« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Is the US Department of Labor About To Develop Hit Lists of Individuals To Be Targeted By Unions?

As a preface, sometimes it helps to have been “on the other side” when trying to determine what the unions’ game plan is within the Obama Administration. What you are about to read comes from having been on the other side and, quite frankly, putting two and two together. And, if you are not alarmed when you finish reading this, you should be, because there may be something much more sinister afoot at the Department of Labor than most people realize.

Yesterday, information was shared with you about the importance of submitting a comment by Wednesday on the Department of Labor’s proposed regulatory change on who would be newly classified as ‘persuaders.’

There has been one sentence, more than others, in the Department of Labor’s 160-page proposed rule change that indicates the DOL’s expansion of the definition of ‘persuader’ to mean just about any vendor who has anything to do directly or indirectly with an employer’s relationship with employees since activities may implicitly influence the decisions of employees with regard in the exercise of their rights in the workplace.

Until now, however, one part of the sentence has been overlooked which, unless addressed, may cause individuals great harm—literally, physical harm.

Here is the operative sentence [emphasis added]:

An employer and consultant each must file a report concerning an agreement or arrangement pursuant to which the consultant engages in activities that have as a direct or indirect object to, explicitly or implicitly, influence the decisions of employees with respect to forming, joining or assisting a union, collective bargaining, or any protected concerted activity (such as a strike) in the workplace. [Page 68 & 69]

One of the problems that unions have had for years is that their effectiveness to wage successful strikes has been diminished because employers choose to operate their businesses through the use of outsourcing or the hiring of replacement workers. While much of the blame has been aimed at Ronald Reagan’s use of Jimmy Carter’s strike plan during the air traffic controllers’ strike, the reality is, since 1938, employers have always had the right to permanently replace economic strikers. While employers do not always choose to permanently replace strikers, many employers do hire temporary replacement workers during strikes.

For example, on Thursday, up to 23,000 registered nurses in California will be striking 34 hospitals. Those hospitals that choose to operate will be bringing replacement nurses in to run their facilities.  Those replacement nurses are likely independent contractors hired by firms contracted by the hospitals to help them tend to their patients.

Although the strike is for one day, many hospitals have informed union leaders they will prevent striking workers from returning until Sept. 27 because they have signed five-day contracts with the firms bringing in temporary workers.

Despite Barack Obama’s campaign promise to ban the use of permanent replacement workers, it would require legislation in Congress to do so. This won’t likely occur any time soon. Therefore, his union cronies at the Department of Labor may have devised a more devious strategy, which is to make the replacement workers themselves targets for union retaliation.

Under the Department of Labor’s proposal, not only will the firms that supply replacement workers like be required to file reports with the Department of Labor, it is highly likely that the Department of Labor will require the replacement workers themselves have to file with the DOL, which will then make the information public, on the internet, for union bosses (and others to view).

The filing form (see below), would require the independent contractor’s name, as well as address, and the requirement is that they file within 30 days of being contracted to do the work.

From the teaching of tactics in college classrooms to the tactics during the recent Verizon strike, as well as the union dispute in Washington and the racially-charged noose incident in North Dakota, union retaliation and violence is not a rare occurrence. In fact, it permeates the House of Labor all the way to the top of the AFL-CIO, including AFL-CIO boss Richard Trumka’s own history with union violence.

According to one study, there were  over 9,000 reported incidents of union violence. Many of those incidents, like the woman who found a severed cow’s head on her car or the assassination of Eddie York, occurred during labor disputes.

If, in fact, the Department of Labor is doing union bosses’ bidding by establishing a public list of replacement workers and then those same workers (or their families) are retaliated against, it would be difficult for unions to be prosecuted. Since, according to a 1973 US Supreme Court decision, unions are immune from prosecution for union violence if it occurs in the pursuit of union goals, holding unions accountable for retaliation that occurs in the dark of night or at an individual’s home will prove difficult, at best.

Whether or not the union bosses intend for intimidation, retaliation, or even violence to occur is unknown. However, that the Department of Labor seems to be heading toward making a hit list for union bosses seems abundantly clear.

The question that remains now, though, is whether or not anyone is paying attention.

Public comments must be received on or before Wednesday. You can comment here, if you choose to make your voice heard.

Here is the direct link, if you are having trouble with the above links: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=LMSO-2011-0002-0001

________________

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

Cross-posted at LaborUnionReport.com

Related Posts:

COMMENTS

  • justforyou

    replica louboutin shoes still continues the season series for the past, Christian Louboutin extraordinary height and proportion of study. 11.5 cm high thin heel and thick crust with a full outline of the structure of the female leg caused by exquisite music, highlighting women’s gentle temperament.
    http://www.replicalouboutinshoes.us/

    • Locked and Loaded

      nt

    • ag8tor

      take this crap off the page.

  • Locked and Loaded

    I followed one of your links and read that employers can hire permanent replacement workers, but that they cannot fire striking workers. I don’t understand. How does that work?

    • edintexas

      But they are not required to pay them for the time they are on strike.

    • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

      They cannot be fired for engaging in a lawful strike, however, the law does not require the employer to hold their jobs for them if they are engaged in an economic strike (versus an unfair labor practice strike).

      If the employer has hired strike replacements as ‘permanent’ employees, whenever the union or the individual worker gives an unconditional offer to return to work, they are not entitled to come back until an opening occurs. In stead, they go on a ‘preferential rehire llist.’ This means that an employer, before he hires off the street for an opening, must give the replaced striker an offer to return to work for the position he is qualified for.

      So, in essence, they’re not fired–they’re permanently replaced.

      • Locked and Loaded

        I do want to ask more about it if you happen to check back in here.

        Is that replaced worker going to maintain preference in perpetuity? What about preference for a different position, one with perhaps lesser qualifications but similar? What about the employer’s ability to take actions that would help them avoid having to hire back the replaced workers?

        I know there must be quite a bit to consider here, but I would be interested in any particulars you could share.

        BTW, I just thought of something, and maybe somebody else has thought of it before, but I’ve never heard it, so here goes…

        If a replacement worker is a scab, then a union worker must be the disease, and when the union worker is gone, the company is back on its way to full health.

        FWIW, I truly believe this.

  • http://Blackberrybear.etsy.com knitwit

    nt

  • edintexas

    Don’t you just love that requirement for all the personally identification data, along with the (warning) statement that the information and comment will appear on-line and available to the public? Nothing like trying to ensure people don’t comment on any sort of controversial issue.

    Well, being a charter member of the VRWC, I have no objection to any Lefties and Union Goons standing on public property outside my property. But the traffic on the Farm Road is awfully fast and I don’t appreciate trespassers.

    • edintexas

      Somehow “personally identification data” resulted from a morphing of “personal identification data” with “personally identifiable”. Oh well…

  • popster

    wonder just who the present government is working for. I do not believe that their is one person in the present administration who has any intent to follow the oath of office or the Constitution.
    As a president, Obama has proven himself to be a somewhat adequate community organizer. As a trouble maker and rabble rouser he has come through with flying colors.
    The NLRB mandate has aroused many ill feelings toward union organizers and even turned off many union workers. The worst is, they have made glaringly obvious how the present administration feels toward the average American worker and their right to work unimpeded.

  • hendrig

    It would surprise me if they haven’t had one started a long time ago. I’m just wondering when Union leaders and members will be required to wear brown shirts.

    • ihateliberals

      The NLRB has always been troublesome. The original concept of the NLRB was to protect workers now it has turned into a tool for the Unions to work with. Of course originally Unions were for the people and helped in many cases in the early 20th century. Since that time Unions have turned into legalized organizes crime or in other words the Mod gone legal. Unions and high taxes have driven so many of our manufacturing jobs off-shore. Companies just don’t want to deal with them anymore. Some companies have even decided to close their business and then open again in a RTW state under different name or sometimes in a different country altogether. We need a National RTW law. Unions are only in business now for the money and the people are just in thier way as a cost of doing business to achieve that goal.

    • mndasher

      When you see the president or vp wearing their violet tie it is for there namesake the SEIU, and all other unions. Hmm : Violet === violent.

  • ontime

    Why sure the NLLRB is geared up for driving wedges and causing trouble down the road, when you are over funded and overstaffed and need to do something for big labor, why not use all thet time and money for mischief and sabotaging the opposition….?

  • mndasher

    The good news is these regulations can be undone by Congress or by executive order in 2013 after president not-present is gone.