Posted by
RME KRNL on Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:08:48 AM
[Note: I am not anti-union. My dad was a railroad union man for over 30 years, and almost all of my maternal uncles were also union men. I was raised in a union family. But my dad and uncles did sometimes disagree with what union bosses wanted the union to do, just as I now disagree with some union influence being exerted today.]
Remember back during the presidential campaign when Barack Obama repeatedly said that, if elected, he would not tolerate special interest groups, lobbyists and lobbying in his administration? It was part of the "change" to the old ways of Washington which he promised and made people "hope" for. Remember?
And then he got elected and within his first 100 days he made numerous "exceptions" to his "no lobbyists in my administration" promise and hired about a baker's dozen of lobbyists for key positions. So much for the candidate versus the conqueror, then versus now, before versus after, what I say versus what I do. It seems the candidate versus the conqueror has had a little crisis of character.
Also, during the ongoing saga of what will happen to American auto makers, Obama has said he doesn't want to run car manufacturing companies but, first, he poured millions of taxpayer dollars into trying to save GM and Chrysler; second, he probably unconstitutionally fired GM's CEO; and, third, when it finally became apparent that bankruptcy was the only realistic recourse, mainly because the UAW (United Auto Workers) legacy costs which had made the auto companies uncompetitive for years was also preventing their current recession recovery, he publicly, and unfairly, criticized investment managers for trying to save as much of their investors' money as possible (many of them also peoples' 401Ks and other pension plans), while favoring the UAW not only getting more bankruptcy cents on the taxpayer dollar but also becoming a controlling stakeholder in the very company(ies) which their previous demands, conditions and complaints had run into the ground in the first place.
Now, also keep in perspective that the UAW has about 513,000 active and 575,000 retired members in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico, and therefore represents about 1,088,000 people, active and retired together, or .003 percent of the overall population of about 330 million.
So, the old workers are the new management now? Is that another socialist precept? Plus, Obama then also tried to influence a federal bankruptcy judge into also favoring the union position. (Uh, hey, Barack, I was never a Constitutional Law adjunct lecturer or law school law review editor like you, but the last time I checked, trying to influence a federal judge is a felony, even if your are the president.) So, tell me, how DOES one trust the foxes to fairly watch the hen house? How does Labor manage when it has become Management? I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Obama also appointed Hilda Solis as his Secretary of Labor. While Ms. Solis' background eminently qualifies her for the position, what is more interesting is that her Nicaraguan mother and Mexican father, who both legally immigrated and became naturalized citizens, were both also union members. Her father was a Teamsters shop steward in Mexico and, after coming to the U.S., worked at a battery recycling plant in California, where he again was a shop steward organizer for the Teamsters. Her mother was a union assembly line worker for over 20 years. So, Ms. Solis was raised in a union family, the daughter of an immigrant Teamster shop steward.
And despite all of Obama's talk about greater "transparency" in government, Secretary Solis' Labor Department recently announced that it is rolling back the 2007 rules requiring labor unions and their leaders to report more detailed finance and compensation information. In its announcement, the Labor Department said "...it would not be a good use of resources..." to enforce the stricter, more detailed conflict of interest reporting requirements against unions. Instead, unions and their leadership will be allowed to submit the older, less detailed, reports.
Another "enabler" of this recent policy change, in which unions don't have to be as "transparent" about their financial dealings as other groups, may have been Deborah Greenfield, a former AFL-CIO union lawyer who filed a law suit against the Labor Department in 2008, maintaining that the stricter 2007 reporting requirements were "onerous." Ms. Greenfield is now a chief deputy to Solis at Labor. I don't know - you connect the dots.
And now, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which represents about 1.5 million union members across the country, recently lobbied the Obama administration to withhold $6.8 billion in stimulus funding to California, because, as part of the state's efforts to balance its budget, its Republican governor and Democratic legislature agreed to cut pay for home health workers (SEIU members) by two dollars an hour, totaling a savings of $74 million.
The SEIU protested to the Obama administration and, in an unprecedented and unsettling move, Obama administration officials actually invited the SEIU to participate in a conference call between federal and state government officials. Wait a minute! That's an employee union which represents only about .005 percent (1.5 million divided by 330 million) of the national population not only being allowed but invited to meddle in the outcome of coordination between the federal government and not only just any state government but the one with the largest economy and, right now, the one in the most financial trouble. Huh? Do minuscule special interest groups actually dictate our overall governing policies now?
A SEIU spokeswoman claimed that “...when it came time for a call, all the parties involved were included. This is an example of transparency.”
No, it's not. That's a mound of moose manure, a heap of horse hocky, otherwise known as pure BS. Besides, its becoming increasingly clear that what is and is not "transparent" about this administration is seductively selective at best or prestidigitationally perspicacious at worse. Machiavelli would be so proud.
What it is actually is another example of Team Obama's hubris and hypocrisy, along the "I won, so screw you guys" theme. It's either another example of Team Obama naively not knowing the proper way to conduct its business or its openly allowing, nay inviting, a special interest group to influence governmental affairs between the federal government and a state government, and not only that, but federal-state governmental affairs affecting the distribution of the general populace's taxpayer money. Outrageous. Wisely or unwisely, at least the respective federal and state government representatives were voted into office. Who voted in the SEIU?
Would SEIU say it was "transparency" if a company vying for a government contract was allowed, much less invited, to even listen in on a conference call among government officials over the projected outcome of that contract? Of course not.
Couple all of this with Obama recently nominating SEIU and AFL-CIO (hmmm, two for one) union lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the quasi-judicial agency that administers federal labor law and oversees, for example, the secret ballot elections in union certification drives and resolving unfair labor practices committed by union organizers - can we all say "card check"? - are you beginning to see a pattern here? - and it becomes clear that the SEIU, and labor in general, can, has and will exert influence, and possibly undue influence, within the Obama administration.
Big Labor reps have openly bragged about how many millions in their members' dues they spent in getting Obama elected, and now it seems it's time for payback - the requisite requital. And although Obama has already broken many campaign promises he made to the public at large, he, as the practical politician he surely is, does seem to keep other promises by paying attention to - and paying off - his supporters.
It's just sometimes confusing, between Obama and Big Labor, who is in whose pocket, when, and how deep. What's NOT confusing in the least, however, is that they are BOTH in the taxpayers' pockets, and with BOTH hands!