'Divide and conquer' unions comment dogs Wisconsin governor in recall
This screenshot from Brad Lichtenstein's video shows Gov. Scott Walker talking to Beloit billionaire Diane Hendricks, who has since given $510,000 to the governor's campaign - making her Walker's single-largest donor and the largest known donor to a candidate in state history.
Madison - A filmmaker released a video Thursday that shows Gov. Scott Walker saying he would use "divide and conquer" as a strategy against unions. Walker made the comments to Beloit billionaire Diane Hendricks, who has since given $510,000 to the governor's campaign - making her Walker's single-largest donor and the largest known donor to a candidate in state history.
The filmmaker has done work on Democratic campaigns and gave $100 in 2010 to Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, Walker's challenger in the June 5 recall election.
In the video shot on Jan. 18, 2011 - shortly before Walker's controversial budget-repair bill was introduced and spawned mass protests - Hendricks asked the governor whether he could make Wisconsin a "completely red state, and work on these unions, and become a right-to-work" state. The Republican donor was referring to right-to-work laws, which prohibit private-sector unions from compelling workers to pay union dues if the workers choose not to belong to the union.
Walker replied that his "first step" would be "to divide and conquer" through his budget-adjustment bill, which curtailed most collective bargaining for most public employee unions.
Video for documentary
Documentary filmmaker Brad Lichtenstein, who says he captures both sides in his work, videotaped the conversation that Walker had with Hendricks and Mary Willmer-Sheedy, a community bank president for M&I Bank. The filmmaker was recording what Willmer-Sheedy and others in Janesville were doing to try to create jobs in an area hard hit by the shutdown of its General Motors plant and related businesses.
In the video, Hendricks told Walker she wanted to discuss "controversial" subjects away from reporters, asking him:
"Any chance we'll ever get to be a completely red state and work on these unions -"
"Oh, yeah," Walker broke in.
"- and become a right-to-work?" Hendricks continued. "What can we do to help you?"
"Well, we're going to start in a couple weeks with our budget adjustment bill," Walker said. "The first step is we're going to deal with collective bargaining for all public employee unions, because you use divide and conquer."
The entire conversation was not released Thursday with a video trailer of the documentary, but Journal Sentinel reporters were allowed to view the raw footage.
"So for us," the governor continues, "the base we get for that is the fact that we've got - budgetarily we can't afford not to. If we have collective bargaining agreements in place, there's no way not only the state but local governments can balance things out. . . . That opens the door once we do that. That's your bigger problem right there."
He goes on to talk about curbing liability lawsuits and government regulations.
Right-to-work issue
Walker co-sponsored right-to-work legislation in 1993 as a freshman in the state Assembly, but as governor has consistently downplayed seeking any restrictions on private unions in public statements.
"From our standpoint, it's never going to get to me," Walker said of right-to-work legislation in an interview with the Journal Sentinel on April 27. "Private sector unions are my partner in economic development."
Walker, however, has repeatedly declined to say whether he would sign or veto a right-to-work bill if passed by the Legislature. Supporters say right-to-work bills give more freedom to workers and make it more attractive for companies to invest and hire employees in a state. Opponents say they undermine unions and workers' wages and don't help the economy.
In response to the documentary trailer, Walker spokeswoman Ciara Matthews said Thursday that the governor's position on right to work was clear.
"Governor Walker has made clear repeatedly that he does not have an interest in pushing right-to-work legislation," Matthews said.
The taped conversation occurred at the Beloit headquarters of ABC Supply, the roofing wholesaler and siding distributor Hendricks founded with her husband, Ken, who died in a 2007 fall. Walker was there to attend a meeting of the economic development group Rock County 5.0, which Hendricks co-chairs.
Lichtenstein videotaped the conversation that Walker had with Hendricks and Rock County 5.0's other co-chairwoman, Willmer-Sheedy.
Hendricks did not return phone messages seeking comment. In a brief email Thursday, Willmer-Sheedy said the conversation was a private one between Walker and Hendricks and that she had nothing to add to it.
Lichtenstein is now promoting his finished documentary, "As Goes Janesville," which is expected to be shown at film festivals and on PBS stations this fall.
Lichtenstein was preparing to film a Rock County 5.0 meeting that Walker was to attend when Hendricks said she was going to greet Walker personally when he came in. Lichtenstein said he asked to join her and she agreed.
On Thursday, Barrett said Walker's exchange with Hendricks shows the governor will say one thing to the public and another to his top-tier donors.
"This is another colossal bait and switch that goes directly to his honesty," Barrett said. "What he claims he is not in favor of publicly, to the person who has made the largest contribution in state history, he says exactly the opposite. You can't trust him."
Barrett has been hammering Walker on right-to-work legislation for weeks, frequently using the phrase "divide and conquer." Barrett said he used that term because he believed that was Walker's strategy, but did not know until Thursday that Walker himself had used it.
Union manager troubled
In the 2010 campaign, Walker won the support of Operating Engineers Local 139, a union that represents about 9,000 heavy equipment operators in Wisconsin. The union is not endorsing anyone in this year's recall election.
Terry McGowan, the union's business manager, said the union gave its 2010 endorsement only after getting assurances Walker would not pursue right-to-work legislation. The union backed Walker because of his support for road building done by the group's members, McGowan said.
He said Thursday he was troubled by the footage of Walker with Hendricks, but that he was continuing to take Walker at his word given his public statements and conversations he has had with him.
"You don't hear him say, 'Yes, I'm going to go after right-to-work legislation,' " McGowan said of the video.
But he added that divide and conquer is a phrase that is anathema to those in the labor movement.
"It means turning worker against worker," he said.
Hendricks, whose net worth Forbes Magazine estimates to be $2.8 billion, has a strong history of supporting conservative causes and Republican candidates. Not including donations to Walker, Hendricks and her husband, Ken, since 1997 have contributed just over $500,000 to political candidates and committees in races ranging from the state Assembly to the presidency, with the overwhelming majority going to Republicans, according to federal data as well as state data compiled by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.
Between 2009 and 2011, Hendricks gave $19,100 to Walker. That included a $10,000 donation - the maximum at that time for a four-year election cycle - that was made on Feb. 1, 2011, about two weeks after the personal meeting with Walker.
Because Walker faces a recall, a quirk in state law allowed supporters such as Hendricks for a time to donate unlimited sums to the governor's campaign for certain expenses. Last month, Hendricks contributed $500,000 to Walker, bringing her total donations to him to $519,100 and the donations by her and Ken to all candidates to more than $1 million.
On Feb. 16, 2011 - about one month after her meeting with Walker and five days after the governor unveiled his public union bill - Hendricks' company, ABC Supply, gave $25,000 to the Republican Governors Association. The association has run ads in support of Walker.
Teamsters Applaud Support For NLRB's Reform Of Election Process
April 24, 2012
Hoffa: Today's Vote Showed Who Is On The Side Of Middle-Class Workers
(WASHINGTON) – Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa today said he is pleased a majority of U.S. senators voted to uphold National Labor Relations Board reforms that make union representation elections more efficient.
The Senate blocked, by a vote of 45-54, an effort to overturn the new NLRB election rule. President Obama said he’d veto the resolution if it came to his desk.
“Today’s vote was about one thing: whether American workers should have the right to a fair vote for a union,” Hoffa said. “Now we know which side our Senate representatives are on. Fortunately, a majority are on the side of the American middle-class worker.”
Until the rule change, the NLRB supervised union elections under rules that caused long delays and costly, frivolous litigation. These delays allowed employers to mount aggressive anti-union campaigns, intimidating employees so they would not seek union representation.
“Extremist, anti-worker politicians tried and failed to overturn a common-sense rule that got rid of voting delays and made sure workers had the basic right to vote,” Hoffa said. “You have to ask who these senators represent, American working families or corporations who want to pay their employees as little as they possibly can?”
Founded in 1903, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters represents more than 1.4 million hard-working men and women in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. Go to www.teamster.org for more information.
Inside Information at NLRB Converted for Private Benefit of Former Members, says NLRB Inspector General
Miller asks Justice Department to carefully consider all the evidence provided by the Inspector General
WASHINGTON – Rep. George Miller (D-CA), the senior Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, wrote the Attorney General today asking him to consider evidence resulting from an investigation by the National Labor Relations Board Inspector General, which found that current Board Member Terence Flynn, when serving as a chief counsel, provided confidential information to former Board Members Peter Kirsanow and Peter Schaumber for their private benefit.
“As the senior Democratic member of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce, I have been deeply concerned about a number of developments over the last year that have threatened to undermine the integrity of the adjudication and rulemaking processes at the National Labor Relations Board,” wrote Miller to Attorney General Eric Holder. “The Inspector General’s findings about the conversions of sensitive government information for private gain should not go without further scrutiny. In short, such actions threaten the integrity of the Board’s most vital operations.”
Miller forwarded the report to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder urging him to carefully consider information contained in the Inspector General’s report as well as information the Attorney General has received pursuant to the Inspector General Act.
According to the Inspector General report, the deliberative, pre-decisional information included “lead case lists, pre-decisional votes and positions of the members, the identity of counsel assigned to a case, the status of cases, the researching issues in cases, the deliberation of the former Chairman in [a case], the desire of two members to press forward in [a case], and the analysis of the Board’s resolution on” a pending rulemaking.
“In addition to the improper assistance provided, the report raises questions regarding the actions of the outside parties, including the extent to which any inside information was used for their or their clients’ private benefit,” Miller wrote.
This investigation comes on the heels of an earlier investigation by the Inspector General into whetherBoard Member Brian Hayes received improper inducements to resign his position on the NLRB. In that case, the Inspector General found that Member Hayes engaged in employment discussions with a law firm with business before the agency. During that time, some had been calling on Hayes to resign in order to incapacitate the NLRB, preventing it from issuing case decisions or new rules, including a rule to reform union elections. Hayes' resignation would have denied the NLRB a quorum, stopping any action to advance the election rule, among other things. In light of that Inspector General report, Miller asked the Department of Justice to investigate possible enticement involving Hayes and the private law firm.
As the Senior Democratic Member of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce, I have been deeply concerned about a number of developments over the last year that have threatened to undermine the integrity of the adjudication and rulemaking processes at the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”). Less than two months ago, I asked the Department of Justice to investigate possible enticement involving a Member of the Board and a private law firm with business before the NLRB. My referral was based in part on evidence included in a January 23, 2012, NLRB Inspector General Report of Investigation. I write today because the Inspector General has once again informed the Committee that additional improper conduct may have occurred at the Board involving another sitting Board Member and two former Board members.
NLRB Inspector General David Berry transmitted this latest Report of Investigation to the Committee earlier this week. For convenience, I have attached a copy of that report to this letter. Also, I understand that, as part of this investigation, the Inspector General has in fact fulfilled his statutory requirement to report to you information about possible criminal activity. To ensure the integrity of this important independent government agency upon which both employers and employees rely for the fair administration of their rights, I urge you to carefully consider the information that the Inspector General has provided to you.
According to the Report, current Board Member Terence Flynn, “while serving as a Chief Counsel, violated the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch” because among other actions, he provided “deliberative, pre-decisional information that was protected from disclosure” as well as “attorney-client information…protected from disclosure” variously to former Board Member Peter Kirsanow, former Board Member Peter Schaumber, and others. The deliberative, pre-decisional information at issue included “lead case lists, pre-decisional votes and positions of the members, the identity of counsel assigned to a case, the status of cases, the researching issues in cases, the deliberation of the former Chairman in [a case], the desire of two members to press forward in [a case], and the analysis of the Board’s resolution on”a pending rulemaking.
The Inspector General found that Mr. Flynn’s “improper disclosure of information to former Members Kirsanow and Schaumber amounted to a conversion of the information for the private benefit of former Member Kirsanow and his client, the National Association of Manufacturers, and former Member Schaumber’s labor relations consulting and/or legal practice.”
The investigation uncovered an electronic file named “Schaumber business plan.doc” stating: “My practice will be developed in part by leveraging my Agency connections and focusing the attention of senior management on the likely priorities of the Obama Board and strategies to respond to them.” Another file named “Schaumber SuppBusPlan.doc” indicated that former Member Schaumber would “serve as a liaison for the firm on matters requiring high level intervention at the National Labor Relations Board and other Government agencies.” The Inspector General describes Mr. Schaumber as having a “labor relations consulting and/or legal practice” and notes a September 12, 2011, announcement that Mr. Schaumber “would serve as a co-chair” of a “Labor Policy Advisory Group” for a candidate for the Republican nomination for President.
The investigation noted that Mr. Kirsanow represented the National Association of Manufacturers in litigation against the National Labor Relations Board. According to the report, an email from Mr. Flynn to Mr. Kirsanow in the midst of that litigation revealed attorney-client information belonging to the Board related to that litigation.
It is not clear from the Report whether the Inspector General uncovered the sum total of improper assistance provided to these outside parties. The Inspector General notes that, “in general, we were only able to review e-mail records from May 2011 forward that remained on the NLRB e-mail server through the period of this investigation.”
In addition to the improper assistance provided, the Report raises questions regarding the actions of the outside parties, including the extent to which any inside information was used for their or their clients’ private benefit.
In closing, the Inspector General’s findings about the conversions of sensitive government information for private gain should not go without further scrutiny. The information that was shared is the kind of information that is sacrosanct to the effective operations of the NLRB and the due process rights of the parties appearing before the Board. Disclosure of such information “could have a chilling effect on the operation of the Board and may prejudice the due process rights of the parties in pending and future cases.” In short, such actions threaten the integrity of the Board’s most vital operations.
If you have questions regarding this letter, please contact me or direct your staff to contact the Committee’s minority General Counsel, Megan O’Reilly, who may be reached at (202) 225-3725. I appreciate your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
GEORGE MILLER
Senior Democratic Member
cc: John Kline, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce
David P. Berry, Inspector General, National Labor Relations Board
General Executive Board Members Take Oath of Office, Begin Five-Year Term
(WASHINGTON) — Teamsters General President James P. Hoffa, General Secretary-Treasurer Ken Hall and the newly elected International Vice Presidents and Trustees were sworn in today to a five-year term on the union’s General Executive Board.
The Hoffa-Hall slate won the 2011 IBT International Officer Election by a wide margin in November. The election results were certified on Jan. 6. Hoffa took office in March 1999 and won re-election in 2001 and 2006. Under his stewardship, the Teamsters Union has regained its place as the strongest labor union in North America.
“It is truly an honor and a privilege to serve the 1.4 million members of this great union,” Hoffa said. “We have accomplished so much as a union since 1999, but our work is not done. There are new attacks on working families every day and unions are the only ones standing up for people with no voice. I am proud to serve on our General Executive Board with these outstanding union leaders.”
Hall is a 36-year, second-generation Teamster. As Package Division Director, he negotiates the largest collective bargaining agreement in the country covering more than 250,000 Teamsters at UPS. He has served on the General Executive Board since 2003.
“I will never waiver from our mission, which is to provide the best representation possible to the members of the greatest union in the world,” Hall said. “We will continue to do everything in our power to protect, defend and secure strong Teamster contracts that provide good benefits and job security. Teamster membership has lifted generation after generation into the middle class and helped millions secure the American dream. I am honored to help carry on that important tradition.”
The 2012-2017 International Brotherhood of Teamsters General Executive Board:
James P. Hoffa, General President Ken Hall, General Secretary-Treasurer Rome A. Aloise, At-Large International Vice President Ferline Buie, At-Large International Vice President George L. Miranda, At-Large International Vice President Albert R. Mixon, At-Large International Vice President Fredrick P. Potter Jr., At-Large International Vice President Freddie Simpson, At-Large International Vice President George Tedeschi, At-Large International Vice President Brian R. Buhle, Central Region International Vice President John T. Coli, Central Region International Vice President Becky Strzechowski, Central Region International Vice President* Gordon Sweeton, Central Region International Vice President William Hamilton, Eastern Region International Vice President Dan Kane Sr., Eastern Region International Vice President John F. Murphy, Eastern Region International Vice President Sean M. O’Brien, Eastern Region International Vice President Tyson Johnson, Southern Region International Vice President Ken Wood, Southern Region International Vice President Randy Cammack, Western Region International Vice President Rick Middleton, Western Region International Vice President Steve P. Vairma, Western Region International Vice President Robert Bouvier, President Teamsters Canada, Canada Region Vice President Stan Hennessy, Canada Region Vice President Craig McInnes, Canada Region Vice President Ron Herrera, International Trustee Jim Kabell, International Trustee Kevin D. Moore, International Trustee
*Strzechowski was appointed Central Region International Vice President by the General Executive Board to assume the office left open by the untimely death of former Secretary-Treasurer of Teamsters Local 705 in Chicago, Steve Pocztowski, who was elected as part of the Hoffa-Hall slate.
Founded in 1903, the Teamsters Union represents 1.4 million hardworking men and women throughout the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. Visit www.teamster.org for more information. Follow us on Twitter @TeamsterPower.
FROM the 1940s to the 1970s, organized labor helped build a middle-class democracy in the United States. The postwar period was as successful as it was because of unions, which helped enact progressive social legislation from the Civil Rights Act to Medicare. Since then, union representation of American workers has fallen, in tandem with the percentage of income going to the middle class. Broadly shared prosperity has been replaced by winner-take-all plutocracy.
Corporations will tell you that the American labor movement has declined so significantly - to around 7 percent of the private-sector work force today, from 35 percent of the private sector in the mid-1950s - because unions are obsolete in a global economy, where American workers have to compete against low-wage nonunion workers in other countries. But many vibrant industrial democracies, including Germany, have strong unions despite facing the same pressures from globalization.
Other skeptics suggest that because laws now exist providing for worker safety and overtime pay, American employees no longer feel the need to join unions. But polling has shown that a majority of nonunion workers would like to join a union if they could.
In fact, the greatest impediment to unions is weak and anachronistic labor laws. It's time to add the right to organize a labor union, without employer discrimination, to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, because that right is as fundamental as freedom from discrimination in employment and education. This would enshrine what the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. observed in 1961 at an A.F.L.-C.I.O. convention: "The two most dynamic and cohesive liberal forces in the country are the labor movement and the Negro freedom movement. Together, we can be architects of democracy."
The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that "everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests." The First Amendment has been read to protect freedom of association, and the 1935 National Labor Relations Act recognized the "right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations," but in reality, the opportunity to organize is a right without a remedy.
Firing someone for trying to organize a union is technically illegal under the 1935 act, but there are powerful incentives for corporations to violate this right, in part because the penalties - mitigated back pay after extended hearings - are so weak.
It is noteworthy that American workers in the airline and railway industries, which are governed not by the 1935 law but by a stronger statute, the Railway Labor Act, have much higher rates of unionization.
Past efforts to strengthen labor laws over four decades have gotten bogged down: Congress cannot pass reforms until labor's political clout increases, but that won't happen without labor law reform.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, has much stronger penalties and procedures than labor laws. Under our proposal, complaints about wrongful terminations for union organizing could still go through the National Labor Relations Board, which has expertise in this field. But the board would employ the procedures currently used by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which provide that after 180 days, a plaintiff can move his or her case from the administrative agency to federal court. There, plaintiffs alleging that they were unfairly dismissed for trying to organize could sue for compensatory and punitive damages and lawyers' fees, have the opportunity to engage in pretrial legal discovery and have access to a jury - none of which are available under current law.
Our proposal would make disciplining or firing an employee "on the basis of seeking union membership" illegal just as it now is on the basis of race, color, sex, religion and national origin. It would expand the fundamental right of association encapsulated in the First Amendment and apply it to the private workplace just as the rights of equality articulated in the 14th Amendment have been so applied.
The labor and civil rights movements have shared values (advancing human dignity), shared interests (people of color are disproportionately working-class), shared historic enemies (the Jim Crow South was also a bastion of right-to-work laws) and shared tactics (sit-ins, strikes and other forms of nonviolent protest). King, it should be remembered, was gunned down in Memphis in 1968, where he was supporting striking black sanitation workers who marched carrying posters with the message "I Am a Man." Conceiving of labor organizing as a civil right, moreover, would recast the complexity of labor law reform in clear moral terms.
Some might argue that the Civil Rights Act should be limited to discrimination based on immutable characteristics like race or national origin, not acts of volition. But the act already protects against religious discrimination. Some local civil rights statutes even cover marital status, family responsibilities, matriculation, political affiliation, source of income, or place of residence or business.
Should organizing at work for "mutual aid and protection" not also be covered?
While there are many factors that help explain why the nation has progressed on King's vision for civil rights while it has moved backward on his goal of economic equality, among the most important is the substantial difference between the strength of our laws on civil rights and labor. It is time to write protections for labor into the Civil Rights Act itself.
Richard D. Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, and Moshe Z. Marvit, a labor and job discrimination lawyer, are the authors of "Why Labor Organizing Should Be a Civil Right: Rebuilding a Middle-Class Democracy by Enhancing Worker Voice."
Thoughtful newspaper editors examine facts presented to them by advocacy groups.
Unfortunately for the Daily Mail's readers, Johanna Maurice mindlessly regurgitates the propaganda of a group that aims to enrich the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.
In her February 11 column, "Right to work states work better," Maurice claims studies show right-to-work-for-less laws encourage job creation.
NOT TRUE, Studies show they have zero impact on job creation.
Companies looking for cheap labor are moving to China and Mexico, not Oklahoma or Mississippi.
Right-to-work laws do affect wages, lowering them by $1,500-a-year for both union and nonunion workers. They also lower the odds that workers will get health insurance or a pension, while increasing the risk that they'll be hurt or killed on the job.
Maybe that's why Maurice uses figures that don't measure economic performance. She makes the bizarre argument that right-to-work-for-less states are somehow better because of the numbers of their congressional districts and adults aged 25-34.
I was stunned that she quoted Arthur Laffer - the fellow who made the spectacularly wrong prediction that lowering the federal tax rate would increase tax revenue. Recently he was accused of lending his name to a fund that has been accused of running a Ponzi scheme in Texas.
..
It's no coincidence that Laffer follows a path to prosperity that involves lying and cheating.
..
That's what right-to-work-for-less advocates do - lie to workers about the benefits of the law and then cheat them of their ability to bargain freely with their employers.
The federal government requires unions to pay the costs of representing all workers even if they aren't dues-paying members. These costs can be substantial.
Right-to-work-for-less advocates want to weaken unions financially by letting workers freeload, benefiting from union representation without paying for it.
If the Daily Mail supports workers' rights to free union representation, the newspaper should also support readers' rights to free newspaper subscriptions.
If it doesn't, I suggest readers exercise their right not to buy a newspaper that stretches the truth to advocate laws that will harm them.
..
Ken Hall
Charleston
Teamster
News Headlines:
(Updated Daily From Teamster.org)
“It is truly an honor and a privilege to serve the 1.4 million members of this great union,” Hoffa said. “We have accomplished so much as a union since 1999, but our work is not done. There are new attacks on working families every day and unions are the only ones standing up for people with no voice. I am proud to serve on our General Executive Board with these outstanding union leaders.”
