The Sham Center for Union Facts

    You may have noticed, for those of you who read the national press, that a new organization popped up called the "Center For Union Facts." On the one hand, it's actually quite a lame operation--and you have to chuckle at the stereotypes it tries to promote. And, you have to question any operation that features a quote from yours truly *above* a quote from Andy Stern--don't they know who has no power in the labor movement versus who has real power?

    John Stauber, Executive Director, Center for Media and Democracy, had this tidbit to pass on:

On February 13, a full-page advertisement in the New York Times and a  media stunt involving a dinosaur announced a new union-bashing front  group called Center for Union Facts. Who is behind the ad and their  UnionFacts.com website? Nothing in the advertisement or the webpage  mentions Rick Berman, but --Bingo! -- that's who owns the website  domain name. Rick Berman is a right-wing lobbyist who has built a  lucrative career establishing industry-funded front groups including  FishScam.com, the Center for Consumer Freedom, the Employment  Policies Institute, the Employment Roundtable and ActivistCash.com.  Berman specializes in personal attacks, smear tactics and playing  loose with the facts. He has raised millions of dollars from tobacco,  booze, biotech, fast food, grocery and other businesses eager to have  Berman do their dirty work.  Another Rick Berman connection to the  Center for Union Facts is Sarah Longwell, the group's PR contact, who  has also worked for Berman's Employment Policies Institute.

   More as it comes in. But, my guess this Center just disappears into the wind. It will huff and puff...

Steve Greenhouse has a by-the-numbers account in today's New York Times.

Comments

[cj]

The dinosaur in question was a triceratops - he was cute and reminded me of Barney :)

[anonunionstaffer]

we must admit, though, that those top officer salaries give the bosses plenty of ammunition...

[siggy]

The Rolls Royce of union busting, power'd by Biz U fuel.

I doubt anyone wants to hear this, but there was very little on the sham site which is outright disputable. Labour needs to wake-up big time and yesterday!

[John A. Joslin]

As a curious union member , I have to say we are often like foraging mice who try to subsist on the occasional CRUMBS of useful info that escape from the hermetically sealed cupboards of our respective " Int'l. " unions. That doesn't necessarily make us full-on suckers to gobble up the poison pellets set out for us by Labor's enemies, though. Hungry as we mice might be, we stay particular about what we swallow having noticed the dumb ones don't last long. If the dirty rascals throw a few tasty cookie crumbs in w/ the crap as bait ...well, we're very careful sorters....

Note: I checked the IBEW Int'l Rep. salary schedule on that wretched website and noticed an electrician I used to know who got the big promotion to D.C. a few years ago..... Bless his heart, he's broken the 100 k barrier and STILL way at the bottom of the list....

I do know for a fact that he often buys doughnuts for the "girls" in the office , so I gotta' give him credit....
- Joslin ( IBEW Local # 58 , Detroit )

[richard mcpalmer]

as quick background, i worked at the nlrb for 4 years...

in re the ads in the NYT and the W Post, think there might be a colorable ulp here...the content of the ads would (arguably, probably) constitute a violation of 8(a)(1) of the act in the midst of a union campaign. the board has, over the years, placed restrictions on how 'ers make reference to plant closures/job losses in their campaign info. the theory is that references to plant closures, etc., that blame unions constitute a veiled threat.

but there are cases that go a bit broader, as i recall. there is a line of cases that states that if an 'er creates propoganda re the u's impact on plant closures elsewhere, the 'er must have a factual basis for so claiming, and must make the factual basis somewhat clear in the propoganda.

obviously, there are all kinds of problems w/ the ulp i contemplate - first and foremost is a clash w/ the first amendment. but if you look at the act, the definitions of 'ee and 'er are very broad, and ANY 'ee - not just 'ees of the particular 'er - may file a charge.

the theory here would be that the ads essentially blame several u's for plant closures w/o presenting a proper factual basis for the claims and, therefore, constitute misleading propoganda that instills misplaced fear in 'ees. the misplaced fear impinges on 'ees rights to engage in protected union activity.

i'm not saying a regional office would issue a complaint. they'd probably dismiss it pretty fast. but, if a larger workers rights group filed it, they could get the media interested and create a platform for publically combatting the right-wing message of the ads. and b/c every charge filer has an appeal of right, when the regional office dismisses, you could appeal and draw it out longer.

and, finally, the charge would likely require the ad posters to respond - at least by letter to the regional office. the more time they spend responding to this kinda stuff, the less time they have to do other things!

hee-hee....

[bigfall]

Richard,

Interesting how the NLRA works in theory -- all these broad protections for workers that don't amount to much when the rubber hits the road. The real problem with the approach you advocate, IMHO, is that Rule #1 of any union organizing campaign is: IGNORE THE BOSS'S PROPAGANDA. Yes, you have to inocculate against it ahead of time, but the last thing that a workers' organization would want is tons of media stories entitled: "Plant Closings: How Much Are Unions REALLY to Blame?" Once that's the topic of conversation, you're dead meat, even if the story itself isn't virulently anti-union. Filing charges also lets the bosses play poor-little-victim games about the big, bad Unions not wanting workers to know "the truth."

[Benthereb4]

I work as part of a labor group for a major airline and am used to being accused of being directly responsible for the entire woes of the industry.... Just some backgroud fyi. An interesting note to this discussion is that even if the labor unions were to work for free...the industry would still lose money because of operational costs associated with fuel. The cost of goods sold is more than the net price of travel these days. It will end one day of course....but not until your airliner is being manned by foregners happy to make 12 bucks an hour.

[b]

Yes, the website is full of propaganda and lies. But it's also full of some really good info about the unions that I belong to. It's a better, more user friendly resource for salary and budget data than the DOL's LM2 site.

I've organized thousands of new union members from coast to coast. And I've bookmarked this site by this odious jerk because he's providing important information in a more useful format than anybody else. Somebody at the AFL & CTW needs to get their head out of their a** and start providing this info in a similar format. Except OUR website should be accurate and provide reasons to JOIN unions.

[John Williams]

Really good info on unions on that site? It claims there are only 135,000 members in the IBT. There are more like 1.4 million. Its more than a typo, that figure is repeated and then shown in a line graph.

[j]

I’ve looked at the website, and it seems pretty accurate to me. It says they get their figures from the DOL. And if you look at the Teamsters' 2004 LM filing, they reported just 135,000 members. Just where are all the lies?

[M~]

I think it's a typo in their LM2 from 2004. Someone left out a zero. I think it should read 1,350,000. This is apparent due to their LM2 from 2003 which shows a membership of 1,328,000. I highly doubt the that IBT lost 1,193,000 members from 2003 to 2004.

[rob]

We cannot ignore the fact that Rick Berman is right about several things. For example, Berman notes:

"Last year, several major unions split off from the AFL-CIO. The dispute wasn't about cleaning this dirty house. One camp wanted to spend the dues of its members on politics. (Unions spent nearly a billion dollars on the 2004 election, most of it to elect Democrats, even though approximately 40 percent of union members vote for Republicans.) The other camp wanted to spend more on organizing new workers."

As a union member who usually votes GOP, I often feel at odds with the values embraced by many of the candidates endorsed by Labor.

[Pete]

We've got the union cockroaches scurrying now that the lights are on! It's time to choke off the cash to fat Teddy Kennedy, the extorter Jesse Jackson, the murderers at Planned Parenthood, the criminal Hillary and on and on and on. What do these folks and the numerous anti-American freaks who subsist on the dues of hard working American teachers have to do with improving education? Nothing! What does a teacher get from this legalized extortion? Nothing! Get a clue hacks - the clock is ticking...

[Kevin F Droste]

Pete, obviously you have no clue about the union stucture. It is set in stone so that not one of the people about whom you seem so passionately negative will ever be affected by the sham site, nor by this site. It is simple institutionalism whereby the institution is all, and the individual components are naught. I am sure the pale and stales are all sitting around some penthouse, laughing it up over cohibas and twelve year old scotch. Believe what you will, but that site will not affect how unions are run in this country in any substantial way. And in answer to your statement about what these folks have to do with improving education, your answer of nothing is correct. That is not their mission. Their mission is to provide fair and equitable treatment of their members. If you are unhappy with the state of education in this country, please put your name on the next school board ballot in your area.

[Kevin F Droste]

Rob, I find your comments interesting. You belong to an organization in which 60% of the people vote one way. yet, that is not substantial enough for you. Yet, your hero, GWB stated after the 2004 election when he had a mere 52% of the vote that the public had given him a MANDATE. Doesn't it seem with 60% of the vote, the unions also have a mandate to do for their members? Your point seems somewhat less than genuine.

[DOMINICK PUCCI]

I think Mr. Berman's site is right on in one aspect, and that's Politics. They never ask you who you support and then feed the dems all of our dues money, and fatten up their own paychecks!

Face it folks, where there is smoke, there is fire!

[Ben]

Union contributions to politicians are incredibly regulated.
There are only very specific limits on when and how dues money can be spent on politics.

The much the of money spent on politics is spent by Union PACS funded by VOLUNTARY contributions above and beyond dues. Members of Unions CHOOSE to contribute to the political operations of their Unions. This is not to say that we cannot improve the process for how unions endorse candidates and give money, but the issue of dues for politics is largely a red herring.

For example, the unionfacts.com profile of SEIU says total money spent on politics is $6,166,956, $5,259,205 of which is the SEIU COPE PAC. COPE is funded by voluntary contributions. It listed an additional PAC which spent about 900,000 for Howard Dean. I don't know how this PAC was funded, but there is no evidence to suggest it was from dues money.

[Rosoce Rich]

It's bunk that unions use dues money for elections. As a staffer I have to keep meticulous records of how I spend my time to ensure that dues money isn't spent on politics. I remember in the 04 elections how obsessive we were about being reimbursed by PAC money. We raise PAC money on a volunatry basis from members and staff. Members can and do join and drop out at will. You'd think a web site with the word "facts" would be a bit more factual.

[Diana]

If you want to see where PAC monies and Special Interest monies go, check out this web site, very informative. Got it out of a UofM social studies text book: http://www.opensecrets.org/

[Davis]

Took a look at the "union facts" site. Rule one in propaganda: reverse labeling (e.g., call a bill that bankrupts public education and damages children "No Child Left Behind", or call a FORCED DEMOCRACY -- notice anything oxymoronic here-- "Iraqi Freedom"). Union folks sure are dumb when it comes to the methods of propaganda. Another one is to get the workers to defund and disempower their own advocacy groups. These strategies are so old it's pathetic. I am an IT worker, and had IT workers wised up and unionized during the "tech boom" we would have had a lot more job security and a helluva lot more salary. But everybody in IT "cowboy"ed themselves right out of a job, and are flipping burgers rather than bytes. THAT'S REAL DUMB!! Could we have stopped this? Yes. How long would a strike go if IT workers shut down all the computers in Wall $treet? 1 minute? Workers have power, but just are too dumb to figure out that there is a class war happening, and we're getting our butts kicked royally. The stupid thing is that we are the ones kicking our own butts more than half the time. I don't give a sh** about "union scandals" as long as there is a union. Oh gee... that union is spending 4 mil. on lobbying, and I heard it was 3.99999 mil. SCANDAL!! HOW MUCH IS WALMART SPENDING ON LOBBYING??? OR THE TELECOM INDUSTRY??? HUHHHHH???? What about BUSH whitehouse scandals, or ENRON-- remember them? That little shutdown of energy to silicon valley brought the recession that burst the so-called "tech bubble" destroying families in its wake.

The union has to get bigger. Lots bigger. It has to be
able to organize globally and standardize wages so that "outsourcing" and abusing/exploiting immigrant labor is not so "economically attractive." My question to workers is what kind of a future are you going to hand to your children? What is your legacy? Looks like not much.

[Red]

I just saw the ad on tv tonight and took a look at the website. My first thought was, wow, this guy is painting facts with a very, very broad brush.

At one points out Union Boss corruption, and I'm not saying that some aren't, but it seems to me that if you have picked up a paper any time in recent months, it seems to me that there are a lot more politicians getting convicted of corruption.

As one of the other "posters" mentioned, some of the union bosses salaries are over the top, but you don't nuke the whole system because of the exectutive staff. Imagine if we left our workers rights up to the conservative political agenda? Sat good-bye to the middle class.

[Cathy]

Well I guess I'm late in seeing this ad. It could be because I work days teaching at a middle school in Detroit, and nights marking assignments along with developing new lesson plans. Think about this all of you if you would please... Who goes to work and are expected to bring their own supplies? Does Mr. Berman bring toilet paper and hand soap to work? Making an educated guess, I don't think so. I love teaching, but it doesn't often pay the bills. I can only imagine what kind of treatment teachers would be subjected to by the Administration. Most of my professional peers are no only eager for our students to learn, but be have made a solid effort to continue our education throughout our careers. As a result most of us have a Master's degree. It's not uncommon for them to have a Specialist or a Doctorate. Mr. Berman what would be on your vida?

I am impressed with the extent uninons have altered the landscape of the United States. My grandfather was one of those who risked his life in Detroit when the UAW first organized. If you have heard of the phrase, "Pass the hat", maybe it is now you should learn its origin. Many times when my grandfather was on the assembly line in Detroit and a holiday was coming the foreman would pass his hat. More often than not this action would take place on payday. Workers were expected to give their boss their paycheck as his holiday bonus. Grandpa would often work 12-18 hour days; many times without even bathroom breaks.

Well I'm sorry to get so preachy. Everything the unions haven't done has been right, but it's the isolated people who have taken advantage, not the philosophy of the union. Are we willing to give up that middle class living? It shrinks daily with the half-truths and misinformation of people like Mr. Berman. What is his motive?

[Kevin F Droste]

This week, American Rights at Work (http://www.americanrightsatwork.org) launched a great new Web-based resource tool that counters the lies and twisted information spewed out by Richard Berman, the National Association of Manufacturers and others.

At the Anti-Union Network (http://www.antiunionnetwork.org), you can find profiles of anti-union organizations with details on their lobbying, litigation and media outreach, as well as their connections to each other.

The site launches with a featured profile of Berman's egregiously misnamed Center for Union Facts and includes a diagram of Berman's extensive money trail.

As anti-union campaigns have stepped up, we asked American Rights at Work to develop a website we all could access. The result--in addition to being a great resource tool that includes background on union-busting and union-buster techniques--offers an up-to-date news feed and an e-mail sign-up for fast-breaking information.

Please take a moment to check out the Anti-Union Network at http://www.antiunionnetwork.org and get the word out to your members about this much-needed resource.

And if you have any tips, information or experiences with anti-union and union-busting groups or individuals, American Rights at Work wants to know. Send your info to: aun@americanrightsatwork.org.

[Paul]

Unions are an essential part of the American economy. The fact that there are occasional scandals within unions is irrelevant. Nobody said we should dismantle corporations after Enron even though their crimes were on such a tremendous scale.

The workers need a say in company decisions or their lack of power will result in unfair wages, unsafe conditions and unstable jobs. It is clear to me The Center for Union Facts simply wants to reduce union power, with some slathering of allegation and half-truth. However at this point in time it is managerial power which is dominating right now.

I can appreciate the desire to improve unions and decrease problems. But, and pardon the analogy, looking to Berman for help is like asking a KGB officer for help fixing the CIA.

[dj]

These companies won't even associate themselves publicly
with this group. I dare the supporting company execs to come teach my class for one day. Boycott Walmart.