Concessions and What do We Get for Them?

Laboring against us



Stefan Gleason

As the Senate considers denying President George W. Bush managerial flexibility at the proposed Department of Homeland Security, the union brass are proving again that reports of their political demise are greatly exaggerated. Union officials have managed to convince Senate Democrats to make a risky political bet by voting against the president on a vital national security issue — and just one month before an election.

But the real sticking point in the debate over the homeland security bill is over expansion of union coercive privileges — not civil service protections, as union spokesmen have claimed. The union hierarchy wants to require the president of the United States to get their permission before implementing personnel decisions necessary to cut through crippling bureaucracy and improve national security. Such a requirement would change existing policy and bog down the administration in protracted union negotiations over petty matters.

Sadly, union officials have employed this strategy of reaching for power during previous periods of national crisis as well. Take their spectacular successes during World War II.

Big labor's World War II power-grab began in 1941, when the federal government became more deeply involved in key defense-related industries. Realizing that their leverage would increase due to the national crisis, union officials instigated a series of 13,000 often violent and crippling strikes.

In one of the most notorious of these strikes, mineworkers union bosses shut down the coal mines owned by steel firms (steel was, of course, vital to the war effort). Union officials' chief demand was that all mining employees be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment. When a federal agency recommended a settlement that did not include this requirement, President Franklin D. Roosevelt turned the matter over to an arbitrator who ruled in the union's favor.

As more U.S. industries became enmeshed in war production, the Roosevelt administration repeatedly used so-called "labor peace" as an excuse to rope hundreds of thousands more individuals into compulsory unionism.

Toward that end, Roosevelt created the National War Labor Board (NWLB) and gave it authority over just about every industry in wartime America. In July 1942, the NWLB revealed its loyalty to the union hierarchy when it ruled that workers may not resign their union memberships for the entire length of a union's collective bargaining contract. Before World War II, only 20 percent of unionized employees were governed by contracts that required forced union dues payments as a job condition. By 1947, that percentage shot up to 78 percent — where it remains today.

In spite of all the efforts to placate Big Labor, however, "labor peace" never did develop during the war. The number of strikes rose 26 percent in 1943, and 32 percent in 1944, and declined by only 4 percent in 1945.

Labor expert Donald R. Richberg, in his 1957 book, "Labor Union Monopoly: A Clear And Present Danger," detailed the "exasperation with which a war-stricken people had watched the unions take advantage of war necessities to force unreasonable demands on private industry and government." This was, in Mr. Richberg's words, "a disgraceful record for 'patriotic' labor."

True to form, union officials have also used the horrifying attacks of September 11 as cover for their march for increased government-granted privileges.

Only two days after al Qaeda toppled the World Trade Center towers, for example, Democrat Sens. Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton rammed a bill that one union dubbed "the largest expansion of labor [union] rights considered by Congress in decades" through a closed-door Senate committee without a single word of testimony or even a recorded vote. Later, they tried to sneak it through the Senate by unanimous consent. And in November, union-allied senators attempted to push through the legislation via an amendment to a "must pass" appropriations bill.

Through these shameless maneuvers, Mr. Kennedy and Mrs. Clinton sought to federally mandate that all state and local governments anoint union officials as the monopoly bargaining agents for local police, firefighters, paramedics, and other public safety officers — even in jurisdictions that have wisely banned this form of compulsory unionism.

Fortunately for the many dedicated public servants who don't want union officials and crippling workplace rules to disrupt their important work, some senators spoke out against the proposed expansion of union coercive power. "We appreciate our firemen and we appreciate our policemen, but forcing people to pay union dues is not a way to show appreciation," said Sen. Phil Gramm.

Now, during the debate over union privileges inserted by Senate Democrats into the Homeland Security bill, union bosses are adopting a tone of outraged innocence while loudly proclaiming their dedication to national security. But their actions prove otherwise, and their long record of exploiting national crises to increase their power should stiffen the resolve of right-minded senators to stand with the president.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/9/2003 12:47:48 PM WingNaPrayer wrote:

...and who are you to judge what belongs in which thread topic?
----------------
[/blockquote]

OK FINE! I will begin the game again for you....

The Evolution of Immorality
By Rev. Jon Isom


What is right or wrong anymore? Who decides what is moral or immoral today? The very legitimate question that is asked by psychologists and philosophers alike has for its answer a simple yes. "Do we follow stages of development in our progression of moral reasoning?" The question must be pushed further to ask, "Do we progress from children to adult or is our progress evolutionary over many generations?" No person who has lived since the 1970s until 2002 would deny that there has been a drastic shift in what is considered moral and immoral. Evolution is caudex moralus.


The theory of biological evolution provides the framework for mental evolution. Based on the evolution theory, what follows is that mankind does not simply become aware or more enlightened to what is reality and truth. Reality would seem to evolve as man evolves, and this necessitates the evolution of thought and morality.


The title is sort of a pun on the theory of evolution, but the moral decay we see today is a sign of people not seeing mankind as being accountable to any Supreme Being. If humanity is the result of evolution then there is no higher or supreme being. Man is the Supreme Being; therefore man is the source of morality.


The choices being made by the masses of people today are far from what would have been chosen 20, 30 or 40 years ago. Music, television, movies, magazines, even advertisements are pushing the envelope everyday. There has been full frontal nudity in national TV on NYPD Blue. Teenage sexual situations are too common. Same sex couples and the homosexual lifestyle is being promoted in more than a few shows. There is a TV show that I can't even say the whole name of because I don't use cuss words. Yes, there is a cuss word in the title. The Best D___ Sports Show Period. You say the d-word isn't a cuss word? Do you let your 5-year-old children say it?


There was a scientific discussion on Darwin's evolution theory versus intelligent design theory on the NPR the week of 2/11/02. The interviewer challenged the intelligent design theorist to prove his view. His response relied on the unchanged scientific and philosophical theory of inductive reasoning. If by the intricate and purposeful design of an object, it is determined that there must have been a designer: for example, a watch, an engine, an airplane, or even Mount Rushmore's facial carvings, then even though the designer of an object might not be findable, one must induce that there is a designer. He offered a scientific test for the evolution theory. Place a series of proteinless cells in an environment and grow them from many generations. If there is any progression evolution then the theory will have a scientific starting point. With neither any tests nor any clearly evolved life forms to garner evidence for inductive resolution, evolution is still but a theory.


Many people who are concerned about the evolution of immorality would point to the indoctrination of children with the theory of evolution as having some part to play in the moral decline. Either the children unconsciously see themselves as animals, or the absence of a Supreme Being or judge allows people to feed their passions without conscience.


According to the USA Today, Friday 2/15/01, in the early 90s the strip bars and clubs in Las Vegas died out, giving way to family styled attractions including amusement parks. The casinos never lost their focus on gambling, but there was a unified action in attracting vacationing families with wholesome fun. In about 1999, though, Las Vegas has decided that it was not such a good idea to try to morph into some sort of family oriented vacation spot. The USA Today reports that the city missed having the X rated revenue and an abundance of strip/dance clubs are opening.


The amount of money strippers and club owners can make is unreal. As I read the article, I was searching for some sign of the evolution of immorality. (No story about a moral extreme or immoral extreme would seem to be a good gauge for the shift in morality. One must use what is considered average in order to measure shifts in trends.) I found what I was looking for in the last few paragraphs of the story. First, a husband and a wife "thoroughly enjoyed" one of the strip shows as artistic. Then the husband said they are active in their church and that he is envisioning his bishop coming to see the show. "It's that artistic," he said.
When a person can imagine their clergy person enjoying a pornographic show, morality has evolved into immorality.
 
Originally published September 9, 1997, by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research.

After ignoring the problem for decades, the media elite's attention finally shifted to organized labor's use of forced union dues for its political machine in 1996.

Of course, Big Labor's coercion of employees into paying union dues to subsidize its political agenda isn't new, since this practice is as old as the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). But with AFL-CIO president John Sweeney beating his chest about the Federation's political spending, the coercion of workers to fund the AFL-CIO’s political operations became news.

As John Cunniff of the Associated Press reported just before Labor Day last year, workers "in 29 states and the District of Columbia, where right-to-work laws don't exist, can be fired for refusing to pay union dues, even if those dues are used for purposes abhorrent to their religious, moral or political beliefs." (1) Those employees do have the right not to pay for union political activities with which they disagree, thanks to US Supreme Court decisions won by employees with the help of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. But, Cunniff reported, "most workers are unaware of this right, and union leadership seldom informs them of it." (2)

Of course, Big Labor could not get away with such brazen flouting of the law without federal labor board bureaucrats sanctioning it, and a president in Bill Clinton who owes his elected office to the forced-dues-fed support he has received from Big Labor. In the face of these roadblocks, it is no surprise that the same Harry Beck who led the fight to win this option in the Supreme Court recently wrote that instead of "regulat[ing]" a system where employees first pay forced dues, then negotiate with union bosses over how much they will get back, Congress should "END IT" by repealing its federal sanction. (3)

In an earlier issue brief, the National Institute for Labor Relations Research showed that union officials extract forced union dues from over 8 million private sector employees annually, and that the true cost of Big Labor's nationwide campaign of mailings, phone banks and voter turnout drives adds up to at least $400 million each election cycle. (4)

With the dust still settling from the 1996 campaign, the evidence of Big Labor's use of forced dues for the above mentioned "in-kind" activities , continues to accumulate, as it has for nearly 30 years

Snapshots From 1996

Previously, the Institute documented a series of snapshots from past elections highlighting Big Labor's in-kind politicking across the country. What follows are the latest examples from 1996.

While the AFL-CIO today claims to have targeted only 32 House districts, The New York Times reported on October 31 that "organizers paid by the national AFL-CIO are active in 96 House districts" putting together "the greatest get-out-the-vote effort unions have mounted in many years."
As the Times points out, these were political operatives from the national AFL-CIO headquarters in Washington, DC only. According to the disclosure forms submitted by all private sector unions, local, state and national, their total payroll expenses are approximately 2.25 billion dollars a year. If only 10 percent of that time was spent on the ‘96 election this year -- a low estimate -- that alone adds up to $225 million in unreported political activities.
Of course, there was also the AFL-CIO massive television campaign to account for. It's highly unlikely that the mere $35 million assessment of each union member under the AFL-CIO’s control which Sweeney bragged about paid for the TV ads. Here are just a few glimpses from different angles of the iceberg.

In Ohio's 10th district, the AFL-CIO told The New York Times on October 11 that it spent $385,000 on television advertising between April and September. But an ad tracking agency informed the Republican Congressional Committee that the AFL-CIO actually spent $1.2 million on TV ads in that same time period against Republican Congressman Martin Hoke.
As the Times noted, "By any standard, it is a lot of money, especially when [Hoke’s opponent, Dennis] Kucinich estimates he will spend only $300,000 on his campaign … And it is only part" of the union effort in the 10th, the Times goes on: "David Lauridsen at AFL-CIO headquarters detailed other activities, from phone banks making ‘persuasion calls’ to union members and retirees, to door-to-door canvassing in the heavily pro-labor precincts, to recruiting" union members to help in Kucinich’s campaign.
In Arizona's 6th district, the Times also reported on October 11, the AFL-CIO paid to run ads against freshman congressman J.D. Hayworth "as many as 300 times a week… up to 50 times a day." The cost? At least $1 million, according to the Times.
In Michigan's eighth district, the AFL-CIO told the Times on October 31 that it had spent about $400,000 in advertising to unseat Dick Chrysler. But the GOP congressional committee insisted that its ad tracking showed at least $600,000 in spending by the AFL-CIO.
In that same article, Dr. Anthony Corrado, a political science professor at Colby College in Waterville, Maine, described those estimates of the union ad spending as "very good" because of new technology making it possible to track such spending.
Indeed, the Times reports, "In Maine's First District, where [organized] labor has been pummeling representative James B. Longley, Jr., [Corrado] said, the [GOP congressional committee's] figure of $901,703 was more believable than the Federation's estimate of $450,000." All of which adds credibility to Congressman Bill Paxon’s statement that, all in all, the union hierarchy spent some $100 million in advertising alone.

Tip of the Iceberg: 30 Years & Counting

On March 21, 1996, professor Leo Troy of Rutgers University told the US House of Representatives Oversight Committee that organized labor's in-kind political expenses "could reasonably be a multiple of 3 to 5 times" the total expenses of union Political Action Committees (PACs). In other words, while union PACs spent about $95 million on the 1992 campaign, total union political spending actually hovered between $300 million and $500 million.

Troy’s estimate is simply the latest confirmation that organized labor's political activities cost American workers far more than union officials admit. For 30 years, various experts on unions have confirmed, and even union officials themselves have admitted that their political expenses far exceed what is reported to federal authorities.

Victor Riesel Pulls Back the Veil

Until his retirement in 1990, Victor Riesel was probably the nation's best-known labor columnist. Raised in a union household, Riesel "never stopped inveighing against gangster infiltration and other corruption in labor unions that had stirred his emotions since his youth," according to his obituary in the January 5, 1995 New York Times. Indeed, for exposing corruption in a Long Island local of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Riesel was blinded by an acid attack in 1956.

Based on his in-depth knowledge of union finances, Riesel estimated that in addition to organized labor's direct contributions of around $1 million to federal candidates in 1968 and 1972, union officials actually spent $60 million in ‘68 and $50 million in ’72.

When Alexander Barkan, director of the AFL-CIO Committee on Political Education (COPE), complained that these were gross overestimates, Riesel replied in the Orlando Sentinel-Star on November 3, 1973:

If you apply cost accounting to what the unions do in a political way … you will find that the noncash contributions consist of staff time — meaning union officials who are assigned to campaigns for months on end — printing costs, postage, telephone and various other support services financed entirely with compulsory union dues and fees.
It is time and services, not just cash contributions alone, which I consider in making my estimates. I know my estimates are right. I know they spent the time and money. Let them open their books if they say they didn't.

In 1976, Riesel reported, organized labor spent more than $100 million on their political operations — more than 10 times the $10 million in PAC contributions which union officials reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). (5)
1992: Union Boss Spills Beans

During the 1992 Democratic National Convention, Dennis Rivera, chief of the Health Care Employees union's New York City local, told CBS reporter Paula Zahn that organized labor "put $47 million into the candidates for the Democratic Party," with the nationwide Fall campaign still to come. (6)

When Rivera made that comment on July 15, only $10 million in union PAC contributions had been reported to the FEC. Thus, by a union boss's own admission, total union political spending at this stage was nearly five times their reported PAC contributions. By the end of ’92 campaign, union PACs had contributed $41.4 million. By the standard set by Riesel, it is clear that Big Labor spent some $400 million nationwide on its political machine.

Former Teamster Exposes Massive Politicking

For 14 years, F.C. "Duke" Zeller was head of Public Relations at the Teamsters’ Washington, DC headquarters until he was fired by new union president Ron Carey. In his book, Devil's Pact, Zeller quotes a Teamsters vice president, Gene Giacumbo, who revealed that Carey once boasted to the union's executive board that the Teamsters spent $56 million to aid the Democrats’ campaign. (7) Officially, the Teamsters PAC reported $2.4 million in direct contributions to candidates in 1992.

High Court Compromise Fails to Protect
Employees’ Freedom of Speech

Faced with the dilemma of workers forced to pay union fees for political causes with which they disagree, the US Supreme Court has spent more than 30 years trying to forge a compromise. Union officials have been allowed to force employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment, but not pay for political and other non-bargaining activities. This compromise was crowned in 1988, with the High Court's decision in Communications Workers v. Beck.

However, Supreme Court precedents are not self-enforcing, and so long as union officials are allowed to thrust their hands into employees’ pockets, it is impossible for any employees or group of employees to effectively ensure that they are not subsidizing a union's political agenda.

To begin with, most unions, with the approval of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), still negotiate contracts stating that "membership in good standing" is required – in other words, join the union and pay full membership dues or be fired. Even after the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 1994 that such clauses should be stricken from union contracts, the NLRB still refuses to follow that order. (8)

Thus, while exit polling showed that nearly 40% of union members did not vote to reelect Bill Clinton in 1996, nearly three-quarters of all union members do not know of their right not to pay forced dues for politics. (9)

Even when employees do discover this right, they must still attempt to negotiate with union officials over how much the officials get to seize from their paychecks. The late Justice Hugo Black understood the problem well when, in 1961, he dissented from the Supreme Court's first ruling involving the use of forced union dues for politics:

It may be that courts and lawyers with sufficient skill in accounting, algebra, geometry, trigonometry and calculus will be able to extract the proper microscopic answer from the voluminous and complex accounting records of the local, national, and international unions involved. It seems to me … however, that … this formula with its attendant trial burdens promises little hope for financial recompense to the individual workers whose First Amendment freedoms have been flagrantly violated. (10)
The only proper remedy in this case, Justice Black concluded, was to relieve protesting workers of all payment of dues. (11)
However, there is perhaps no greater authority on the misuse of forced dues for politics than the telephone lineman whose 12-year legal battle won for most private sector employees the right not to pay for union politics, Harry Beck.

As Beck wrote in the Wall Street Journal on November 1 of last year, his fight really began in the 1960s when, as an organizer for the Communications Workers of America (CWA), he "noticed that the CWA brass paid little attention to the needs of the rank and file, concentrating instead on supporting Democratic political campaigns and liberal social causes." Yet, when he resigned his formal membership in the CWA, the union hierarchy slapped him with compulsory "agency fees" equal to full membership dues.

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Beck filed suit against the CWA in 1976, and was finally vindicated by the US Supreme Court on June 29, 1988. But with union bosses continuing to lie to employees about their rights, the NLRB continuing to sanction the lies, and a Clinton administration which was willing to tear down all workplace notices about employees’ Beck rights, Beck himself concluded:

ntil Congress repeals or the High Court overturns the federal sanction of compulsory dues, workers will not have their full freedoms.
In Beck's view, the only bill pending in Congress which would accomplish that is the National Right to Work Act. (12)
The freedom Beck speaks of is at least as old as Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in 1779, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." It is clear that John Sweeney and the president he helped reelect are suffering from dramatic memory lapses.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes

(1) John Cunniff, "Members can get dues back; Law works against union political spending," Beacon Journal, August 31, 1996.

(2) Ibid.

(3) Harry Beck, Letter to the Editor, July, 1997.

(4) National Institute for Labor Relations Research, Issue Brief, "Forced Dues—Fuel For Big Labor’s Political Machine," June 11, 1996.

(5) Victor Riesel, "Unions Collect Huge Bankroll For Campaign," The Commercial Appeal, Sept. 5, 1976.

(6) Paula Zahn, interview with Dennis Rivera (Hospital Workers Union), CBS-TV, 10:00-11:00 PM, July 15, 1992.

(7) Jerry Seper, "Book claims Teamster kept Clinton slush fund," The Washington Times, October 28, 1996.

(8) Ray LaJeunesse, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorney, testifying before the Senate Committee on Rules Hearing on Campaign Finance, June 25, 1997.

(9) Luntz Research Companies, Initial Findings of a National Survey of Union Members, April 29, 1996.

(10) Machinists v. Street, 367 US 740 (1961) at 795-96.

(11) Id. at 796.

(12) Harry Beck, "How the AFL-CIO Funds its War Chest," Wall Street Journal, November 1, 1996.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/8/2003 3:47:02 PM kirkpatrick wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/8/2003 12:54:46 PM WingNaPrayer wrote:

What you get is the opportunity to pay for, and cover up, Carty's huge mistake in buying TWA.

I'm surprised no one has crunched the numbers yet, but in short...
[/blockquote]

In short, nobody's crunched the numbers because the numbers don't really crunch that way.

We all realize AA wouldn't have bought TWA after 9/11, but that doesn't mean TWA is the huge drain you and others seem to think. You have a little less cash than you would have had, but not buying TWA would have left AA in roughly the same place it is now; high costs and lower yields.

Much of the "debt" you say AA took on was aircraft leases which were immediately negotiated down. What is AA's total payout per year in AC leases? And remember, those aircraft are just under 70% full bringing in revenue; not profit, maybe, but revenue.

The STL hub is already beneficial to AA. I've seen it myself when my commuter flight fills up as passengers are rerouted when ORD's weather goes down. And the gates and slots will be useful even if they aren't bringing in loads of cash right now.

In short, of course buying TWA used up a bit of excess cash on hand and increased costs some, but you haven't counted the benefits. If AA hadn't bought TWA AA would still have a big, big problem.

Five years from now the acquisition will be looked on in a different light.

MK

----------------
[/blockquote]


Actually, the IAM's portion had to be held x nbr of years. I can't remember the exact length but 2 yrs seems to stick in my mind. Anyways, immediatly after the waiting period, I sent in for my 416 shares and sold them for $4600. More shares were later allocated based upon the stock market. Unfortunatly, I never cashed those in so they went down the drain with the BK.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/8/2003 12:54:46 PM WingNaPrayer wrote:

What you get is the opportunity to pay for, and cover up, Carty's huge mistake in buying TWA.

I'm surprised no one has crunched the numbers yet, but in short...

----------------
[/blockquote]

Nice spin, NoPrayer. But the targeted $3.8B is in annual cuts, and not one-time cuts.

With or without the TWA acquisition, these cuts would have been necessary to maintain a profitable company in the new environment.

The $3.8B is simple math that even you can understand:

1) target CASM based off what LCC's are getting today, and adjust for stage length
2) subtract current CASM from targeted CASM

The result is $3.8B.

Annually.
 
The concessions are only one part of the equation. I hope that the labor groups ask for and get further information on what AA's future business model will be.
There can't be any concessions if we stick with charging John Doe who flies once a year 198.00, and then charge our best customers, the business traveler, 10 to 12 times the same fare. Concessions in that circumstance would only delay and not prevent bankruptcy. AA should reinvent the fare structure to at least make a last minute business trip price competitive with teleconferencing. Right now the last minute walk up fares are so
expensive the customer's repsonse is usually a chuckle. Their next response is how far in advance do I need to get
198.00 roundtrip?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top