Fox News had what could only be described as a professional point misser as their analyst on the story about the SEIU union advertising to hire someone to lead a team of law breakers in support of their ends.

Time and again, the anchor attempted to get him to make the obvious point that the union which in 2009 was viewed as the most influential in Washington, DC, is now looking to engage in an active campaign of civil unrest and law breaking. Yet, somehow, the guest prevailed by repeatedly talking around the edges and failing to make the salient point.

For those who missed the SEIU call for law breakers, the introduction to the employment advertisement might as well read, “Looking for a job? Sympathetic to the Occupy Wall Street Movement? Have a healthy disrespect for the law? The SEIU may have a job for you!”

And while it isn’t that direct, here are some excerpts from the actual job listing: “SEIU Healthcare 775NW is hiring a Lead internal Organizer to lead a team of eight organizers who are focused on leadership development, the “Leaders In Action” field team, working with public and private sector home care workers. This team develops leaders and builds networks to take action in a variety of campaigns. The LiA team does not handle traditional representational duties, such as contract enforcement or bargaining.”

These non-traditional duties extend beyond normal SEIU positions indeed. Once you start looking at the duties and responsibilities of the organizer, a definite pattern emerges: “Train and lead members in non-violent civil disobedience, such as occupying state buildings and banks, and peaceful resistance… [And] [p]lan and execute strategic direct action field plans including banner drops, bank takeovers, and capitol occupations with membership, other local unions, and coalition partners.”

The essential qualities SEIU is looking for is a willingness to break the law, and create whatever disruption to targeted businesses that you can. However, a certain amount of caveat emptor to the potential job seeker — there is no mention if bail money will be approved on the successful applicant’s expense report.

These eyebrow-raising tasks begin to take on a whole new meaning when you see the way that the SEIU has been positioning themselves in the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. After borrowing the “99%” slogan in their efforts with the OWS, it is clear the SEIU is trying to ride this movement as far as it will go.

But there is an even larger issue — that SEIU dues money is supporting a position that specifically will be teaching and conducting civil disobedience on a wide scale. Despite the “non-violent” nature of many of these protests, they often lead to arrests because they are taking actions that violate the law.

Ultimately, the SEIU is spending dues money to train and organize people to break the law- similar to the same offense that food service company Sodexo sued them for in their RICO case.

But this time, instead of throwing plastic roaches onto food to gross out customers and illegally harm their employers business, the SEIU is intending to occupy banks and align itself with the criminal elements of the OWS movement, all the while, breaking the law.

Not shockingly, union officers and employees have a duty under federal law to not spend union money on illegal purposes. This duty comes from Section 501(c) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. § 501(c), which also provides for criminal penalties for those union officers and employees who choose to spend money illegally.

That section states as follows: “Embezzlement of assets; penalty. Any person who embezzles, steals, or unlawfully and willfully abstracts or converts to his own use, or the use of another, any of the moneys, funds, securities, property, or other assets of a labor organization of which he is an officer, or by which he is employed, directly or indirectly, shall be fined not more than $ 10,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.”

Of course, who would be surprised if a group like SEIU, which is explicitly looking to hire someone with a penchant for lawbreaking would be overly concerned that in the mere act of hiring that individual they are getting very close to the law breaking line themselves.

And in some cases, that is a dangerous law for union leaders to cross.

W.A. Boyle, a former president of the United Mine Workers of America discovered this truth that spending union money on an illegal purpose gets you in trouble with the U.S. Department of Labor.

Boyle was convicted of spending union money for an illegal use, i.e., an unlawful campaign contribution. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which affirmed the conviction, stated: “If the use to which the money is knowingly transferred is unlawful, then the transfer constitutes a violation of § 501(c). U.S. v. W.A. Boyle, 482 F.2d 755, 64 (D.C. Cir. 1973).”

Turning back to the SEIU job posting, most people would probably consider “bank takeovers” to mean a physical occupation of the bank’s private property. If this occupation is done without the consent of the bank, something very unlikely to be granted, then state trespassing laws are violated. Thus, SEIU has literally posted a job ad that calls for carrying out illegal actions.

Since, as discussed above, spending union money for an illegal use violates § 501(c) of the LMRDA, the SEIU would be well advised to immediately scrap this job posting.

Or, they could continue on and find out the hard way, like Boyle did, what happens when you use union member’s dues money for an illegal use. After all, their friends in the Obama Administration will not be running the Labor Department forever, and at some point, the law against using member dues for breaking the law just might be enforced.

Certainly a reason to pause for all those who’ve signed off on the job posting.

The current debates about China’s currency, the trade imbalance, our debt and China’s excessive use of pirated American intellectual property are evidence that the Global Revolution-coupled with Deng Xiaoping’s government-led, growth-oriented reforms-has created the planet’s second-largest economy. It’s on a clear trajectory to knock America off its perch by 2025….

The conservative-preferred, free-market fundamentalist, shareholder-only model-so successful in the 20th century-is being thrown onto the trash heap of history in the 21st century. In an era when countries need to become economic teams, Team USA’s results-a jobless decade, 30 years of flat median wages, a trade deficit, a shrinking middle class and phenomenal gains in wealth but only for the top 1%-are pathetic….

While we debate, Team China rolls on. Our delegation witnessed China’s people-oriented development in Chongqing, a city of 32 million in Western China, which is led by an aggressive and popular Communist Party leader-Bo Xilai. A skyline of cranes are building roughly 1.5 million square feet of usable floor space daily-including, our delegation was told, 700,000 units of public housing annually.

The sheer irony of the former labor head advocating for the U.S. to emulate China’s economic model is astounding. China’s economy may indeed be on the rise, but their widely-criticized record of human rights abuses comes in sharp contrast to the labor rights Andy Stern claims to have fought for in his term at SEIU.

Undoubtedly, the labor situation for the workers on the ground is far worse in China than it is here. Even with mandated improved wages for Chinese factory workers, the wage is only $0.75 per hour. Compared to US wage average for the manufacturing industry of $21.96 per hour, this is ridiculous.

Perhaps this helps explain why there are actual labor strikes occurring in China right now- strikes that are based on poor pay and unreasonable demands put on them by the government:

Thousands of workers at a massive shoe factory in the southern city of Dongguan last week clashed with police as they marched to a local government office to protest the loss of overtime….

Earlier in the week, 1,000 workers walked out of a plant in nearby Shenzhen that manufactured computer keyboards for leading brands such as Apple and IBM. Employees said they were being forced to work excessive hours on weekdays so that owners didn’t have to pay overtime on Saturdays, as required by law. The company acquiesced after three days.

“People had to work so late, they couldn’t concentrate any longer,” said Zhao Xiaobing, 38, a former employee. “They will have more strikes.”

Is this what Stern is arguing for? Lower wages and horrible working conditions? Of course not. He would never come out and say that- nor is that his point. He wants the government to have a more active role in managing business. That always been his goal, and he makes it quite explicit in his article.

But that’s the problem. Government intervention and the degradation of the working class’ rights go hand in hand. Stern argues that the capitalist model has failed, but he assumes what we have in place is an actual capitalist, free market model. The fact of the matter is that we don’t. To cite only one example, a single regulation recently created by the EPA could cost 186,000 jobs per year. Add this to the overabundance of regulation America already has and you start to get a very clear picture.

What government intervention we already have has crippled the manufacturing jobs we do still have, and has cost many people their jobs and benefits. What regulations we have in place are creating serious problems for American workers, and these problems are getting worse all the time.

Ultimately, Stern cannot have it both ways. If we are to go the path of complete government involvement in the workforce, to see China’s gains, we must inevitably decrease the costs of production, which means paying workers less and eliminating benefits. If we truly care about worker’s rights, we must pay workers a competitive wage and provide reasonable benefits. This means eliminating government regulation that stands in the way of business and job creation.

After so many years of arguing to increase workers rights at the SEIU, for Andy Stern to laud China’s economic model of flagrant human rights abuses and miserable working conditions is worse than intellectual dishonesty. It is intellectually bankrupt.

By Rebecca DiFede — A firestorm has erupted in Michigan over revelations that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has manipulated the system so it can profit from the Medicaid checks sent to families caring for children with cerebral palsy.

As reported recently on NetRightDaily.com, in a disgusting display of greed a defunded quasi-government organization in Michigan known as the Michigan Quality Community Care Council (MQC3) with the help of the SEIU, found a way to involuntarily take money out of a caregiver stipend that parents of sick children receive.

In a brazen money grab, the purple shirted SEIU tyrants had thousands of parents receiving Medicaid for the care of their adult children with cerebral palsy reclassified as care givers, thereby automatically putting them into the SEIU as dues paying members.

This means that for every family receiving aid for their loved one’s debilitating condition, $30 a month is being automatically deducted by the state to fund the SEIU.

How anyone could support this blatant disregard for humanity is unconscionable, and Bill Wilson of Americans for Limited Government (ALG) had something to say about it: “This theft of funds from families with children suffering from cerebral palsy is deplorable. It just goes to show how greedy the SEIU can be when given the opportunity.”

The concept of an SEIU state enforced automatic dues deduction is despicable enough, but to deliberately rip off disadvantage families who have already been stricken with hardship goes to an even lower circle of Hell.

These families’ situations are so perilous that the taxpayers have agreed to help them meet the care giving needs of their loved ones, and for the SEIU to legally extort a fee from them while providing zero services is sickening. The SEIU should hang their heads in shame.

In response, the Michigan State House of Representatives has passed HB 4003, a bill that will reverse the earlier decision by the MQC3 and the SEIU that required families caring for children with cerebral palsy to register as ‘care givers’ and then pay dues to the SEIU out of their monthly medical aid check.

When asked about the horrific abuse of power, Michigan State Representative Tom McMillin said, “Real people getting hurt seems to just be collateral damage when schemes like this one are devised to siphon money into the coffers of union bosses.”

Americans for Limited Government’s President Bill Wilson called on the Michigan Senate to pass the House bill saying, “what the MQC3 and SEIU have done is nothing short of heinous, and it is the state Senate’s duty to pass this bill and reverse the ‘care giver’ classification so that families of sick children can focus their finances on medical bills instead of union dues.”

The House bill is now sitting in front of the Michigan Senate Committee on Reforms, Restructuring and Reinventing awaiting consideration.

If you would like to contact your Michigan state senator about HB 4003, the Senate switchboard in Lansing can be reached by dialing:  1-517-373-2400 or go online to the Michigan Senate website (www.senate.michigan.gov) to find your senator and how to contact him/her directly.

Rebecca DiFede is a contributing editor to Americans for Limited Government.

By Rebecca DiFede — In a disgusting display of greed a defunded quasi-government organization in Michigan known as the Michigan Quality Community Care Council (MQC3), with the help of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), found a way to dupe parents of sick children into giving them some of their much needed healthcare stipend. These tyrants reclassified thousands of parents receiving Medicare for the care of their adult children with cerebral palsy as care givers, thereby forcing them to join the SEIU and pay dues.

This means that for every family receiving aid for their loved one’s debilitating condition, $30 a month must be paid to the SEIU as dues for being a medical caregiver, reducing their government sanctioned benefits. How anyone could support this blatant disregard for humanity is unconscionable, and Bill Wilson of Americans for Limited Government had something to say about it: “this theft of funds from families with children suffering from cerebral palsy is deplorable. It just goes to show how greedy the SEIU and their allies on the “compassionate” left are when it comes to rounding up government funds.”

Misappropriation of funds is despicable enough, but to deliberately disadvantage families who have already been stricken with hardship, so much so that they need help from the government to pay for their loved ones medical condition, is sickening. The purple shirts at SEIU should hang their heads in shame, but instead they are likely just looking for their next mark.

Unfortunately, that was exactly what happened to at least 300 Kaiser Permanente employees, and on a significant level. It appears that it wasn’t a vulnerability of the employer, but a member of the SEIU that committed the fraud:

Mia Garza was an employee of the SEIU United Healthcare Workers Union in 2007 when she took home a computer file containing the personal information of 29,500 Kaiser Permanente employees. Garza then went on a spending spree using the stolen identities of at least 300 victims. Items included a $1,000 pair of shoes, Gucci bags and a mail-order Yorkshire terrier.

Fortunately, justice prevailed, and Ms. Garza was apprehended. And in quite a compromising state as well:

Mia Garza was sentenced by the Honorable Gary Ransom to 12 years, 4 months in prison to run consecutive to a 2 year, 8 month prison sentence for charges in Contra Costa County. A hearing will be held in January to determine restitution, which is expected to exceed $1 million.
…
Garza’s most notable arrest occurred in Sacramento in 2009. When arrested, she was wearing a preoperative surgical gown and was about to undergo a $12,000 liposuction procedure that she had arranged while posing as a victim, and using a victim’s credit card information.

The idea of a union is to protect company employees from being abused and taken advantage of by the employer. In this story, there is a very clear reversal where the union employee is taking advantage of the union members. This is incredibly damaging for the SEIU, and should raise the eyebrows of union members everywhere. If a SEIU employee is able to merely walk out the door with a file with the personal information of over 29,500 employees, then all union members could also be at risk.

The SEIU needs to prioritize the safety of their employees data. In today’s world, it is increasingly important to protect sensitive personal information, and the SEIU cannot effectively make the case that it is protecting worker’s rights if it cannot even effectively protect their private information. We encourage the SEIU to inspect their methods for data management and ensure that a situation like this never occurs again.

You can view the SEIU’s Contract Campaign Manual online here.

This manual is a treasure trove of information about the SEIU’s tactics in pressuring employers in labor disputes. Furthermore, it is proof of endemic hostility to employers, with the end goal being results at any cost.

But don’t take our word for it- according to the manual-

…Outside pressure can involve jeopardizing relationships between the employer and lenders, investors, stockholders, customers, clients, patients, tenants, politicians, or others on whom the employer depends for funds.

The manual doesn’t stop with merely advocating legal means to pursue their agenda. It suggests that illegal actions may be necessary:

Union members sometimes must act in the tradition of Dr. Marin Luther King and Mohatma Gandhi and disobey laws which are used to enforce injustice against working people.

It even goes so far as to suggest how to blackmail employers- legally:

It may be a violation of blackmail and extortion laws to threaten management officials with release of ‘dirt’ about them if they don’t settle a contract. But there is no law against union members who are angry at their employer deciding to uncover and publicize factual information about individual managers.

How could the SEIU directly advocate this kind of behavior? Unfortunately, these statements are directly in line with SEIU behavior seen in many different cases.

SEIU’s Contract Campaign Manual is instructive in that it shows exactly what the SEIU thinks about their role in negotiations with employers. The SEIU operates with one very clear goal in mind- expansion at all costs. This single devotion to growth puts the needs of employees and employers secondary to the growth of the union, and can even jeopardize the entire goal of the union in the first place.

The SEIU needs to seriously re-evaluate their focus to actually attend to the needs of their members rather than encouraging them to take part in activities that are more likely to benefit the union’s needs rather than their own.

Note: All quotations from the manual presented in their original, grammatically incorrect and misspelled forms.

Raynor had claimed they had been for dinners with SEIU atteorneys, but it was later uncovered that he had shared them with another female SEIU Executive board member.

Yet these receipts are laughably small compared to the $15 Million a judicially-sanctioned panel found he had misappropriated from another union in violation of SEIU standards.

However, even after the continued examples of fraud and abuse, Raynor still sits at the board of the labor-owned Amalgamated Bank, worth $4.5 Billion in assets, and is the chairman of other union-affiliated insurance and pension funds such as the Amalgamated Life Insurance Company.

It seems in the world of SEIU Executives, one is not retired but is merely shifted.

(Ed. Note: the “Clean Up Sodexo” campaign has been implicated in a lawsuit filed by Sodexo. You can read SEIU Monitor’s coverage of the RICO lawsuit here.)

In coordination with the SEIU, a Tulane student organization TUPAC (Tulane University Peace Action Committee) has organized rallies and sit-ins on behalf of Tulane’s Sodexo employees.

TUPAC’s mission is to “unify students, staff and administrators on Tulane’s campus to create fair and dignified working conditions for all workers on Tulane’s campus.”

While TUPAC does not explicitly mention their connection to the SEIU, they are a regional affiliate of United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS), a university-based organization targeting students with anti-corporatist leftist messaging and getting students to engage in activism.

USAS does not explicitly mention their connection with SEIU either, but an inspection of SEIU’s LM-2 Organization Annual Report from 2010 reveals that SEIU donated a total of $104,950 in itemized and un-itemized funds to USAS for “political advocacy.”

This arrangement works well for both USAS and SEIU, as the USAS does the dirty work of organizing college students for activism on behalf of SEIU, and SEIU pays them handsomely for it.

SEIU had tried previously to get college students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to conduct activism for them in 2008, but students revolted once they realized that the SEIU was using them as “pawns” in what they called a “disturbing pattern” to undermine their efforts to help organize service workers:

It is becoming increasingly clear that SEIU leaders often see students and campus workers as little more than pawns to use as they see fit. SEIU has sought to maneuver these pawns in a way that brings new members and dues into the union in the short term but keeps workers in poverty and actually hurts our collective efforts to help unions grow at a massive scale.

By using an intermediary to work with students, the SEIU distances itself from possible backlash by students if/when it becomes clear to them that they are being used, yet again, as pawns.

The SEIU and TUPAC work well together:

Sodexo employees from Tulane and Loyola Universities participated in a daylong walk-out yesterday. The Service Employees International Union organized the walk-out, and the Tulane University Peace Action Committee organized a rally.

The SEIU had previously attempted to work with the Tulane from the outside, but there is no indication they had made significant progress. SEIU has made significantly more headway with their use of students through TUPAC:

Mike Hogg, vice president of student affairs, approved Thursday’s rally but said a policy proposal has not yet been submitted. “The normal process for review is for them to submit the proposal to the Social Issues Committee of the Faculty Senate,” Hogg said. Hogg said he has offered to arrange a meeting between student and Sodexo representatives and that he hopes a face-to-face meeting between both sides would be productive. [SEIU senior communications specialist Tanya] Aquino said that he acknowledges that the SEIU had initially made contact with Sodexo employees on Tulane’s campus in January.

Where the SEIU wasn’t able to make headway, their intermediary USAS has been able to make more significant progress. What remains to be seen is whether the students begin to connect the dots themselves and realize that they are once again acting as pawns of the SEIU leadership, whose real goal is only to increase membership, even at the cost of making real progress for worker’s rights.

In future weeks, SEIU Monitor will review multiple aspects of Sodexo’s complaint, and report various aspects from the legal case in order to answer the question- Is the SEIU an ongoing criminal enterprise?

Frequently Asked Questions about Sodexo v. SEIU

What was the purpose of SEIU’s “Clean Up Sodexo” Campaign?

SEIU’s goal was to force Sodexo to unilaterally start collecting dues from over 80,000 employees without the need for fair elections. This is different from the more traditional “plant-by-plant” unionizing approach, which targets individual locations and instead focuses on coercing the national organization leadership to force all Sodexo employees to start paying tribute to SEIU’s well paid management.

While federal law allows SEIU to take this approach, it does not allow for the kind of strong-arm tactics Sodexo is alleging SEIU used to intimidate and extort Sodexo leadership on a national scale. Sodexo alleges SEIU specifically targeted potential clients to jeopardize future service contracts.

What damages are Sodexo USA claiming?

Sodexo’s press release about their lawsuit states:

The complaint alleges that the SEIU, in face to face meetings, threatened Sodexo USA’s executives that it would harm Sodexo USA’s business unless they gave in to the union, and then carried out its threats through egregious behavior, including:

• Throwing plastic roaches onto food being served by Sodexo USA at a high profile event;
• Scaring hospital patients by insinuating that Sodexo USA food contained bugs, rat droppings, mold and flies;
• Lying to interfere with Sodexo USA business and sneaking into elementary schools to avoid security;
• Violating lobbying laws to steer business away from Sodexo USA, even at the risk of costing Sodexo USA employees their jobs; and
• Harassing Sodexo USA employees by threatening to accuse them of wrongdoing.

In terms of more specific monetary damages, SEIU’s actions cost Sodexo a contract with the Department of Defense. This contract would have been worth approximately $765 Million. These damages combined with other contracts Sodexo alleges SEIU is responsible for interfering with, if proven, could be substantial enough to completely shut down the SEIU.

What is needed to prove that the SEIU is guilty in the RICO case?

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act suits, or RICO suits as they’re commonly known, focus on prosecuting organization leadership for ordering criminal actions to take place. In this case, Sodexo is alleging that the SEIU leadership was using extortion to coerce Sodexo to recognize SEIU as the sole bargaining agent for their employees. This extortion took the form of threats and criminal actions that cost Sodexo damages in lost profits.

A previous case, Smithfield Foods, Inc. v. United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) establishes some important legal precedent here. To win the RICO suit against UFCW on the grounds of defamation via “smear campaign,” Smithfield Foods was held to the standard that UFCW’s allegedly defamatory statements needed to be made with “actual malice,” which the court found was not the case.

The National Agricultural Law Center had this analysis:

Smithfield’s characterization of its damages strongly indicated that they were “reputational” in nature, pointing to statements such as “the Smithfield brand name has been significantly tarnished” and the repeated mention of a loss of goodwill in its complaint… Therefore, the court held that at trial, Smithfield must prove both falsity and actual malice to recover for alleged reputational damages.

Reputational damage will only be one line of attack used by Sodexo—the courts will still have to determine standards for the SEIU’s alleged efforts to interfere with the potential client contracts. The monetary damages Sodexo claims go far beyond the reputational claims made by Smithfield.

Additionally, the evidence presented by Sodexo of SEIU-ordained actions such as using plastic roaches on to food certainly take this above and beyond the general smear campaign tactics alleged by Smithfield. One thing is for sure—this will be a very interesting case to watch.

Stay tuned! More analysis of this case will be forthcoming on this website in the next few weeks.

Henry wrote that Social Security was the only retirement source that the country can count on.³ The country, it seems, disagrees. A USA Today/ Gallup Poll found that a majority of retirees expect their benefits to be cut and of workers aged 18-34, three-fourths do not expect to receive social security when they retire.⁴

Henry also wrote that Social Security does not “add a dime to the deficit.”⁵ However, experts believe that Social Security will begin contributing to deficits and continue to do so in the years ahead. Furthermore, the burden will increase on taxpayers to continue to pay benefits of the program and that the Social Security trust fund does not contain real money. Instead the fund is a bookkeeping measure rather than tangible economic assets.⁶

Considering the shape of the SEIU’s pension plans, it is not surprising for Henry to consider Social Security in good working order. SEIU’s two national pension plans were considered to be funded at a critical status, below 65 percent.⁷

When it comes to retirement security, Mary Kay Henry seems to be using fuzzy math. Both SEIU members counting on a pension and taxpayers who will have to shore up Social Security should take heed.

² Mary Williams Walsh, “Social Security To See Payout Exceed Pay-In,” The New York Times, 3/25/10

³ SEIU President Mary Kay Henry, “Worried About Retirement? Time to Strengthen Social Security”, SEIU Blog, http://www.seiu.org/2010/08/worried-about-retirement-time-to-strengthen-social-security.php, 8/13/10

⁴ Susan Page, “Poll: Faith In Social Security System Tanking,” USA Today, 7/20/10

⁵ SEIU President Mary Kay Henry, “Worried About Retirement? Time to Strengthen Social Security”, SEIU Blog, http://www.seiu.org/2010/08/worried-about-retirement-time-to-strengthen-social-security.php, 8/13/10

⁶ David C. John, “Social Security’s Unexpected Deficits Show Urgent Need For Reform,” Heritage Foundation, Web Memo No. 2632, 9/29/09

⁷ F. Vincent Vernuccio, Commentary, “Andy Stern’s Debts,” The Washington Times, 4/23/10