless amended during such period by written consent of the parties.'.

SEC. 4. STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT.

(a) Injunctions Against Unfair Labor Practices During Organizing Drives-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160(l)) is amended--

(A) in the second sentence, by striking `If, after such' and inserting the following:

`(2) If, after such'; and

(B) by striking the first sentence and inserting the following:

`(1) Whenever it is charged--

`(A) that any employer--

`(i) discharged or otherwise discriminated against an employee in violation of subsection (a)(3) of section 8;

`(ii) threatened to discharge or to otherwise discriminate against an employee in violation of subsection (a)(1) of section 8; or

`(iii) engaged in any other unfair labor practice within the meaning of subsection (a)(1) that significantly interferes with, restrains, or coerces employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7;

while employees of that employer were seeking representation by a labor organization or during the period after a labor organization was recognized as a representative defined in section 9(a) until the first collective bargaining contract is entered into between the employer and the representative; or

`(B) that any person has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of subparagraph (A), (B) or (C) of section 8(b)(4), section 8(e), or section 8(b)(7);

the preliminary investigation of such charge shall be made forthwith and given priority over all other cases except cases of like character in the office where it is filed or to which it is referred.'.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 10(m) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160(m)) is amended by inserting `under circumstances not subject to section 10(l)' after `section 8'.

(b) Remedies for Violations-

(1) BACKPAY- Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160(c)) is amended by striking `And provided further,' and inserting `Provided further, That if the Board finds that an employer has discriminated against an employee in violation of subsection (a)(3) of section 8 while employees of the employer were seeking representation by a labor organization, or during the period after a labor organization was recognized as a representative defined in subsection (a) of section 9 until the first collective bargaining contract was entered into between the employer and the representative, the Board in such order shall award the employee back pay and, in addition, 2 times that amount as liquidated damages: Provided further,'.

(2) CIVIL PENALTIES- Section 12 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 162) is amended--

(A) by striking `Any' and inserting `(a) Any'; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

`(b) Any employer who willfully or repeatedly commits any unfair labor practice within the meaning of subsections (a)(1) or (a)(3) of section 8 while employees of the employer are seeking representation by a labor organization or during the period after a labor organization has been recognized as a representative defined in subsection (a) of section 9 until the first collective bargaining contract is entered into between the employer and the representative shall, in addition to any make-whole remedy ordered, be subject to a civil penalty of not to exceed $20,000 for each violation. In determining the amount of any penalty under this section, the Board shall consider the gravity of the unfair labor practice and the impact of the unfair labor practice on the charging party, on other persons seeking to exercise rights guaranteed by this Act, or on the public interest.'.

JUDGE RAPS JAY-Z CLUB IN LAWSUIT

2008-07-04T09:12:00.000-07:00

JUDGE RAPS JAY-Z CLUB IN LAWSUIT
By Jennifer Fermino

July 2, 2008
Posted: 4:03 am
July 2, 2008

A Manhattan judge has paved the way for a class-action lawsuit against rapper Jay-Z and his nightclub 40/40, ordering brass to fork over the names of all employees over the last three years.

The suit was filed in the name of Celeste Williams, a former waitress who claims the hotspot didn't pay overtime or minimum wage.

"This is a good day for restaurant workers all over the city," said her lawyer, Maimon Kirschenbaum, who will now try to reach out to hundreds of other club workers to see whether they want to join the suit.

He said between 10 and 20 past and present 40/40 bartenders, waiters and other workers are already on board.

He doesn't know how much money they are entitled to because he hasn't been able to access 40/40's records completely.

Ron Berkowtiz, a spokesman for the Brooklyn-born rapper, said, "The club is not settling this lawsuit because they are innocent. We're taking this to court and we're letting the judge decide."

Jack Avid & Ron Oved of Anchor Realty

2008-03-09T13:20:00.000-07:00

Dear Tenants:

Jack Avid has started proceeding against an elderly defenseless tenant to evict him for non payment even though he has his rent receipts and can prove that his rent is current.

I think it is just a matter of time before he chooses someone else in the building to pick on and seek to force them to vacate their room.

Just think, YOU COULD BE NEXT!!!

If you've read the Down in the Old Hotel, Village Voice, Sept. 30, '98, article featured on my site, www.thatgreengirl.com under "links"; you'll see that Jack Avid and his brother, Jacob Avid, will stop at nothing even the death of a tenant in a previous SRO to Hotel conversion referred to in the article.

I am therefore reaching out to you to help create a Tenant’s Association, because we'll need your help not only in keeping our respective rooms but also in producing the necessary documentation that proves in housing court that Mr. Avid, and his entire family are predator landlords.

I'm sure you all remember that when Mr. Avid purchased the building back on July,
26, 2006, he promptly changed the rent due dates and started imposing late fee's which is against the law.

He is not entitled to collect late fees where a tenant does not have a written lease!

If you have been paying late fees it is imperative that you keep a very accurate record of those fees so that you can show proof in court.

It would also be helpful to our cause, and your case in the future, if you could locate any receipts where you may have purchased shower curtains, shower heads or even cleaning supplies to clean the bathroom and shower on your floor.

Please do not make any further donations to the Jack Avid Family Foundation, who was able to spend $2.5 mil on the building but can’t seem to find a buck to spend on building maintenance, repairs or boiler permits.

Remember, keeping quiet and keeping your head down---“The Ostrich Complex” won't work where Avid is concerned!

If you think you can avoid being evicted by keeping your head down and not speaking up about building maintenance and other services—then you'll likely quickly find yourself in line at the homeless shelter on 33 street. (Unless you just happened to have $350+ an hour in pocket change for an attorney and endless days of HPD court proceedings)

The bottom line is--- Jack Avid wants YOU out of this building in order to command higher rents from hotel tenants.

And, once a “3-Day Notice” to vacate the premises is posted on your door for non-payment you’ll be seeking legal advice as well as support from other tenants in order to defend the 6 X 9 cell that you've called home.

Please take a moment to write a letter to the landlord regarding the lack of building wide maintenance and forward me a copy of it to me. It is also extremely helpful if you get the letter certified before mailing it to:

Jack Avid
138-140 LLC
262 West 73 Street, Suite B-2
New York, NY 10023

Or, as you know, you can also log your complaints with the city at 311 and a copy of your complaint will be mailed to you for your records.

With DHCR’s approval, it is possible that I could add your name to my current claim for a rent reduction based on a decrease in building maintenance services.

And, you can stop making donations to Jack Avid’s Family Foundation!!!

Shyron Bynog
140 East 31 Street #3B
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 252-0722

Wackenhut Sues SEIU Over Its Tactics

2007-11-25T15:58:00.000-08:00

Wall Street Journal
Friday, November 2, 2007
By Chad Bray

Wackenhut Sues Union Over Its Tactics

Wackenhut Corp. filed a racketeering lawsuit against the Service Employees International Union over its attempts to organize the security company’s 32,000 workers nationwide.

The lawsuit, filled in federal court in Manhattan, alleges the union launched a “malicious international corporate campaign” against Wackenhut in October 2003 after the Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., company refused its organizing demands. The campaign is designed to “strong-arm” Wackenhut into signing labor agreements, the lawsuit says.

Wackenhut, a unit of London’s Group 4 Securicor PLC, seeks an injunction and an award in the millions of dollars for damages.

The company, which provides security at many of the U. S.’s nuclear-power plants, says it has refused to recognize SEIU because it is a “mixed” union that admits janitors, hospital workers and other service workers in addition to security guards, according to the lawsuit. It said it recognized and negotiates collective bargaining agreements with “guard-only” unions, except for three situations in which Wackenhut obtained contracts at work sites where mixed unions were already in place.

Wackenhut and its subsidiaries parties to about 35 collective-bargaining agreements with six guard-only unions, according to the complaint.

In a written release, Valarie Long, director of SEIU’s property- services division, said that “in the last month alone Wackenhut security lapses were confirmed at one nuclear power plant and Wackenhut guards were caught sleeping on the job at nuclear-power plant.

“Instead of addressing the problems that lead to security lapse after security lapse, Wackenhut fights its employees’ efforts to improve security”, Ms. Long said. “As long as Wackenhut continues to over-see lax security at nuclear power plants and other sensitive sites and undermine efforts by SEIU and others to raise the standards of private security in America, SEIU will continue to tell the truth about Wackenhut’s record.”

Wackenhut and Group 4 Securicor representatives couldn’t be reached for comment on Ms. Long’s statement.

"Chip-ree-on-nee"---open call for waiters!

2007-11-15T11:55:00.000-08:00

New York Times

November 14, 2007
The Gloss of Opulence
By FRANK BRUNI

OVER the years the Cipriani restaurant family and its employees have faced charges of sexual harassment, insurance fraud and tax evasion, the last leading to guilty pleas by two family members in July.

But the crime that comes to mind first when I think of the Ciprianis is highway robbery. Based on my recent experience, that’s what happens almost any time Harry Cipriani on Fifth Avenue serves lunch or dinner.

In this gleaming room in the Sherry-Netherland hotel, the Ciprianis charge $22.95 for asparagus vinaigrette — 12 medium-size spears, neither white, truffle-flecked nor even Parmesan-bedecked — and $34.95 for an appetizer of fried calamari. That’s at dinnertime, I should clarify. At lunch there’s a whopping $1 discount per dish.

A dinner entree of fritto misto costs $48.95, even though it amounted to an extra-large portion of fried calamari with a few decorative shrimp and token scallops strewn, to negligible effect, among the generic calamari rings.

I assure you of the accuracy of those numbers, and of these: $66.95 for a sirloin, $36.95 for lasagna, $18.95 for minestrone. It’s tempting to devote the rest of this review to a price list. Nothing else I can present is nearly as compelling.

Besides, prices are the point of Harry Cipriani, which exists to affirm its patrons’ ability to throw away money.

It’s the epitome of a restaurant whose steep tariffs justify themselves, subbing for membership dues and assuring that the spouse, in-law, client or canine psychic being treated to a $16.95 piece of chocolate cake will be impressed.

Regulars accept and revel in this, or have bit by bit deluded themselves into believing that the $36.95 spaghetti with tomato and basil has something special to recommend it. (Trust me: it doesn’t.)

But what of the uninitiated New Yorker or innocent tourist who sees the Cipriani name, with its connotations of extravagant banquets and extraordinary privilege, and waltzes through the doors expecting something magnificent in return for a king’s ransom?

These victims in the offing deserve a heads-up on what they’re likely to find, which is service so confused and food so undistinguished it wouldn’t pass muster at half the cost.

During one of my dinners, servers first tried to deliver another table’s veal chop to ours, then began to deliver our entrees before they had cleared our appetizers.

Another night servers gave me rabbit although I had asked for duck, and then, after a profuse apology, neglected to bring my companions and me one of our desserts.

But what I remember most vividly about that particular night is the potatoes. And I hasten to add that I’m taking it on faith that they were potatoes.

That’s what they visually suggested, those desiccated yellow-beige coins that had somehow acquired the texture of Brillo and could almost have been used to scrub whatever pan they had emerged from.

They weren’t, in fairness, representative of the restaurant’s other vegetables, like the assortment in a transcendently vapid risotto alla primavera, cooked to a state of depressing flaccidity.

But while the veggies can be mush, the empire seems to be solid: bigger than ever and growing all the time. This past summer the family opened the restaurant Club 55, which joined its many other gilded dining establishments in Manhattan.

Outside New York the Ciprianis have restaurants in London and Hong Kong, and they’re establishing resort hotels in Miami Beach and Beverly Hills.

Of course it all goes back to the 1930’s and to Harry’s Bar in Venice, where the bellini and beef carpaccio were reputedly born.

But on this side of the Atlantic, the progenitor and lodestar is the Fifth Avenue clubhouse, which opened in 1985 and was last reviewed in The Times in 1991, when Bryan Miller raised it to two stars from one.

It’s a different restaurant now, literally. In June 2005 it closed for renovations, and when it reopened last May, the visible changes included more than fresh coats of lacquer on the lustrouus wood-paneled walls.

The bar had been moved to the northern side of the restaurant, a rearrangement that helped make way for about 30 additional seats. The hosts can now cram about 130 people in.

And cram they do. At times they place the Frisbee-size tables for four so tightly together that Harry Cipriani seems to be doing an haute impersonation of Prune or the Spotted Pig.

It’s a bizarre mix of indulgence and deprivation, the crisp white jackets on the servers communicating an ostentation that’s contradicted by plenty else, including the brusque manner in which those servers sometimes hustle diners through a meal.

Even in an enclave this expensive, there are things seemingly done on the cheap. I can’t think of a credible motive other than cost saving for serving an appetizer of turkey tonnato in place of veal tonnato. That’s for $27.95.

Although steak Rossini typically involves foie gras, what Harry Cipriani puts on top of a gigantic (and, it should be noted, juicy) filet mignon are chicken livers, chalky when I had them. That’s for $55.95.

Among the scores of straightforward dishes, some had appeal. Calf’s liver was flavorful, veal sweetbreads tender and roasted branzino moist. I liked the oil-glossed octopus carpaccio, and cakes were dependably fluffy.

But the kitchen’s blunders outnumbered its successes, which were modest in any case. The wan tomatoes beside buffalo milk mozzarella didn’t have a drop of sweetness. Main courses of lamb and salmon were overcooked, as were the meats in several pasta sauces, including an oily veal ragù over green tagliardi.

Pasta sauces by and large were washouts, seldom registering much presence or any nuance. An amatriciana had no zest, no zip, and the meat in it looked and tasted not like guanciale or pancetta but like ordinary cubed ham.

The selection of wines by the glass — a small carafe, really — is pathetic, and that fabled bellini is $19.95 for a restrained ration of white peach juice and prosecco.

But the people-watching is nonpareil. You rarely see blondness this improbable, cosmetology this transparent, wealth this flamboyantly misspent.

And while that isn’t cause enough to visit Harry Cipriani, it’s consolation if you must.

Harry Cipriani

POOR

In the Sherry-Netherland hotel, 781 Fifth Avenue, (60th Street); (212) 753-5566.

ATMOSPHERE A lemon-colored room with lacquered wood panels on walls, cramped seating and nautical motifs that nod to the restaurant’s Venetian roots.

SOUND LEVEL Very loud.

RECOMMENDED DISHES Octopus carpaccio; pappardelle with lamb ragù; calf’s liver; osso buco; cakes.

WINE LIST International and expensive, with an Italian emphasis.

PRICE RANGE Dinner appetizers, $18.95 to $35.95; full-size pasta dishes and main courses, $36.95 to $66.95; desserts, $15.95 to $19.95. Three-course dinner prix fixe, $70.95 or $90.95. Lunch prices, $1 less per item.

HOURS Breakfast from 7 to 10:30 a.m., lunch from noon to 5 p.m. and dinner from 5 p.m. to midnight seven days a week.

RESERVATIONS For prime dinner times, call at least a week in advance.

CREDIT CARDS All major cards.

WHEELCHAIR ACCESS Entrance and restaurant on street level, but cramped; accessible restroom via elevator.

WHAT THE STARS MEAN Ratings range from zero to four stars and reflect the reviewer’s reaction to food, ambience and service, with price taken into consideration. Menu listings and prices are subject to change.

Giuesppe--sexual harassment lawsuit

2007-11-02T06:58:00.000-07:00

SEX SUIT NEW INDIGESTION FOR CIPRIANIS
By DAREH GREGORIAN

November 2, 2007 -- There's more trouble on the menu for the Ciprianis - the restaurant clan has been served a sexual-harassment lawsuit from a waitress.

In papers filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, Lastenia Torres charges she's been subjected to a "hostile work environment" during her seven years at the Sherry Netherland Cipriani because she's a Hispanic woman.

The "offensive and intentionally abusive conduct" by her male co-workers included calling her and other female staffers "stupid," the suit claims. She says she was also told women "are only good for bed."

Torres said she complained, but her bosses, including dad Arrigo and son Giuseppe Cipriani, did nothing.

The Ciprianis and three corporations of their U.S. restaurant group pleaded guilty in August to cheating the city and state out of millions of dollars in taxes.

A spokesman for the Ciprianis could not be reached last night.

Ciprianis Cook Up Deal

2007-10-11T14:41:00.000-07:00

CIPRIANIS COOK UP DEAL
& with big side dish of CROW!!!

DUCK JAIL & KEEP PERMIT FOR BOOZE
By LAURA ITALIANO

October 11, 2007 -- Talk about molto dolce.

The father-and-son bosses of the Cipriani luxury restaurant and catering chain got an extra-sweet deal when they were sentenced in Manhattan yesterday for hiding $40 million from local tax officials.

The latest deal not only keeps Arrigo Cipriani and son Giuseppe out of jail, but saves their empire from automatically losing the liquor licenses essential to running such fine dining mainstays as the Rainbow Room and Cipriani 42nd Street - not to mention the scores of one-day licenses they need each year to serve booze at off-site catering gigs.

The latest deal also reduces significantly the amount of time both restaurateurs must spend checking in with probation officials - in fact, eliminating probation entirely for the father.

Sure, they must still cough up $10 million in unpaid city and state taxes - $3 million of which they've already repaid, with the remainder due over the next three years. But that's a drop in the stock pot for the Luxembourg-based company making $140 million a year in the United States alone.

And the only other onerous sentencing requirement - the court-imposed financial compliance officer who will monitor their books until 2011 - may also have a beneficial effect. The step will reassure investors in their international chain of Cipriani hotels, the first of which has opened in Beverly Hills, with more planned for South Beach, Chicago and London.

The deal was sugary enough to let the nattily dressed pair stride out of Manhattan Supreme Court Justice John Cataldo's courtroom looking like the cats that ate the cannolis. Federal officials have declined to say what further tax and immigration penalties they may be considering.

"We are pleased this matter is settled and look forward to focusing on the continued growth and success of the business the Cipriani family has been building for more than 80 years," the two said in a prepared statement.

The Ciprianis' scam made good use of the tax secrecy laws of their adopted base, Luxembourg. The pair pretended they were paying the Luxembourg home office as much as $20 million a year in "royalties" in 2003 and 2004 for the U.S. operation's right to use the Cipriani name. In fact, the Ciprianis simply pocketed that $40 million as untaxed income.

Manhattan prosecutors have defended the plea deal by noting that $10 million is still a lot of money. Continuing the prosecution would have tied up staffers for at least two years, they have said. The court-imposed monitor will make sure no frauds occur in the future, they also argue - another tax savings of potentially millions of dollars.

DA Robert Morgenthau's office therefore did not stand in the way when the judge granted the Ciprianis' request for what's called a certificate of relief from civil disabilities.

That priceless document will help protect 75-year-old Arrigo - an Italian citizen who has now pleaded guilty to a felony - from deportation. It will also prevent the Ciprianis' companies, which also pleaded guilty to felonies, from automatic revocation of the liquor licenses in their name.

"The certificate of relief will allow them to make an application for city and state licenses, and the fact that they've been convicted will not in itself act as a bar to getting the licenses," said Cipriani lawyer Joseph DiBlassi.

laura.italiano@nypost.com

SEIU- Service Employee's Contract. Article I

2007-08-15T05:20:00.000-07:00

The REALY ADVISORY BOARD ON LABOR AND RELATIONS, INCORPOATED, (RAB), an incorporated multi-employer association, duly authorized and empowered to enter into this agreement for its members which appear on the list furnished to SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION. LOCAL 32B-32J, AFL-CIO (Union), and the Union, acting on behalf of its members and other building service employees to whom this agreement applies and for whom it is the collective bargaining agency, do hereby agree as to this 1st day of January, 2007, as follows:

Article I

1. The Union is recognized as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of
all classifications of service employees at each building which is committed to this agreement in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Staten Island, Queens, and Nassau and Suffolk Counties in New York and New Jersey from Route 19 north. This agreement shall apply to all classifications of service employees employed by the Employer. Article II of this Agreement shall also apply to employees of cleaning and maintenance contractors who employ employees in any building committed to this Agreement working in any job category covered by this Agreement.

Because Andy Stern, President of SEIU is extremely cash strapped and unable to hire enough union delegates to be able to explain the true nature of collective bargaining to union members; I have taken on the burden of educating to the best of my ability every service industry employee that I come in contact with. And, for the ones that I don’t get to talk with on my meet-and-greet canvassing tours of SL Green Realty buildings---www.ThatGreenGirl.com, will work wonders on my behalf.

Oh, I get it, that’s why Mark Green of Err America used SEIU members to work his failed mayoral campaign. Your union dues went to trying to get baby brother of SL Green, a high and holy public office. In other words…who cares what your family needs because with SEIU politics comes first.

Now you know why as a member of SEIU-Local 32 B&J and as a member NOITU, National Organization Industrial Trade Union working as Classic Security guards in SL Green Realty buildings in New York City the real reason you have never met a union delegate; that reason is the union needs to pay off politicians for political favors with your union dues instead of listen to anything you have to say about your working conditions.

..stay tuned, baby the fun has only just begun...

Cipriani pays 10 million--and whines

2007-08-08T16:38:00.000-07:00

TAX SCAM-PI ON MENU
CROOKED CIPRIANIS WILL PAY $10M FOR COOKING THE BOOKS
By LAURA ITALIANO

FATHER-SON OPERATION: Giuseppe Cipriani (left) and dad Arrigo leave Manhattan Criminal Court yesterday after pleading guilty to tax evasion at their restaurant empire, but the pair will avoid prison food.

August 1, 2007 -- The father-and-son bosses of the Cipriani luxury-dining dynasty pleaded guilty yesterday to a brazen tax dodge scheme that prosecutors say hid from authorities at least $40 million in income from such iconic venues as the Rainbow Room and Cipriani 42nd Street.

It was a stunning airing of dirty table linen for 75-year-old patriarch Arrigo Cipriani and his 41-year-old globe-yachting son, Giuseppe, who agreed in Manhattan Supreme Court to reimburse the city and state $10 million ($4.5 million in taxes they evaded with interest and other penalties).

Still - given that the pair will stay out of jail and in business - the outcome of the DA's 22-month investigation into Cipriani's cooked books amounts to little more than 50 lashes with a wet noodle.

Arrigo pleaded guilty to felony false tax filings, which could have put him in prison for up to four years. Giuseppe, who runs the company's U.S. operations, copped to misdemeanor false filing, which could have kept him caged away from his Rolls-Royce and Uruguay villa for up to one year.

But under yesterday's deal, the two suffer little more than the obligation to pay back $10 million in installments over the next three years - plus anything the feds may now hit them with.

They must also suffer having an independent auditor monitor their books until the tax year 2011.

Best of all for the restaurant and catering moguls is that the DA's investigation into their finances - in which more than a dozen Cipriani officials were subpoenaed and probed for everything from tax evasion to never-substantiated allegations of mob ties - is now closed.

"Ten million in restitution is a lot of money," DA Robert Morgenthau insisted in a press conference after the guilty pleas.

"This was a good settlement," the DA said, noting that continuing the prosecution would have tied up his Rackets Bureau for years.

Part of the problem was that the Ciprianis hid their most egregious tax mischief in the paperwork of their international parent corporation headquartered in Luxembourg, where privacy laws have created a notorious tax-fraud haven.

Luxembourg's secrecy was crucial to the Cipriani scheme. The U.S. operations hid as much as $20 million a year in 2003 and 2004 by lying that the money was spent as "royalties" to the international corporation for the use of the Cipriani name.
laura.italiano@nypost.com

Tax Evasion Cipriani Style---Trained by Leona H.

2007-08-01T05:38:00.000-07:00

Father and Son Restaurateurs in New York City Plead Guilty to Tax Evasion

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON and CHARLES V. BAGLI
Published: August 1, 2007

Two members of the Cipriani family, renowned for its string of opulent restaurants in New York and Venice, pleaded guilty to tax evasion yesterday and agreed to pay $10 million in restitution and penalties to resolve a case brought by Robert M. Morgenthau, the district attorney of Manhattan.

Arrigo Cipriani, 75, the family patriarch, pleaded guilty to a felony tax charge while Giuseppe Cipriani, 42, his son and the chief executive of Cipriani U.S.A. Inc., pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Guilty pleas were entered as well for three corporate units of Cipriani U.S.A. on tax felony charges.

Famous for the Rainbow Room, Harry Cipriani and five other New York restaurants and banquet facilities, the Cipriani companies in New York evaded about $3.5 million in state and city taxes for six years beginning in 1998, Mr. Morgenthau said.
Although the men face potential prison sentences of at least one year, Mr. Morgenthau said his office would recommend three years’ probation for the son and five years’ probation for the father. Sentencing is scheduled for October.
The scheme involved Cipriani S.A., the parent company in Luxembourg, owned by Arrigo Cipriani, that had the rights to the family name and other trademarked property. Cipriani U.S.A. entered into a licensing agreement requiring it to pay 11.5 percent of total sales to the overseas company for the right to use the name.

Cipriani U.S.A. recorded royalty payments of $30.7 million to the Luxembourg parent in 2003 and 2004, the most recent years for which the company filed tax returns. But the reported payments, which reduced the company’s taxable income, were never actually made, Mr. Morgenthau said, so Cipriani U.S.A.’s income was higher than reported on its tax returns.

In addition to paying penalties and restitution, Cipriani U.S.A. has agreed to install an independent monitor through 2011 to ensure that the companies pay appropriate taxes. The companies will likely face a federal tax liability arising from the case, but how much is unclear.

“Because of bank secrecy and corporate secrecy in Luxembourg, it was difficult to show they were not in fact paying the royalties, but we did establish it,” Mr. Morgenthau said. “International tax treaties and the complicated U.S. tax code create an environment conducive to the commission of tax fraud.”

Stanley S. Arkin, a lawyer for the Ciprianis, said in a statement: “The resolution of this matter allows the Cipriani family to put this incident behind them. They will continue to spend their efforts and energies in maximizing the growth of the unique Cipriani brand and their multifaceted businesses.”

The investigation into the Cipriani companies began in November 2005, Mr. Morgenthau said, after his office received an anonymous but detailed letter outlining the questionable royalty payments. The letter’s writer was never identified, he said.
The letter also led to a guilty plea in May by Dennis Pappas, a former vice president of Cipriani U.S.A., who admitted to defrauding three insurance companies and the Social Security Administration. A convicted mob financier, Mr. Pappas had been working off the books for the Cipriani companies since 2000 while receiving disability payments. He was sentenced last month to 1 ½ to 4 ½ years in state prison and ordered to pay $1 million in restitution.

The Cipriani restaurant empire dates to 1931, when Giuseppe Cipriani Sr., Arrigo’s father, opened Harry’s Bar in Venice. The company opened its first New York restaurant, Harry Cipriani, in 1985. It then expanded in the city in the late 1990s with Downtown Cipriani in SoHo, Cipriani Wall Street, and Cipriani Dolci in Grand Central Terminal.

In 1999, the Ciprianis ignited a noisy nine-month battle with romantics and ballroom dancers when they took over the Rainbow Room, atop Rockefeller Center. Regulars were upset that the room, the site of birthday parties, wedding anniversaries and other celebrations, was essentially being closed to the public as the Ciprianis converted it to a banquet hall. The conversion went through.

Most restaurateurs fear food critics and avoid sparring publicly with them, but not the Ciprianis. After a negative review in The New York Times in 1987, Arrigo barred the critic Bryan Miller from Bellini, a restaurant that has since closed, and took out an advertisement in the newspaper excoriating Mr. Miller — who donned a disguise and ate there anyway.

In 1996, Arrigo Cipriani went after Gael Greene with a scathing letter to New York magazine after she panned Cipriani Downtown. She had written that some of the food tasted “frozen, thawed and rewarmed” and that the hamburger was “chewy as bubble gum.”

Restaurant critics are not the only people with whom the Ciprianis have tussled. They were charged with sex discrimination in 1999 by Eliot Spitzer, then New York State’s attorney general, for refusing to hire female waiters in their restaurants. The Ciprianis settled the case in July 2000, promising that half the waiters they would hire over the next three years would be women.

At yesterday’s news conference announcing the Ciprianis’ guilty pleas, William Comiskey, deputy commissioner for tax enforcement for New York State, said the case was the first of a “growing collaboration” between state prosecutors and tax enforcement officials. Mr. Comiskey said the state was quadrupling the number of investigators to pursue tax fraud cases like the one against the Ciprianis. “We love to see prosecutors aggressively pursue cases of tax fraud,” he said.
Mr. Morgenthau, whose office has initiated many tax fraud cases, said: “We hope this sends a message to people who use offshore jurisdictions. It may take a lot of time, but we’ll catch up with you

Outsourcing the Picket Line

2007-07-24T18:27:00.001-07:00

Outsourcing the Picket Line
Carpenters Union Hires Homeless to Stage Protests

By Keith L. Alexander
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 24, 2007; A01

The picketers marching in a circle in front of a downtown Washington office building chanting about low wages do not seem fully focused on their message.

Many have arrived with large suitcases or bags holding their belongings, which they keep in sight. Several are smoking cigarettes. One works a crossword puzzle. Another bangs a tambourine, while several drum on large white buckets. Some of the men walking the line call out to passing women, "Hey, baby." A few picketers gyrate and dance while chanting: "What do we want? Fair wages. When do we want them? Now."

Although their placards identify the picketers as being with the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, they are not union members.They're hired feet, or, as the union calls them, temporary workers, paid $8 an hour to picket. Many were recruited from homeless shelters or transitional houses. Several have recently been released from prison. Others are between jobs.

"It's about the cash," said Tina Shaw, 44, who lives in a House of Ruth women's shelter and has walked the line at various sites. "We're against low wages, but I'm here for the cash."

Carpenters locals across the country are outsourcing their picket lines, hiring the homeless, students, retirees and day laborers to get their message across. Larry Hujo, a spokesman for the Indiana-Kentucky Regional Council of Carpenters, calls it a "shift in the paradigm" of picketing.

Political groups also are tapping into local homeless shelters for temps.

One resident of the Community for Creative Non-Violence shelter earns $30 a day holding a sign outside a Metro stop protesting nuclear war. In 2004, residents of at least 10 shelters were paid to collect signatures on petitions in favor of legalized gambling. Residents call this type of work "lobbying."

The carpenters union is one of the most active picketers in the District, routinely staging as many as eight picket lines a day at buildings where construction or renovation work is being done without union labor.

Supporters of the practice consider it a creative tactic in an era of declining union membership and clout. But critics say the reliance on nonunion members -- who are paid $1 above minimum wage and receive no benefits -- diminishes the impact and undercuts a principle established over decades of union struggles.

"If I was a member of the general public, and I asked someone picketing why they were there, and they said they don't work for the union and they were just hired to stand there, that wouldn't create a very positive impression on me, nor would it create a very sympathetic position," said Wayne Ranick, spokesman for the United Steelworkers of America.

The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, the Mid-Atlantic local's parent, is one of seven unions in Change to Win, a group formed in 2005 after a split from the AFL-CIO. One reason the carpenters union left was because it favored more aggressive organizing.

The United Brotherhood of Carpenters is the only union that routinely hires homeless people for its picket lines, union leaders and labor scholars say. It targets locations where work such as carpentry and drywall and floor installation is done without union labor. In a June newsletter on the union's Web site, the union's president and chief executive, Bill Halbert, referred to the pickets as "area standards campaigns."

Halbert did not respond to phone calls and messages left at the union's office in Forestville. George Eisner, the local's lead organizer in Baltimore, did not keep an appointment for a scheduled phone interview and did not answer several messages.

Hujo said the Indiana-Kentucky council has been hiring homeless people, retirees and college students as picketers for about two years.

Carpenters unions in Indianapolis, Atlanta, Baltimore, Miami, San Diego and Columbus, Ohio, also hire picketers, including the homeless, largely because the union members are busy working and aren't able to leave job sites, he said.

"People say it's not normal," Hujo said. "But this is a quality-of-life issue. This is not a union versus nonunion issue."
Other unions have not embraced the idea of hired feet, but few openly criticize the carpenters.

Joslyn Williams, president of the Metropolitan Washington AFL-CIO, differentiated between picketers calling for a boycott or a strike and picket lines such as the ones the carpenters have. "It's an informational picket, so it's a legitimate tool," he said.

John Boardman, executive secretary treasurer of UNITE HERE local 25 in Washington, said the issue of who the picketers are is less important than why they're there. "Let's focus on the message -- that there are people in this building that are working for substandard wages and benefits," he said.

In Washington, the carpenters union targets a different building almost daily.

At the protest site, union organizers ask for identification and a Social Security card from those who want to picket. The picketers are divided into groups of about 30, and some are sent on to other sites. They are often accompanied by an eight-foot-tall inflatable rat brought in by pickup.

On a recent Thursday morning, one group was sent to 1100 13th St. NW, another group to the corner of 21st and M streets. Typically, two or three union members are on hand to oversee each group. Armed with clipboards, they check off the names of picketers when they arrive and leave to ensure that they work their full two to four hours.

One day, a group picketed from 9 to 11 a.m. in the 600 block of Indiana Avenue NW. After an hour lunch break, the picketers headed to the 900 block of Capitol Street NW from noon to 2 p.m.

Their placards have the name of the targeted firm taped at the top; when the picketers move on to another company, the name is changed.

Capitol Drywall was the name on one placard two weeks ago. The carpenters' picketers were outside an office building on New Hampshire Avenue NW, where the company's employees were erecting drywall.

Mark Sokoloff, Capitol's vice president of operations, said his company is not unionized but offers its employees fair and competitive wages, as well as benefits.

"It's something that we would like to see disappear and go away," he said of the picket lines that appear frequently at job sites. "But if it won't, it's something that we will deal with."

The picketers get mixed reactions from passersby. Some drivers honk to show support. But many who work in nearby buildings and must listen to the picketers' chants for several hours are irritated.

Several picketers said they have had water thrown on them from upper floors in office buildings. That only encourages picketers to get louder, said one picketer who asked that his name not be published.

D.C. police Cmdr. Patrick Burke, who oversees the homeland security and special operations division, said the picketers have never broken any laws. If police receive noise complaints, officers will ask them to quiet down, he said, and they always comply.

"They have a First Amendment right to engage in free speech and assembly," he said. "We don't want to discourage people from doing so. But they just have to do so within reason."

Some activists for the homeless are unhappy with the practice of paid picketing. They say it amounts to using people down on their luck rather than giving them a hand up. Ingrid Reed, who coordinates job placement and housing at the Community for Creative Non-Violence shelter, said the money the unions pay picketers would be better spent on training or apprentice programs that teach skills.
"These jobs won't pay the rent," Reed said. "If they're out there every day Monday through Friday, when are they looking for a job?"

Reed said many residents of the shelter are hired to demonstrate at corners throughout the city.

"On any given day, if you have 20 protesters out there somewhere, 15 of them live here," she said.

Several picketers said they see the time spent on the line as one of the few legal ways they are able to earn money.

William R. Strange, 41, said he started working as a for-hire picket two years ago when he lived in a homeless shelter on New York Avenue. He is now paid $12 an hour because he plays the buckets during the demonstrations.

A few months ago, after a day's picketing across from the National Geographic Society at 17th and M streets NW, Strange went inside and filled out a job application. He now loads trucks for National Geographic's warehouse at night. He still pickets during the day.

Strange also recently moved into his own one-bedroom apartment near the Brookland Metro station.

"Every day I turn that key to my apartment, I feel great. I owe that to the picketing," he said. "And it keeps me out of trouble."

Employees Free Choice Act

2007-06-16T16:32:00.000-07:00

STATEMENT OF SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY
ON THE INTRODUCTION OF
THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT

March 29, 2006

For far too long, we’ve acquiesced in a lop-sided economy that benefits wealthy individuals and corporations, but not America’s working families. Tens of millions of our men and women are working harder than ever, but they aren’t receiving their fair share of the economy they helped do so much to create and sustain.

Since President Bush took office, corporate profits have increased 65 percent. Productivity is up 18 percent. But household income has declined; the wages of working Americans are stagnant. Six million have lost their health insurance. Their retirement is uncertain as well—only 1 in 5 workers today has a guaranteed pension. In short, working families are finding that the American dream is beyond their reach. This injustice is worsening each year, and it is time for Congress to deal with it.

The best way to see that employees receive their fair share of America’s prosperity is to give them a stronger voice in the workplace. Unions were fundamental in building America’s middle class, and they have a vital role today in preserving the American dream for working families.

Unions can make all the difference between an economy that’s fair, and an economy where working people are left behind. Union wages are 30 percent higher than non-union wages. 80 percent of union workers have health insurance, compared to only 49 percent of non-union workers. Union members are 4 times more likely to have a secure, guaranteed pension.
No wonder most American workers want union representation. The question is, why don’t more of them have it?

The reason is clear. In 2005 alone, more than 30,000 workers were illegally fired or retaliated against for attempting to exercise their right to have a union in their workplace. Every 17 minutes, a worker is fired or punished in some illegal way for supporting a union. Unscrupulous employers routinely break the law to keep unions out—they intimidate employees, harass them, and discriminate against them. They shut down whole departments—or even entire plants—to avoid negotiating a union contract. It’s illegal and unacceptable, but it happens every day.

Clearly, the current system is broken. It can’t stop these illegal, anti-worker, anti-labor, anti-union tactics that take place every day. The penalties are so minor that employers treat them as just another cost of doing business. Even when workers succeed in forming a union, they often can’t obtain a first contract because management stonewalls them and refuses to negotiate. Half of all cases alleging that employers refused to bargain are filed during first-contract negotiations—and in most of those cases, the National Labor Relations Board finds an unfair labor practice.

Year after year, Congress has refused to act against these union-busting tactics that are now all too familiar in the workplace. It’s time to listen to the voice of America’s working men and women, and give them what they want and deserve – a fair voice in the workplace and a fair chance at the American dream.

That’s why I’m reintroducing the Employee Free Choice Act today. This essential legislation will strengthen protections for workers’ freedom to choose union representation. It will restore their democratic right to join together for better wages, better benefits, and better working conditions. It will help millions of working men and women to build a better life for themselves and a better future for their children.

I’m proud to have 46 of my fellow Senators joining me in sponsoring this important bill, and I hope that all of my colleagues will support it.

SCOTUS -Use of Dues for Politics

2007-06-16T13:54:00.000-07:00

Supreme Court Rules States May Restrict Unions' Use of Dues for Politics, Upholds Paycheck Protection for Workers

(Washington, DC) -- The future of campaign finance in America changed today as the United States Supreme Court ruled that states may enact "paycheck protection" laws requiring unions to obtain the permission of members before using dues for politics.
The ruling is expected to provide a major boost to efforts to protect workers from being forced to fund candidates they do not support simply by being a member of a labor union.

Several states have passed paycheck protection laws in recent years, including Washington, Michigan, Idaho and Utah. In each case the laws came under relentless legal assault by unions desperate to protect their power to force members to fund their political agenda, regardless of the member's personal views.
The SCOTUS blog put it this way:

The Court held today in Davenport that because a public-employee union possesses nonmember feepayers' funds only because of special state- conferred privileges, the state can place a content- based condition on the union's use of those funds -- namely, that the union obtain the feepayers' consent before using the funds for election-related activity.

Questioning the constitionality of paycheck protection laws has been a centerpiece of union campaigns against the reform. The Supreme Court's ruling today clears away such objections.

The court found that because unions possess the funds due to a state mandate, the state also had the power to impose restrictions on the use of those funds. While the Davenport case specifically concerned the use of fees paid by non-members of the union, the rationale applies equally to union members.
Central to success in the Davenport case was the work of the Washington-state based Evergreen Freedom Foundation. To learn more, visit their website HERE
You can read the full court decision HERE

UnionFacts.com

2007-06-01T05:04:00.000-07:00

You will want to visit the Union Whistleblower Blog @ www.unionfacts.com

Look up the list of SEIU employees to find the salary, tips and wages of the MORONS who claim to have your best interest in mind.

Yeah! It's a real joke! But hang with me baby---the fun has just begun.

Top 10 International SEIU

Leaders & Staff (by Salary)

Name Title Total Compensation
Andrew Stern------Int'l President------ $ 230,536
Anna Burger------ Sec Treasurer------ $ 200,746
Tom Woodruff------ Ex Vice Pres------ $ 193,750
Eliseo Medina------ Ex Vice Pres------ $ 182,981
George Francisco------ Executive Board------ $ 161,786
Carolyn Mccullough------ Ny Nurss All Crd------$ 161,242
Kirk Adams------ Chief Of Staff------ $ 153,947
Stephen Lerner------ Bldg Service------ $ 151,797
Elisabe Gustafson------ Chief Finc'l Op------$ 151,451
Gina Glantz------ Atp/strat Is Pol------ $ 147,473

SEIU--Calfornia

2007-05-10T15:43:00.000-07:00

SERVICE EMPLOYEES (SEIU)
California Nursing Home Pact Stiffs Workers, Taxpayers
If growth in numbers were all that mattered, the Service Employees International Union’s Andrew Stern would be America’s most successful labor leader, hands down. As a top lieutenant in that union to president and future AFL-CIO head John Sweeney, and then, starting in early 1996, as SEIU president himself, Stern has built his union into a powerhouse – “1.8 million members and growing,” to quote the union’s website. Supporters of mass immigration among organized labor officials point to the fact that a huge portion of that growth is attributable to foreign-born persons, especially from Mexico and other Spanish-speaking countries. This, they argue, is evidence that Third World mass immigration is good for the SEIU and for unions as a whole. But growth may have come at a steep price: sweetheart deals that all but in name deliver substandard contracts for members. One large health-care workers’ local in California thinks Stern has sold out his people, a rift suggesting a major power struggle ahead within the Service Employees and its parent federation, Change to Win.

Andrew Stern has been the subject of any number of admiring profiles over the last couple years, including a segment on CBS-TV’s “60 Minutes” on May 14, 2006. His recent life is the stuff of comeback-kid novel and movie plot lines. In 2002, his adolescent daughter died of natural causes. Not long after, his wife divorced him. Stern was down, but not out. He was determined to be reborn as a hybrid of Steve Jobs and Martin Luther King, pouring his energy into transforming American trade unions into bastions of entrepreneurship, in the process reversing their seeming slide into irrelevance. Union leaders, he argued, should apply business management skills and ideas to their own respective organizations.

Growing unions in size and influence was Stern’s focus, some might say obsession. In the process, the differences between him and his former boss, John Sweeney, had grown so great by the eve of the AFL-CIO’s July 2005 50th-anniversary convention in Chicago that the SEIU and several other unions, including the Teamsters and the Laborers, exited the federation. Shortly thereafter, the Service Employees and a half-dozen other unions began their own federation, Change to Win. At the CTW founding convention in St. Louis that September, Stern exhorted: “We pledge to devote the vast majority of our resources to uniting the strength in modern, growing, strong, powerful organizing unions.”

But growth has had its drawbacks, and perhaps nowhere more so than in Stern’s Service Employees. Other than nurses, this is a union overwhelmingly consisting of unskilled workers – janitors, security guards, home-health workers and bus drivers. Because so many of them, especially the recently organized, are first-generation immigrants possessed of limited education and English-language skills, their economic opportunities are limited. That puts them at a disadvantage when it comes to contract negotiations, a reality not lost on employers. With the SEIU having made growth its number-one priority, the union seems to have demonstrated a blind spot for terms and conditions that straightjacket rank and file. Lately, certain officials among the union’s health-care unions have been expressing their disdain.

Sal Rosselli, leader of the 140,000-member United Healthcare Workers West, is the most prominent dissenter. The Oakland, Calif.-based local currently is embroiled in a dispute with California hospitals, nursing homes and other health-care providers. Rosselli is angry not only at facility operators, but also at the leaders of his own union, beginning with Stern, for negotiating contracts that give away basic workers’ rights. His anger is especially evident in a lengthy investigative report published in the San Francisco Bay Area alternative newspaper, SF Weekly. Stern, the article argues, wants to expand membership through promoting union-employer “partnerships” that result in employers holding a clear upper hand. Rosselli, by contrast, wants to use traditional approaches to organizing favored by AFL-CIO unions, such as recruitment, pickets, lawsuits, alliances with advocacy groups, and media outreach. Though neither Rosselli nor other UHW-West officials would respond to requests for interviews, evidence obtained by SF Weekly reporter Matt Smith indicates that Rosselli has been locked in a showdown with Stern. The article leans well to the left, but its implications should be disturbing across the political spectrum, especially to those favoring reductions in legal immigration.

The focus is a secret 2003 agreement between the SEIU and a group of California nursing home chains for which an extension is under negotiation. The union pledged to advocate three industry-supported state initiatives: 1) larger MediCal subsidies to nursing homes by more than $2 billion over four years; 2) tort-reform legislation to limit a patient’s right to sue in the event of neglect or abuse; and 3) resistance to efforts by patients’-rights advocates to mandate baseline health and safety standards. Employers would retain the “exclusive right to manage the business,” which includes a clause barring union employees from reporting health-care violations to state regulators, other public officials, and outside persons such as journalists. Nor may UHW-West on its own conduct pickets or negotiate wages, incentive plans or job conditions. The SEIU has organized workers in 42 homes this way. Partisan union observers are perturbed that the international union has been an enthusiastic party to this. “I’ve never seen a labor union except for the SEIU enter into a top-down, industry-friendly agreement that binds the hands of the workers,” noted Jamie Court, president of the Santa Monica-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.

If the agreement ensures health-care workers will remain inexpensive to hire, it also ensures that running California’s health-care system will become more expensive than ever for taxpayers. UHW-West’s own analysis indicates that the organized nursing homes received an additional $119 million in MediCal subsidies during the most recent budget cycle. Of that figure, home operators will spend $21 million – only a little more than a fifth – on labor costs. If the pact is extended, the SEIU would lobby for new legislation expanding MediCal subsidies by hundreds of millions of dollars. In return, the union would be allowed to represent workers from additional nursing homes. It looks like a high-quantity, low-quality strategy. And Rosselli’s local union is furious with this arrangement, especially given the apparent retribution by the international union. Recently, SEIU stripped the local of all authority to represent nursing-home employees. Andrew Stern’s representatives last year, during a statewide reorganization of local affiliates, recommended that all nursing-home workers be reassigned to a new bargaining unit to be run out of Los Angeles by Stern ally Tyrone Freeman.

This saga suggests, if anything, that there are practical limits to Andrew Stern’s dream of revitalizing American trade unionism through radically ramping up membership. By conflating key interests of management and employees, the Service Employees International Union is locking a heavily immigrant work force into low-wage, low-benefit contracts. Current immigration policy unwittingly encourages these deals by providing service-industry employers with a ready supply of heavily-foreign-born workers whose inability to cover the high cost of living can be covered by federal and state public assistance programs. Thanks to the help of the SEIU, the public also is on the hook for higher state health care subsidies. Few things these days may be more expensive than “cheap labor” – expensive, at least to taxpayers. (SF Weekly, 4/11/07).

Secret Ballots for Me But Not for Thee--SEIU

2007-04-30T16:05:00.000-07:00

Secret Ballots for Me But Not for Thee

Chuck Muth posted in Chuck Muth on April 29th, 2007
By Doug Bandow

Organized labor was perhaps the biggest winner of last November’s congressional election. The Democratic leadership has moved quickly to begin paying off its campaign debt.

Observes Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Committee: Nancy Pelosi “knows union political operatives are largely if not primarily responsible for making her speaker, and union officials want votes on card check.” Thus, the House has passed, and the Senate will soon consider, legislation to replace elections with the so-called “card check” process, which would enable labor organizers to intimidate their way to union recognition.

That’s not how labor activists put it, of course. But they want to drop today’s system, which requires a secret ballot election whenever 30 percent of workers sign a card supporting a union, with automatic recognition if 50 percent-plus-one workers sign a card.

Supporters of the legislation say they want to drop the inconvenient step of representational elections to prevent employer intimidation, though evidence of systemic problems is scant. In fact, a secret ballot makes retaliation against rank-and-file workers well nigh impossible. And the National Labor Relations Board reports few cases — under two percent — in which vocal union organizers are fired.

Actually, the fact that secret ballot elections limit the opportunities for abuse is the primary reason why organized labor insists on elections before a union can be decertified. In a 1998 case the AFL-CIO and two individual unions cited the U.S. Supreme Court in asserting “that a representation election ‘is a solemn…occasion, conducted under safeguards to voluntary choice.’” Indeed, the unions added, the “representation election system provides the surest means of avoiding decisions which are ‘the result of group pressures and not individual decision.’”

Quite true. Thus, elections cannot be spared when workers want out of a union. But organized labor has a different view of “group pressures” deployed as part of an official organizing campaign.

INDEED, UNIONS ASSIDUOUSLY ATTEMPT to undermine “individual decision” through “group pressures.” Labor activists regularly intimidate workers into signing cards and supporting unionization. Hence the enthusiasm for “card check” union recognition.

For instance, Mike Ivey, a Materials Handler for the Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation in Gaffney, South Carolina, went to the National Right Work Legal Defense Foundation in response to pressure from the United Auto Workers. He pointed to conscious misrepresentations by union organizers: “Employees are told at off-site meetings that signing a card only certifies that they attended a meeting” and are offered t-shirts for signing, without being told “that these cards are a legally binding document.”

Recalcitrant workers are called and visited at home multiple times. Indeed, Ivey complains: “In the work place, the employees running the organizing campaign for the UAW are relentless in trying to get the employees to sign union cards. This has created a hostile work environment,” a situation which, if caused by the employer, would result in a lawsuit.

Karen M. Mayhew, an employee of Kaiser Permanente in Portland, Oregon, tells a similar tale of fraud and abuse, through which she and her fellow workers, also assisted by NRWLDF, were able to get the union decertified because of its misbehavior. The cards, said labor organizers, merely indicated interest in receiving more information. She adds: “Throughout this whole ordeal, my colleagues and I were subjected to badgering and immense peer pressure.”

As long as unions claim that intimidation is not their official policy — and are smart enough to avoid creating any written evidence to the contrary — workers have little recourse. In a 1996 case a majority of National Labor Relations Board commissioners held that “alleged threats of violence, even when made in the course of card solicitation, cannot be construed by any reasonable person as representing ‘purported union policies.’”

In that case, a union activist went up to another employee and, reported the NLRB, “allegedly stated that the employee had better sign a card because if she did not, the Union would come and get her children and it would also slash her car tires.” Maybe the threat was unauthorized, but if the union is not held responsible for intimidation like this, what will stop future organizers from making similar threats, especially when a signed card is so much more valuable — bringing activists closer to recognition, and not just an election which they might lose?

Which ultimately is why organized labor desires card check recognition. It is a lot easier to browbeat 50 percent plus one of the employees to publicly sign a card than to get the same number to vote for the union in a secret ballot. Indeed, a 1989 AFL-CIO organizing survey concluded: “It is not until the union obtains signatures from 75% or more of the unit that the union has more than a 50% chance of winning the election.”

First, some workers sign who have been fooled into thinking that the card has no legal effect. Second, some employees sign to avoid union pressure, including threats against their children. Third, a number of workers change their minds when they hear both sides of the argument leading up to the election.

No wonder Bruce Raynor of UNITE HERE says simply: “There’s no need to subject the workers to an election.” The union wants to generously choose for them.

FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS, the White House is likely to pose an obstacle to Card Check, since President George W. Bush is expected to veto any card check bill. But then, nothing is guaranteed with an administration that has expanded government power in so many ways.

Moreover, President Bush’s Iraq failure makes the election of a Republican as successor problematic. And organized labor will work as hard if not harder to win in 2008 than 2006. Opines the AFL-CIO’s Stew Acuff: “If we have to elect a president to sign it, we will.”

Thus, the upcoming Senate vote is a critical round in a battle that will grow even more fierce if the Democrats win control of the presidency along with Congress. Then only a filibuster will stop card check. National Right to Work reports that 36 senators have promised to uphold a veto, but 41 votes are necessary to sustain a filibuster, which will require overwhelming Republican unity, since few Democrats will break ranks. Yet Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) co-sponsored the legislation in the past; other Northeastern senators may also hesitate to cross organized labor. Breaking the 41 mark this time is necessary to create an impassable Senate barrier in the future.

Organized labor might think elections are unnecessary for union recognition, but workers disagree. A Zogby poll found that 84 percent of union members believed employees should be able to vote about joining unions (only 11 percent were opposed).

Ironically, even Rep. George Miller (D-Ca.), the chief House sponsor of card check, believes in union recognition elections. For other nations.

In 2001 he joined with 15 colleagues to affirm their deep concern “with international labor standards and the role of labor rights in international trade agreements.” Thus, they urged Mexico “to use the secret ballot in all union recognition elections.” In their view, “increased use of the secret ballot in union recognition elections will help bring real democracy to the Mexican workplace.”

But apparently not in America.

Incidentally, there’s no obvious reason why even a majority employee vote should force workers to join unions, as is often required, or even force companies to recognize only this one union, as the law demands. But if recognition is to be mandated by law, it should only follow victory in a secret ballot election. As the AFL-CIO has admitted: the “representation election system provides the surest means of avoiding decisions which are the result of group pressures and not individual decision.”

The Beck Poster

2007-04-12T19:29:00.000-07:00

Basic Provisions/Requirements

Executive Order 13201 requires government contractors to post a notice (the Beck Poster) informing their employees that they have certain rights related to union membership and use of union dues and fees under federal law. These contractors must include an employee notice clause in subcontracts or purchase orders entered into in connection with a covered contract. The employee notice clause requires subcontractors to also post the notice, and to include the requirement in further subcontracts.

The posting requirement does not apply to contractor establishments or construction work sites in jurisdiction where state law forbids enforcement of union-security agreements. The posting requirement also does not apply to contractor establishments or construction worksites where no union has been formally recognized by the contractor or certified as the exclusive bargaining representative.

The posting requirement does not apply to contractor establishments or construction worksites that involve a prime contractor and one or more subcontractors at a single site where the prime contractor, i.e., the person holding the contract with the government contracting agency, has not formally recognized a union and where no union has been certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the prime contractor’s employees.

The E.O. 13201 poster informs employees of their rights under the decisions of the Supreme Court in Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), and related cases. Under federal law, employees cannot be required to join a union or maintain membership in a union in order to retain their jobs. Under certain conditions, the law permits a union and an employer to enter into a union-security agreement requiring employees to pay uniform periodic dues and initiation fees. However, employees who are not union members can object to the use of their payments for certain purposes and can only be required to pay their share of union costs relating to collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.

If employees do not want to pay that portion of dues or fees used to support activities not related to collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment, they are entitled to an appropriate reduction in their payment. If an employee believes that he/she has been required to pay dues or fees used in part to support activities not related to collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment, that employee may be entitled to a refund and to an appropriate reduction in future payments.

Further information concerning these rights is available from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). To locate the nearest NLRB office, visit the NLRB Web Site or call 212-264-0300 or you can drop by the office at 26 Federal Plaza. Let's get Stephen L. Green and his entire blood sucking family a cleaning job.

Mark Green and Err America

2007-01-29T09:13:00.000-08:00

The Huffington Post
Melinda Henneberger
Posted January 29, 2007 11:23 AM

AP

Air America Radio, in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings since October, will be rescued at the 11th hour by Manhattan real estate developer Stephen L. Green.

Al Franken, the best-known host of the liberal network, will announce his expected departure on his show later today, to explore a run for the U.S. Senate from Minnesota.

Green is the brother of Mark Green, the New York Democrat who served as the city's public advocate in the 90s and ran for mayor against Michael Bloomberg in 2001.

He has already signed a letter of intent, and plans to finalize a purchase agreement within the week.

Air America CEO Scott Elberg confirmed the sale. "This is a great thing, for our affiliates, the company, the audience and every employee in our organization."

Green is chairman of SL Green Realty Corp, a real estate investment trust specializing in office buildings with a market cap of $12 billion.

Brother Mark is a frequent guest on Air America, and sat in for David Bender, the host of the Air America show Politically Direct, for a couple of weeks earlier this month.

When Franken leaves the network in a few weeks, he'll be replaced by Thom Hartmann, who already has a syndicated show on the network's lineup.

Send to a friendPost a CommentPrint Post

John Sweeney of SEIU

2007-01-18T10:54:00.000-08:00

January 18, 2007

UNION LEADERS RESORTING
TO UNDEMOCRATIC TACTICS
by Richard Berman
Arizona Daily Star
January 12, 2007

Faced with an American workforce unimpressed by what they're selling, union leaders are growing desperate to prop up their membership rolls. Their latest gambit? Make it easier to intimidate employees into joining unions, opening the floodgates of mandatory dues money.

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney and Arizona AFL-CIO President Rebekah Friend try to package their proposal in the language of fairness ("Working families ready for substantial change," Jan. 9), but employees and lawmakers alike should check the fine print on the back of the union label before buying it.

Under current law, a union is typically recognized when a majority of employees vote to organize in a secret-ballot election monitored by the National Labor Relations Board - you know, pretty much the same way we elect our representatives in a democracy.

Faced with declining membership, however, union officials have turned to a highly questionable practice of organizing new members through a process called "card check." With card check, paid union organizers try to persuade employees to sign cards saying that they favor union representation. This persuasion frequently features deception, coercion and harassing visits to employees' homes.

In case after case, employees report not fully understanding the legal ramifications of signing the cards. Union leaders argue that the current system leaves pro-union employees open to intimidation from their employers. But this is so counterintuitive it is practically a rhetorical slap in the face. Think about it: Secret-ballot elections are designed to protect employees from retribution from both union organizers and employers.

No one would argue that private voting in national elections exposes voters to bullying from Democrats but not Republicans (or vice versa). The fact is that employees are more susceptible to pressure from employers under the card-check method because employers can see exactly who "voted" for unionization.

Union leaders are so hungry for new members that they are even pushing a bill through Congress, ironically named the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which would make card check the rule and not the exception.

After all, the card-check method has proven more effective in netting new members - which means union leaders stand to reap ever more revenue from the mandatory member dues that add up to billions of dollars annually.

Now a number of politicians are actively promoting the bill, apparently ignorant of the irony inherent in officials recently elected by secret ballot attempting to do away with secret-ballot elections.

Union organizations like Change to Win and the AFL-CIO have effectively leveraged their political ties to convince lawmakers that they can speak for the nation's workforce, posing as their ambassadors to Washington. As a result, many lawmakers frequently mistake the agenda of well-heeled union lobbyists for the interests of employees.

Political support for the Employee Free Choice Act is especially odd in light of the fact that polling has shown that 75 percent of Americans think that secret-ballot elections are the most democratic method of choosing a union. How odd it is, then, that union leaders still agree in part, since they favor maintaining secret-ballot elections when it comes to decertification (choosing to dissolve the union). After all, they argue, someone might pressure an employee to sign a card "voting" to dump the union.

Buyer, beware: There's no return policy. Union leaders are more than happy to let new members card-check in, but there's no card-checking out.

Labor King Brian McLaughlin

2006-10-18T06:24:00.000-07:00

October 18, 2006
The secret life of labor king
By THOMAS ZAMBITO
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

He even stole from the kids. The powerful boss of the city's biggest labor group was charged yesterday with a massive $2.2 million shakedown scheme - using his influence and seat on the state Assembly to line his pockets.

No one was immune from his greed, not union members - not even Little Leaguers.

Assemblyman Brian McLaughlin allegedly used the stolen funds to finance a high-flying lifestyle that included a Long Island mansion, luxury cars, country clubs and gifts for several lady friends.

"What we have here is a story of greed," said Manhattan U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia in announcing the charges. "This case lends new meaning to the term ‘hand in the till.'" The sheer size of the scam put McLaughlin, 54, a seven-term Democratic legislator and longtime executive director of New York City Central Labor Council, an umbrella group that has more than 1 million members, into the pantheon of crooked powerbrokers.

Prosecutors said he has been stealing money for much of the past decade while he held both jobs.

Added city Department of Investigation Commissioner Rose Gill Hearn: "This was all done so that the defendant could support his own version of ‘Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.'"

According to Garcia, no scheme was too small for the money-grubbing legislator who started his working life as an electrician, then earned bachelor's and master's degrees and rose to lead Local 3 of the Electrical Workers Union.

The feds said McLaughlin ran a squeeze play on Queens' Little Leaguers for years while serving as treasurer of the Electchester Athletic Association, located at a union-sponsored housing development in Queens.

McLaughlin allegedly stole nearly $100,000 while raising funds for the group, using the slogan: "A Child in Sports Stays out of the Courts."

And when a league official tried to use $2,800 to pay for legitimate softball expenses in June 2004, McLaughlin was enraged, the indictment says.

"All that f-----g money, he's f-----g spending on other stuff, that ain't his money," McLaughlin said. "That's mine."

Among other crimes allegedly committed by McLaughlin, according to a 44-count racketeering indictment:

· He got $400,000 in illegal payments as well as three cars from contractors who hired Local 3 electricians

. One car went to his son and the other to a female friend.

· He diverted campaign contributions to pay for a female friend's widescreen plasma television and got $61,000 from a contractor to pay for a Mercedes-Benz for his wife.

He also used campaign cash to pay for his son's August 2004 wedding by creating a no-show consultant's job for his daughter-in-law.

· He employed a battalion of rank-and-file electricians to drive family members to doctor's appointments, hang Christmas lights, shovel out his horse barn and snatch up rodents running through his basement.

· He forced Local 3 members to kick back monthly payments from the sale of scrap metals and other materials salvaged from their work.

· He took $100,000 from an electrical workers union account and used it to pay credit card bills as well as dues for the North Hempstead Country Club.

· He gave checks totaling $21,900 to a woman with whom he had a personal relationship; the money was taken from union funds. A second female friend was paid $6,000 out of his campaign committee funds.

He also arranged for that same woman to be hired at the city labor council. · He also used the money to pay for school tuition for his son; the mortgage on his home in Nissequogue, L.I., and rent on an Albany residence.

· McLaughlin had union members drive up to Albany using his E-ZPass so that he could get credit for the per diem he'd received from the Assembly for each Albany appearance.

At his arraignment in Manhattan Federal Court, McLaughlin pleaded not guilty to the indictment and was released on a $250,000 personal recognizance bond. McLaughlin, who could go to prison for the rest of his life, declined comment as he left the courthouse with his wife, Eva.

After the FBI raided both his union and Assembly offices this year, McLaughlin announced he would not seek reelection. Later, he took a leave of absence from the Central Labor Council.

With Greg B. Smithand Joe Mahoney

Judge Pauley

2006-09-28T16:02:00.000-07:00

Horizon Asset Management.
As a tenant at 470 Park Avenue South, I have been asked to detail my direct knowledge about the work habits and comportment of Shyron Bynog. It is fair that I speak for all in my company when I make these claims. I do this with no malicious intent toward the building owners or managers. I am simply expressing my/our observations about her tenure during the time—now years—we have been tenants and she was in the building employ.

There was never a day where Shyron Bynog was not at her post (obviously excepting breaks/lunch and vacation days—I assume there are union rules that establish such) in a cheerful fame of mind. In fact, her omnipresence was motivating itself. I suspect she took less time for these than most people. She was always quick with a good morning and an addressing of me (and all the others in my office) by name. There would always be a pleasant exchange of words. Often client visitors would comment to me on how nice they would be greeted by the red-haired attendant in the lobby. I always found it unusual that these sophisticated people would say things like “I wish we had someone like her in our building.”

Not only was she cheerful but she was always impeccable groomed. Her uniform was always immaculate. Her assistance at the elevator was always spontaneous. I believe she thoroughly enjoyed her job and this enjoyment was reflected in her graciousness.

Beyond this outward behavior was her helpfulness. If there was an issue concerning the building she would be the one to see to it that it was attended to. As an example, we were missing an overhead directional elevator maker on one of the elevators for our floor when we moved in. I reported this fact to her. She was tenacious in getting maintenance to attend to it—they being very slow to attend to little things. Almost daily she would tell me that she had reminded maintenance once again to attend to it. I am sure that if it were not for her persistence, years later we would still not have this corrected.

As a second example, one of the ladies in our offices is elderly and a bit overweight. Typically she would have a car service in the afternoon when departing. I would be typical for Shyorn to hold the outer door (non-mechanical) for her so as to make her exit easier. Obviously doing this was beyond her expected duties.

I do not recollect as observance of the friction that Shyron claims existed between her and other members of the staff. To her credit Shyron never said anything to me that such existed while she was our lobby attendant. It has been only after she was fired that she made these claims known to me. I/we assume she was the head lobby attendant and that the others were subordinate to her. She never demonstrated a superior to inferior relationship in my observance, but it appeared that they took their cues from her superior level of service example may have caused resentment by them. More accurately, they would sit or stand by passively while she did all the work. Occasionally she would prod one or the other into action, an action such as to hold the elevator door for someone with their hands full. In fact I never recollect her in a seated position in the lobby. She was always standing, while one or the other of the attendants was seated.

In was a total shock to learn that she was fired by building management. My shock is not said simply as a criticism of management, but rather as an observation of the contrast in service between the time she was in our lobby and the time since. When we moved in, she made it her business to ask all our names and what our business function consists of. No one else has done that. The current lobby staff, with some exceptions, is dramatically opposite in their attention, appearance and comportment. Shyron set a standard and I believe she tried to get her co-workers to adhere to such. Currently, there appears to be no standard. The attendants are passive in their behavior to the point of inattentiveness (in general, with some exceptions) and some look totally ungroomed. The condition of the lobby itself is less attractive. Shyron would pick up any stray papers, she would prevent people from putting there feet on the walls while waiting in the lobby, etc. The current crop pick up nothing, they put their feet on the walls, etc…

I am not saying this simply to criticize the current staff. On the contrary, I note various points to details how highly I and my staff valued Shyron’s presence and to emphasize what an excellent employee and representative of S.L. Green she appeared to us to be. I have no knowledge of the actual basis for her dismissal but to hear it was cause is preposterous. Certainly, the cause could not be job performance

Sincerely,
Horizen Asset Management

Mark Green-- DA PROBE STILL OPEN

2006-08-23T10:31:00.000-07:00

By FREDRIC U. DICKER State Editor---June 23, 2006

ALBANY - Brooklyn District Attorney Charles "Joe" Hynes has not ended his criminal probe of a controversial $250,000 contribution from Mark Green's 2001 mayoral campaign - despite Green's claims to the contrary this week, The Post has learned.
Green, the former public advocate who is battling former federal Housing Secretary Andrew Cuomo for the Democratic nomination for attorney general, repeatedly contended on NY1 Wednesday that the Brooklyn DA's probe was "done," had "ended" and "is over."

He also insisted that "there's no grand jury" investigating the circumstances surrounding his campaign's controversial contribution to a scandal-scarred Brooklyn Democratic club - then headed by now-convicted felon Clarence Norman - which used at least some of the funds for racially charged fliers in the closing days of Green's bitter primary in 2001 with then-Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer.
The fliers depicted Ferrer kissing the backside of the Rev. Al Sharpton. While Green won the primary, he went on to lose to Mayor Bloomberg in the general election.
A well-placed law-enforcement source told The Post that a criminal probe of the Green campaign's contribution was, in fact, ongoing and that no decision has been made on who, if anyone, will be charged.

"It's an open investigation," said the source, who insisted on anonymity. The source said there was no grand jury "right now" hearing evidence in the case but wouldn't rule out one being convened to do so in the coming weeks.
The source also insisted that Green isn't "a target" of the probe. But he said things could change if the now-convicted Norman seeks leniency or a plea bargain on outstanding criminal charges in exchange for his cooperation.
Investigators are believed to be stepping up their efforts to resolve the case because a five-year statute of limitations on any possible charges expires in October, it was learned.

Hynes spokesman Jerry Schmetterer declined to comment.
Investigators have been trying to determine whether some of the money the Green campaign gave to the Thurgood Marshall Democratic Club was spent on salaries and campaign materials that were not disclosed to the New York City Campaign Finance Board.

Norman, a one-time powerful assemblyman who has been at the center of a probe of the alleged sale of judgeships, has been convicted twice on several felonies unrelated to the Green campaign, including soliciting illegal contributions, depositing political funds in a private account, soliciting illegal contributions from a lobbyist, and stealing $5,000 from his campaign committee.

He was sentenced earlier this year to between two and six years in prison on the convictions, which he is appealing. Green has repeatedly insisted he had no knowledge of the controversial flier. "I was sickened by it, and it totally contradicted my life career as a reform Democrat," he told NY1.

Yeah, man! YOUR NUMBER IS UP!!!

SEIU Hit w/ FEC Complaint for Laundering Dues

2006-06-27T09:05:00.000-07:00

SEIU International Union
Hit with FEC Complaint for Laundering of Dues Money into 2004 Campaigns

Union officials funneled workers¹ forced-dues dollars to candidates through America Coming Together (ACT) group and Democrat National Committee

And, arrogant Mark Green baby brother of Stephen Loser Green of SL Green Realty.

FOR RELEASE: November 10, 2004

Washington, DC (November 10, 2004) - The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation today filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) for unlawful electioneering with workers¹ dues during this fall¹s elections.

The complaint alleges that SEIU union officials handed over tens of millions of dollars of workers¹ forced union dues through a so-called ³527² political organization called America Coming Together (ACT). Some of those funds were, in turn, spent illegally to finance political campaigns through the Democrat National Committee (DNC).

Filed by Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason, the complaint cites numerous statements by SEIU officials about their use of workers¹ forced union dues to fund ACT. In fact, SEIU union chief Andrew Stern stated earlier this month ³that SEIU is the largest contributor to America Coming Together at $26 million.² ACT spent over $100 million dollars in this fall¹s elections on the campaigns of candidates that polls consistently show a large portion of rank-and-file union members do not support.

ACT then used some of those funds to underwrite political fundraisers for the Democrat National Committee. For example, artwork fundraising events held by ACT across America raised more than $750,000 for the DNC where attendees were given expensive artwork prints in exchange for individual donations of at least $1,000. Meanwhile, in statements made to the press earlier this year, Stern openly bragged that SEIU officials intended to give funds paid by ³regular dues-paying members² to ACT political activities.

Under federal law, union officials specifically must not contribute to political campaigns using ³dues, fees or other moneys required as a condition of membership in a labor organization.² In doing so, states the complaint, SEIU union officials violated the rights of workers who are required, as a condition of employment, to make forced-dues payments to the union who may not agree with the political aims of SEIU officials, ACT or the DNC.

³SEIU officials used the hard-earned wages of rank-and-file workers to bankroll the campaigns of hundreds of political candidates across America,² stated Gleason. ³No one should be forced to pay compulsory dues to a union, especially when its officials continually abuse that government granted special privilege.²

The FEC is to investigate the Foundation¹s complaint and will decide whether to begin a formal investigation of the SEIU union¹s electioneering.
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, is assisting thousands of employees in close to 300 cases nationwide.

YOUR UNION DUES AT WORK

2006-06-25T16:18:00.000-07:00

SEIU...Your Number is the Next One Up!!!

YOUR UNION DUES AT WORK

Chuck Muth's

* Charles Wiener was supposed to be managing the health fund of Local 16 of the United Service Workers of America. It took several years before people realized that he'd been draining it. Wiener, 69, who had served as president of the Sussex County, N.J.-based local during December 1996-December 1999, pleaded guilty in federal court on Friday, April 21 to conspiring to embezzlement. He and two others had been indicted in February 2005 on charges of stealing $284,000 from the local.

* On April 21, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge David M. Horwitz sentenced (Martin) Ludlow, a former Los Angeles City Councilman, to three years' probation for conspiring to illegally divert union funds toward his 2003 election campaign. Ludlow also will have to pay restitution and costs in the amount of $45,000, remain out of all union leadership positions for at least 13 years, and not hold elected public office for four years. . . . He worked with Janett Humphries, then president of Local 99 of the Service Employees International Union, to steer more than $36,000 in union funds to pay six people on the union payroll to work on his Council campaign.

* On March 31, Donald Hutchinson, former financial secretary for Local 763-C of the Chemical Workers, was sentenced in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to one year of supervision and three years probation for embezzling union funds.

* On April 10, Vince L. Matthews, former business manager and financial secretary for Sheet Metal Workers Local 29, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas to one count of embezzling $93,298.28 in union funds.

* On April 4, Darnell Smith, former bookkeeper for Local 36 of the Service Employees International Union, pleaded guilty in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas to theft by deception. He had embezzled more than $70,000 in union funds.

* On April 14, William Van Sickle, former secretary-treasurer for Local 725 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, was sentenced in U.S. District Court to six months community confinement and five years probation for embezzling more than $62,000 in union funds.

* On Monday, April 10, three mob-linked drywall contractors and a Genovese crime family soldier admitted in federal court in Manhattan to taking part in a scheme involving a pair of labor unions. Contractors James Delio, his brother Joseph Delio, and Fred Nisall copped mail fraud, embezzlement and extortion pleas, while Genovese crime family soldier Robert Carbone pleaded guilty to extorting officers of Local 530 of the Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons International Association.

* Leslie Patricia Bell found out the price of stealing from a union treasury: 18 months in federal prison, three years probation, and $156,423 in restitution. Bell, 39, had pleaded guilty last May to charges she embezzled funds from Local 1184 of the Laborers International Union of North America, which represents construction, groundskeeping and maintenance workers in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.

* On March 30, Michael Griffie was charged in Hamilton County (Ohio) Court of Common Pleas with aggravated theft of property or services worth at least $100,000 from Local 212 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

- SOURCE: Union Corruption Updates from the National Legal and Policy Center

FAMOUS LAST WORDS

"Unionism seldom, if ever, uses such power as it has to insure better work; almost always it devotes a large part of that power to safeguarding bad work."

- H.L. Mencken

SL Green, DA Probe

2006-06-23T05:15:00.000-07:00

NOT SO FAST, GREEN! DA PROBE STILL OPEN

By FREDRIC U. DICKER State Editor

June 23, 2006 -- ALBANY - Brooklyn District Attorney Charles "Joe" Hynes has not ended his criminal probe of a controversial $250,000 contribution from Mark Green's 2001 mayoral campaign - despite Green's claims to the contrary this week, The Post has learned.

Green, the former public advocate who is battling former federal Housing Secretary Andrew Cuomo for the Democratic nomination for attorney general, repeatedly contended on NY1 Wednesday that the Brooklyn DA's probe was "done," had "ended" and "is over."

He also insisted that "there's no grand jury" investigating the circumstances surrounding his campaign's controversial contribution to a scandal-scarred Brooklyn Democratic club - then headed by now-convicted felon Clarence Norman - which used at least some of the funds for racially charged fliers in the closing days of Green's bitter primary in 2001 with then-Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer.
The fliers depicted Ferrer kissing the backside of the Rev. Al Sharpton.
While Green won the primary, he went on to lose to Mayor Bloomberg in the general election.

A well-placed law-enforcement source told The Post that a criminal probe of the Green campaign's contribution was, in fact, ongoing and that no decision has been made on who, if anyone, will be charged.

"It's an open investigation," said the source, who insisted on anonymity.
The source said there was no grand jury "right now" hearing evidence in the case but wouldn't rule out one being convened to do so in the coming weeks.
The source also insisted that Green isn't "a target" of the probe.
But he said things could change if the now-convicted Norman seeks leniency or a plea bargain on outstanding criminal charges in exchange for his cooperation.
Investigators are believed to be stepping up their efforts to resolve the case because a five-year statute of limitations on any possible charges expires in October, it was learned.

Hynes spokesman Jerry Schmetterer declined to comment.
Investigators have been trying to determine whether some of the money the Green campaign gave to the Thurgood Marshall Democratic Club was spent on salaries and campaign materials that were not disclosed to the New York City Campaign Finance Board.

Norman, a one-time powerful assemblyman who has been at the center of a probe of the alleged sale of judgeships, has been convicted twice on several felonies unrelated to the Green campaign, including soliciting illegal contributions, depositing political funds in a private account, soliciting illegal contributions from a lobbyist, and stealing $5,000 from his campaign committee.
He was sentenced earlier this year to between two and six years in prison on the convictions, which he is appealing.
Green has repeatedly insisted he had no knowledge of the controversial flier.
"I was sickened by it, and it totally contradicted my life career as a reform Democrat," he told NY1.

fredric.dicker@nypost.com

Chuck Muth Citizen Outreach

2006-06-18T17:01:00.000-07:00

BIG LABOR'S UGLY NEW FACE

Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach

Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), was recently described by CBS News' Leslie Stahl as "a new breed of union boss" who is "known as a street fighter and will use hardball tactics against companies." That is generally understood by the non-union world to mean whatever it takes - no matter how unfair, untruthful or underhanded. "Dirty pool" is the SEIU's game of choice.

Which is why it should come as no surprise that the SEIU is one of the leading advocates for an illegal alien amnesty program. As a top SEIU official once told the liberal Air America radio network, "You need to legalize the 11 million people who are here on an undocumented status. Many of them are our members." Which is why Stern's underlings were key organizers behind the massive illegal immigration marches in Los Angeles this spring, handling "security" and, according to the L.A. Times, coordinating "the more than 100 buses that dropped off marchers from throughout California, Las Vegas and a few Southwestern cities."

Under the circumstances, perhaps a name change is in order: The SEIAU - Service Employees and Illegal Aliens Union.

While past union bosses rightly recognized that illegal aliens were - er, how to put this gently, um, ILLEGAL - and drove down wages for American workers, the new breed see only a huge source of new, under-educated, unskilled, easily-led, ignorant dues-payers. Any adverse effect they might have on American society is outweighed by the fact that these illegal meal-tickets will keep the new breed of union bosses living high off the hog in the comfortable fashion they've become accustomed.

But it's not just SEIU's recruitment efforts of illegal aliens which casts this "new breed" of union agitators in such poor light in the public's eyes; it's their disingenuous, if not downright dishonest, "negotiating" tactics, as well. Consider, for example, the SEIU's current war on hospitals. To hear the union tell it, you'd think hospital management couldn't care less if patients by the truckload dropped dead on their gurneys - as long as the hospitals continued to make a profit.

According to Reuters, the SEIU is threatening to strike three California hospitals later this month, claiming the hospitals are chronically understaffed. They're demanding that the union be granted equal votes on staffing decisions with hospital management. What a lovely negotiating tactic: trying to scare the tar out of the sick and elderly with false claims of insufficient numbers of dues-paying clerical workers, nurses and janitors.

Ditto SEIU tactics in Las Vegas, where union agitators bemoan "the stress, strain, and danger that staff encounter every day in the hospitals because of unsafe staffing levels." One union nurse even whines uncontrollably about a week-end secretary being eliminated. "We have critically ill patients on life support who need our constant attention to keep them alive," union agitator Atchala Wongkovit says. "Are the patients less sick on the weekends?"

Yes, according to the SEIU the only thing keeping patients on life support alive is a dues-paying weekend union secretary. I guess that means critically ill patients will be keeling over by the dozens every Saturday and Sunday from this point forward. Somebody better alert the funeral homes so they can beef up their own secretarial staff on Mondays.

The union is also demanding a "forced union dues clause" and a "no escape" dues check-off clause which would make it "even harder for nurses and techs to change their minds and stop paying the union." That's the SEIU's way. They're the real-life Borg for vulnerable workers who don't know any better: "You will be assimilated; resistance is futile."

Yes, the SEIU is the face of a new breed of union agitators. It's a face only a mother could love.

Mark Green & Mike Fishman

2006-06-13T17:46:00.000-07:00

Let The Games Begin

Huge Union Swings to Green as NY Mag Profiles Race as "Noodge vs. Bully."
06.13.2006

Today, former Public Advocate Mark Green was endorsed by the huge labor union, SEIU 32BJ, the union of doormen and janitors—which is widely regarded as the second most politically significant labor endorsement in a state-wide race.
[ Also New York Magazine published an article on the AG race entitled “The Noodge vs. Bully” Read more.]

Mike Fishman, president of the 60,000 member 32BJ, said, “Throughout his career, Mark has promoted policies to spur job creation, attack unemployment and establish equal access to health care. We need somebody who can take the place of Eliot Spitzer, who will fight for working people as Eliot Spitzer has, and there is nobody who can do that better than our friend Mark Green and we support him for Attorney General.”

Replied Green: “There is no finer labor leader or union than 32BJ because of its history of advocating for justice. Because I’ve also tried to be an advocate for justice in my 35 years as a People’s Lawyer, I’m especially honored by your enthusiastic support.”

“Eventually campaigns come down to troops like you—and a candidate’s record and agenda. Here are the top two items on my agenda: better health care and less political corruption. I hope that interested people will pursue our website to read my proposals on combating HMO and Medicaid Fraud and advancing political reform. And I look forward to contrasting my consistent record of results on healthcare and political reform as the campaign progresses.

“…Thirty-six years after starting his public career as one of Nader’s Raiders, the 61-year-old Green retains his mentor’s idealistic zeal for protecting consumers, and he cares deeply about unsexy issues that affect thousands of people, like public disclosure of hospital error rates. He’s a lawyer, but what really makes Green a good fit for the attorney general’s job is his personality. He’s the kind of noodge that the job, and New York politics, needs…” NEW YORK MAGAZINE , June 19, 20

Mark Green has previously been endorsed by many former and current elected officials, labor unions and civic leaders, including former NYC Mayor David N. Dinkins, former NYS Democratic Party Chair Judith Hope, Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, the Revered Calvin Butts, former U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey, SSEU Local 371, Office of Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU), Uniformed Alarm Dispatchers, Retirees Association of D.C. 37 and Local 1 Amalgamated Lithographers of America—as well as 32 upstate Democratic officials and leaders.

SEIU Conflicts, Control, Corruption, Politics & Lizzie Baker!!!

2006-06-06T04:55:00.000-07:00

SEIU (Conflicts Over Control, Corruption & Politics)

Capital Research Center
Labor Watch
The Service Industry International Union
Conflicts Over Control, Corruption & Politics
by Ivan G. Osorio

The Service Employees Inernational Union (SEIU) recently surpassed the Teamsters as the largest union in the AFL-CIO. Thanks to agressive organizing of unskilled low-wage workers, the 1.5 million-member SEIU is growing larger, bucking the national trend of declining union membership. (Yep, that means you over at First Quality Maintenance, and SL Green. And, yes, you are right again, your union refers to you as an unskilled-low-wage-worker who is a perfect target for manipulation and abuse.)

SEIU may have reason to celebrate, but success may be swelling the union's head. (In other words, Mr. Mike Fishman has fallen in love with seeing his plump face in the mirror because nobody loves him as much as he loves himself.)

SEIU leaders adopted a reorganization SCHEME called the "New Strength Unity Plan" to amend the union's constitution to raise dues and give SEIU headquaters more authority over local union matters. The Unity Plan has provoked cries of protest from many rank-and-file members over its many provisions to centralize union decision-making. The plan does the following.

*Imposes a uniform identity on all SEIU-affiliated local unions by requiring locals to give up their names and logos and adopt the purple-and-gold SEIU banner.

*Imposes gradually increasing asessments per member.

*Raises the dues minium and raises and eventually phases out the dues cap. (by 2004)

*Gives the SEIU international president power to intervene in local union affairs and gives SEIU the power to demand joint bargaining among locals.

*Gives SEIU greater control over Canadian local's dues.

While Canadian locals are exempt from many of the new assessments, the Unity Plan gives SEIU headquarters the authority to spend Canadian local's dues as it sees fit. Resolution #55 contains the provision: The revenue (you, the members dues money) from per capita taxes paid by Canadian Local Unions shall be spent by the International Union for activities that support Canadian Local Unions. The resolution does not specify what constitues "support" which could be just about anything. (Yeah, Baby! These BIG BOYS are sucking you dry. Yeah, Baby! You need a union like Local 32 B&J like you need a hole in your head.)

SEIU and New York City Politics
Local 32 B&J endorsed Democrat Mark Green in the recent city mayoral elections. His loss to Republican Michael Bloomberg wasn't for lack of trying on the union's part. According to the Village Voice it signed-up 8,000 new members for a new political fund and enrolled over 1,000 as election-day "volunteers" for Green.

Indeed the local may have gone overboard in its enthusiasm for Green. (Yeah, baby! You need SL Green's brother as your Mayor, and you need, SL Green's son, Gary Green as your office cleaner, and you need, SL Green's son as your security guard provider and you need SL Green's son as your messenger service. Shoot man, you probably need SL Green just to help you run your house hold and help you count the few bucks that he is going to leave you with. All in the family here that's for sure. No, lying or stealing going here baby. They are the holier-than-thou, richer-than-thou and more-educated-than-thou. They don't steal, lie or cheat. It's called business, baby, just plain and simple business.)

60 Minutes, profiles Andy Stern

2006-06-02T16:16:00.000-07:00

(CBS Sixty Minutes) Not long ago in America, organized labor ruled the roost. In the 1950s, one in three Americans had a union job and bosses like Jimmy Hoffa were household names. But today labor is losing clout fast — about one in 10 Americans is in a union.

Correspondent Lesley Stahl profiles Andy Stern, a man who says he's going to bring labor back to life and pull millions of Americans out of poverty along the way. Stern is president of SEIU, the Service Employees International Union, the second largest in the country.

For his talent at recruiting new members, Stern has been described as the most important labor boss in America. As you'll see, Andy Stern is a new breed of union boss.

When you first see Andy Stern, pay attention to his wardrobe — dressed in purple, it's his way of branding SEIU.

He's as far from a blue-collar tough-guy chomping on a cigar as you can get. At 55, he's smallish, in good shape and Ivy-league educated.

He shows up to walk picket lines, even small ones. Jimmy Hoffa didn't do that. No organizing job is too mundane, including handing out flyers and making calls.

Stern has built SEIU into the fastest-growing union in the country, with its cult of purple. But while it has been thriving, much of labor has been shrinking.

Asked why the 90 percent of Americans not in a union should care, Stern says: "When unions were strong, they raised everyone up. Look at what's happening in America. The gap between the rich and the rest of the population is growing so wide and so fast that even Alan Greenspan says it threatens democratic capitalism."

"So, you think if more people join unions, that gap would necessarily have to turn around and start shrinking? Is that what you're saying?" Stahl asks.

"I think unions are the best anti-poverty program that America's ever had," he replies.

And that seems to be Stern's central motivation: lifting the very lowest-paid service workers into the middle class. So the face of his union isn't a burly auto-worker, it's people like Maria Velazquez, who runs a daycare center out of her living room in Chicago.

Velazquez says she is taking care of 16 children, all of whom come from low income families.

SEIU membership is mostly Spanish-speaking, female, minority and immigrant. What's amazing here in Illinois is that by going door to door, SEIU was able to organize 49,000 other women like Maria who run day care centers.

After 10 years of recruiting and lobbying, Illinois agreed to a union contract, giving the women a 35 percent raise and health care during the next three years.

"I think I'm going to win the Nobel Prize because I think I can finally prove that Ronald Reagan is wrong, George Bush is wrong. Wealth does not trickle down, it trickles up," Stern said at a rally.
CBS) One of SEIU's big successes in trickle up economics is janitors. You'd think a janitor like Emmanuel Tanis, who works in an office building in New York, would make minimum wage. But he's in SEIU and, with overtime, Tanis made $53,000 last year.

"So what do you think you would earn if you weren't in the union?" Stahl asks Tanis.

"I don't think I would earn nothing," he replies, laughing.

But while he fights like a tiger for service workers, his critics complain Stern shows little concern for manufacturing jobs.

"Here's one of the biggest raps we've heard against you: that you are willing to give up, totally give up on the jobs that have been lost to globalization. What about the jobs that are leaving?" Stahl asks.

"I think I have — you do have," he replies.

"You're not going there. That's someone else's problem," Stahl says.

"No, I think you fight to try to keep in there, just like we fight every time an employer wants to close a hospital," Stern says. "On the other hand, you have to understand the train has left the station of globalization. More will go on. And the question is, is: how do you make sure American workers' jobs, who are still in our country, you know, are jobs that work is valued and rewarded."

Stern spent 10 years as a leader in the AFL-CIO, arguing that the federation's priorities were misguided. He was frustrated that so much money went into supporting political candidates instead of into recruiting new members.

So last summer, Andy Stern did what insiders thought was unthinkable: he marched six million workers out of the AFL-CIO, cutting it by 40 percent, and created a new federation called "Change To Win." The split left the AFL-CIO reeling and it had to cut its budget by 25 percent.

"If you'd stayed in and fought from within, wouldn't the whole labor movement have more clout?" Stahl asks.

"I tried everything I knew how to do for 10 long years," he says. "And the only thing that changed was American workers were doing worse at the end. That isn't the kind of labor movement that anyone needs to be part of."

He says the world changed, but the labor movement didn't keep up with the times. And didn't reach out.

"Whole new industries in Silicon Valley grew up in front of our eyes. New jobs were created and … people never went there. You can't stand still. You can't hold on," Stern explains.

He lashed out at the union bosses for riding around in chauffeur-driven cars and flying around with Democratic senators. Stern never rides in a limo.

Divorced now, he lives modestly in an apartment with his teenage son, Matt. How can you tell a big time union boss lives there? A labor contract is tacked up on Matt's door with the rules of the house.

Stern says three years ago he suffered a tragedy that shattered his life: the death of his 13-year-old daughter, Cassie.

"When she died it broke my heart," he says. "And, you know, it took me a long time to come back. I didn't know if I was going to able to live through it."

He's different now, he says. Not as concerned with whom he might offend. "It just gave me the strength to say, 'Speak out; don't be afraid.' "

One brave thing he's done is pursue a partnership with corporate America. In some labor circles, that's heresy. But he's proud that after SEIU phone operators waged five strikes against the HMO Kaiser Permanente, he got results.

"I pick up the phone. I called the CEO, I said, 'I've never met you before, David Lawrence, but this is a crazy way to do business.' And, yes, we went from a more adversarial relationship to a partnership," Stern says.

A partnership that included a pilot program that gave bonuses to union phone clerks for keeping patient calls short. Designed to help Kaiser reign in costs, it infuriated labor leaders such as Rose Ann Demoro, executive director of California Nurses Association.

"We're talking about someone who's putting their own personal economic interest, a clerk, ahead of that patient's interest because they're going to get more money. We shouldn't put workers in those positions. Not now, not ever," says Demoro.

Other unions have worked out compromises with corporations, like in the auto industry. But Demoro says Stern has gone too far trying to be a buddy to business.

"What Andy has done is to basically go to corporations and ask to be kind of a strategic asset to them and he reinforces and legitimizes what they're doing against working people," she says.
CBS)
"Your critics say that you can't really stand up for the workers if you're worrying about compromising with the corporation," Stahl asks Stern.

"Well, here's what we know. The members of our union — janitors, security officers — are getting health care while other workers are losing it. The members of our unions are getting raises while other people aren't. The success has to be judged by what's happening to the members of our union," he says.

Since he split with the AFL-CIO, Stern has become a lightning rod.

Some of Stern's critics have called him arrogant, rude, a small peacock. Asked if the criticism hurts, Stern says: "Yeah, I'm human. I don't like people saying things that are bad about me, but this is not an easy job."

But Stern is also known as a street fighter and will use hardball tactics, against companies such as Wal-Mart. Stern may cozy up to some companies, but nothing gets his blood boiling more than Wal-Mart.

Stern says he's not trying to unionize Wal-Mart — at least not yet. He just wants the retailer to pay what he considers a fair share of its employees' healthcare. So last year he spent millions in union money to push through legislation in Maryland that forced Wal-Mart to spend eight percent of its payroll on healthcare. Now he's going after the company in 30 other states.

"Here we have the leading corporation of America. The most profitable corporation in history," Stern argues. "And, yet, when their workers get sick tonight and they go to the hospital, 50 percent chance they don't have healthcare. You and I, Lesley, are going to pay for their healthcare out of our taxpayer's dollars."

Wal-Mart disputes Andy Stern's assertion that only half its employees have healthcare: in a statement to 60 Minutes, the company says when you factor in those who are covered by a spouse's or parent's plan, or by Medicare, 75 percent of their employees have healthcare.

It's not enough for Andy Stern to take on the largest retailer in America, he's now taking on the world. Recently, he was demonstrating with a group of janitors in London.

Like the head of a big company today, he's going global — recruiting without borders. He has moved organizers into nine different countries.

"You like to say, 'Workers of the world unite.' Which sounds, it is Karl Marx. But that's your, that's your kind of slogan now," Stahl tells Stern.

"Well the good news is, Communism is dead," Stern explains. "But the truth is the phrase means a lot because all of a sudden workers in London and workers in the United States are working for the same employer and the same owners."

The janitors Stern rallied with work for GBM, a cleaning company based in London. Stern says GBM's American affiliate, Pritchard Industries, pays his union janitors in New York up to $20 an hour — twice what GBM non-union cleaners make in London.

"How long is it going to take before they come to New York and say, 'Why are we paying such high wages here when we can pay such lower wages in London?' " asks Stern.

Stern says if GBM doesn't agree to accept a union in London, he might ask janitors such as Emmanuel Tanis to go on strike in New York.

"The workers seem to get it," Stern says. "They understand their power comes from being able to join their voices when they have a common employer. It's a lesson the auto workers haven't learned, and it's a lesson other unions haven't learned as well."

"Here you are, we're talking about janitors and you're sticking it to the AFL-CIO, sticking it to the autoworkers union. You almost can't resist," Stahl says.

"Well, what I'm trying to say is that we have to wake up to the fact that we're in a global economy and people have to change," Stern replies.

That's what he's all about: change. His union critics complain he's encouraging a cult of personality. But if his old friends in the labor movement get offended, well, as he has said, it's a tough business. And it's alright with him.

Right, right. And who pays Lizzie Baker?

Union Corporate Campaign Against Wackenhut

2006-05-29T06:14:00.000-07:00

SERVICE EMPLOYEES (SEIU)

Union’s Corporate Campaign Against Wackenhut Heats Up

The corporate campaign has been an increasingly powerful weapon in organized labor’s arsenal of bargaining tactics. Rather than go on strike, a union targets a company whose practices it finds offensive, links up with civil rights, environmentalist and/or community groups, and launches a blitz that may include in addition to a strike, a boycott, pickets, leaflets, negative public relations, harassment of customers, lawsuits, blackmail, and complaints to regulatory agencies. Unions first applied this tactic during the 70s. Coca-Cola, Food Lion, Nike and Wal-Mart are but a few major corporations that have learned first-hand how rough things can get. Wackenhut Services Inc. (WSI) for the last two years has joined the club. The Service Employees International Union has been trying to publicly discredit the company until it accepts the union as the sole collective bargaining agent. The company, for its part, has a reputation to protect, and is letting people know about it.

The Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.-based Wackenhut is the U.S. government’s largest security services contractor, with 8,000 employees protecting key installations here and abroad. The SEIU, with about 50,000 security and public safety personnel, doesn’t like the fact that Wackenhut guards are represented by at least 10 different unions. It wants the company to sign an exclusive representation agreement. WSI contends such an agreement would circumvent procedures established by the National Labor Relations Act. “Our security officers are already organized, and they are the best paid, best trained security forces in the business,” said Wackenhut President David Foley. “There is no reason to target our company, other than SEIU’s blatant desire to destroy legitimate security unions and expand its membership.”

Such words don’t impress officials of the 1.8 million-member Service Employees, the nation’s largest private-sector union. They’ve been spreading the word that the company, a subsidiary of the London-based Group 4 Securicor, has been lax in its protection of military bases, nuclear power plants and other security-sensitive sites. Citing findings from a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, union officials allege Wackenhut, among other things, cheated on anti-terrorism drills, violated weapons inventory and handling policies, and cut corners on patrols at nuclear power plants. “How many mistakes does a contractor like Wackenhut need to make for agencies like DHS [Department of Homeland Security] to realize that they are not right for the job?,” asked Stephen Lerner, director of SEIU’s Property Services Division. The union has been issuing press releases attacking the company’s competence, firing its latest salvo on April 19, claiming WSI had lost Defense Department competitive-bidding contracts to protect various Army bases, including Fort Bragg, N.C.

WSI President David Foley fired back that this latest statement is as rife with falsehoods as the previous ones. “It is implied by the SEIU that we are the only company working those contracts. This is simply not true,” said Foley, a retired Army Brigadier General. “We are one of six companies that currently work on the DOD contracts in question.” Foley also accused the union of misrepresenting Government Accountability Office findings. “The GAO report did cite several noncompliance issues and problems,” he said, “but none of these were WSI or its teaming partner’s problems.” He added that the original contracts were sole-source contracts after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, put into place as an emergency measure to deploy Army units abroad. “We always knew at some point those contracts would be rebid,” said Foley.

The National Labor Relations Board, at least, appears sympathetic to Wackenhut. The company had filed an unfair labor practice suit with NLRB over tactics used by paid operatives of the SEIU. In turn, the board last July 12 insisted that the union “inform its membership to halt disruptive activities, to not engage in unlawful demonstrations and to not threaten, coerce or restrain clients of Wackenhut,” a directive that extends to third parties. The company may emerge from all this with its reputation intact, but if the more than 30-year history of corporate campaigns is any guide, even a successful defense of a reputation can get expensive. (PR Newswire, 4/20/06; Labor Reform News, 5/9/06; other sources).

Vincent Goodman

2006-05-22T09:48:00.000-07:00

Vincent Goodman
195 Lembeck Avenue
Jersey City, NJ 07305

May 22, 2006

VIA HAND DELIVERY

Magistrate Debra Freeman
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
40 Center Street
New York, NY 10007

Re: Shyron Bynog v. SL Green Realty Corp., et al.
Civil Docket No.: CV 02 1903

Dear Magistrate Freeman:

I was written up by Brian Dooley, VP of Operations of Classic Security for allegedly taking off to many weekends in the summer of 2005, even though I was only a part time security guard and just assigned to work weekends.

It was considered a standard rule as well as strict Classic Security policy that all employees full time or part time give a minimum of a 4 hours notice to the Classic dispatcher when a call out was necessary so as to be able have the shift covered by another guard.

And, in addition, if an employee were to call out and the time of notification was less than the required 4 hours, that employee would stand in violation of Classic policy and be subject to suspension or dismissal that is until proof or evidence was presented to Classic that the call out was justified by an emergency or extreme dire nature that warranted a call out. i.e. an unplanned visit to the hospital accompanied by a doctors note or a death in the immediate family. This is required even for part time employees.

We are told by Classic Security that upon our anniversary date of hire we are suppose to receive an updated calendar of our vacation and personal days.

When my anniversary date of hire came around, which was the end of July 2006, I submitted a request to Classic Security that I would like to work instead of taking the two vacation days owed to me and that I would like to be paid for the two days. I submitted that request in December of 2005.

Much to my surprise, I was later informed by, Mr. Brian Dooley of Classic Security that I was not eligible for any vacation days.

I then contacted a different Classic Security, supervisor, Roderick Jessamie who looked up my work status and found that the two vacation days were owed to me and he saw to it that I was later paid for them.

Some time later, I applied for 3 personal days and again I did not want to take the time off but wanted to be paid for the days--- but again, Mr. Brian Dooley argued that I was not entitled to any personal days and he refused to pay me. I did not get the support of, Supervisor, Rodrick Jessamie that time around and Classic Security kept my time and my money.

Another ridicules power trip that takes place at Classic Security concerns the issuing of Classic Security uniforms and the withholding of our paychecks if the slightest complication arises with regard to our appearance or uniform coordination, which often is not our fault.

Not to mention that I felt like Mr. Brian Dooley was on a witch-hunt regarding me anyway because of my past disagreements with him; but he sent a Field Supervisor, Damon Hunter over to my site---the SL Green owned, Graybar Building at 420, Lexington Avenue, to conduct a uniform inspection and I got written up for not wearing a Classic Security, Fire Safety Director’s issued black business suit.

I explained to Mr. Brian Dooley and Classic that when I was hired back in 2002, I was told at that time that as a, FDNY certified, Fire Safety Directors we were allowed to wear their own suits, if we had any, provided that they were a standard business color, black, navy blue, blue, dark gray, gray, dark brown.

Most of the time I wore my own suits, but on this day I was wearing the standard issued Classic Security, uniform which is a blue blazer with gray slacks and a white shirt, however, Brian Dooley insisted that I be written up by Classic Supervisor, Ms. Conna Cooke for not having on a black business suit.

I called Classic Security that following Monday morning and spoke with Account Manager, Mr. Thomas Garry and told him that during my past 3 years of employment I had never been issued a black business suit by Classic Security for Fire Safety Directors and that I had always worn my own. I told him that I was never informed by anyone that I was not allowed to wear the Classic Security standard issue blue and gray uniform.

Mr. Garry said that he would make arrangements for me to be issued a black business suit as a uniform and that no disciplinary action would be taken against me. He said, that I would receive 2, black suits, 2, ties and 3, white shirts when I reported to the office on Thursday.

I reported to Classic Security on Thursday, and saw Mr. Brian Dooley who became very disagreeable with me and wrote me up anyway for failing to be in proper uniform but I refused to acknowledge the write up by not signing it.

Because I refused to acknowledge or sign the write up, Mr. Brian Dooley retaliated against me and ignored Tom Garry's directive to issue me 2, black business suits and he only issued me 1, black suit, 1, white shirt and 1, tie.

Classic Security even refused to give me my paycheck until the uniform situation
was cleared up. I went to the uniform store, picked up the suit and then had to returned to the office again because, Tom Garry then wanted to see the suits that I had been issued.

When I told him that Brian Dooley had not issued me the required amount of uniforms the problem then escalated again and Tom Garry got frustrated with Brian Dooley. Tom Garry sent me back to the uniform store again but that time I was only issued 3, white shirts and did not get an extra uniform.

I was written up and my money was withheld because Classic Security has an overwhelming amount of internal problems as you can clearly see.

A final incident occurred in December of 2005, which involved, Classic
Security guard, Hubert Johnson. I had some differences outside the work site at 420 Lexington Avenue with Mr. Johnson and due to our personal disagreements my work environment became very uncomfortable. I contacted Tom Garry and informed him that I was having problems with Mr. Johnson and I requested a transfer.

Tom Garry refused to discuss or address the problem, so I decided to take a leave of absence thinking that things would cool down and I could later return to Classic Security if I needed work.

I had gotten other FDNY, Fire Safety Director, and security sites to work but didn't want to abandon Classic Security fully and again I tried to reassure Tom Garry that I wanted to cooperate and keep the door open with regard to future work but Tom Garry became very disrespectful and abusive toward me. He accused me of exaggerating the problem with Mr. Johnson and said that I wanted to take time off just to be with my family

In my own defense, I had worked for Classic Security for 3 years and I had never taken off any holidays always opting to get paid for them instead to increase my income. Even when I started working as FSD of Port Authority in 2004 I always worked the holiday schedule to increase my income.

Even if Tom Garry’s malicious personal attack on me were true and I only wanted time off to be with my family, I feel like I was entitled to whatever time I needed because I was only a part time employee and therefore not obligated to adhere to a rigid schedule.

Just before our final conversation I became aware that Classic Security had a Fire Safety Director, and security contract with 90 Broad Street and I remembered that I had already been issued an FSD, Certificate of Fitness License for that building.

I urged Tom Garry that if it is possible he could assign me to that building. I told him that I had worked that building in the past for 2 years and that I knew the Chief-Engineer Carmelo. Tom Garry still refused to listen or work with me in any way.

As a result, I resigned due to the arrogant willful stubbornness of Tom Garry and continuing issues and circumstances that surrounded my responsibilities with Classic Security.

I was constantly reprimanded for unjust reasons and I was never represented by a union delegate from the imaginary union over at S.L. Green and Classic Security which is suppose to be NUSOG but, more than likely is some kind of back room operation at NOITU.

I can attest to the fact and I understand through other Classis Security guards that Brian Dooley signed our last contract and that there is not a single guard in the entire company that has ever seen a copy of it or has a clue as to what it says. Rumor also has it that Mr. Dooley’s wife works at the NUSOG headquarters in Jamaica, New York

Classic Security or NUSOG/NOITU did not notify us about a new contract nor were we allowed to take part in accepting or refusing the conditions of a new contract or participate in any manner that could be characterized as a collective bargaining agreement.

What kind of Union do you call this? I call it a bogus Union set up by a father and son team of building service providers designed to manipulate and steal money from the uneducated low wageworker.

The benefits provided by NUSOG/NOITU are questionable too because when you work for a father and son team they control the buildings, shifts and hours, which means we never get the required hours to meet the status of a full time employee that allows security guards to quality for the bogus benefits.

During my employment at Classic Security I had to apply for Medicaid
in New York State and Charity Care in New Jersey State---their so-called benefits didn’t even cover my family for a clinic visit or an emergency room visit but all the while they are automatically deducting $28 per month out of my part time pay check.

In closing, I filed a complaint with NLRB regarding non-representation, unfortunately the time had expired for me to get any positive results, however I was informed by a law clerk that they are aware of Classic Security setting up its own Union but they can only take action once the guards themselves come forward, report the violation and take action to expose the fraud.

It is my sincerest hope that this letter to the Court at this opportune time when Classic Security and SL Green are in Court regarding serious labor law abuses will expose their seething hatred, distain and abuse to people of color.

Sincerely,

Vince Goodman
Port Authority
FDNY- Certified Fire Safety Director

Judge William H. Pauley
James M. Woolsey, III, Esq.

Mark Green by Fredrick Dicker

2006-04-24T07:07:00.000-07:00

Silver Bullet

Shel may doom some Dems.
Ferdrick Dicker
New York Post

April 24, 2006 -- THE state's most powerful Democrat is dealing a blow to long-shot gubernatorial hopeful Tom Suozzi and five would-be candidates for attorney general.
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver told The Post he'll oppose efforts now being made by some of the potential candidates to grant them automatic spots on the September primary ballot if they're unable to win the required 25 percent vote at next month's Democratic nominating convention.

"I believe you have to earn the right to be on the ballot," said Silver.
"I think it's not worth having the process if anyone who signs up to come is automatically granted the 25 percent.

"It wasn't given to Andrew Cuomo against Carl McCall [in 2002] and it wasn't given to Eliot Spitzer [in 1994 or 1998], so there's no reason to change that policy now," added Silver.

Attorney General Spitzer, who is backed by Silver for governor, made a similar declaration earlier this year.

Candidates who don't get at least 25 percent at the convention will be required to circulate nominating petitions, a potentially costly and difficult process.
The party waived the requirement for a 25 percent vote amid considerable controversy once in the past, when the Rev. Al Sharpton unsuccessfully challenged then-U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan in the primary.

Suozzi, the Nassau County executive, enjoys little party support and has said he's preparing to circulate petitions.

But former Public Advocate Mark Green and four other lesser-known candidates for attorney general are struggling to reach the 25 percent mark, and some of the candidates - knowing they won't attain it - have called on party leaders to grant all candidates an automatic ballot spot.

Only former federal Housing Secretary Andrew Cuomo appears certain to have at least 25 percent of the vote among the AG candidates.
Meanwhile, Suozzi has abandoned his pledge not to directly attack Spitzer, with an increasingly shrill series of broadsides against the overwhelming front-runner for governor.

fredric.dicker@nypost.com

State Targets Shady Classic Security Guards

2006-04-23T17:48:00.000-07:00

RECURITMENT

Our security guards are a cut above the industry standard.

(Yeah right, because my daddty, Darth Vader Sr. paid big bucks to some four-star ad agency to write this copy. Don't you just love it! And, what you don’t know is that my business name, Classic Security, appeared in a Daily News article, "STATE TARGETS SHADY GUARDS" by Brian Kates, dated June, 30th 2002, featuring our outstanding ability to hire ex-cons and place them at all our 29 office building sites-- that way we can save the tenant money by forcing the Local 32 B&J union members to manage them on the job.)

Our interview and qualification process ensures that we engage highly qualified and responsible individuals who are serious about long-term employment.

(Yes indeedie, that's because me and my daddy, Darth Vader Sr. have brain washed all the poor little people of color into believing that $7.50 is a union wage. Then we cooked up the brilliant sceme of creating our own union and calling it NUSOG that way when we can suck union dues right out of all their checks.)

Our health benefits allow Classic to attract personnel of the highest caliber, primarily those individuals with families who are committed to maintaining a career in the security industry.

(Except, I created another brilliant self serving loop hole here by not telling the guards that they are only entitled to our measley insurance if they work 35-40 hours a week. I'm so proud of myself. But, again, I, Baby Darth Vader, Gary Greed, will ensure that they will never work the necessary hours because my daddy owns the building and we can just keep them running from one lunch relief shift to another. But, really, putting all the money scemes aside, the thing I really like doing most it admiring my own nip and tucked enhanced face in the mirror. Don't you like all my new teeth?)

IN HOUSE TRAINING

Training that is limited to the twenty-four hour New York State Certification requirements does not meet the Classic Security’s standard.

(Yes, you heard correctly, because we excel in not registering our guards at all with NYS Dept. of State which saves us thousands and thousands of dollars a year that we donate to my uncle, Mark Greeds Machine. But, you know what? Just between me and you. My daddy, is really a getting fed-up with him because his arrogance is getting in the way of our burning desire to win public office. Hmm. Were thinking of having him knocked off?)

Candidates receive in-house training in such areas as fire safety and emergency procedures, crime prevention, prevention of violence in the workplace, bomb threat procedures, telecommunications and computer skills, report writing, and communication skills and are advised on personal appearance requirements.

(And we even ensure that they will never become certified because we advise our security officers to pay $300 fee to FDNY for certification as Fire Safety Director and we then wait until they have spent their money on the training only to be informed by the FDNY that they need at least 5 years experience to be certified. See. The Pecker family and the Greed family sure do make a great team together.)

Each applicant visits a job site to study these systems and procedures in operation.

(Another one of my brilliant self-serving cost saving ideas, I just send them to the building and let the concierge try to train and manage them. But, the real key is to make sure that they never really learn anything of value about any of the buildings--- that way I can hold on to their checks and write up false reports on their conduct when I feel that I need to show power over them.)

ON SITE TRAINING EVALUATION

Security officers receive continual training to familiarize them with the property and the post orders for the assignment. Security officers are consistently, evaluated on-site to ensure that they are meeting the requirements of the assignment, know the buildings regulations, and are maintaining a well-groomed and professional appearance.

(We send old fat ugly Brian Tom Dooley to our building sites to follow up on just how many guards understand that they are in the position of security officer therefore it is their job to check visitors ID's, however because old fat ugly Brian Tom Dooley eats a dozen Krispy Kremes on the way he geneerally fails to follow through---Thank goodness his wife over at NUSOG is paying off Classic to keep his job)

Each building possesses a unique quality and essence that must be protected, not only by the security officer’s proficiency, but also by their demeanor and appearance.

(That is why we had to hire an entire staff of over-weight-out-of-shape-retired police officers so that when our ex-cons get out of hand or break into offices to steal and rob we can send over our own NYPD, who feign concern and then blame the tenant for their own lack of security. Because we are the Greed family and we all think alike money, money, money...)

We know how to balance a visible and unobtrusive security presence. We come from commercial real estate background. We have “walked” in your shoes.

(Okay, to tell the truth, I hate your shoes. All I want is for you to pay me for my ability to lie. And, because my daddy owns the building you don't have much choice-- now do you? But, the sheer beauty of it all is that I will never ever get in caught. The tenants don’t know that if they call SL Green to complain about the Classic Security Officers, that my daddy and I just sit back and laugh. I hope Mr. Greed's laugh is loud enough to quench the fires of hell.)

SUPERVISION

Classic Security has among the highest supervisor-to-officer ratios in the industry. We conduct regularly scheduled as well as unannounced reviews of our personnel in the field and our supervisors respond immediately whenever their presence is required. We continually monitor our client’s security requirements to ensure that the best possible strategy is being pursued.

(After all, we have Thomas Brain-Dead Garry on our team. Okay, he is really a MORON. Most of the people I talk too, tenants and guards alike hate him but the poor old ugly sap needs a job and NYPD paid us a lot of money to take him off their hands besides his goose is almost cooked, so just bare with us a little while longer.)

MANAGEMENT STYLE & ACCOUNTABILITY

Coupled with our extensive experience in all matters of security services, our experience of building management and operation has prepared us to value the care and vigilance needed to manage an efficient and safe working environment. Our style is hands-on and proactive, and our focus is solely, to fulfill our clients needs. We seek to create a long-term partnership with our clients and we have the knowledge and the resources to gain that trust.

(Wow! Man, oh man! Don't you just love the way that sounds! Whoa! I sound like a Saint! I just love it! Who cares that what I really think? Who cares about what I really believe? The bottom line in management is nepotism!!! And, I am here to live it and enjoy it all the way to HELL. It’s the FREE PASS!!! that I have had all my life that makes other people respect and look up to me. Isn’t life just wonderful!)

SERVICES

(See all these services that I created-- that sprung right from my very own little pea brain, to serve my people. The people that I love. The people that I think need to learn to serve me first and then I can rip them off in bogus services with my bogus union over at NUSOG. I'm just so delighted with my own abilities.)

Concierge/Lobby Officers
· Uniformed and Plainclothes Security Officers
· 24 Hour Dispatch
· Undercover Operatives
· Executive, Celebrity and Special Event Protection
· Couriers/Secure Transportation
· Security Site Survey
· Retail Loss Prevention
· Fraud and Theft Prevention
· Electronic Access Control and Surveillance Systems: Design, Installation, and Maintenance
· Primary Residence
· Airport Security Teams
· Hotel Security Teams
· Mobile Security Teams
· Certified Security Training
· First Aid & CPR Training

Hell ---The Divine Comedy

2006-04-12T04:49:00.000-07:00

The Divine Comedy

“The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who,
in a time of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality.”
Dante

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PAINS OF HELL

(1) The pains of hell differ in degree according to demerit. This holds true not only of the pain of sense, but also of the pain of loss. A more intense hatred of God a more vivid consciousness of utter abandonment by Divine goodness, a more restless craving to satisfy the natural desire for beatitude with things external to God a more acute sense of shame and confusion at the folly of having sought happiness in earthly enjoyment -- all this implies as its correlation a more complete and more painful separation from God.

(2) The pains of hell are essentially immutable; there are no temporary intermissions or passing alleviations. A few Fathers and theologians, in particular the poet Prudentius, expressed the opinion that on stated days God grants the damned a certain respite, and that besides this the prayers of the faithful obtain for them other occasional intervals of rest.

(3) Hell is a state of the greatest and most complete misfortune, as is evident from all that has been said. The damned have no joy whatever, and it were better for them if they had not been born (Matt., xxvi, 24).

Taxpayers Against Fraud

2006-03-29T18:14:00.000-08:00

Read the full story:
The City Journal
by Steven Malanga
March 29, 2006

Meanwhile, Taxpayers Against Fraud works the media. Cited dozens of times a year in press stories as an advocate for the FCA, it has successfully encouraged a handful of states to enact their own versions of the legislation—allowing similar suits in state courts, though state prosecutors don’t operate under the GAO’s watchful eye. And press accounts on the FCA often quote Taxpayers Against Fraud without mentioning that it isn’t a real taxpayer group, just a propaganda instrument of lawyers who benefit from the laws the group promotes.

One danger of the false-claims lawsuit frenzy is that it will distract from the broader work of tracking down Medicaid fraud. Local pol Mark Green—who began his public career working for trial-lawyer ally Ralph Nader, and is now running for state attorney general—last year penned a Times op-ed to lobby for a New York version of the FCA as the remedy for the state’s Medicaid woes. Green quoted Taxpayers Against Fraud without mentioning that the group’s chairman, Neil Getnick, is a supporter of his election bid and that Getnick’s law firm could benefit enormously from a New York state law.

A New York FCA can be one weapon in an arsenal against Medicaid fraud. But it needs sensible provisions to discourage abuse, including limiting the size of whistle-blower awards and requiring that whistle-blowers try to end fraud at their employer before filing suits. The federal law has created open season on legitimate companies and sparked a plaintiffs-bar feeding frenzy. That’s not what Congress intended—and no model for New York.

Top 10 SEIU---Salary

2006-03-23T18:39:00.000-08:00

You will want to visit the Union Whistleblower Blog @ www.unionfacts.com
Look up the list of SEIU employees to find the salary, tips and wages of the MORONS who claim to have your best interest in mind. Yeah! It's a real joke! But hang with me baby---the fun has just begun.

Top 10 International SEIU

Leaders & Staff (by Salary)

Name Title Total Compensation
Andrew Stern------Int'l President------ $ 230,536
Anna Burger------ Sec Treasurer------ $ 200,746
Tom Woodruff------ Ex Vice Pres------ $ 193,750
Eliseo Medina------ Ex Vice Pres------ $ 182,981
George Francisco------ Executive Board------ $ 161,786
Carolyn Mccullough------ Ny Nurss All Crd------$ 161,242
Kirk Adams------ Chief Of Staff------ $ 153,947
Stephen Lerner------ Bldg Service------ $ 151,797
Elisabe Gustafson------ Chief Finc'l Op------$ 151,451
Gina Glantz------ Atp/strat Is Pol------ $ 147,473

NLRB --not on members side

2006-03-23T14:50:00.000-08:00

Union Busting Watch

NLRB Supports Union's Claims against Hackensack, N.J., Cleaning Company (Mar. 6, 2002)

This article originally appeared in the The Hackensack Record on March 6, 2002.

Mar. 6--A Hackensack cleaning company with contracts in corporate offices throughout Bergen County illegally threatened, intimidated, and fired low-paid cleaning employees seeking to align themselves with a union, an investigation by the National Labor Relations Board has concluded.

The board's New Jersey office, in a nine-page complaint, found numerous cases of unfair labor practices in violation of the workers' rights by Skyscraper BMS Inc., which also does business as SBM Services, said Michael Lightener, the board's regional attorney.

The case will be heard by an administrative law court in Newark on April 16, he said. The board is seeking back pay and reinstatement for workers fired and a commitment that the company will not repeat the practices, Lightener said.

The complaint supports allegations brought to the board by Local 32BJ of the Service Employees International Union concerning the company's response to the union organizing campaign between last August and October, Lightener said.

"Based upon our investigations, there were numerous instances where employees were subjected to threats, or intimated, and [the company] engaged in surveillance ... . other types of reprisals," said Lightener. "These are, in our experience, typical examples of unfair labor practices that can go on during a union organizing campaign."

At least 18 employees were fired by the company as a result of the campaign, the complaint alleges, prompting workers on Oct. 2 to stage a one-day strike. Although almost all of the workers were subsequently reinstated, Lightener said, the legitimacy of the company's actions in re-employing them is unclear in some cases.

Some of the employees were not returned to their old jobs but were given assignments at different locations where the company shortly after lost the contract, making the workers again jobless, Lightener said.

Skyscraper officials declined to comment on the case.

Sara Flores, 34, a Passaic resident who was fired and later reinstated to her position cleaning at 50 Tice Blvd. in Woodcliff Lake, welcomed the board's support.

"All we want is for Skyscraper to obey the laws and respect our rights," Flores said. "We are just looking for justice."

The board's conclusion is the latest salvo in the ongoing effort -- called Justice For Janitors -- by Local 32BJ to organize office cleaning and maintenance workers around New Jersey, most of them immigrants.

In Bergen County, the workers are mostly Hispanics who earn about $5.50 an hour cleaning offices from 6 to 10 p.m. with no health benefits, union officials say. The organizing efforts have included picketing offices where the workers clean, holding rallies, and enlisting the support of religious and political leaders.

A federal judge in January found that supervisors at Rutgers University illegally threatened and intimidated three low-paid cleaning workers at the college's Newark campus after the workers sought union representation.

The offices cleaned by Skyscraper that were identified in the NLRB's complaint include 300 Tice Blvd. and 530 Chestnut Ridge Road in Woodcliff Lake, 140 E. Ridgewood Road in Ridgewood, and 500 Frank W. Burr Boulevard in Teaneck, also known as Glenpointe.

"Workers are standing up to fight for the American dream," said Michael P. Fishman, president of the Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ. "And irresponsible contractors will not stand in the way of the workers' desire to win living wages, health insurance, and respect on the job."

Justice For Janitors--the facts

2006-03-23T08:48:00.000-08:00

Bogus Low Wage Unionism

The Facts Behind the Justice For Janitors Campaign

"DEMOCRACY" SEIU STYLE, TRUSTEE APPOINTED BY ANDY STERN ELECTED PRESIDENT OF A LOCAL HE ISN'T A MEMBER OF SEIU

from the FORWARD:

EDITOR'S NOTE:
LOCAL 32bj OF THE SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION REPRESENTS 55,000 COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SERVICE WORKERS IN NEW YORK CITY. THE LOCAL WAS BIGGER, 70,000 WORKERS AT ONE TIME, BUT IT'S FORMER PRESIDENT, $ 400,000 A YEAR REPUTED ORGANIZED CRIME ASSOCIATE GUS BEVONA, ALLOWED MANY EMPLOYERS TO RIP UP UNION CONTRACTS AND DECERTIFY.

32bj'S MEMBERS ARE THE BEST PAID BUILDING SERVICE WORKERS IN AMERICA, WITH $17 AN HOUR AS TOP SCALE, [MANY MEMBERS MAKE LESS, THEY HAVE A MULTI TIERED CONTRACT]. STILL ABOUT $8 BUCKS LESS THAN THE BUILDING SERVICE WORKERS BUILDING TRADES COUNTERPARTS, LABORERS, WHO MAKE $ 25.55, BUT, BETTER THAN THE NEAR MINIMUM WAGE CONTRACTS OF MOST OTHER SEIU BUILDING TRADES LOCALS.

OF COURSE, 32bj'S PAY SCALE SAYS LESS ABOUT HOW GOOD THEIR CONTRACTS ARE, BUT HOW BAD THE REST OF THAT UNION IS.

32bj JUST CAME OUT OF TRUSTEESHIP, AND THEY HAVE AN ELECTED PRESIDENT, ONE MIKE FISHMAN. FISHMAN WAS THE TRUSTEE THAT THE SEIU'S $ 250,000 A YEAR PRESIDENT, ANDY STERN, APPOINTED.

AND, IN THE TYPICAL TOTALITARIAN STYLE OF THE SELF PROCLAIMED "LOW WAGE UNION", FISHMAN never worked a day in his life as a building service
worker!

FISHMAN IS A FORMER OFFICER OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, WHO WAS HIRED ONTO THE SEIU STAFF. AT ONE POINT IN HIS YOUTH, FISHMAN ACTUALLY WORKED AS A CARPENTER, BUT HE'S NEVER CLEANED A BUILDING, OR BEEN A DOORMAN.

QUARTER MILLION A YEAR SEIU PRESIDENT STERN ACTUALLY HAD TO AMEND 32bjS BYLAWS TO ALLOW SOMEBODY LIKE FISHMAN WHO HADN'T ACTUALLY BEEN A MEMBER TO BE THE LOCAL PRESIDENT!

AND, OF COURSE, THE GUY WHO WAS ONE OF THE leaders OF THE REFORM MOVEMENT IN 32bj, BUILDING PORTER CARLOS GUZMAN, WAS SHUT OUT OF ANY LEADERSHIP POSITION.
AND, IT GETS UGLIER.

LOCAL 32bj, LIKE MANY SEIU BUILDING SERVICE LOCALS, IS MOSTLY LATINO,
ABOUT 70%, AND MOST OF THE WHITE, BLACK AND ASIAN MEMBERS ARE ALSO IMMIGRANTS. BUT, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN RUN BY AMERICAN BORN WHITE OFFICERS. FISHMAN CONTINUES THAT TRADITION.

BUT, THE NEW LOCAL 32bj PRESIDENT, AND JOANN BARKAN, THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE BELOW, TRY TO FLIP THE SCRIPT. THEY IMPLY THAT GUZMAN SENT OUT ANONYMOUS "ANTI SEMETIC" LEAFLETS AGAINST FISHMAN. OF COURSE, THIS ENABLES FISHMAN TO DODGE THE BIG QUESTION; WHY DOES A MAJORITY LATINO LOCAL HAVE A WHITE PRESIDENT?

BARKAN ALSO CONTINUES HER BIAS TOWARDS FISHMAN BY ONLY QUOTING WORKERS WHO SUPPORTED HIM, AND NOT QUOTING ANY GUZMAN SUPPORTERS. GUZMAN IS DEPICTED IN THE QUOTES AS "...he wasn't prepared to be union president. He was just a little guy like me." OR "I don't think he's qualified to handle a big job like that,You need experience for that kind of responsibility."

WHICH IS JUST A NICE WAY OF SAYING THAT JANITORS ARE TOO DUMB TO RUN THEIR OWN UNION. AND USING THE JOURNALISTIC TRICK OF MAKING THE AUTHOR'S ANTI BUILDING SERVICE WORKER BIAS LOOK LEGITIMATE BY QUOTING BUILDING SERVICE WORKERS AS SAYING THE SLURS THEMSELVES.

IT APPEARS THAT REPORTER BARKAN HAS THE EXACT SAME CONTEMPTIOUS MENTALITY TOWARDS BUILDING SERVICE WORKERS AS THE SEIU LEADERSHIP ITSELF.
SO MUCH FOR "DEMOCRACY" IN THE "LOW WAGE UNION" THE SEIU.

Andy Stern--Lack of Democracy

2006-03-18T13:10:00.000-08:00

THE ARTICLE:

New Boss Vows To Clean Up Janitors' Union

A Fresh Face, or an Outsider Who Signals a Lack of Democracy?

By JOANNE BARKAN

FORWARD STAFF

It could have been a scene straight out of an uplifting Hollywood union saga:

AFL-CIO president John Sweeney and 700 workers gathered in New York City earlier this month to watch the swearing-in of a reform administration that salvaged a corrupt union. It was, in fact, the very union where Mr. Sweeney started his career.

For most observers, the election of Mike Fishman as president of local 32BJ of the Service Employees International Union marked a new beginning for one of the region's largest private-sector unions. The local represents 55,000 janitors, doormen and superintendents in residential and commercial buildings in the city and northern New Jersey.

But for others, the picture is not all rosy, and for them the election of a putative "outsider" is a sign of a lack of internal democracy and rank-and-file involvement in the labor movement.

Mr. Fishman belonged to the team of trustees sent in by SEIU's Washington headquarters to take charge of the local after rank-and-file dissidents toppled longtime boss Gus Bevona in February 1999. Mr. Bevona was forced out after lawsuits disclosed that he was earning a salary of more than $400,000 and had outfitted his office as a marble palace.

Critics point to the fact that Mr. Fishman did not rise through the ranks of the local and the fact that only 18% of the membership voted in the election .

"The new leadership is honest, and they're trying to do something decent," Carl Biers, the director of the Association for Union Democracy, told the Forward. "But it's a top-down, staff-driven model. They come in with a plan and dictate what the members' role is."

The most vocal critic of the new leadership is Carlos Guzman, a building porter who initiated the insurgency that brought down Mr. Bevona. For years Mr. Guzman had been accusing Mr. Bevona of autocratic leadership and mismanaging union funds. His lawsuits showed that Mr. Bevona had hired private investigators, at union expense, to harass him.

"I led the revolution against Bevona. I struggled for almost 10 years," Mr. Guzman told the Forward. "So I deserve to be the union's leader. But they don't want a minority person. I don't think I have a right to leadership because I'm a minority; I have a right because I brought Bevona down."

The Ecuadorian-born Mr. Guzman, 53, has been a member of the local 32BJ for 30 years. He ran for union president against Mr. Bevona three times in the 1990s. This year, running against Mr. Fishman and a third candidate, he pulled 906 votes to Mr. Fishman's 7,785.

Mr. Fishman, the new president, is a onetime carpenter who rose through the ranks of the carpenters' union before coming to the service employees as an aide to union president Andrew Stern. Both Mr. Stern and Mr. Fishman are Jewish, although that appears to play little role in the current dispute. About one-eighth of the union chiefs who make up the AFL-CIO executive council are Jewish.

Mr. Fishman insists Mr. Guzman was offered a role in rebuilding the union and denies any ethnic discrimination. "When the trusteeship began, Carlos was asked to be part of the team," Mr. Fishman told the Forward. "But he refused to come in. Carlos just wanted to run the union."

Mr. Fishman said that another dissident, Dominick Bentivegna, accepted union proposals and is now an elected officer. Mr. Bentivegna confirmed that and stated that other dissidents had joined the staff. Mr. Guzman is now challenging the August 7 balloting, claiming that Mr. Fishman's election violates the 32BJ constitution because the new president is technically not a local member. His challenge is now before the leadership of SEIU. If he's unsuccessful, Mr. Guzman said, he'll take his complaint to the U.S. Department of Labor.

Labor experts note that the local's constitution was suspended when trustees were brought in, making Mr. Guzman's legal case weak. Yet "he has a strong ethical point," Mr. Biers said. "The international [union] wasn't friendly and didn't reach out to him during the years he was struggling against Bevona. It's a common thing in the labor movement to look on independent-minded, principled members as annoyances."

According to Mr. Guzman, he and Mr. Bentivegna worked out an agreement with the top leadership of SEIU in January 1999 to drop their lawsuit against Mr. Bevona in exchange for Mr. Bevona's resignation. The two dissidents were to be offered "positions of responsibility" when SEIU set up the trusteeship.

Mr. Guzman maintains that SEIU didn't keep the deal, assigning him instead to lower-level jobs. "I told them that in my country when someone makes trouble, they send him to another country to get rid of him," he said. "I just went back to my old job as a porter."

The drama began in 1998 when lawsuits initiated by Mr. Guzman disclosed that Mr. Bevona was drawing a princely salary and had spent $500,000 in union funds to publish a book praising his own leadership. Just before his departure, Mr. Bevona negotiated golden parachutes - worth about $7 million in total - for himself, his wife and several dozen associates.

A week after Mr. Bevona stepped down, SEIU invited reporters to tour his private, 3,000-square-foot penthouse office - a suite of more than a dozen marble-covered rooms in an office tower that Mr. Bevona had built in the early 1990s.

According to union officials, local 32BJ lost some 10,000 members between 1995 and 1999 by allowing major firms such as Citibank to contract out cleaning services to non-union companies. In the 18 months following Mr. Bevona's departure, the local's trustees began to reverse the long-term decline. Since 1999, membership has grown to 55,000 from about 52,000.

"Our goal is to organize 10,000 new members during our three-year term of office," Mr. Fishman said.

Mr. Fishman's commitment to labor organizing began when he dropped out of college and became a carpenter. "I saw my good union wages being threatened by non-union workers," he said. "Organizing is the only way to keep up good wages for those who have them. Plus, every worker should be organized into a union."

Local 32BJ's focus on organizing reflects the strategy of the AFL-CIO since 1995, when John Sweeney became president. Since then, "Grow or Die" has become a labor-movement slogan. Most observers agree that increasing membership is crucial to rescuing the movement. Although Mr. Sweeney has managed to brake the membership decline, unionization has not grown significantly. It still hovers at around 17% of the American labor force, down from about one-third in the 1950s. Labor advocates say the decline in union membership is a key reason for growing American income inequality, currently the highest in the industrialized world. Some observers argue that organizing new members without boosting internal democracy does little to fight apathy and strengthen the membership. "The fact that there wasn't a higher turnout for the election reflects the members' sense that things haven't changed," said Mr. Biers, the union-democracy advocate. The average turnout for local union is about 25%, he said.

For Mr. Fishman, the 18% turnout for local 32BJ's election was disappointing but not surprising. "It was a little less than we'd expected, for sure," he said. "But about a thousand more members voted this time than in the last election. We want to raise it more."

Another striking feature of the election results was the low number of votes won by Mr. Guzman. Because Mr. Fishman and his slate had led the union for 18 months, they had the advantages of incumbency. But the dissidents, especially Mr. Guzman, received a great deal of press attention at the time of Mr. Bevona's departure.

Several union members interviewed by the Forward said they saw Mr. Guzman as a courageous man who had taken risks and made sacrifices but that they didn't see him as a union president. "I don't think he's qualified to handle a big job like that," said Jerry Rodriguez, doorman and shop steward for 35 years on Manhattan's Upper West Side. "You need experience for that kind of responsibility."

"He did a really good thing," another doorman said. "He was the first to go after Bevona, but he wasn't prepared to be union president. He was just a little guy like me."

Neither union officials nor rank-and-file members thought prejudice had played a part in the elections - although an unsigned anti-Semitic leaflet appeared on the Upper East Side one day in July.

"It showed a photo of me and my slate," Mr. Fishman said. "It read, 'Don't let Rabbi Fishman and his minions take over our union.' We responded with an immediate statement asking whoever it was to stop. It was an anomalous event." Mr. Guzman said he knew nothing about the leaflet's origin. "From the beginning in 1986, I've put my name at the bottom of all my fliers. I

get the credit or the blame."

When asked if his Jewish background had ever been the cause of tension or even a topic of interest, Mr. Fishman said, "No. There is so much diversity in 32BJ. It's a wonderful thing about our local."

According to union figures, 70% of the local's members are foreign-born. They come from 60 countries and speak 25 languages. After English, Spanish is the most common language, with sizeable groups speaking Albanian, Polish, and Serbian. Recent Irish immigrants make up about 4% of the membership.

Under Mr. Fishman's leadership the union is mounting an organizing drive at a half-dozen buildings in downtown Manhattan. It is also fighting in Queens and Nassau county against HIP, a health maintenance organization that dismissed its union contractor for maintenance work and hired a non-union company. The non-union company fired longtime workers making $12 an hour and hired new workers for the health plan at $7 an hour - without health benefits.

Local 32BJ officials are still trying to solve a real estate problem created by the previous regime: finding a tenant for Mr. Bevona's penthouse.

Officials say renting the property could bring in as much as $1 million a year. But, a union spokesperson said, "it's an odd space - not quite office, not quite apartment. And a lot of people aren't crazy about having everything covered with marble."

New York Union Story: Ivan G. Orsorio

2005-10-24T20:00:00.000-07:00

Capital Research Center
Labor Watch
SEIU Conflicts Over Control Corruption, and Politics
By Ivan G. Orsorio

While SEIU faces protests from California and Canada over its centralizing policies. It confronts an ongoing problem of internal corruption that centers in New York, where the union is very strong in both numbers and political influence.

SEIU Locals 32B& 32J and 1199 are political powerhouses in both New York city and state politics. The 70,000-member Local 32B & 32J in New York City is particularly important:AFL-CIO president John Sweeney's immediate succssor at the local was Gus Bevona, who ruled the union with an iron fist for 18 years, and stepped down after the union members sued him for improperly spending $2.4 million in union funds.

At one time the nation's highest-paid union boss, Gus Bevona got nearly a million dollars a year from several sources. In addition to his $412,000 Local 32B & 32J
salary, he also was paid by the SEIU parent union, a regional council, and another affiliated local. When he "RETIRED" in 1999 with a $1.5 million severance payment, Bevona left behind a $6 million marble office penthouse in Manhattan paid for by members dues--about $500 a year from each of the 55,000 members in the late 1990s. Several Bevona cronies made off with about $5.3 million in severance payments.
(Yes, indeed, all you die-hard union members out there, make sure that you tell Mr. Mike Fishman (and big-red-nosed Brian Lampbert)(sic)that you want to spend one weekend out of each month in that $6 million dollar penthouse that your money bought and paid for. I bet those union FAT CATS will just love see you arrive with your overnight bag.)

SEIU (Conflicts Over Control, Corruption & Politics)

2005-10-23T22:00:00.000-07:00

Capital Research Center
Labor Watch
The Service Industry International Union
Conflicts Over Control, Corruption & Politics
by Ivan G. Osorio

The Service Employees Inernational Union (SEIU) recently surpassed the Teamsters as the largest union in the AFL-CIO. Thanks to agressive organizing of unskilled low-wage workers, the 1.5 million-member SEIU is growing larger, bucking the national trend of declining union membership. (Yep, that means you over at First Quality Maintenance, and SL Green. And, yes, you are right again, your union refers to you as an unskilled-low-wage-worker who is a perfect target for manipulation and abuse.)

SEIU may have reason to celebrate, but success may be swelling the union's head. (In other words, Mr. Mike Fishman has fallen in love with seeing his plump face in the mirror because nobody loves him as much as he loves himself.)

SEIU leaders adopted a reorganization SCHEME called the "New Strength Unity Plan" to amend the union's constitution to raise dues and give SEIU headquaters more authority over local union matters. The Unity Plan has provoked cries of protest from many rank-and-file members over its many provisions to centralize union decision-making. The plan does the following.

*Imposes a uniform identity on all SEIU-affiliated local unions by requiring locals to give up their names and logos and adopt the purple-and-gold SEIU banner.

*Imposes gradually increasing asessments per member.

*Raises the dues minium and raises and eventually phases out the dues cap. (by 2004)

*Gives the SEIU international president power to intervene in local union affairs and gives SEIU the power to demand joint bargaining among locals.

*Gives SEIU greater control over Canadian local's dues.

While Canadian locals are exempt from many of the new assessments, the Unity Plan gives SEIU headquarters the authority to spend Canadian local's dues as it sees fit. Resolution #55 contains the provision: The revenue (you, the members dues money) from per capita taxes paid by Canadian Local Unions shall be spent by the International Union for activities that support Canadian Local Unions. The resolution does not specify what constitues "support" which could be just about anything. (Yeah, Baby! These BIG BOYS are sucking you dry. Yeah, Baby! You need a union like Local 32 B&J like you need a hole in your head.)

SEIU and New York City Politics
Local 32 B&J endorsed Democrat Mark Green in the recent city mayoral elections. His loss to Republican Michael Bloomberg wasn't for lack of trying on the union's part. According to the Village Voice it signed-up 8,000 new members for a new political fund and enrolled over 1,000 as election-day "volunteers" for Green.

Indeed the local may have gone overboard in its enthusiasm for Green. (Yeah, baby! You need SL Green's brother as your Mayor, and you need, SL Green's son, Gary Green as your office cleaner, and you need, SL Green's son as your security guard provider and you need SL Green's son as your messenger service. Shoot man, you probably need SL Green just to help you run your house hold and help you count the few bucks that he is going to leave you with. All in the family here that's for sure. No, lying or stealing going here baby. They are the holier-than-thou, richer-than-thou and more-educated-than-thou. They don't steal, lie or cheat. It's called business, baby, just plain and simple business.)

SL Green Buildings

2005-04-23T13:00:00.000-07:00

At this time, unfortunately, I am unable to announce my building tour schedule, but I promise to see you all very soon at an SL Green building near you.

As you can see by my list of buildings below, Mr. SL has 29 (give or take a few) buildings that I have to get around to, so it may take a little time and effort. But don't you worry, I promise to visit each and every one of them and fill you in on all the developing (and juicy) details.

If you would like to have me set up a Meet & Greet of That Green Girl at your building next, please contact me via email so I can arrange my schedule accordingly.

Yes sir! Baby, these are the up-standing millionaires that you are suppose to respect and look up to. These are the so called role models in our society. These are the ones that hire an entire staff to write brilliant newsletters about themselves. These are the ones that steal from the little people who have nothing so that they can give millions to non profit charities (and family political campaigns) for tax write offs. These are the ones that attend the Boy's Club of America mega gala fundraising events so the whole world can see how kind, generous and extremely compassionate they are.

Well, I say, read my lips, baby! Your number is up!

Let the games begin!

100 Park Avenue
11 Beach Street
110 East 42nd Street,
1140 Sixth Avenue
123 Williams Street
1250 Broadway
1370 Broadway
1412 Broadway
1414 Sixth Avenue
1466 Broadway
16 East 34th Street
1650 Broadway
17 Battery Place
2 Wall Street
21 Penn Plaza
286 Madison Avenue
290 Madison Avenue
292 Madison Avenue
32 West 18th Street
321 West 44th Street
333 East 38th Street
420 Lexington Avenue
440 9th Avenue
470 Park Avenue South
485 Seventh Avenue
489 5th Avenue
498 7th Avenue
50 West 23rd Street
551 Madison Avenue
555 West 57th Street
63 Madison Avenue
70 West 36th Street
76 Madison Avenue
90 Broad Street

EEOC (Don't leave your job without them!)

2005-03-26T18:34:00.000-08:00

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission/EEOC

Filing a Charge of Employment Discrimination
Note: Federal employees or applicants for Federal employment should see Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint Processing.

Who Can File a Charge of Discrimination?
Any individual who believes that his or her employment rights have been violated may file a charge of discrimination with EEOC.

In addition, an individual, organization, or agency may file a charge on behalf of another person in order to protect the aggrieved person's identity.

How Is a Charge of Discrimination Filed?
A charge may be filed by mail or in person at the nearest EEOC office.

Individuals who need an accommodation in order to file a charge (e.g., sign language interpreter, print materials in an accessible format) should inform the EEOC field office so appropriate arrangements can be made.

Federal employees or applicants for employment should see Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint Processing.

What Information Must Be Provided to File a Charge?
The complaining party's name, address, and telephone number;

The name, address, and telephone number of the respondent employer, employment agency, or union that is alleged to have discriminated, and number of employees (or union members), if known;

A short description of the alleged violation (the event that caused the complaining party to believe that his or her rights were violated); and

The date(s) of the alleged violation(s).

Federal employees or applicants for employment should see Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint Processing.

What Are the Time Limits for Filing a Charge of Discrimination?
All laws enforced by EEOC, except the Equal Pay Act, require filing a charge with EEOC before a private lawsuit may be filed in court. There are strict time limits within which charges must be filed:

A charge must be filed with EEOC within 180 days from the date of the alleged violation, in order to protect the charging party's rights.

This 180-day filing deadline is extended to 300 days if the charge also is covered by a state or local anti-discrimination law. For ADEA charges, only state laws extend the filing limit to 300 days.

These time limits do not apply to claims under the Equal Pay Act, because under that Act persons do not have to first file a charge with EEOC in order to have the right to go to court. However, since many EPA claims also raise Title VII sex discrimination issues, it may be advisable to file charges under both laws within the time limits indicated.

To protect legal rights, it is always best to contact EEOC promptly when discrimination is suspected.

Federal employees or applicants for employment should see Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint Processing.

What Agency Handles a Charge that is also Covered by State or Local Law?
Many states and localities have anti-discrimination laws and agencies responsible for enforcing those laws. EEOC refers to these agencies as "Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs)." Through the use of "work sharing agreements," EEOC and the FEPAs avoid duplication of effort while at the same time ensuring that a charging party's rights are protected under both federal and state law.

If a charge is filed with a FEPA and is also covered by federal law, the FEPA "dual files" the charge with EEOC to protect federal rights. The charge usually will be retained by the FEPA for handling.

If a charge is filed with EEOC and also is covered by state or local law, EEOC "dual files" the charge with the state or local FEPA, but ordinarily retains the charge for handling.

How Is a Charge Filed for Discrimination Outside the United States?
U.S.-based companies that employ U.S. citizens outside the United States or its territories are covered under EEO laws, with certain exceptions. An individual alleging an EEO violation outside the U.S. should file a charge with the district office closest to his or her employer's headquarters. However, if you are unsure where to file, you may file a charge with any EEOC office.
For answers to common questions about how EEO laws apply to multinational employers, please see:
The Equal Employment Opportunity Responsibilities of Multinational Employers
Employee Rights When Working for Multinational Employers

Rocket Science 101. Who gets the tip?

2005-03-23T22:30:00.000-08:00

A Mandatory Gratuity Is Just a Tip, and Thus Not Mandatory, a Prosecutor Says

BY JANE GOTTLIEB

September 15, 2004

As it turns out, a tip is just a tip, even if you put “mandatory” in front of it.

Charges were dropped yesterday against a Long Island man who was arrested last week for failing to leave a required 18 percent gratuity at Soprano’s Italian and American Grill in Lake George, N.Y.

The Warren County district attorney, Kathleen B. Hogan, said that she had determined that the man, Humberto A. Taveras, could not be forced to pay a gratuity.

Ms. Hogan said, “A tip or gratuity is discretionary, and that’s what the courts have found.” But the dispute over a tip of a few dollars still cost Mr. Taveras, 41, of Roslyn Heights, several hundred dollars in legal fees.

“Basically, they stated that you can’t enforce a gratuity, it’s voluntary,” said Mr. Taveras, who was on a train going home from Manhattan yesterday evening while his lawyer completed paperwork in Lake George, 60 miles north of Albany.

On September 5, Mr. Taveras and his party, which included his wife, Marie, another couple, and five children of both couples, were charged $77.43 for their meal, and an additional $13.73 for a tip.

Joe and Tina Soprano, the restaurant’s owners, said the party of nine had not paid any part of the 18 percent gratuity required of all groups of six or more. Mr. Taveras said he had left a 10 percent tip.

The Sopranos summoned the police, and soon Mr. Taeras was arrested and charged with theft of services.

Mr. Taveras said he had seen no notice of the tipping policy on the menu, although Mr. Soprano said it was included on all menus. But Mr. Taveras said that the group had decided the food was not particularly good, and so did not pay the 18 percent.

Mr. Taveras was taken away in a police car, fingerprinted, subjected to national publicity.

He said he eventually paid his lawyer a few hundred dollars to pursue the matter. Mr. Taveras said he was not sorry. “I didn’t like that my children had to hear, ‘Your dad walked out on a bill, ‘and stuff like that,” Mr. Taveras said.

Several telephone calls to the Soprano’s restaurant yesterday were not answered.

Mr. Taveras has dined at several restaurants since the arrest, and, he said, he has left some good tips.

Tax Law

2005-03-20T22:00:00.000-08:00

Okay, boys and girls, its time to brush up on your Tax Law. I know, its not fun reading, but I'm trying to make it as easy as possible for you. This way you won't have to search the law libraries hither and yon, looking for that one piece of information that applies to you, your tip money and your employer's records of your tip money. (In other words good luck getting your tips from your employer.)

From the National Italian American Bar Association Digest (review of particular cases) (a review of a case involving a tax law issue with respect to restaurants and waiters’ reporting of tip income)...“Tax Law United States v Fior D'Italia, Inc.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is authorized to assess a restaurant's income from tips by using an aggregate estimate of all the tips that a restaurant's customers gave to its employees. At issue in this case was the proper interpretation of a tax statute. The IRS contended that it could use an aggregation method to determine income from tips, while the restaurant contended that the IRS was required to determine total [*76] tip income by estimating each individual employee's tip income separately, and then add the individual estimates together to create a total. In 1991 and 1992, the reports provided to the Fior D'Italia restaurant by the restaurant's employees showed that the total tip income amounted to less than what was reported by the employees. The restaurant paid its FICA tax based on the lower amount. This discrepancy led the IRS to conduct a compliance check. The check led the I.R.S. to issue an assessment against the restaurant for additional FICA tax. The government's efforts to calculate the added tax it found owed to the IRS used an aggregation method rather than totaling the income of employees separately. The Court found that the aggregate estimating method does not fall outside the bounds of what is reasonable. The potential for errors from calculating an aggregate estimate did not render the estimate unreasonable since the restaurant remained free to challenge the accuracy of the estimate. The mere possibility for abuse by the I.R.S. was insufficient to preclude the use of an aggregate estimate. Justices Souter, Scalia, and Thomas dissented due to the Court's broad interpretation of the tax statute.”

NY Labor Law § 191. Frequency of payments

2005-03-19T22:20:00.000-08:00

Okay folks! Let's get busy! There is no better time than the present to brush up on your New Labor Law. You just never know when it might come in handy. Oh, and, don't forget that old ancient Chinese proverb--Knowledge is Power.

NY CLS Labor § 191 (2004)§ 191. Frequency of payments
1. Every employer shall pay wages in accordance with the following provisions:
a. Manual worker.--
(i) A manual worker shall be paid weekly and not later than seven calendar days after the end of the week in which the wages are earned; provided however that a manual worker employed by an employer authorized by the commissioner pursuant to subparagraph
(ii) of this paragraph or by a non-profit making organization shall be paid in accordance with the agreed terms of employment, but not less frequently than semi-monthly.
(iii) The commissioner may authorize an employer which has in the three years preceding the application employed an average of one thousand or more persons in this state or has for one year preceding the application employed an average of one thousand or more persons in this state and has for three years preceding the application employed an average of three thousand or more persons outside the state to pay less frequently than weekly but not less frequently than semi-monthly if the employer furnishes satisfactory proof to the commissioner of its continuing ability to meet its payroll responsibilities. In making this determination the commissioner shall consider the following:
(A) the employer's history meeting its payroll responsibilities in New York state or if no such history in New York state is available, other financial information, as requested by the commissioner, which will assist the commissioner in determining the likelihood of the employer's continuing ability to meet payroll responsibilities;
(B) proof of the employer's coverage for workers' compensation and disability;
(C) proof that there are no outstanding warrants of the department of taxation and finance or the department of labor against the employer for failure to remit state personal income tax withholdings or unemployment insurance contributions; and
(D) proof that the employer has a computerized record keeping system for payroll which, at a minimum, specifies hours worked, rate of pay, gross wages, deductions and date of pay for each employee. If the employers' manual workers are represented by a labor organization, the commissioner shall not grant an employer's application for authorization under this subparagraph unless that labor organization consents thereto. Upon notice to the employer and an opportunity to be heard, the commissioner may rescind such authorization whenever the commissioner has determined, based upon the factors enumerated above, that the employer is no longer able to meet its payroll responsibilities as previously authorized.
b. Railroad worker.-A railroad worker shall be paid on or before Thursday of each week the wages earned during the seven-day period ending on Tuesday of the preceding week; and provided further that at the written request and notification of address by any employee, every railroad corporation, with the exception of those commuter railroads under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan transportation authority, shall mail every check for wages of such employee via the United States postal service, first class mail.c. Commission salesman.--A commission salesman shall be paid the wages, salary, drawing account, commissions and all other monies earned or payable in accordance with the agreed terms of employment, but not less frequently than once in each month and not later than the last day of the month following the month in which they are earned; provided, however, that if monthly or more frequent payment of wages, salary, drawing accounts or commissions are substantial, then additional compensation earned, including but not limited to extra or incentive earnings, bonuses and special payments, may be paid less frequently than once in each month, but in no event later than the time provided in the employment agreement or compensation plan. The employer shall furnish a commission salesman, upon written request, a statement of earnings paid or due and unpaid.d. Clerical and other worker.--A clerical and other worker shall be paid the wages earned in accordance with the agreed terms of employment, but not less frequently than semi-monthly, on regular pay days designated in advance by the employer.

NY Labor Law § 196-d. Gratuities

2005-03-17T20:00:00.000-08:00

An Open Letter To All My Catering Waiter Friends:

I'm still hearing the same old stories. I'm still hearing that same old complaint from all my catering and restaurant waiter friends and that is: Management won't pay us! They are stealing our money! They are keeping our tips! We need a good attorney! We want to sue! And, my answer to that is, please do.

If they won't pay you the money you rightfully earned, then I suggest that you bring charges immediately, and force them to spend it on attorneys. Believe me, being served with a subpoena is a perfect way to force management to wake up and smell the attorneys bills that are about to start arriving.

You can find all the necessary details that you need right here on this page or my home page, including a recent Court of Appeals ruling in Bynog vs. Cipriani, decided December 2nd 2003.

I have also included what I have of the NY Department of Labor, Labor Law. I know that you will find this information informative and helpful.

You must realize that your rights as a worker are not delivered to you on a sliver platter. You must take a stand and fight for what is rightfully yours.

Here is the Labor Law on gratuities. It seems pretty clear here, but don't kid yourself, its only worded to sound like it protects you, in actuality, it means they don't have to pay you.

NY CLS Labor § 196-d (2004)
§ 196-d. Gratuities No employer or his agent or an officer or agent of any corporation, or any other person shall demand or accept, directly or indirectly, any part of the gratuities, received by an employee, or retain any part of a gratuity or of any charge purported to be a gratuity for an employee. This provision shall not apply to the checking of hats, coats or other apparel. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as affecting the allowances from the minimum wage for gratuities in the amount determined in accordance with the provisions of article nineteen of this chapter nor as affecting practices in connection with banquets and other special functions where a fixed percentage of the patron's bill is added for gratuities which are distributed to employees, nor to the sharing of tips by a waiter with a busboy or similar employee. Add, L 1968, ch 1007, § 1, eff Oct 1, 1968.