Barack Obama: ‘I owe those unions’

In his book “The Audacity of Hope,” then-candidate Barack Obama, when talking about his relationship with Big Labor union officials, wrote: “I owe those unions. When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I don’t consider this corrupting in any way.”

Fours year later, it’s become clear he did a lot more than just call them. Countless giveaways to organized labor have ensured that Washington union bosses owe the president and will spend more than a billion dollars to ensure President Obama’s return to the White House.

You see, the largest special interest in the upcoming elections is Big Labor.

Every year, union officials collect more than $14 billion from hardworking Americans, many of whom want nothing to do with unions. Union officials routinely funnel union dues and mandatory fees from nonunion workers into political campaigns aimed at defending or expanding their already extensive special privileges.

Recent media reports indicated that Big Labor spends about 4 times more on politics and lobbying than what was previously thought. This money is then used to fund and feed a massive army of union partisans — from holding protests in state capitols like we saw in Wisconsin and Indiana to going door to door supporting Big Labor’s handpicked political candidates across the country.

As a result, union officials have a massive amount of political clout in Washington and state capitals even though private-sector, voluntary union membership continues to decline steadily.

Union bosses certainly use their clout. Mr. Obama has churned out countless political paybacks to his Big Labor allies. Shortly after getting elected, Mr. Obama appointed forced-unionism partisan Hilda L. Solis to run the Department of Labor. Ms. Solis, in combination with numerous Obama executive orders, promptly rolled back the (albeit modest) progress in union-boss financial transparency and disclosure that had been made more worker-friendly under the previous administration. Now it is even more difficult for workers to know where their forced dues are being spent.

Mr. Obama’s first budget even cut funds for the federal agency that enforces union disclosure laws and investigates union corruption.

That was just the beginning. Mr. Obama then appointed Service Employees International Union (SEIU) attorney Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency that administers and enforces federal labor law. Mr. Becker, who was never confirmed because of bipartisan opposition, nevertheless was recess-appointed to the board. His was a key vote in striking down protections accorded workers against card-check union-organizing drives despite the fact that he previously had participated as a union lawyer in the very case that established those worker protections.

Right now, the board is pushing new rules to make union-organizing campaigns as one-sided as possible by forcing workers into union membership and requiring job providers to post pro-union organizing notices in their facilities. Tellingly, no new requirement was made for unions to post notices informing workers of their right to refrain from union activities or throw out an unwanted union.

Furthermore, the board’s Obama-appointed acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, used the federal agency to punish airline manufacturer Boeing for locating a production line for some of its new 787 Dreamliner jets in right-to-work South Carolina instead of non-right-to-work Washington state. The frivolous charges disappeared eventually, but only after Boeing guaranteed other new jobs would go only to Washington state, where workers must pay union fees to work.

As if that weren’t enough, Mr. Obama then subverted the U.S. Constitution earlier this year and installed two pro-forced-unionism backers onto the labor board as recess appointments even though Congress was not in recess. Not surprisingly, the board continues to churn out lopsided decisions in favor of forced unionism.

The effects of Mr. Obama’s pro-forced-unionism agenda will be felt long after his stay in office. For example, Obamacare is laden with sweetheart deals intended to pay back union bosses with health care workers’ forced dues and further unionize the health care industry.

The $14 billion flood of forced-dues cash in union coffers breeds a culture of extravagance, abuse and corruption. Union boss spending sprees and forced-dues-funded political activism take precedence over protecting worker rights, creating a vicious cycle of quid pro quo reaching all the way to the White House.

Mark Mix is president of National Right to Work.


Read more: MIX: Barack Obama: 'I owe those unions' - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/31/barack-obama-i-owe-those-unions/#ixzz25H32iCcf
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

We need to end these unions.

Obama's right. He owes the unions.

He owes National Nurses United for their support of him on the issue of national health insurance.

PBulldog2 wrote:Obama's right. He owes the unions.

He owes National Nurses United for their support of him on the issue of national health insurance.

Do you think its right for unions to collect fees from a variety of people of different political persuasions and then turn around and use that money to support one side over the other?

The article posted is obviously partisan and biased but that's nothing new or novel. What I find more than a little hypocritical is the objection of unions supporting the candidate of their choice. The right wing has made a mountain out of a molehill complaining that union members have disparate political views, which is true, but the members overwhelming common interest is represented by the leadership much like a corporation. Applying the same logic to corporations the multitude of owners either through stock or mutual funds also have differing political stripes but that does not receive the same criticism enunciated here. It is political theater as I do not view unions per se as any more evil or sinister as the post here implies.

Chrissy8 wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:Obama's right. He owes the unions.

He owes National Nurses United for their support of him on the issue of national health insurance.

Do you think its right for unions to collect fees from a variety of people of different political persuasions and then turn around and use that money to support one side over the other?

If you don't want to pay union dues, don't join the union. Find a job elsewhere where there is no union influence. I was a union member just one of out the 20 I have been employed with my employer. Mainly because of what I know the main national union stands for and it is contrary to a lot of my beliefs. If giving money to the union is contrary to what you believe because they support hogwash ideas, don't join.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Chrissy8 wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:Obama's right. He owes the unions.

He owes National Nurses United for their support of him on the issue of national health insurance.

Do you think its right for unions to collect fees from a variety of people of different political persuasions and then turn around and use that money to support one side over the other?

If you don't want to pay union dues, don't join the union. Find a job elsewhere where there is no union influence. I was a union member just one of out the 20 I have been employed with my employer. Mainly because of what I know the main national union stands for and it is contrary to a lot of my beliefs. If giving money to the union is contrary to what you believe because they support hogwash ideas, don't join.

I'm not in a union. Never have been. I dont support unions, will never supoprt unions. If the new healthcare laws try to make healthcare workers unions and they try and force me into a union, I will have to go back to college and change my profession. Because I refuse to pay money to a organization that DOES not support my best interest as a American citizen, which is something I value more than my personal beleifs. Because when the country does good as a whole, I am more likely to prosper.

at least when corporations give money, its the money from thier pockets. money from unions is from a multiude of different political persuasions as I have mentioned.

In an explosive new book revealing the depth of the corrupt dealmaking between unions and the Obama Administration, the insidious plot to use ObamaCare to unionize 21 million healthcare workers in his second term is finally laid completely bare. “Shadowbosses: Government Unions Control America and Rob Taxpayers Blind” is authored by Mallory Factor, a major power broker who has chaired the Economic Roundtable for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, led the 2009 Economic Summit for the U.S. House Republican Conference and Policy Committee, served on the Council on Foreign Relations, and co-founded the Monday Meeting, a nationally-recognized gathering of elected officials, journalists, business leaders and conservative authors.

Factor exposes the unions’ illicit alliance with Barack Obama in no uncertain terms. Only 10% of healthcare workers are presently union members, and the scheme for the unions to take over the healthcare system was being hatched as early as late 2008, when Obama was not even president yet and was forming his transition team. Dennis Rivera of the SEIU, who later became Obama’s point man in putting together the coalition to pass ObamaCare, sent a memo to the Obama transition team pledging the unions’ support for passing healthcare legislation.

This begged the question: why would the unions support ObamaCare when most unions negotiate for the super-expensive “Cadillac” plans for their members? In some cases, unions even directly profit by negotiating for contracts that force states to purchase health insurance for government workers from union affiliated insurance companies. In Wisconsin, for example, buying insurance from a union affiliated provider (WEA Trust) cost the state at least $68 million more than the state’s own health care plan for other government workers.

Factor provides the answer to the mystery by revealing what was in Rivera’s memo: it stated that there were only 17.6 million health care jobs currently, but that the Bureau of Labor Statistics had projected that the nation would need 3.5 million more health care workers over the next few years and suggested that stimulus spending be spent for training new health care professionals with the involvement of unions like the SEIU in the training.

$10 billion in federal funds will be available over two years through the economic stimulus package for use in the health care workforce development initiative … Priority would be given to joint labor-management training and job placement initiatives, and consortiums involving nursing school, community colleges and worker organizations [i.e., labor unions].

For every million additional health care workers unionized in the 27 non-right-to-work states, the unions would reap $1 billion in dues.

That’s quite a payoff.

Things were going smoothly until Obama attempted to have his cake and eat it too; his administration proposed paying for some of the cost of Obamacare with a tax on the “Cadillac” plans that were enjoyed by many union members.

The unions balked, so Obama came up with a neat solution: Obama promised the unions a seven-year moratorium on taxing the Cadillac plans—long enough for the unions to find a legislative solution to make sure that the tax on the plans never went into effect. That backroom deal in delaying the taxing of Cadillac plans increased the cost of Obamacare and cost the American taxpayers a cool $120 billion.



Now where could Obama hide that huge amount of money he lost? One way was to make deeper cuts to Medicare Advantage, which allows seniors to receive benefits from private insurers.

Nothing like pushing Granny over a cliff.

Just how slanted is ObamaCare toward the unions? Over half of Obamacare waiver beneficiaries are union members, even though just 13% of American workers are represented by unions, and 10 of the top 12 recipients of ObamaCare were either unions or public employee groups.

If there were any doubt just which group will be running the United States if Obama is reelected, that doubt has vanished. And Shadowbosses, which not only tackles the unions’ unholy alliance with ObamaCare but also strips bare the entire union agenda for taking over the nation, is a chilling and utterly compelling book that will finally alert the American people to the greatest internal threat to their liberty.

at least when corporations give money, its the money from thier pockets. money from unions is from a multiude of different political persuasions as I have mentioned.

Crissy, that is just not an accurate statement. Corporations provide political donations from their corporate treasury. Individuals from Corporation X, Y, or Z may do so as well but that is not the corporate political donation(s). Because public corporations are owned by diverse investors with diverse political views do you not think there is any difference between corporate donations and union donations? There is no difference but your views, which I respect, cloud your judgement.

knothead wrote:
at least when corporations give money, its the money from thier pockets. money from unions is from a multiude of different political persuasions as I have mentioned.

Crissy, that is just not an accurate statement. Corporations provide political donations from their corporate treasury. Individuals from Corporation X, Y, or Z may do so as well but that is not the corporate political donation(s). Because public corporations are owned by diverse investors with diverse political views do you not think there is any difference between corporate donations and union donations? There is no difference but your views, which I respect, cloud your judgement.

I appreciate your comment but I dont think taking( by force in some states) fees from diverse people and then backing a politician is the same as using your own cash from your bussiness of which people have been freely allowed to buy stock into.

shareholders have the right to sell thier stock if you tick em off by supporting a candidate they dont support. people who are forced into paying union dues dont have that right.

I think at the very least we should demand that all states, federal workers, railroads, airlines etc be "right to work" states/entities where people could opt out of paying union fees if they chose. Can we agree on that?

Look at the states that are right to work and not. Is something fishy about that?

http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm
[img][/img]

and then this, please note that Fl is normally a red state.

[img][/img]

Chrissy8 wrote:

knothead wrote:
at least when corporations give money, its the money from thier pockets. money from unions is from a multiude of different political persuasions as I have mentioned.

Crissy, that is just not an accurate statement. Corporations provide political donations from their corporate treasury. Individuals from Corporation X, Y, or Z may do so as well but that is not the corporate political donation(s). Because public corporations are owned by diverse investors with diverse political views do you not think there is any difference between corporate donations and union donations? There is no difference but your views, which I respect, cloud your judgement.

I appreciate your comment but I dont think taking( by force in some states) fees from diverse people and then backing a politician is the same as using your own cash from your bussiness of which people have been freely allowed to buy stock into.

shareholders have the right to sell thier stock if you tick em off by supporting a candidate they dont support. people who are forced into paying union dues dont have that right.

I think at the very least we should demand that all states, federal workers, railroads, airlines etc be "right to work" states/entities where people could opt out of paying union fees if they chose. Can we agree on that?

Look at the states that are right to work and not. Is something fishy about that?

http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm
[img][/img]

and then this, please note that Fl is normally a red state.

[img][/img]

Whatever . . . you hate unions, I do not any more than corrupt corporations who wield their financial muscle to buy their favors so why not unions as well?

knothead wrote:

Chrissy8 wrote:

knothead wrote:
at least when corporations give money, its the money from thier pockets. money from unions is from a multiude of different political persuasions as I have mentioned.

Crissy, that is just not an accurate statement. Corporations provide political donations from their corporate treasury. Individuals from Corporation X, Y, or Z may do so as well but that is not the corporate political donation(s). Because public corporations are owned by diverse investors with diverse political views do you not think there is any difference between corporate donations and union donations? There is no difference but your views, which I respect, cloud your judgement.

I appreciate your comment but I dont think taking( by force in some states) fees from diverse people and then backing a politician is the same as using your own cash from your bussiness of which people have been freely allowed to buy stock into.

shareholders have the right to sell thier stock if you tick em off by supporting a candidate they dont support. people who are forced into paying union dues dont have that right.

I think at the very least we should demand that all states, federal workers, railroads, airlines etc be "right to work" states/entities where people could opt out of paying union fees if they chose. Can we agree on that?

Look at the states that are right to work and not. Is something fishy about that?

http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm
[img][/img]

and then this, please note that Fl is normally a red state.

[img][/img]

Whatever . . . you hate unions, I do not any more than corrupt corporations who wield their financial muscle to buy their favors so why not unions as well?

I'm not a supporter of any organization buying off elections. I come from the lost idea of voters get to vote in our leaders train of thought. Unrealistic, I know. Unions are not individuals and neither are corporations.

One of my all-time favorite books is Confessions of a Union Buster by Martin Leavitt. Here's a review from Publishers' Weekly:

"With compelling vigor and rich detail, Levitt, writing with freelancer Conrow, tells the tale of his rise to union-busting fame from 1969-1988 and his equally dramatic change of heart.

Now a consultant advising unions on how to bust the union busters, Levitt says that he is baring his sins both for personal reasons and so that former colleagues will have nothing further with which to discredit him. He portrays himself and his fellow union busters as cynical and contemptuous of workers who try to organize. Using manipulation and propaganda, the busters wear down the union organizers.

Levitt's union busters are repulsively slick, preying on the fears and purses of the companies that hire them. The details of Levitt's descent into alcoholism seem prosaic compared to the descriptions of the many union avoidance campaigns he masterminded, even if it was 12-step remorse and humility that provided the motivation for this confessional. His bold story is timely, given current national efforts to reform labor laws. (Sept.)"

knothead wrote:
at least when corporations give money, its the money from thier pockets. money from unions is from a multiude of different political persuasions as I have mentioned.

Crissy, that is just not an accurate statement. Corporations provide political donations from their corporate treasury. Individuals from Corporation X, Y, or Z may do so as well but that is not the corporate political donation(s). Because public corporations are owned by diverse investors with diverse political views do you not think there is any difference between corporate donations and union donations? There is no difference but your views, which I respect, cloud your judgement.

Shareholders can sell their holdings. Union members are forced to contribute....get it?

Why don't Unions incorporate? Dues would buy shares.....Federal Reporting Requirements would govern the Unions JUST LIKE COMPANIES....is that too much to ask????