Tag Archives: big labor

Labor Boss Says He Hopes to ‘Take the Corporate Community and Its Greed Out of the Picture’

Posted on by
Reply

Advocates of single-payer health care will not stop there, according to Jerry Tucker, former member of the UAW International Executive Board who now represents the group, Labor for Single Payer.  Speaking during the opening session of the 2009 Healthcare-Now.org National Strategy Conference Saturday afternoon in St. Louis, he explained his vision for the future.

“Health care is but one of the fronts that we have to be concerned about in the struggle for social justice,” said Tucker, the second of six panel members to speak during the session.

“When we whip this health care crisis and we bring it into the bright place where it should be and we take the corporate community and its greed out of the picture, it will be such a major setback for them that it will open the door for many of the other struggles as well.”

Tucker, who claimed to have cut his teeth as a single-payer advocate in 1972 as Big Labor’s representative to advance legislation sponsored by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), was very open to the audience he considered all-friendly, going so far as to admit that union workers once had “the Lambourghini” — not the Cadillac — of health care plans.

I’ve never had a Lambourghini or Cadillac plant.  Have you?

Below is the full-length video of Tucker’s statement I shot as the only journalist at the conference.

To see and hear what other conference speakers had to say, click here.

Barack Obama Breaks Energy-Related Promises

Posted on by
Reply
Photo Courtesy Chesapeake Energy

Photo Courtesy Chesapeake Energy

In a post one year ago today, I opined about the nation’s energy future under then-President-Elect Barack Obama:

While Americans wait for Barack Obama to take office, the nation’s energy future hangs in the balance.  Still, amidst so much uncertainty, a review of the president-elect’s statements and actions in recent months offers an ever-so-slight glimmer of hope.

Such cautious optimism followed several campaign-trail statements by then-presidential candidate Obama:

“Over the next five years, we should also lease more of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska for oil and gas production. And we should also tap more of our substantial natural gas reserves and work with the Canadian government to finally build the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline, delivering clean natural gas and creating good jobs in the process.” — Aug. 4, 2008, speech, Michigan State University in Lansing

“As president, I will tap our natural gas reserves.” — Aug. 28, 2008, speech, Democratic National Convention in Denver

Unfortunately, actions taken by Obama and his band of socialism-loving liberals since Inauguration Day prove one should never trust a liberal socialist from Chicago (or anywhere else for that matter) when it comes to energy security:

  • On June 3, the folks at Goldman Sachs predicted that crude oil prices would jump 31 percent by the end of the year.  [Note: As of today, it's up approximately 19 percent -- to $79 from $66 per barrel -- with 49 days to go.]
  • On Sept. 25, 2009, President Obama outlined steps he and other G20 world leaders at the Pittsburgh Summit 2009 have decided to take to change the world in many economic areas, including energy.  Most notable to me was his mention of “phasing out fossil fuel subsidies.”
  • On Nov. 4, I reported that members of the mainstream media — people who call themselves “journalists” — seem to have paid absolutely no attention to a Congressional Research Service report on energy released Oct. 27 — this, despite the fact that two energy-related measures (i.e., the Kerry-Boxer and Waxman-Markey climate change bills) are at the center of heated debate now taking place on Capitol Hill.

World Fossil Fuel Resources Chart

If passed, according to the folks at API, the Kerry-Boxer Climate Change Bill could, according to API’s Gerard, cause gasoline and diesel prices to rise above $5.00 a gallon and result in net job losses of two million or more even after the creation of some green jobs.  Therefore, it must be stopped!

CONTACT YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS in Washington, D.C., and demand they work to stop Kerry-Boxer in its tracks, before the Senate can approve it.

Big Oil, Big Labor Form Historic Partnership

Posted on by
Reply

Saying the ultimate goal of the partnership is to secure more and better-paying jobs for Americans in the oil and gas industry and for more Americans in every region of the country, American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Jack Gerard announced this morning the formation of a historic partnership his organization that represents some 400 firms in the oil and natural gas industry and 15 labor unions.

“This partnership,” he said, “is based upon the belief that an economic recovery is not far away.”

The fact that “Big Oil” is partnering with “Big Labor” should send a signal to President Barack Obama and his Democrat cronies in Congress that their job-killing approach to energy policy — raising taxes on oil and gas companies, limiting exploration opportunities and placing increasingly-burdensome regulations on the industry — is damaging to the nation’s energy security.

For more details about the announcement, click here.

Card Check Measure Threatens Jobs, Democracy (Updated)

Posted on by
Reply
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.)

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.)

In a recent editorial published in the Aiken (S.C.) Standard, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) explains what’s wrong with efforts to do away with the use of secret ballots in elections that will decide whether or not a workplace is unionized.  Excerpts of that editorial appear below:

  • Each individual would be required to publicly declare their candidate of choice to anyone within eyesight or earshot.
  • The misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (a.k.a., “Card Check”) all but eliminates the secret ballot by requiring that a majority of employees merely sign a card to determine unionization – denying a worker’s right to an election.

Click to view 50-page pdf.

  • Those who should normally be making the decisions regarding union contracts – the employers and employees – would have the terms ultimately dictated to them by the government.
  • Card check does nothing for worker’s rights, and it would be a job-killer for our country.
  • Based on the 1.5 million jobs “Big Labor” claims will be unionized once the secret ballot has been undermined, our economy would be looking at a loss of 600,000 jobs.
  • The EFCA, however, would directly and indirectly impede efforts to rein in the cost of health care and disrupt the work of doctors, nurses and health care facilities to promote quality care.

Representative Wilson, who represents South Carolina’s Second District in the U.S. House of Representatives, concludes his piece by explaining that an alternative to EFCA is available in the Secret Ballot Protection Act.  SPBA would specifically protect the rights of workers, guarantee their right to a secret ballot and protect workers from intimidation and coercion.

Click here to read the full text of Representative Wilson’s editorial.

For more good information about EFCA (a.k.a., “Card Check”), see also:

* * *

UPDATE 9/09/09: If you’re looking for video of Representative Wilson calling President Obama a liar during his speech tonight, click here.

Coalition Says ‘Card-Check’ Faces Roadblocks

Posted on by
3

The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace today issued the following statement on the introduction of the deceptively-titled Employee Free Choice Act, or “card check” bill:

“Despite all the rhetoric coming from Big Labor, it’s clear that effectively eliminating secret ballots for workers in union organizing elections has become too politically radioactive for members of Congress to support. The number of EFCA co-sponsors actually decreased this year, even with increased Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.

“In addition to the attack on worker privacy, new data indicates that the EFCA will actually cost jobs. A recent study by noted economist Dr. Anne Layne-Farrar found that by 2010, the legislation will result in the elimination of 600,000 jobs, and lead to similar job cuts in subsequent years. Denying workers secret ballots coupled with the economics of card check suggests this job-killing legislation is running into significant roadblocks and is no longer a legislative priority in the first 100 days.

“Adding insult to injury, new CDW polling shows opposition to EFCA from rank and file union workers: 85 percent of union households favor having a federally supervised election as a means to ‘protect the individual rights of workers’ and clearly see secret ballot elections as a basic right and 65 percent of union members would be less likely to vote for a member of Congress who voted to take away the secret ballot. Further exemplifying union worker distaste for the Employee Free Choice Act, 72 percent agreed that the binding arbitration provision in the legislation is ‘unwise’ and ‘risky’.

“Just like no worker wants their vote to be made public, fewer and fewer members of Congress want to publicly identify themselves with anti-worker legislation that effectively removes secret ballots and binds employers to contracts that inhibit their ability to create much-needed new jobs. CDW applauds those members who chose not to co-sponsor this undemocratic legislation.”

* * *

See also:

Employee Free Choice Act Will Cost U.S. Economy 600,000 Jobs in 2010

74 Percent of Rank-and-File Union Members Oppose Card Check

Poll: 74 Percent of Union Members Oppose Card Check Provisions in Employee Free Choice Act

Posted on by
Reply

With media reports indicating that Vice President Joe Biden will use his address before the AFL-CIO’s winter meeting on Thursday to outline the Obama Administration’s game plan on card check, the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace urged the Vice President to consider the views of the overwhelming majority of union members who are opposed to card check.

In polling conducted for CDW in January by McLaughlin & Associates, nearly three-quarters (74%) of union households were opposed to the card check provisions in the Employee Free Choice Act. An overwhelming 88% of union households believed that a worker’s vote should be kept private during a union organizing election, and 85% of union households believed that a secret ballot election is the best way to protect the individual rights of workers when they are deciding whether to join a union.

“The American people, including rank and file union members, are strongly opposed to card check because it will strip away worker privacy and put our economy at greater risk,” said Brian Worth, CDW chairman. “The Obama Administration would be wise to rethink its support of card check instead of blindly following the wishes of Big Labor.”

‘Bought by Big Oil’ Paid for by ‘Big Labor’

Posted on by
1

Editor’s Note: Having been raised in the oil patch, the son of an independent petroleum geologist who could have displayed an “Oil Feeds My Family & Pays My Taxes” bumper sticker on his car but didn’t, I write frequently about gas prices, offshore drilling and other fossil fuels-oriented topics.  Today, however, I’m republishing an oil-centric piece by Michael Swartz, an East Coast blogger whose claim to fame is that his server once fried as a result of having his blog mentioned by name on The Rush Limbaugh Show.  Enjoy!

By Michael Swartz, Guest Blogger
Founder of Monoblogue

One of the many e-mail sources I get from the Democrats alerted me to a website that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee created. The website, dubbed “Bought by Big Oil“, makes the claim that thirteen incumbent Republican Senators or candidates for U.S. Senate seats are beholden to oil company interests through thousands in campaign contributions and in return many voted for tax breaks for these oil interests.

While the DSCC used figures from the reputable and nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics and their website, opensecrets.org, they naturally left out much of the story. Before I get to that, though, I want to bring up what the Democrats considered to be the payoff for Big Oil by those who were in Congress at the time - a series of votes on a bill called the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (in the 109th Congress, this was H.R. 4297.) For most, the DSCC is in a snit over a vote to accept a conference committee report that had these so-called tax breaks for Big Oil – but also had $34 billion in tax relief for those who would have been bumped up into paying the Alternative Minimum Tax. These are the ”increases in middle-class taxes” the BBBO site refers to. (It’s worth noting that one portion of these Big Oil “tax breaks” only lasted months before it was rolled back, as noted in this report by the Congressional Research Service. Nothing in Washington is ever permanent, at least when it comes to the tax code.) As always, the issue was offsetting money which was returned to the taxpayer, with the Democrats taking the stand that they should be able to determine how much money you deserve to get back instead of it simply being yours in the first place.

Seeing an opportunity to bring more harm to an industry that’s already heavily regulated, DSCC Chair Senator Charles Schumer of New York passionately argued against these supposed tax breaks (which were in reality accounting practices allowed by Congress in previous legislation) and finally got into the position to exact revenge on these Republicans whom he thought voted incorrectly - thus you have this attack website.

So what was left out? Let’s take a look at the Big Oil payola figures that BBBO attributes to each Senator/candidate:

  • Jim Inhofe (OK), $1,076,573
  • Mitch McConnell (KY), $649,011
  • Steve Pearce (NM), $596,324
  • Lamar Alexander (TN), $364,675
  • Pat Roberts (KS), $324,900
  • Gordon Smith (OR), $293,325
  • Elizabeth Dole (NC), $266,456
  • Roger Wicker (MS), $263,435
  • Bob Schaffer (CO), approximately $250,000
  • Norm Coleman (MN), $244,900
  • John Sununu (NH), $232,030
  • Saxby Chambliss (GA), $199,242
  • Susan Collins (ME), $124,943

That total of $4,885,814 seems awfully impressive, doesn’t it? Too bad that the BBBO hit squad fails to mention that the totals have accrued over several election cycles.

One great thing about the CRP website is that they break down contributions by election cycle and by industry, listing the top 20 donors by industry to those candidates who have enough donations to merit twenty different industries. For the most recent cycle, we can see just who has truly received big money from oil and gas interests. As you’ll notice, not all of these GOP Senators and candidates have gotten enough contributions in this cycle from the oil and gas industry to even place that business group in the top 20. Those who have enough include:

  • Jim Inhofe, $315,500 (Oil and gas ranks 1st among contributor industries)
  • Mitch McConnell, $255,750 (16th)
  • Steve Pearce, $223,784 (1st)
  • Pat Roberts, $159,100 (6th)
  • Lamar Alexander, $155,350 (10th)
  • Elizabeth Dole, $110,527 (12th)
  • Bob Schaffer, $104,900 (7th)
  • Saxby Chambliss, $98,000 (19th)
  • Roger Wicker, $84,800 (7th)
  • John Sununu, $69,900 (18th)

Collins, Coleman, and Smith did not receive enough from oil and gas interests to place that industry in their top 20 rankings. Still, that total between the ten of $1,577,611 is pretty impressive, is it not? And in the case of Inhofe and Pierce, does Schumer have a point?

Sorry Chuck, better luck next time. Let me throw one more set of numbers at you with this group of ten. It’s the percentage of oil and gas industry contributions vs. the total contributions each candidate has received in this cycle.

  • Steve Pearce, 8.15%
  • Jim Inhofe, 6.19%
  • Pat Roberts, 4.01%
  • Bob Schaffer, 2.26%
  • Roger Wicker, 2.2%
  • Lamar Alexander, 2.15%
  • Mitch McConnell, 1.7%
  • John Sununu, 1.03%
  • Elizabeth Dole, 0.98%
  • Saxby Chambliss, 0.92%

Yes, folks, it’s pretty much a proverbial drop in a barrel. If Big Oil is trying to buy these Senators with this contribution cash, it’s pretty certain that they’re someplace back in line. As a matter of fact, the oil and gas industry currently ranks 18th among all industries in political contributions. Over the last 18 years, the oil and gas industry has contributed over $221 million to candidates – but that pales in comparison to Big Labor, who’s shaken down their workers and otherwise managed to pony up over $40 million in PAC contributions in just this cycle alone.

And why would Big Labor want to be down on a business which employs over 1.8 million workers directly and creates 4.6 million ancilliary jobs? (One of these 1.8 million jobs is the position of one Todd Palin, who’s a member of the United Steelworkers union – the former Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers Union has become a part of that union after a series of mergers. You may have heard of Todd’s wife Sarah?) Perhaps the unions aren’t down on that aspect of Big Oil; however, they are a prime mover and shaker in Democrat circles. I’m going to turn Schumer’s game around and take a look at how much cash labor PACs have contributed to each of the 12 Democrat Senators who are up for re-election in 2008. Take a gander at these figures and tell me who’s bought who? The percentages of total contributions will be included this time:

  • Tim Johnson (SD), $297,250 (5.79%)
  • Frank Lautenberg (NJ), $253,000 (3.09%)
  • Dick Durbin (IL), $244,500 (2.36%)
  • Tom Harkin (IA), $241,275 (2.96%)
  • Max Baucus (MT), $210,725 (1.94%)
  • Jay Rockefeller (WV), $204,500 (3.91%)
  • Mark Pryor (AR), $199,000 (3.53%)
  • Jack Reed (RI), $195,450 (4.47%)
  • Mary Landrieu (LA), $193,150 (2.13%)
  • John Kerry (MA), $191,111 (1.85%)
  • Carl Levin (MI), $149,300 (1.94%)
  • Joe Biden (DE), $78,500 (1.13%)

All that union money adds up to $2,457,761 – far outstripping the oil and gas contributions to the GOP thirteen. Perhaps the total would be even higher but Big Labor is pretty cagey and certainly is aware that most of these thirteen have only token opposition in their re-election races. It’s also worthy of noting that Landrieu and Pryor also have a large contribution base from oil and gas interests. Senator Landrieu has accepted $251,700 in oil and gas money (placing it fourth among her industries) while Pryor has taken $103,250 (14th). Not only that, Pryor also voted with the GOP on the Senate vote which so incensed Schumer; however, he’s not been bought by big oil like the Republicans have.

Pryor is also one member of the newly-expanded “Gang of 16? who introduced a proposal that the American Petroleum Institute called “light on new production but heavy on new taxes.” Other members of this 16 Senator group who happen to be seeking re-election in this cycle are Republicans Saxby Chambliss, Norm Coleman, and John Sununu, along with Democrats Tim Johnson and Mary Landrieu. Looks like that oil company largesse is really bearing fruit, huh?

As is often the case, taking more than a superficial look at what is said by liberals generally shows the Potemkin village aspect of their arguments. Moreover, many’s the time that they don’t have their facts straight. One of my favorite regular commentors on the left made the claim to me recently that much of our Alaskan oil is being exported to Japan, so opening up ANWR wouldn’t do anything to help ease our dependence on foreign oil. I’m going to conclude with this document which uses Energy Information Administration data to show that the claim is bogus, and what we export in oil products are essentially the portions we no longer use because of environmental restrictions.

It’s apparent Senator Schumer and the DSCC aren’t interested in getting out all the facts and context with their website, which makes me think that most of their other rants should be taken at much less than face value as well. If Big Oil were truly buying these Senators it would be one thing, but these so-called tax breaks are money that’s being returned to shareholders and put to work finding new products and creating jobs. What is all the money Big Labor donates to the Democrats doing for us?

Maybe the better question is what is that union money doing to us?

I’d also like to thank the folks at the American Petroleum Institute for their assistance with my research for this post.

* * *

Thanks for this excellent piece, Michael! — Bob