Here are some other FACTS. Unions are NOT allowed by law to donate any dues money to ANY political candidate. All money donated MUST come from contributions (PACS, etc.)NOT dues.
If a member doesn't want his money going to an anti-gun candidate then all he has to do is not donate to the union PAC and donate his money to the candidate of HIS choice. Also, ANY union member can, by law, have the percentage of his dues money returned to him that is used for any political purposes. This would be monies used for any programs, mailings or printed matters that deal with politics.
I cannot speak for other unions but I can say that my union (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen) follows these laws to the letter.
When I retire in 5 years I will "feel great" on my retirement benefits because I EARNED them.

[b]Damn!, wetidlerjr![/b]

Did I say anything about dues? Nope!

[b]But you are proud that Union members give so much money to the Democrat Party?[/b]

Actually proud to be doing a very needful part in DISARMING the citizens of our Country?

[b]Damn, again![/b]

Y'all Union folks amaze me!

I'm not a member of the [b]American Bar Association[/b] because it is hostile to the RKBA.

I'm not a member of the [b]Dallas Bar Association[/b] because it has made statements in the past that appear to support the AWB of 1994, and other Anti-RKBA measures.

Being a member of both those organizations would increase my income from referrals from other lawyers, etc.

But I'd rather have my Country the way it was, than help finance the remaking of it into a nation that the Founding Fathers would not recognize!

[b]Screw the money![/b]

I'm sorry that you and the dwindling numbers of Union members don't feel the same way!  

Now let's see, the NUMBERS that I posted above are the true and correct numbers regarding LABOR's contribution to the Democrat Party and its liberal, anti-RKBA agenda.

Do you dispute [u]that[/u]? Nope, I thought not!

There is much confusion regarding this union dues issue. In 1988 the US Supreme Court ruled in the [b]Beck[/b] case that no worker could be forced to pay union dues that are used for political purposes.

Even in the twenty-nine states that permit unions to force workers to pay unions for the right to work, all workers have the option of resigning their union membership and paying only that portion of ordinary dues that is used for collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance procedures. (In [b]Beck[/b] we learned that this amounted to [u]only[/u] 21 percent of ordinary dues.)

Supreme Court decisions do not enforce themselves, and the Clinton administration had refused to enforce Beck. Senators McCain and Feingold claim that their bill would codify the [b]Beck[/b] Decision, so even Clinton's Justice and Labor Departments would have had to enforce it.

The problem with their alleged codification is that it is feckless. It almost completely preserves the [b]Beck[/b] status quo. Workers would still have to resign their union membership and individually request that the unions stop taking political money from them. The unions would still effectively be free to decide for themselves the percentage dues reductions those who resign would get. (They usually grant less than 20 percent, while under [b]Beck[/b] they should grant well over 50 percent.)

Individual workers who wished to contest the unions' decisions would still have to bear heavy costs of litigation to do so. This would continue to be an effective barrier to most workers. Since even workers who resign from unions are forced into having the unions represent them, they are routinely forced into a Hobson's choice between a small dues reduction and, through resignation, losing all voice in union affairs.

The only way that McCain-Feingold may change the [b]Beck[/b] status quo is that more workers would realize that they have the option of resigning from the unions and becoming partial-dues payers. Abetted by the Clinton Administration, unions tried to hide that fact. Under McCain-Feingold that would be much more difficult to do.

The Lott amendment would require the unions to get annual written permission from their members to use any of their dues money for politics. This means that all union members would have an annual reminder of their [b]Beck[/b] rights. That might even encourage more union members to resign. But the Lott amendment does nothing to solve the problem of the unions effectively deciding the amounts of the dues reductions for themselves. That problem could be addressed by letting each worker (whether member or not) specify the amount of money he or she is willing to give to the union for political purposes, and limiting the unions' political expenditures to that sum. But the Lott amendment doesn't do that.

[b]The only effective way to get forced union dues out of politics is to prohibit unions from collecting any money from workers other than their voluntary members.[/b] If all workers were free to resign their union membership and abstain from paying any money to unions, and if unions were forced annually to tell workers they have that option, it would not be unreasonable to assume that those who remain as members implicitly approve of how the unions spend their dues.

Workers would then have a clear choice between a 100 percent dues reduction and, if they didn't resign, allowing the unions to spend as much dues money as they want on politics. All the dead-weight losses (costs) of litigation concerning appropriate dues reduction could be avoided.

Now, that is the solution to all our problems.

If you really wished to do your part to save the RKBA and to prevent the Democrat's liberal assed agenda from being funded by your precious Unions, [b]wetidlerjr[/b], you would get off your featherbedding ass and take control of your Union!

[b]Then you might be able to retire one day with the knowledge that your actions helped, not hurt, our Republic![/b]

Sorry if that is offensive, but it was meant to be! [:D]

Eric The(FreeLabor!)Hun[>]:)]

Of course, if you live in France and are against unions, they just make you disappear.

I wonder how many bodies would turn up if we could x-ray concrete.

Oh, you all should support these people!

[url=www.nrtw.org]National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation[/url]

--LS

How about this?

Ever wonder how much union dues cash Big Labor dumps into political campaigns?

[url=www.nrtw.org/d/political_spending.htm]Big Labor's Massive Political Machine[/url]

--LS

Don't support the Union.  Don't support the Company. They function to screw each other AND their own members.

I worked in a Company with salaried non union Office and union Production.

A big portion of the Production people are lazy bastards that wait only for the 4 o'clock horn, especially the senior folks. As long as they show up, do some semblance of work, and don't steal, their job is secure.

The young union members may be laid off at any time due to shortage of work.  They tend to be good workers, hungry, but their ambition gets them nowhere.  Seniority, not performance, rules in the union.

Digression: My mother worked in a union shop doing piecework.  She was able to put out so much quality pieces she was ostracized.  She was working too fast for the lazy bitches around her; working hard for us so that we could go to college and not face her hardship.

But college doesn't pay off either. I was laid off, salaried non-union office.  I did more work than most of the lazy bastards in the plant.  My ambition got me nowhere because I didn't ingratiate myself to the boss nor did I do obeisance to him as if he could walk on water.

Somewhere there has to be a middle ground between Company and Union.  

>Did I say anything about dues? Nope!

And I didn't say that you did.

>But you are proud that Union members give so much money to the Democrat Party?

Didn't say that, either!

>Actually proud to be doing a very needful part in DISARMING the citizens of our Country?

Damn, didn't say that either!

>The only effective way to get forced union dues out of politics is to prohibit unions from collecting any money from workers other than their voluntary members.

Would that before or after we eliminate Company PACs?

>If you really wished to do your part to save the RKBA and to prevent the Democrat's liberal assed agenda from being funded by your precious Unions, wetidlerjr, you would get off your featherbedding ass and take control of your Union!

Nice try but I earn my pay and I am not anti-gun and never have been.

I explained how dues money cannot be donated to candidates and how union dues used for political purposes can be refunded. Nothing more or less. Your attempts to make me look like a bad guy are failed ploys and nothing more.

>Sorry if that is offensive, but it was meant to be!

No offense here. You have just as much right to be wrong as anyone else.  

Let's see here, [b]wetidlerjr[/b], I said:

And you replied:

So you must NOT be proud that the Union gave so much money to a liberal, anti-RKBA Party?

Then why don't you and the other proud Brothers in your union get up and do something about it?

Are you guys afraid that Tony Soprano would kick in your front doors?

Then y'all really do NEED to support the RKBA!

Then I said:

And you replied:

Are you nuts? Why would you want to gut back on the very folks who ARE supporting pro-RKBA candidates?

You are TOO Union in the way you think. You have bought into the 'Us Versus Them' Class War Mentality that your Union Bosses have fed you over the years!

Then I said:

And you retorted:

Well, we will never know conclusively whether you actually earn your pay or not, so I will simply say that you are legally entitled to every red cent that your Masters can extort for you!

Then they are free to extort their dues from you! It's kind of a nice tit for tat.

While you MAY not be anti-gun, you are certainly carrying their water for them! The Anti-gun, Anti-RKBA Leftist Democrat Party can faithfully rely on members such as you to keep their traps shut and vote the Party line.

But hey! In the freedom of the voting booth, you may just be able to vote for the candidate that you'd like. Maybe even a pro-RKBA sort of candidate.

You will just have to live (nicely, as you say)
with the fact that your Union has given money to the other side!

Yes, and I explained to you in my post above how incredibly impossible the Unions have made exercising that 'right' that the US Supreme Court has recognized for your benefit!

Tell me, my dear misguided friend, just how much of your Union dues have you had refunded based upon you exercising your rights under the [b]Beck[/b] Decision?

If you say none, then, Honey, you are supporting the Left's Anti-gun, Anti-RKBA agenda.

Whether you know it or not!

[b]That is so sad.[/b]

But hey! You've got cash coming in the future! Cold, hard cash!

You've got retirement! Good solid retirement!Not that piddling Social Security crap, but we're talking real dollars!

You've got the warm feeling that you have done everything within your power to make America the way it is today. And the way it will be in the future!

Yes, I suppose I do, but I believe we can all agree that my position on this subject is simply not one on which I am wrong.

Right? [:D]

Eric The(RightToWork!RightToKeepAndBearArms!)Hun[>]:)]

I can't stand them but thats not the case with a lot of "fredon love'n"folks[rolleyes]

Law? Why mostly bankruptcy, real estate, and corporate law. In that order.

'Parenthetical postscripts'? That's how I refer to those little [b]bon-mots[/b], and trust me, they are very little at times.

The answer is 'No'! I have not had such parenthetical postscripts for all 12,000+ of my posts.

Some are repeats, back by popular demand; 'HonestToGod', is one!

Others are [u]quite[/u] unremarkable! [:D]

As you may have noticed.

But some, maybe just a few, are real zingers!

Eric The(ButNotThisOne!)Hun[>]:)]

"Honey"

ROTFLMAOKS!
Does all this mean you won't be coming to my birthday party after all?

"Yes, I suppose I do, but I believe we can all agree that my position on this subject is simply not one on which I am wrong.

Right?"

Wrong but have a good day anyway!

'Nothing worth responding to'?

Yeah, that simply [u]must[/u] be the answer.

Eric The(RightAsRain)Hun[>]:)]

I think that MOST(not all) of you that dislike
unions are confusing COMPANY unions with TRADE unions.

Company unions are just that.COMPANY unions.If you lose your job you are SOL.


In a TRADE union you are represented by a union that will hire you out to CONTRACTORS who do work for companies that want somthing built.If you lose your job,It is the job of the Union to find you another one.In a TRADE union you have to serve a 5 YEAR APPRENTICESHIP(5 years of hell)to EARN your JOURNEYMAN LICENSE.NOONE GIVES
YOU ANYTHING(except an education and a REAL trade)


  COMPANY UNIONS AND TRADE UNIONS ARE       COMPLETLY DIFFERENT THINGS!!


Yes,I support TRADE UNIONS.I am a PROUD 3rd Generation Union Steamfitter/Local 614/Memphis,TN.AND I'M A REPUBLICAN.(I DON'T pay into the PAC fund)I am also a lifetime member of the NRA.

EricTheHun said:

[size=3]
I have said it before, and I am sure I will say it again, and I will say it right now, Eric The Hun[/size=3] [size=6]ROCKS[/size=6]

Post from raf -

Yes, and the Market will ultimately drive such an idiot out of business, or at least make his business very, very unprofitable.

But since he's the sole-proprietor, he has every right to hire and fire who he wants.

It's called freedom, and it may be used stupidly, but so what?

If he has the requisite number of employees, so long as he doesn't fire folks for the wrong reasons, i.e., race, nationality, etc., then he's free to fire whosoever he pleases.

Yes, the average and below-average workers are safest in union-protected jobs, for certain![:D]

Eric The(LookingForTheUnionLabel)Hun[>]:)]

Everyone here should know I don't like Unions. Oh, and I did not start this...  [:D]

Aviator

What old ETH didn't tell you is that the NLRB struck back against Beck rights with a rule allowing the unions to give you 15 days a year to resign---just 15.

Guess which 15 days that always is? Plant shutdown when the worker can't come in. That means a HS grad has to research the business office address of the union and know enough to mail certifed return while on his vacation, or his full dues come out of his check for another whole year with no choice at all (dues check-off).

I never have belonged to a union and never will.

The owners and management of some companies simply deserve to have to deal with unions.

I was a union member for close to ten years. I finally quit because the unions knee jerk support of the democRATS sickened me.
Originally the unions were a great idea, now they tend to be corrupt self serving corporations unto themselves.
I appreciate the fact that I get more pay because of them but I believe my rights as an american are far more important than the extra money.
By the way, ever wonder why the people who work for the union are not allowed to join a union?
Yup, the unions know enough not to let any union in on its turf.

The way I see it is if a Company moves to Mexico and hires people for 2 dollars a day just to get away from the Unions then that Company is endorsing the fact that if they could have it there way we (all American workers) should make 2 bucks a day and have reduced safety standards and no overtime and be basically labor slaves to be used for there own greed. NFL, NHL, NBA, Doctors, Lawyers, and other groups of professionals look out for there interests through the means of organizing some type of labor unions. So whats wrong with that. If you didn't have Unions you wouldn't have a middle class. Unions are not perfect because people are not perfect. If you don't have a union and you work hard as hell you can easily be screwed by your boss. I have seen it happen in non union shops where most of the time the lazy asses suck up to the boss and keep there jobs and the hard workers get screwed.

Im just replying the original question. Im in a Union .Is it perfect.No. Is any job? No normally for most of us. Its just a job for me. I make a shit load of money for what I do.My co workers work hard and I think we do a good job. Union worker lazy? They are no different than any group of people from any other type job. Some are lazy, some are drugies , some are dumb, some are smart, some are hard workers. No different from any non union job. Biggest difference, better pay,a retirement ,good benifits. I cant speak for all Unions just my own. Companys didn't move to Mexico because of unions. They moved there for bigger profits.  What do you think a Normal company would pay the American worker if it was solely up to them? As little as possible. Maybe two Pesos???  WD

my experince with unions has not been good.  here are my observations:

1. POS liberal demoncraps and financial supporters of such.
2. excessive pay for jobs/people not worthy
3. I AM NOT YOUR FRIGGIN BROTHER
4. unions fight to keep losers employed, while the good ones are left hanging
5. corrupt as ever (see item #1)
6. the'll rape the experinced/skilled people for the sake of the friggin morons in a manual labor job.
7. I'll stop here, I don't want to take all day %^&*()_^%&*

Welcome to the crazy and wacky world of Capitalism!

[b]The very worst form of economics, EXCEPT FOR ALL THE OTHERS![/b]

Please don't complain of the obscene amount of profit that the private shareholders can sometimes obtain from their investments in a publicly-traded Company!

Chances are you, too, could just as easily have invested in that Company, as well!

And so could your Union pension funds.

They probably did!

BTW, when's the last time a poor man ever gave you a job?

[b]Thank God for Capitalism! Thank the Lord for Capitalists![/b]

One-third of what Jesus spoke of during His earthly Ministry concerned being a good steward with the money that the Lord has given you!

If you invest it, you are a wise and profitable servant. If not, then even that which you have will be taken and given to those who did!

Eric The(NewTestamentMindInAnOldTestamentBody)Hun[>]:)]

The way top management are running companies these days, unions are the least of the problems.....companies moved to Mexico for the 50 cents an hour wages are now starting to come back, because sometime you get what you pay for....if it wasn't for the unions there would be no middle class today, only the rich and the poor.......just like Europe right now.........

......where they've had unions for decades.

Post from jem375 -

[size=4][b]What?[/b][/size=4]

Dear Boy, there was a vibrant Middle Class in this country from the very beginning of our history!

[u]All[/u] classes participated in the founding of this country!

The correct view: If there was only a Democrat Party in this country today, there would be no Middle Class, only the rich and poor!

There, isn't that much better? [:D]

Eric The(Historical)Hun[>]:)]

My union experience SUCKED, as did the union, and it was a "clean" union as unions go.

Unions drive good businesses OUT of business or force the businesses to compromise the quality of their goods and services to the consumer because they are being forced to pay exorbitant wages to their workers when that money should be used to provide quality products and services instead.

CJ

i am a proud member of the united brotherhood of carpenters and joiners local 76 hazleton pa.
unions are like anything else there are good and bad points and some people will always find a way to abuse the system. alot of the posts refer to protecting worthless and lazy workers , who does this more than the government?

Let me, not necessarily contradict, but interject a few of my experiences.  I have two friends who live in Germany and one in Luxembourg.  All are US citizens.  One has lived there more than 30 yrs and owns Trisport Bicycle Shop in Echternach, Lux.  Another has lived in Germany almost 30 yrs, just retired from civil service.  Another has live there about 15 yrs and manages the Spangdahlem Air Base Sports Store.  Each of these families is doing very well financially.  Admittedly all but the one in Lux has ties to a military base.  But each of the three has a local national wife who works.  The taxes they pay is outrageous.  But... these taxes provide medical care incl. opth, presc, etc... all of it.  I don't have all their details and wouldn't think of asking them everything.  But one thing I know is they're not poor, they have savings, and most importantly (in my mind for this situation) a portion of their taxes are going into [i]their[/i] retirement fund.  A fund which is reported to them each year, a fund which is guaranteed.. if anything really is, a fund which they can live on and does not have to be subsidized. It certainly ain't the best system in the world, and I sure as hell don't want to live there.  But ya gotta admit 2000 sq ft, one car and no savings ain't exactly correct.  [:D] Etc. ad nauseum.  Your mileage may vary.

Yeah, and if they are 80 years of age and develop heart troublt, they are put on a waiting list that will never reach their name before they die!

Have you ever seen an American citizen so poor and destitute that he can't get his broken leg set?

Not in this century, pardner!

Eric The(AmericaHasTheBestHealthCareSystemInTheWorld!)Hun[.]:)]

edit:  The emotional issues of "medical care for everyone" drove me to post too much family info.  Info deleted.

Had a terrible time posting last post.???

Anyway, Eric, I'm not here to change your mind.  Check on of my sig lines.

And I haven't even told you the stories concerning trying to get my mother treatment and medicine.  [i][b]But in my experience[/b][/i] the medical system in the US sucks.

Oh yeah- I stayed in Germany for two years after I retired from the military.  I went to France on a cycling vacation.  Went into the local German insurance place, gave the broker my $70 (or so) and was given a card- ala credit card.  About a $150 dollar deduct for hospitalization, then everything else was free, dental, hysterical therapy (medical joke), meds, etc etc.  Can you get that here?

Sylvan,
We're starting to split.  I was talking "accessibility" and you're starting to talk "quality."
I agree wholeheartedly; the US has the finest health care providers and equipment in the world.  But it isn't available to everyone.

edit: again, too much family info.  Deleted.

Anyway, my views, your views, they're all good!!
Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!
A little late but WTH.

Dear ETH and all other union haters, I agree with your statements on Industrial unions, I had to Join the I.A.M.A.W when i first started @ Northwest Airlines. What a corrupt buch of snakes, but when the A.M.F.A. was voted in it was a nice change(Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association). They(AMFA) are non-political,and a craft union. All the positions are elected and anyone of the leaders can be voted out by the membership.
Now if you want to be a dues objector that fine but when your making next to nothing don't expect me to help out I won't cause it's only a matter of time before it works it way up the job food chain.
You can flame away but it won't change the fact that our way of life is under attack from the Enron's and such. I don't support the Dem's but I don't like the assult on working man who only wants a good job with decent pay.
And finally how much profit is enough if after paying all your bills and payroll including yourself, when is it enough Mr. Milroy? and if you don't know that reference then go see Chinatown.   Sjetwrench former NWA mech.,U.S Navy sailor, and Gun owner.

Post from Sjetwrench -

So, if you're not into being a dues objector, you don't mind that a part of your dues is being used to fund the liberal, anti-gun agenda of the Democrat Party?

Well then don't expect for us to help you out when your union bosses have sold you and your Second Amendment rights down the River!

In Texas, and twenty-nine other states, we have what is called 'Right to Work.'

I think the names says it all.

Well, you'd better pick a better example than Enron, cause if it was so powerful and all, and such a threat to our way of life, why the F*** did it fall flat on its face?

And the fact that its directors and officers are facing criminal charges doesn't lead me to believe that it was a threat to anyone but itself!

Sort of like a lot of unions I know! Teamsters ring a bell? [:D]

Stop with the 'class warfare' rhetoric! We are supposed to be free market capitalists around here, not a bunch of communist stooges!

Or have the unions convinced you otherwise?

Cash in on the demise of America, but you'd better have a higher position in the union than just member if you want to enjoy the fiddling while the American Rome burns!

Eric The(Serious)Hun[>]:)]

The more realistic title to this thread should be [b]'Do You USpport Unions and Organized [u]Crime[/u]?'[/b]

Here's a little report on the way things are:

[size=3][b]ORGANIZED CRIME, ORGANIZED LABOR, AND CORRUPTION OF THE FEDERAL GRANTS PROCESS[/b][/size=3]
Kenneth R. Weinstein,Director, Government Reform Project, The Heritage Foundation

       
An agreement between the U.S. Department of Justice and an allegedly crime-ridden labor union is being scrutinized in Congress because of allegations that political considerations may have led the government to adopt a lenient stance toward the union. One aspect of the relations between the Clinton Administration and the Laborers' International Union of North America which merits particular examination is the string of federal grants that have continued to subsidize LIUNA even as government investigators were uncovering evidence of organized criminal influence in the union. Restriction or elimination of grants to politically active groups like unions ought to be high on the list of remedies Congress considers.

In addition to examining the Clinton Administration's handling of criminal investigations, Congress should seek to ascertain why purely discretionary funds continued to flow to a group subject to such serious allegations. Were federal grantmakers aware of long-pending allegations that LIUNA was tied to organized crime? And in reviewing evidence that union leaders misused union funds, Congress should ask the General Accounting Office and other agencies to investigate how those same officials used taxpayer funds entrusted to them.

[b]Welfare for Unions[/b]

The vast patronage network created by Congress and the federal bureaucracy during the past 40 years is out of control. Each year, American taxpayers fund nearly $39 billion in grants to over 40,000 private organizations, many of which taxpayers might find objectionable or offensive. Even when the advertised purpose of a federal grant seems inoffensive, every federal dollar that an organization receives frees private resources for other uses, including political and lobbying activities in pursuit of ever more government subsidies. Furthermore, most federal grants include an "overhead" allowance that directly subsidizes all of a recipient's activities.

Over the past few decades, labor unions have been among the major beneficiaries of federal largesse, receiving literally billions of dollars for educational, training, and construction programs. The maze of federal grants to unions in areas ranging from job-training to AIDS education is so vast, and public disclosure so limited, that a precise figure is unavailable. One admittedly preliminary investigation uncovered $110 million in "direct subsidies" to unions between January 1993 to March 1994 from the Departments of Labor, Justice, Housing and Urban Development, and Health and Human Services alone. And this is dwarfed by the indirect subsidies unions receive through worker training grants distributed by the states under the $3.4 billion federal Job Training Partnership Act.

[b]This year, the AFL-CIO has earmarked $35 million to defeat conservative members of the 104th Congress.[/b] Yet federal grants to the AFL-CIO continue. In the midst of this campaign, for example, the AFL-CIO was awarded a "financial management training" grant of $400,000 by President Clinton's supposedly nonpartisan "national service" program, AmeriCorps.

[b]While any group should be free to pursue legitimate political aims, labor unions enjoy two unusual privileges: federal grant subsidies and the ability to force workers to subsidize political efforts with which many union members disagree. Both of these privileges allow organized labor to use dollars earned coercively-either from taxpayers through federal grants or from union members through mandatory dues payments-to support a narrow ideological agenda.[/b]

[b]Money, Crime, and Politics[/b]

In addition to the question of whether politically active groups should receive federal funding, the lack of accountability in the federal grants process is disturbing. The Laborers' International Union of North America received more than $11 million in federal grant money in FY 1994. In the 1994 election cycle, LIUNA's political action committee, the Laborers' Political League, donated over $1 million to Democratic Party congressional candidates. Whether federal grant dollars effectively subsidized political activity is a legitimate subject of inquiry, but the grants to LIUNA raise an even more significant question: [b]Why did LIUNA continue to receive millions in federal grant dollars when it had been singled out for a decade as probably infiltrated by organized crime?[/b]

In 1986, President Reagan's Commission on Organized Crime issued a landmark report detailing the influence of organized crime on labor unions. The report singled out several unions, suggesting in a chapter entitled "A Case Waiting to be Made" that the Justice Department file racketeering charges against the Laborers' International Union of North America to return control of the union to its members.

Eight years later, in November 1994, DOJ's organized crime and racketeering section delivered a 212-page draft complaint to LIUNA's general president, Arthur Coia. The charge: that Coia, along with several co-conspirators, had "employed actual and threatened force, violence and economic injury to create a climate of intimidation and fear" at the Rhode Island-based union, which represents 700,000 workers, primarily in the hazardous waste cleanup and construction trades. The complaint recommended that Coia be "immediately removed" from his post as general president and that control of the union be assumed by an independent administrator.

Over the past two decades, LIUNA officials have recorded over 80 convictions for crimes ranging from racketeering to bribery, extortion, tax evasion, and attempted murder. Despite this record and the lengthy Justice Department report detailing Coia's use of "fear and intimidation" in running the union, Coia was not removed as head of LIUNA. In February 1995, the Justice Department reached an agreement with the union by which Coia kept his job in exchange for a promise that he would weed out corruption.

DOJ's voluntary agreement with LIUNA, proposed by the union in response to the 212-page draft complaint, was the first of its kind in a racketeering case involving a labor union. It relies on LIUNA itself-not a court-appointed officer granted wide powers and broad access to federal investigative resources-to institute needed reforms.

In the consent decree filed by LIUNA and DOJ, the union acknowledged that "the organized crime syndicate known as La Cosa Nostra has at various times had a corrupting influence on the affairs of various locals and other entities within LIUNA." The union also openly admitted that it "ha[d] not eliminated all of such corrupting influence" in its ranks. In effect, the "Department of Justice farm[ed] out the task of mob-busting to a union boss they once charged as a racketeer."

The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime recently held hearings in conjunction with the tenth anniversary of the Reagan Commission to examine how LIUNA remained under Coia's thumb. One theory is that politics may have played a role. [b]Coia lent $100,000 of LIUNA money to the Clinton Inaugural Committee; and in 1993 and 1994, the Laborers' Political League donated over $1 million to Democratic Party congressional candidates.[/b] During 1995 and the first quarter of 1996, the LPL has contributed $747,000 to over 200 liberal congressional candidates. [b]Coia personally served as vice chairman of a May 1996 fund-raiser that raised $12 million for the Democratic Party.[/b]

- continued -

[b]LIUNA and Federal Grants[/b]

In addition to reviewing the Justice Department's decision to allow Coia to remain as LIUNA's general president, the Judiciary Committee might wish to investigate federal funding of the union's training programs. Since 1986, millions of tax dollars have flowed to this union, described by the Commission on Organized Crime as a "corrupt" organization whose "leaders steal or misuse workers' funds." Moreover, the November 1994 Justice Department complaint noted that "in or about 1986 to on or about July 31, 1994," LIUNA leaders intended to devise a scheme to "defraud training and education funds of various upstate locals" in New York by using "actual and threatened force" to "induce the locals to surrender control of these funds." In FY 1994, while the Justice Department was investigating graft and intimidation at LIUNA, the union and its affiliates received 38 grants totaling $11,376,000 from four federal agencies and departments: the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Department of Labor.

In April 1995, less than three months after the Justice Department signed its agreement with LIUNA, the Department of Housing and Urban Development signed its own agreement with the union. HUD awarded the Laborers' Institute for Training and Education, a LIUNA affiliate, a $3.5 million grant to "provide construction and environmental training and career opportunities and advancement for public housing residents." Under this grant, according to LIUNA, public housing residents will be trained in "basic construction and environmental remediation skills," after which they will "become members of LIUNA" and "enjoy long-term access to future employment opportunities through union hiring halls." [b]It is little wonder that, upon receiving this grant, Coia declared that "this is just one more shining example of how the Clinton administration and the LIUNA is [sic] putting people first."[/b]

Congress should call additional hearings to require the relevant grantmaking officials at HUD to testify about their decision to award such a major grant to LIUNA just three months after the consent decree was signed. In particular, HUD's Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, Joseph Shuldiner, who signed the April 26, 1995, grant, should be asked about his knowledge of wrongdoing at LIUNA as well as what efforts his bureau is taking to prevent such wrongdoing in the future.

[b]Lessons for the Federal Grants Process[/b]

LIUNA is just one of the nearly 40,000 private organizations that receive more than $39 billion annually in federal grant funds. Like LIUNA, many of these groups also take an active part in the political process by promoting a particular ideological agenda or by lobbying for increased federal spending. When the taxpayers fund special interests, they make it possible for these organizations to use private resources for such purposes. The federal grants process employs the coercive power of government to force taxpayers to finance organizations whose political agenda they oppose. [b]With regard to LIUNA specifically, tax dollars have gone repeatedly to an organization whose leadership has played a significant role in supporting the Democratic Party.[/b]

[b]Wholly aside from LIUNA's links to the Clinton Administration, organizations alleged to be rife with criminal wrongdoing should be ineligible for federal funding. Clearly, federal grant dollars should not be given to any organization with admitted ties to organized crime for the purpose of recruiting more members. Whatever other else might be done to prevent the abuse of federal grants for political purposes, this is a first step upon which liberals and conservatives alike should be able to agree.[/b]

As Congress reviews charges that LIUNA officials misused union funds, government investigators should be asked whether they reviewed the receipt and use of taxpayer funds by those same officials. Given the union's admission of wrongdoing, an investigation and accounting of the use of recent federal grants clearly is in order. Because of questions about the relationship between the Clinton Administration and LIUNA, the General Accounting Office, an independent congressional agency, should conduct that review.

The LIUNA case is an example of the inherent conflict of interest in permitting executive branch agencies to give grants to politically active groups. In 1995, Congress attempted to address the problem of taxpayer-subsidized political activities by ending grants to groups that engage in lobbying. Unfortunately, the restriction Congress approved applies only to one category of lobbying organization, and efforts to erect broader restrictions on federally funded lobbying, principally the Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich Amendment, were stymied by congressional liberals. Along with general efforts to eliminate welfare for lobbyists, Congress should identify and eliminate all programs that serve most often to channel funding to special-interest groups. This case should serve to stimulate such efforts.

As Congress questions the standard for criminal prosecution in cases such as LIUNA's, it also should consider an intermediate step: barring federal grants to suspect organizations. During the ten years that allegations against LIUNA have been pending, government grantmakers appear to have been uninformed of or unconcerned about substantial evidence of criminal activity within the union. Because federal grants to organizations like LIUNA are discretionary, it would be entirely reasonable to withhold money from suspect groups and award it to others. Government should take all reasonable steps to protect taxpayer funds even before seeking criminal sanctions.

Congress should consider steps to stop-or at least require a review of-federal grants to any group for which there is substantial evidence of corruption. Among the actions which might trigger such a review:

Conviction of a group's officers or employees on charges indicating abuse of monies or organizational powers;

Delivery or filing of charges against an organization by federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies; or

Any public disclosure of criminal activity by an organization.

[b]Conclusion[/b]

Having raised serious legal concerns about the propriety of the Clinton Administration's decision to allow the crime-infested Laborer's International Union to remain out of federal receivership, Congress also should ask why such an organization has continued to receive federal grant subsidies. LIUNA presents a case study of serious problems in the federal grants process. [b]Since 1993, the Laborers' Political League has donated nearly $1.75 million to Democratic Party congressional candidates. At the same time, LIUNA affiliates have received over $15 million in federal grants. Indeed, just three months after it admitted to organized crime infiltration in federal court, LIUNA received a $3.5 million grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.[/b]

- continued -

It is time for Congress to end the corruption of the federal grants process by acting immediately to:

Require that relevant grantmakers at HUD, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Labor testify about their knowledge of allegations of criminal infiltration of LIUNA;

Prohibit organizations whose officers have records of criminal wrongdoing from receiving federal grants;

Renew efforts to restrict lobbying by federal grantees; and

Order a General Accounting Office investigation into LIUNA's handling of federal grants.
       
[b]It is bad enough that mandatory dues from union members are used to pay for corruption and political activities. [u]Taxpayers should not be forced to pay as well[/u].[/b]

From Government Integrity Project Report No. 10
July 31, 1996 [url]http://www.laborers.org/Reform_7-31-96.html[/url]

There's your F***ing unions for you! Don't think that yours is any better! This is SOP for unions.

But tell me, seriously, how much of that jack filtered its way down to the rank and file?

Feel used, do you? Well, you [u]should[/u]!

Eric The(HonestToGod)Hun[>]:)]

Well I shall tell you once again,I don't contribute to this fund [url]http://www.utu.org/worksite/tpel.cfm[/url] because I don't agree with their veiws! Calling it mandatory is pretty far from than the truth.  I think Enron is a good example,why, because this is the real threat to America, not the Unions. Another classic example of the big shots feathering their own nests at the expence of hundreds or thousands of hard working people, who now have nothing! Sure they will spend some time at Club Fed.  but when they get out,they will still be alot better off than the workers that got f**ked....Talk about people getting over-paid/corruption, what are your veiws on Doctors & Lawyers? Maybe that would make an interesting "thread".     Edit to add:this link is from the UTU,I'm BLE,but is still not mandatory to donate.

Dear ETH you missed a very important part of my post I said That I agree with you on the case of industrial unions. I belong to a CRAFT union sir, The CRAFT union I belong to is NON-POLITICAL, meaning they don't, REPEAT DON'T contribute to the leftist socialist cause.

AS for If I believe that we should become Copmmunist, Get a life That model of life is on the trashbin of history. But I have seen too many good hardworking people cheated out of goods and monies that they had by some slick wheeler-dealer who will have to face judgement with the Almighty. ( Also I'm not a communist I belive in God.)
Yes you do raise good points, but you are not the all knowing Oracle of Delphi. If there wasn't a need for a union I beleive there wouldn't be unions, but alas their still here, so I guess there is still a need for them.

Waiting for you to twist my post to fit your agenda.

Also sir(ETH) I asked you a Question, How much profit and greed is enough. And before you start yelling that I want to cap the amount a CEO of a compant can earn. I don't, A good boss,CEO or owner, knows that he must treat his people well, or he will surely go under.
Also you seen to beat this one note horn, that all union members support the the causes of the ALF-CIO unions, but sir there are unions that are leaving the ALF-CIO because of the politics.
My union is NOT ALF-CIO neither is the Carpenters unions and a few more that I can't remember right now.( I'm sure you will jump on this like a rabid dog) You keep spewing the same old line anti-union stuff, you know it gets old [beathorse]. And sir to show you I don't take it personal if you are ever in Tucson drop me a line and we will go out and have a beer.

[i]sigh[/i]

Think about a farmer, as he harvests his crop, he must return to the soil manure to keep it healthy, or he will have nothing to hand down to his sons.
His sons must do the same, its a never ending pattern untill someone get greedy or lazy, the land get played out, and there is nothing but dust to pass on to the next generation.
Thats what happened to my fathers factory, Clark Equipment.
When I was a kid, Clark had 3000 men working in Jackson, and the union was powerful.
But they took and took, never gave a concession (untill the very end) and never once invested in the company thet provided their family's with food or a roof over their heads.
When I graduated high school, 1980, I wanted to go to work with the old man, but by then, Clark was down to 500 or so employees, by 1983, they were gone.
Went to North Carolina

The union took and took, untill the company found it unprofitable, and moved.

I can tell the same story about Good Year in Jackson, our next door neighbors moved south with them.

It wasn't ALL the unions fault, taxes in Michigan bled these companys plenty, but a lot of guys in 1975 were making as much or more than a lot of shops in Jackson pay today, 27 years later.

So, in Jackson, for about 5000 farmers kids (Good Year and Clark Equipment combined employment level at the best) the land was played out, nothing but dust left, and they had to move on.

Oh well.......

Rancid Lance

So when they landed in NC and cut their payroll in half; how much did the price of Clark Equipment go down to the consumer?