UPDATE: Former SEIU Official Appointed by Obama to Investigate Union Corruption, Cuts Number of Investigators – Big Government
Posted April 19, 2011on:
- In: American Crash 2011 | Big Labor Unions | Breaking the Collective Bargaining Union holds on states | Communism in America | Economy/Money | Ineffective Government Programs | laws and regulations--stupidities | Obama and ethics | Obama Executive Decress | Obamanation | Organizing for America (Obama) | Politics 2010 | Politics 2011 | Progressives Movement to Destroy America | Radical Left at War with America | SEIU Service Employees International Union | Subverting America by Uri Bezmenov | The Fight Back
- 4 Comments
This story just keeps getting more and more like Chicago Mafia thuggery. Read what is happening now to Boeing Air Craft below now that Obama has his players stacked knee deep in the Labor Department. BB
Talk about the Fox in the Hen House I would have to say our dear President and Foxy himself learned well from that children’s story. Why can’t Congress or someone or something stop this man from these nefarious actions? Any other President in our history would have been impeached by this time if they had pulled off the destructive moves Obama has pulled off.
Now his appointment of John Lund former and current Labor Union boss to oversee union corruption! Can you believe? Union members are NOT, I repeat: NOT the focus of their union bosses. Their union dues are merely providing the money to give these destroyers of our nation the money to carry on. The shouting ugly mobs that the unions bring out on every occasion are funded by the forced payment of dues by workers if they are to get and keep their jobs. We the People must stand up against this corruption.
States one by one are attacking and winning the battle against the unions hold over state treasuries, but our federal government because of Obama is over run with thugs and thieves. BB
Former SEIU Official Appointed by Obama to Investigate Union Corruption, Cuts Number of Investigators
by Don Loos
Has President Barack Obama been deceiving America, with his Ethics Executive Order 13490? It certainly appears that the actions of the Obama Administration are far from his recent statement that he has “put into place the toughest ethics laws of any Administration in history [pause] in history.” A host of Obama’s appointments call into question the President’s commitment to his own Ethics Order. Appointments such as U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Sec. Hilda Solis, DOL Deputy Solicitor Deborah Greenfield, and NLRB Board member Craig Becker undermine Obama’s claim of “toughest ethics.”
Now, the National Right To Work Committee introduces John Lund, Obama’s “overseer” of union financial reporting and disclosure at DOL’s Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS). This Obama appointee is a former director of the now-defunct Pacific Northwest Labor College, a former SEIU union employee , a fomer IUOE union employee, and former director of the University of Wisconsin School for Workers. Lund’s appointment means that he is now in charge of investigating financial mismanagement and irregularities by the very labor union officials he has trained for decades. (click to view the NRTW shocking handout on Lund)
Big Labor Payback Job One for Obama
Even though Obama campaigned on transparency and a focus on ethics, cronies at DOL focused on eliminating basic financial union disclosure and union officials’ conflict-of-interest disclosures requirements.
At DOL, John Lund cut the number of labor union investigators, rescinded disclosure of union officer benefits, eliminated financial reporting for unions like the Wisconsin Education Association Council, and eliminated conflict-of-interest reporting for thousands of union officials. Each of these actions benefits Big Labor Bosses, but undercuts those forced to pay union dues and fees as a condition of employment.
John Lund Conflicts-of-Interest
The Obama Ethics Executive Order requires appointees to pledge that they will refrain from involvement in matters involving their former employer or clients. The AFL-CIO and other unions are former clients of John Lund , and these unions remain clients of his former and current employer, the University of Wisconsin School for Workers (Lund is currently on unpaid leave while at DOL). The Wisconsin School for Workers’ primary mission is to train union officials; the very officials that Lund now purportedly investigates for corruption.
The following highlights are but a few that The National Right To Work Committee has unearthed to illustrate Lund’s conflicts-of-interest:
- On 29 April 2008, Lund made formal comments against DOL’s Form T-1 Disclosure Report. As OLMS Director, Lund rescinded the Form T-1 disclosure report on 1 December 2010, and simultaneously rescinded reporting by NEA “intermediate bodies” like the Wisconsin Education Association Council.
- In 2008, Fund provided training at the IUOE FALL NORTH/CENTRAL STATES CONFERENCE advice on “Selecting and Researching Organizing Targets.” Lund has recently chosen to ignore the 2007 LM-30 conflict-of-interest disclosure reports and proposes to rescind these reports as well to redefine the statutory term “Employer” by regulation, in an effort to eliminate disclosure of union organizing activities and employer-paid union time. In fact, when Lund wrote a 2005 piece about LM-30, a union stewards published an “Advisory regarding Labor Dept. LM-30” that included Lund’s 2005 LM-30 article. Now, Lund has proposed changes to LM-30 that will eliminate most stewards from having to report any conflict-of-interests or use the LM-30 form.
- Without regard to appearances, OLMS Director Lund continues to take time to provide training for his Big Labor friends. On 2010 January 25, Lund flew, at government expense, to Seattle, WA, to provide the AFL-CIO’s Washington Labor Council members with a personal overview of his recent reporting rescissions. To the right is an image of the union headlining John Lund’s 3-hour presentation. At the Jan. 25 workshop, Lund will discuss the new regulations, the common reporting mistakes unions make and how to correct them, and answer your specific questions to ensure your LM reports are accurate.[i] OLMS maintains a District Office in Seattle, and its staff would have routinely provided this compliance assistance, rather than OLMS Director John Lund going out of his way to create this personal conflict-of-interest.
- Among many examples illustrating Lund’s close ties to the AFL-CIO, this Australian description of Lund in 2007 stands out, “For the last four years, he has worked closely with the AFL-CIO on financial accountability and transparency issues.” In fact, AFL-CIO General Counsel Jon Hiatt quoted a John Lund burden estimate for the 2003 LM-2 changes. His and other AFL-CIO expert projections of burden were found to be grossly exaggerated like Dr. Ruth Ruttenberg’s who estimated the LM-2 changes would cost unions $1.3 billion to file.
But, now that Lund is in charge of OLMS, the AFL-CIO’s exaggerations are taken seriously at DOL, despite their past record of demonstrably false expert calculations and comments.
To borrow a phrase from Obama supporter and ACORN founder Wade Rathke regarding NLRB appointee Craig Becker, “Here’s a big win no matter how you shake and bake it,” John Lund being appointed to oversee internal union corruption
- 6:29Added to queue UAW Workers Speak Outby Right2WorkCommittee130 views
- 4:19Added to queue Michigan Gov. Granholm helps UAW force its way …by Right2WorkCommittee289 views
- 6:39Added to queue Glenn Beck Show Exposes Big Labor Stranglehold …by Right2
- 10:00Added to queue Public Sector Forced Unionism (Mallory Factors …by Right2WorkCommittee3,359 views
- 5:10Added to queue President Obama’s Radical NLRB Nominee: Craig B…by Right2WorkCommittee1,212 views
by LaborUnionReport On Wednesday, when President Obama’s union-controlled National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint against the Boeing Company for making a sound business decision to “dual source” its 787 production, it was another blatant example of a government agency run amok. However, while most of the nuts and bolts behind the dispute were detailed here, there are several other, more intricate details behind the NLRB’s legally tenuous prosecution of Boeing that are deserving of closer examination—most notably, the union’s own culpability behind the decision.
A Union With a Bone to Pick.
Even before the decision was made by Boeing to locate the second assembly line in South Carolina, Boeing’s union (the International Association of Machinists) had a problem in South Carolina. Namely, workers at the facility hadvoted the Machinists’ union out shortly after Boeing bought the facility in 2009 from Vought Aircraft because of workers believedthe union poorly represented them.
What brought the workers to the point of decertifying the union an interesting story that is both part irony and part poor representation by the union.
In 2007, after having been narrowly voted in to represent the employees of Vought Aircraft in North Charleston, SC, the Machinists’ union (IAM) was still in the midst of negotiating its first contract when the union struck Boeing for two months in Puget Sound in 2008. Since Vought was one of Boeing’s suppliers, the union’s Washington strike forced Vought to temporarily close the South Carolina plant and lay off the employees.
After nearly a year of negotiations, as the one year anniversary approached, there were reportedly rumors that there was a decertification effort under way. However, either sensing that it may be decertified or realizing its potential membership base was going to be significantly cut back, the union engineered a contract to lock employees in evenbefore the company had presented its final offer:
Some employees have expressed concern that they didn’t know a vote was being taken and that only a small fraction of those in the collective bargaining unit might have participated. Those concerns came up at a meeting last night at the union hall, according to a worker who was there. (The Unions have now approved a law whereby they can have a vote with as few as 5 people present! BB)
Dallas-based Vought was also taken by surprise that its workers voted to ratify an agreement with the Machinists union, the company said in a statement released Thursday.
Vought spokeswoman Lynne Warne said Vought was not privy to information about the number of workers who participated in the vote.
“Despite the fact that additional bargaining sessions were scheduled and final proposals had not been exchanged, Vought officials were advised by the IAM (Machinists union) that union members had ratified Vought’s proposals at an emergency meeting called by the union on Nov. 7,” the company said.
Touting that an “overwhelming” 92% of the members voted to accept the contract, it soon became apparent that the 92% the union claimed was really12 out of 13 people who actually showed up at the union’s meeting and voted (out of nearly 200 affected). What was worse than the back-door deal the Machinists rammed through was the fact thatit was also a bad deal, according to employees:
“We got screwed,” said newly laid-off assembly mechanic Jay Fleckenstein on Thursday night as he worked his second job delivering pizza.
And mechanic Pam DeGarmo said the 1.5 percent annual wage hike won’t even cover the union dues and inflation.
“It’s a horrible contract,” said DeGarmo. “I didn’t gain anything. It’s going to cost me money.“
Several months later, in July 2009, Boeing announced it was buying the South Carolina facility from Vought. By the end of July, with the facility purchased, the employees in South Carolinafiled to decertify the union.
Meanwhile, in Puget Sound, Boeing had already begun seeking to obtain a longer contract with the Machinists union. In early July, Boeing told Washington State politicians that it was seeking a longer contract with the union
Members of the state’s congressional delegation said Tuesday that Boeing is laying down an ultimatum to its biggest union: Unless a long-term agreement barring strikes by the Machinists is reached by this fall, Boeing will build a second production line for the 787 someplace outside Washington.
“The whole thing comes down to, can they get a long-term agreement with the union, with a no-strike clause,” influential U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Bremerton, said in an interview Tuesday. “That’s what ultimately has to happen here in the next two or three or four months — or they are going to go elsewhere.
“I think if they get this agreement, they would stay.”
In a separate interview, Gov. Chris Gregoire said Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Scott Carson told her recently the company is seeking a long-term no-strike agreement with the Machinists union.
Carson also said Boeing will likely make its decision on the location of a second 787 production line this fall, though Gregoire said he did not specifically link the two elements as an ultimatum.
In late October 2009, Boeing, unable to get an agreement with the union,announcedthat it would locate its second assembly line in South Carolina.
“We’re taking prudent steps to protect the interests of our customers as we introduce the 787-9 and ramp up overall production to 10 twin-aisle 787 jets per month,” said Albaugh.
“While we welcome the development of this expanded capability at Boeing Charleston, the Puget Sound region is the headquarters of Boeing Commercial Airplanes. Everett will continue to design and produce airplanes, including the 787, and there is tremendous opportunity for our current and future products here,” Albaugh emphasized. “We remain committed to Puget Sound.” (NO. repeat: NO! employees were laid off or fired at the Washington Boeing plant. So how did Boeing hurt any employees at this plant as the NLRB National Labor Relations Board is trying to imply? BB)
In March, 2010, the Machinists filed charges against Boeing claiming the company’s move was in retaliation for the 2008 strike. At the time, the Seattle Times noted:
The IAM struck Boeing for two months in fall 2008, the fourth strike in a decade. Early the following year, Boeing Chief Executive Jim McNerney told Washington’s congressional delegation the repeated strikes were a major problem and the company would seek another location for its second 787 assembly line unless the union agreed to a long-term no-strike clause.
“We were entirely transparent with the IAM,” [Boeing spokeman Tim] Healy said. “We needed an agreement that would allow us to meet our customer commitments.”
The complaint was filed with the NLRB in March. That same month, Jim Albaugh, the chief executive of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, said in a Seattle Times interview that “the overriding factor (in choosing South Carolina) was not the business climate. And it was not the wages we are paying today … It was that we can’t afford to have a work stoppage every three years.”
Is that an illegal reprisal, punishing a past strike? Or is it a legitimate strategic choice, avoiding future strikes?
“Our decision has everything to do with being a reliable supplier and is not a reprisal for the past,” said Boeing’s Healy.
The NLRB, in thecomplaint publishedon Wednesday, believes that, rather than Boeing making a legitimate strategic choice (as many other companies have) Boeing’s actions were “in retaliation for past strike activity and to chill future strike activity by its union employees.” (Moving and building an entirely new plant is a very expensive endeavor and I can hardly credit that companies do this for frivolous reason like revenge! And remember the Washington plant was not closed and NO employees lost their jobs! BB)
Unfortunately for the IAM, if it were not for its poor representation in South Carolina, where the union had existed before getting kicked out, it could have had Boeing members in both Washington as well as South Carolina and the NLRB fight would never have had to take place.
This is an ongoing story that is only going to get bigger and uglier as the union, all unions, try to take over the country. If the unions were truly the people or even representing the workers then I would be willing to believe their existence is a good thing. But the union are and have been the Mafia in America for a long time. The Mafia early on found the unions were a large and legal way to extort money from people so they took over the running of these organizations. It’s all about POWER and MONEY and to hell with any little old worker type person except for their FORCED pay check extracted union dues.
Do your homework on the history of unions. they are always started because of a worthy need but then very quickly become worse for the worker than the need that caused them. BB