Shadowbosses: Government Unions Control America and Rob Taxpayers Blind

by Mallory Factor

  45 Goulden, p. 178.

  46 Ibid. In fact, Memphis experienced only scattered riots during that time, although Washington, D.C., and several other major cities did experience severe riots after King’s assassination.

  47 Ibid., pp. 178–182.

  48 Ibid., p. 181.

  49 Ibid., p. 182.

  50 “AFSCME: 75 Years of History.”

  51 Information taken from “City of Memphis—Solid Waste History,” City of Memphis, http://www.cityofmemphis.org/statistics/2000/sw_history.htm.

  52 Armand Thieblot and Thomas Haggard, Union Violence: The Record and the Response by Courts, Legislatures, and the NLRB (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1983), p. 124.

  53 This issue is covered very well in John Berlau, “The Firemen Next Time,” National Review Online, October 14, 2010, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/249701/fire-next-time-john-berlau, accessed January 2012.

  54 Thieblot and Haggard, p. 125.

  55 Ibid., p. 126.

  56 Ibid., pp. 125–127.

  57 Ibid., p. 132.

  58 Ibid., pp. 129–135.

  59 Ibid., p.135.

  60 Joseph McCartin, “A Wagner Act for Public Employees: Labor’s Deferred Dream and the Rise of Conservatism, 1970–1976,” Journal of American History (June 2008), pp. 123–148, especially pp. 137, 139.

  61 “Union-Ruled City,” New York Times, July 8, 1975.

  62 E. Cahill Maloney, “Strikers Sabotage Working Cops,” Progress Bulletin (Pomona, Calif.), August 22, 1975.

  63 “Alioto House Bombed,” Oakland Tribune, August 20, 1975.

  64 Steve Konicki, “Firemen Watch Homes Burn,” Dayton Daily News, August 9, 1977.

  65 Albert Schweitzer and John C. Shelton, “Firemen Turn Backs, U. City Plant Burns,” St. Louis Globe-Democrat, July 25, 1977.

  66 Thieblot and Haggard, pp. 136–142.

  67 Quoted in “A Clear and Avoidable Danger: Daschle Amend. Could Lead to Firefighter, Police Strikes During a Terrorist Attack,” U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, November 1, 2001, p. 2, http://rpc.senate.gov/public/_files/DEFENSEjt110103.pdf, accessed April 2012.

  68 Thieblot and Haggard, p. 120.

  69 Ibid.

  70 “Freedom from Union Violence Act,” Fact Sheet, National Right to Work, http://www.right-to-work.org/FactSheets/ViolenceFactSheet.pdf, accessed January 2012.

  71 U.S. v. Larson, 07-CR-304S, NYLJ 1202511598699, at *1 (WDNY, Decided August 10, 2011).

  72 NRTW Committee Staff, “Hobbs Act Loophole Legitimizes Union Violence,” February 14, 2012, http://www.nrtwc.org/hobbs-act-loophole-legitimizes-union-violence/, accessed April 2012.

  73 U.S. v. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396 (1973). In-depth treatment of this case and attempts to change the underlying law to remedy the situation can be found in David Kendrick, “Freedom from Union Violence,” Policy Analysis no. 316, Cato Institute, September 9, 1998.

  74 “Freedom from Union Violence Act.”

  75 Kendrick, pp. 28–29.

  76 Freedom from Union Violence Act of 2012, H.R. 4074, 112th Cong. (2012). Similar acts have been introduced in the House by different House members numerous times but have never made it out of committee. The Freedom from Union Violence Act of 2005 had the most cosponsors—twenty-eight—but none of them were Democrats. This information was obtained via the THOMAS search engine at the Library of Congress website, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php.

  77 Kris Maher, “SEIU to End Sodexo Campaign,” Wall Street Journal, September 15, 2011, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904491704576573074162700598.html?_nocache=1326060998873&user=welcome&mg=id-wsj, accessed January 2012.

  78 “Sodexo USA Files RICO Lawsuit against SEIU,” Sodexo USA press release, PR Newswire, March 17, 2011, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sodexo-usa-files-rico-lawsuit-against-seiu-118204534.html, accessed March 2012.

  79 Sodexo, Inc. v. S.E.I.U. et al., Case No. 1:20 11-cv-00276 (E.D. Va.), complaint, p. 8.

  80 Ibid.

  81 Sodexo, Inc. v. S.E.I.U. et al., Case No. 1:20 11-cv-00276 (E.D. Va.), complaint, p. 5.

  82 “SEIU Contract Campaign Manual—Pressuring the Employer,” Scribd, http://www.scribd.com/doc/60893001/SEIU-Contract-Campaign-Manual-Pressuring-the-Employer, accessed March 2012.

  83 F. Vincent Vernuccio, “Labor’s New Strategy: Intimidation for Dummies,” Washington Times, July 15, 2011, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/15/labors-new-strategy-intimidation-for-dummies/, accessed January 2012.

  84 Ibid.

  85 Nina Easton, “What’s Really behind the SEIU’s Bank of America Protests?” Power Play, CNNMoney, May 19, 2010, http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/19/news/companies/SEIU_Bank_of_America_protest.fortune/, accessed March 2012.

  86 About 75 percent of reported union violence occurs in the twenty-seven states that do not have right-to-work laws, based on reported state-by-state counts from the National Institute for Labor Relations Research.

  87 Hearing on “Open Shops in the 21st Century Workplace,” Before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Committee on Education and the Workforce, 106th Cong. (May 3, 2000) (written statement of Reed Larson, president of the National Right to Work Committee), http://archives.republicans.edlabor.house.gov/archive/hearings/106th/oi/openshop5300/larson.htm, accessed April 2012.

  Chapter 3. Follow the Money

  1 “Labor Unions Receive $14 Billion in Dues Per Year from CBAs,” Fact Sheets, National Institute for Labor Relations Research, March 30, 2012, http://www.nilrr.org/2012/03/31/unions-rake-in-over-14-9-billion-in-dues-per-year-from-cbas/, accessed April 2012. We are basing the assumption that over half of union dues are from government workers on the fact that 51 percent of all union members in America are government workers. See Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Union Members–2011,” January 27, 2012, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm, accessed March 2012.

  2 See Michael Beckel and Seth Cline, “Labor Lobbying, Union PAC Contributions and More in Capital Eye Opener: Sept. 5,” OpenSecrets(blog), http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/09/labor-lobbying-union-pac-money.html, accessed February 2012.

  3 “2.2 Billion Political Outlaws,” research paper, National Institute for Labor Relations Research, September 1, 2011, http://www.nilrr.org/files/2011%20NILRR%20Big%20Labor%20Politcal%20Spending%20Preliminary%20Report.pdf, accessed January 2012.

  4 Steven Greenhouse, “Union Spends $91 Million on Midterms,” The Caucus (blog), New York Times, October 26, 2010, http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/union-spends-91-million-on-midterms/.

  5 Brody Mullins and John D. McKinnon, “Campaign’s Big Spender,” Politics, Wall Street Journal, October 21, 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575566481761790288.html

  6 A Fox News poll conducted by Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R), March 14–16, 2011, quoted in “Use of Dues for Politics,” UnionFacts.com, http://www.unionfacts.com/political-money/, accessed February 2012.

  7 For example, a 2008 report found that the teachers unions collected 83 percent of their dues income from the twenty-four states that allowed forced dues at that time, even though only 52 percent of teachers worked in those states. See “Two Million K–12 Teachers Are Now Corralled into Unions,” Fact Sheet, National Institute for Labor Relations Research, August 28, 2008, http://www.nilrr.org/files/How%20Many%20Teachers%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf.

  8 “Political Power,” Teachers Union Exposed, http://teachersunionexposed.com/dues.cfm, accessed January 2012.

  9 The national right-to-work law would not prevent states from giving unions collective bargaining power over government workers. Union collective bargaining power has a pernicious effect on public policy but does not affect the unions’ income as much as forced-dues provisions do.

  10 “Republican Senators Introduce National Right to Work Act,” Senator Jim DeMint (U.S. Senate website), March 8, 2011, http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=6c97e4c4-a31
f-4636-8fe2-6ffdf625b2d5, accessed January 2012.

  11 Letter from Senator Rand Paul, National Right to Work Committee, http://righttoworkcommittee.org/rprtwa_petition.aspx, accessed January 2012.

  12 Lowell Ponte, “How Socialist Unions Rule the Democratic Party,” FrontPage Magazine, July 14, 2004, http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=12216, accessed January 2012.

  13 Most, but not all, unions are “labor organizations” under section 501(c)(5) of the IRS Code. The income of labor organizations is generally nontaxable, except for certain express political spending. However, labor organizations are given wide latitude to engage in political activities, as long as these are not directed at particular candidates. For this reason, unions engage in more general political organizing rather than working directly for campaigns for particular candidates, although they seem to be getting closer and closer to the line with each election cycle. The IRS explains the permissible political activities of labor organizations as follows: “Seeking legislation germane to the labor or agricultural organization’s programs is recognized as a permissible means of attaining its exempt purposes. Thus, a section 501(c)(5) organization may further its exempt purposes through lobbying as its primary activity without jeopardizing its exempt status.” With respect to political activities, the IRS clarifies, “The exempt purposes of a labor or agricultural organization do not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. A section 501(c)(5) labor… organization may engage in some political activities, however, so long as that is not its primary activity. However, any expenditures it makes for political activities may be subject to tax under section 527(f).” See http://www.irs.gov/charities/nonprofits/article/0,,id=96169,00.html. The unions’ financial disclosure is crafted to conform to these limitations. Not all unions are labor organizations. The most notable exception is the National Education Association, which is a federally chartered corporation. Unlike most other federally chartered corporations (like the Red Cross, for example), the National Education Association is specifically excluded from submitting annual audited financial statements to Congress. See 36 U.S.C. §151108 (2011). See http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/36C1511.txt.

  14 Elaine Chao, “Obama Tries to Stop Union Disclosure,” Wall Street Journal, May 6, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124157604375290453.html, accessed January 2012.

  15 Unions also have some other expenses on their LM-2 statements, their financial disclosures to the federal government. These LM-2 statements allow for some creative accounting of expenses and are not highly transparent. In addition to the expenses discussed in the body of this chapter, the LM-2 also shows payments for taxes, holding meetings, strike benefits, and other miscellaneous expenses.

  16 This is based on our analysis of union financial disclosure, which is limited and tends to understate political spending, as we have discussed. For example, in 2010 AFSCME disclosed 32 percent of the spending of its national organization (not including state and local affiliates) was political spending. The SEIU’s national headquarters disclosed that 18 percent of its spending was political in 2010. If you assume some other gray-area spending is allocated to other categories, the SEIU’s political spending falls squarely within the 20–30 percent range. The NEA disclosed in 2011 that only 13 percent of its spending that year was political, but an additional 22 percent of its spending was for gifts and contributions to other organizations, which includes its spending to put political operatives in every congressional district in America. If you assume that one-third of its gifts and contributions are political in nature (which seems a conservative estimate), then the NEA’s political spending is just under 20 percent of its total spending. And none of these percentages include union PAC spending on political campaigns, which constitutes additional direct political spending. Labor economist Daniel DiSalvo suggests that a rough rule of thumb is that government employee unions spend 20 percent of their revenues on “lobbying and electioneering.” See Daniel DiSalvo, “Dues and Deep Pockets: Public-Sector Unions’ Money Machine,” Civic Report no. 67, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, March 2012, http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_67.htm#notes, accessed April 2012.

  17 The categories of spending included in “union administration” are very specific and don’t seem to include this type of spending, which seems more political in nature: “Union administration includes disbursements relating to the nomination and election of union officers, the union’s regular membership meetings, intermediate, national and international meetings, union disciplinary proceedings, the administration of trusteeships, and the administration of apprenticeship and member education programs (not including political education which should be reported in Schedule 16).” National Education Association, national headquarters, Form LM-2, November 29, 2011, covering the period September 1, 2010, to August 31, 2011, p. 376, available at http://rishawnbiddle.org/outsidereports/nea_dol_filing_2011.pdf, accessed April 2012; U.S. Department of Labor, Instructions for Form LM-2 Labor Organization Annual Report, http://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/EFS/LM-2InstructionsEFS.pdf, accessed April 2012, pp. 30–31.

  18 Steven Greenhouse, “Labor Leaders Plan to Apply New Clout in Effort for Obama,” New York Times, March 11, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/us/politics/unions-plan-a-door-to-door-effort-for-2012-election.html?_r=2&ref=us, accessed March 2012.

  19 Unions offer stipends for volunteer expenses. For example, one union offered a $25 stipend for two hours of phone bank work. See “Volunteer for Phone Banks; Earn $25 Stipend,” Ohio Civil Service Employees Association (OCSEA), October 6, 2004, http://www.ocsea.org/news/story.asp?sid=58, accessed January 2012. The same union offered $50 for “voter protection” on election day. The website states, “Shifts of 4½ hours are available from 6:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Volunteers will receive a cell phone, money for mileage, and meals. OCSEA members will receive a $50 stipend.” See “It’s Not Over Yet; Help GOTV Nov. 4–7 to Turn Around Ohio,” OCSEA, November 2, 2006, http://www.ocsea.org/politicalaction/news110206.asp. AFSCME Ohio 8 offered $25 gift cards to people who got out the vote. Its website reported, “Members of Local 1846 Athens Public School Employees, Local 1699 Ohio University Employees, and Local 1252 members from O’Bleness Hospital are doing their part to get people to the polls—and receive a $25 ‘Turkey’ gift card.” See http://www.afscmecouncil8.org/node/1075. The AFT affiliate the Union of Rutgers Administrators posted the following “volunteer” opportunity on its website for participating in Committee on Political Education labor to labor walk during the 2010 election season:

  “* Breakfast provided

  * URA members receive $50 stipend per walk

  * URA t-shirts will be given to each participant

  * URA members that participate in any combination of two or more labor walks or phone banks will be invited to the annual COPE Volunteer/Steward Appreciation event

  * Any member of a union who walks will get 1 ticket for each time they do a Labor Walk for a raffle to be held on Election Night after Get Out To Vote is done. (Sponsored by the Middlesex & Somerset Central Labor Council) This year they are raffling off a 42" flat screen TV and a Garmin GPS.”

  See “COPE Committee Get Out the Vote Campaign… Starting Sept. 25,” Union of Rutgers Administrators, http://www.ura-aft.org/node/541, accessed January 2012. See also the Health Professionals and Allied Employees website at http://www.hpae.org/carousel/3. For more about the FEC and its rules, see http://www.fec.gov/.

  20 Greenhouse, “Labor Leaders Plan to Apply New Clout.”

  21 See Beckel and Cline, “Labor Lobbying”; “2010 Outside Spending, by Donors’ Industries,” OpenSecrets(blog), http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2010&disp=I&type=A.

  22 Paul Blumenthal, “George Soros, Unions Give to New Democratic Super PAC,” Huffington Post, June 24, 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/24/soros-unions-give-to-new-dem-super-pac_n_884021.h
tml, accessed January 2012.

  23 “Andrew Stern,” DiscoverTheNetworks.org, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1830, accessed January 2012.

  24 Knox v. California State Employee Assn., 628 F.3d 1115, 1118 (9th Cir. 2010). This case is currently before the Supreme Court.

  25 See Ilya Shapiro, “Unions Can’t Force Non-Members to Pay for Political Advocacy,” Cato @ Liberty (blog), http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/unions-cant-force-non-members-to-pay-for-political-advocacy/, accessed January 2012; Charles W. Baird, “The Permissible Uses of Forced Union Dues: From Hanson to Beck,” Cato Policy Analysis No. 174, Cato Institute, July 24, 1992, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-174.html, accessed January 2012; and L. Paige Whitaker, “CRS Report for Congress: The Use of Labor Union Dues For Political Purposes: A Legal Analysis,” Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, August 2, 2000, http://congressionalresearch.com/97-618/document.php?study=The+Use+of+Labor+Union+Dues+for+Political+Purposes+A+Legal+Analysis, accessed January 2012.

  26 James Sherk, “The Employee Rights Act Empowers Workers,” Backgrounder #2667, Heritage Foundation, March 19, 2012, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/the-employee-rights-act-empowers-workers#_ftnref23, accessed April 2012. Sherk explains, “Under the Supreme Court precedent established in Communications Workers v. Beck in 1988, unions cannot force workers to donate to political causes. However, unions make it very difficult to exercise this right. Unions implement bureaucratic obstacles, such as accepting such requests only 30 days of the year, that make it difficult for workers to formally request a refund of their dues. Often unions refuse to honor those requests unless workers file federal charges.”

  27 Sherk, “The Employee Rights Act Empowers Workers,” citing WordDoctors, “Benchmark Study of Union Employee Election Year Attitudes,” Question 41, October 2010 (survey of 760 union members). For an excellent treatment of paycheck protection laws, see James Sherk, “What Do Union Members Want? What Paycheck Protection Laws Show About How Well Unions Reflect Their Members’ Priorities,” Center for Data Analysis Report #06-08, Heritage Foundation, August 30, 2006, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/08/what-do-union-members-want-what-paycheck-protection-laws-show-about-how-well-unions-reflect-their-members-priorities, accessed April 2012.