Today, the Employee Freedom Action Committee (EFAC) opened a new front in the campaign to stop the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), by releasing TV ads in Nebraska urging Democratic Senator Ben Nelson not to compromise on EFCA. The campaign is scheduled to move beyond Nebraska next week. The bill is currently pending before Congress.

This new ad campaign comes as Democratic leaders are poised to send a compromise bill to Congress. The compromise is widely expected to amend EFCA’s card check and binding arbitration provisions. Regardless of the particulars of the compromise, this bill will still be a tremendous blow to workers’ rights.

“The ad campaign is designed to urge Nebraskans to tell Ben Nelson to oppose closing debate on the Employee ‘Forced’ Choice Act,” said Rick Berman, Executive Director of EFAC. “This bill will take control out of the hands of employees in the workplace and allow outside parties to have tremendous control over private businesses through binding arbitration.”

The television ads are scheduled to begin airing tomorrow across the state. The text of both ads is below:

Negotiation

Joe: Well, I know we’ve talked about the review, and I think I deserve a five percent raise.

Boss: Joe, I agree.

Union Guy: Whoa, whoa, whoa! That’s not what he wants. What he wants is a two percent raise, plus funeral benefits, guaranteed smoke breaks, and triple overtime for Superbowl Sunday.

Joe (flabbergasted): Funeral benefits?! I don’t care about that stuff. I want a five percent raise.
Union Guy to Boss: If we don’t get this stuff, our member Joe here is just going to have to go out on strike.

Boss: Strike?!

VO: Union bosses want federal bureaucrats to take away your personal rights. Call Senator Nelson and tell him there’s no compromise on the Employee Forced Choice Act.

1 in 20

VO: Only five percent of Nebraska’s business workforce is unionized. Why are 95 percent of us union free? Because we know better. Most people know that unionization means a loss of personal control.

Lady 1: Hundreds in union dues.

Lady 2: The possibility of strikes.

Man: And a less competitive company.

Call Senator Ben Nelson today and tell him to protect your personal rights on the job and stop passage on the Employee Forced Choice Act.

The AFL-CIO  joined the rest of the labor movement yesterday in opposing the SEIU’s actions against UNITE HERE. Randy Shaw reported that the AFL-CIO sent a letter condemning any act of raiding other unions for members:

One day after 15 international union leaders vowed to provide “material and moral” support to UNITE HERE’s defense against SEIU raids, the AFL-CIO sent a letter to the UNITE HERE convention condemning “all raiding of organized workers by any union.” This letter represents a dramatic shift in position for the labor federation, which previously had been advised by its general counsel to stay out of the fight between SEIU and UNITE HERE.

And just like the previous day, labor bosses were on hand to provide more insightful color commentary. What’s noteworthy about much of this, as Shaw observed, is how much criticism Andy Stern has garnered at this gathering:

Adding to building momentum against SEIU’s conduct were scathing words from Operating and Engineers President Vincent J. Giblin, who described SEIU President Andy Stern as the “Darth Vader of the labor movement” and who vowed to provide “every resource” of his union, including strike benefits, to help UNITE HERE in its struggle.

Giblin had some scathing remarks for the SEIU’s suggestion for arbitration, as well as Andy Stern and former UNITE HERE/current Workers United President Bruce Raynor:

Operating and Engineers President Vincent Giblin issued the harshest attacks yet heard at the convention regarding the Stern-Raynor agenda. Giblin never identified either by name, but it was clear to all who he was speaking about when he described both as “corporate raiders” and “labor leader pretenders.”

In response to the duo’s continued call to resolve their dispute with UNITE HERE via binding arbitration, Giblin said he “fell out of his chair” when he heard “that ridiculous statement for arbitration.” He vowed that the Operating Engineers would “not rest until we rid these two (Raynor and Stern) from the labor movement.

That’s the second day in a row that a prominent labor boss has denounced arbitration. I’m glad to see that labor bosses are starting to come around on how bad of an idea binding arbitration is.

It was also revealed yesterday that Raynor “transferred” $23 million from UNITE HERE’s accounts into Workers United, which prompted this amusing response:

It was also revealed on the Convention’s second day that former UNITE HERE President and now SEIU Executive Vice-President Bruce Raynor had shifted $23 million in cash from UNITE HERE to his new union prior to his departure; this prompted UNITE HERE’s Jim Dupont to lead the crowd in a roaring chant “They say arbitrate, we say incarcerate.”

For Stern and his SEIU cohorts, it’s starting to look like a lonely world.

The SEIU continues its bravado of hypocrisy with more plans to protest against Bank of America and its lending practices. The union is leading complaints by liberal interest groups that Bank of America encouraged its employees to inundate consumers with debt and enroll them in high-fee programs. It’s particularly amusing to see the SEIU display so much concern:

“One of the core parts of the economic collapse is a business model that encourages too much risk or short-term profit over long-term stability,” said Stephen Lerner, who runs the financial reform project for the Service Employees International Union, which is coordinating the effort.

Funny, that business model that “encourages too much risk or short-term profit over long-term stability” seemed perfectly acceptable to borrow $88 million from. Yes, recall that the SEIU took out $88 million in loans from Bank of America.

The SEIU can feign all the concern in the world, but what it’s really interested in is attempting to publicly shame and humiliate Bank of America so that it can organize its employees.

Glenn Spencer over at the Workforce Freedom Initiative has a piece warning about we might see emerge as the  compromise version of EFCA.

Calling it “card check lite,” Spencer provides a good explanation of each of the potential elements that would make up a possible compromise:

A possible outcome of the compromise talks is a bill that includes quickie elections, a heavy-handed approach to interest arbitration, and a penalty regime that looks very similar to the existing version of EFCA. Such a bill would represent little change from what’s currently on offer, and could be dubbed Card Check “lite.”

Quickie elections could entail mail-in ballots or actual elections that are held within a very short time after a union files a petition for an election. Potential compromise on arbitration could include extending the number of days before an arbitrator can intervene and baseball-style arbitration where the arbitrator decides between the last best offer from both sides. Of course none of these proposals are good or sustainable ideas for America’s workers and businesses.

The Daily News ran an editorial making similar arguments that I’ve made here about how the SEIU’s conflict with other unions is exactly why EFCA cannot be passed.

The SEIU is asking for the federal government to intervene against the NUHW, charging that signing a petition is not a good indication of what workers actually want. Hmmm, does that sound familiar?

Here’s what The Daily News had to say:

The SEIU’s argument for federal intervention is particularly ironic. It maintains that the nearly 100,000 California members who signed cards indicating their wish to be represented by the National Union of Healthcare Workers may have been subject to intimidation by NUHW organizers. This is the same reasoning used by opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act. They contend that elections by secret ballot are necessary because workers can be pressured by union activists into signing authorization cards.

The rest of the editorial goes on to point out the flaws with EFCA. It’s good to see that others are starting to pick up on the amazing display of hypocrisy by the SEIU as it continues to fight with the NUHW and UNITE HERE.

I noted that the UNITE HERE convention would provide a good picture of what to expect from the UNITE HERE-SEIU conflict.  It appears, based on Randy Shaw’s reporting, that the rest of the labor movement is coalescing around UNITE HERE in its fight against the SEIU.

Day One featured a who’s who of labor bosses denouncing the SEIU:

In a dramatic blow to SEIU’s efforts to raid UNITE HERE members and jurisdictions, 15 of the nation’s leading unions pledged Monday to provide UNITE HERE with “material and moral” support. Before a wildly cheering and upbeat crowd of 700, AFSCME President Gerald McEntee denounced SEIU for the “poaching” of UNITE HERE, and for engaging in “piracy on the high seas of organized labor.” Laborers President Terrence O’Sullivan described SEIU’s conduct as “deplorable,” and said “we didn’t join Change to Win to raid and hijack another union’s members.” Change to Win leaders James Hoffa of the Teamsters and Joe Hansen of the United Food and Commercial Workers also pledged support, while Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers (one of the only two international presidents that SEIU claimed back its position) now supports UNITE HERE.

You know a gathering of labor bosses would provide some colorful moments. They did not disappoint:

Terrence O’Sullivan gave the impression that he was willing to enlist in defensive actions against SEIU right after leaving the podium, while Gerald McEntee led a chant describing SEIU’s behavior as “Bullshit!”

Based on the heated words hurled at the convention, it appears that the UNITE HERE-SEIU conflict has turned into most of labor versus the SEIU. What this actually means remains to be seen. If labor bosses are to be taken at their word, expect to see far worse things than what we’ve already seen between the two unions.

Oh, and for good measure, Laborers President Terrence O’Sullivan had this to say in response to the SEIU’s call for binding arbitration:

“There is no goddamm way I’d ever agree to binding arbitration when it comes to the future of my core jurisdiction”

I couldn’t agree more. And I’m sure most of America’s workers and businesses would say the same.

Talks appear to continue to stagnate between management and unions representing BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) workers, increasing the potential for a strike. California sent state mediators - four, an unprecedented number, according to a BART spokesman - to help resolve the situation, but efforts appear to be unsuccessful so far.

BART is attempting to close a $250 million deficit over the next four years, but have been stymied by unions’ demands for a three percent wage increase, despite the fact that the “union on average $114,000 a year in wages and benefits.” As BART spokesman Linton Johnson said, “This is not a good time to be asking for a raise.” Furthermore, Johnson pointed out that ” [t]his is our first time that we’ve asked the unions to dig into their pockets,” and that “[t]he riders have already dug into their pockets.”

A MediaNews editorial (which owns various Bay Area newspapers) takes the unions to task for its exorbitant pay and benefits, which increases labor costs and contributes to the  high price of utilizing public transit. The editorial notes some of the unions’ more generous provisions that they enjoy:

Most BART workers who retire at age 55 with 30 years of service will collect an annual pension equal to 60 percent of top salary. Most who retire at age 63 with 40 years of service can collect 97 percent of top salary.

Meanwhile, BART workers don’t contribute a dime to their pensions. The district pays the employer’s share, 10 percent of salary, to the pension plan. And it picks up the portion that’s typically paid by the employee — in this case, about 7 percent of salary.

Then there’s health care. BART’s employees and retirees choose from about five different health plans. The cost to the employee or retiree is $82 a month, no matter how many family members are covered or which plan is selected. BART pays the rest of the premium, costing the district as much as $1,868 a month. It’s a deal generally unmatched by private-sector employers.

With these kinds of benefits, it’s hard to imagine why anyone would go on strike. Yet the unions seem to find an excuse for it. Never mind the fact that not getting that three percent raise to pad that $114,000 income outweighs the burden and inconvenience of a strike for the more than 350,000 Bay Area residents who utilize BART.

As UNITE HERE opens its national convention today in Chicago, there is still considerable tension and uncertainty in its ongoing battle with Andy Stern and the SEIU.

Labor activist Randy Shaw observes that “[t]he convention should illuminate how other unions view this fight, and whether SEIU will soon find itself not just opposed by UNITE HERE but by much of the labor movement.” He also points out that although Stern has publicly called for UNITE HERE’s John Wilhelm to settle this dispute through binding arbitration (which Wilhelm has vehemently rejected), most of the major union bosses have not backed Stern’s call and will actually speak at the convention.

Shaw notes a particular statement from Stern’s letter to Wilhelm that indicates a far more incendiary fight between the feuding unions may be in store:

What’s most significant about Stern’s letter is that it argues “while to this point we have stood down, if this isn’t resolved by the end of June, we are prepared to respond vigorously to UNITE HERE’s recent hostile actions and defend our union.”

In other words, Stern is saying that if UNITE HERE thought that SEIU was attacking them for months, than that was actually its “stand down” mode — and that all hell could break loose by the end of this week.

That sounds a lot like a threat.

Given the SEIU’s actions against UNITE HERE and other unions (NUHW anyone?) in recent months, it’s hard to imagine at this point what the SEIU has in store if it is “prepared to respond vigorously” to defend itself. What is said (or perhaps, not said) this week at UNITE HERE’s convention may be a good indicator of what is to come.