From Diana Furchtgott Roth at the Manhattan Institute, “Why the SEIU Wants Health Reform“:

What’s the connection? The SEIU needs more new dues-paying members to pay for the retirement of current members if it is to rescue its pension plans from subpar performance. It’s a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud. With many of its members employed in health care, the union believes – not illogically – that if more Americans have health insurance, the demand for health care will expand and so will employment in the health sector.

The Senate is unlikely to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would impose mandatory arbitration and take away workers’ right to a secret ballot in union representation elections. This was first on unions’ 2009-10 wish list, and union leaders want to show that they still have political power. So they will settle instead for the health care “reform” bill.

Change to Win, the Big Labor umbrella group that includes the SEIU, has just endorsed the health care legislation. What legislation? Well, whatever it is that the House is going to vote on. The statement from CTW Chairwoman Anna Burger is sloganblatherneering:

It is time for Congress members to decide on which side of history will they stand. They must choose between working families struggling to get by and an insurance industry that puts profits before the people they are supposed to serve.

For generations, this country has known the need for reform. For the past year, we have as a nation debated and fought for real health insurance reform. Now, it’s time for Congress to deliver.

The “or else!” threat is left unsaid.

Below we note criticism of the White House Forum on Jobs and Economic Growth from two prominent Republicans, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH).

Gingrich and Boehner raise a criticism we’ve seen elsewhere, that the President excluded important employer groups like the Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Business, and the National Association of Manufacturing.

Eh. We’re not inclined to complain. As these posts demonstrate, there were plenty of manufacturers among the 130 attendees and they provided good input. The White House has said in the past it wants to hear from the actual company leaders, the employers in the trenches, and fair enough.

But …

If that’s the theory, then shouldn’t organized labor’s representatives have been the heads of local unions, the men and women dealing with job loss and creation in their home communities? It’s not as if Andy Stern doesn’t have enough opportunity already to talk to White House officials.

Instead …

• Mark Ayers, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO
• Larry Cohen, Communications Workers of America
• Edward Wytkind, Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO
• Ed Hill, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
• William Hite, United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters
• Leo Gerard, United Steel Workers
• Terry O’Sullivan, Laborers International Union of North America
• James Hoffa, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
• Anna Burger, Change To Win
• Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO
• John Wilhelm, Unite Here
• Joe Hansen, United Food and Commercial Workers
• Andy Stern, Service Employees International Union
• Randi Weingarten, American Federation of Teachers

Credit where credit due, even when it’s due to Change to Win, a conglomeration of labor unions. The group put out a statement Tuesday in response to Senator Specter’s announcement he would oppose the Employee Free Choice Act. It comes from Change to Win chair Anna Burger:

The Employee Free Choice Act is a vital component to restoring our economy, rebuilding the middle class and renewing the American Dream for America’s workers. Allowing workers the choice to join together, free from intimidation and harassment, to bargain for job security, better wages and health care will stimulate our economy and put working families back on the path of prosperity. We will continue to work with Democrats and Republicans, including Sen. Specter, to pass this critical legislation and make our economy work for everyone.

We disagree with the supposed facts and arguments Change to Win uses, but it’s a good, positive statement supporting something and avoiding name-calling.

And another  reasonable statement from a labor front group: “Statement from American Rights at Work Executive Director Mary Beth Maxwell.”

The statement from Andy Stern of the SEIU is also restrained, at least by the SEIU’s standards, but it includes a guffawable line: “That’s why we’re dismayed by those who say they support the democratic process, yet refuse to allow meaningful debate and a democratic vote on critical legislation like the Employee Free Choice Act.”

This from a guy who wants to eliminate the secret ballot so union organizers can intimidate employees into signing up for union representation against their will. A guy who wants a government official to impose contract terms on employers and EMPLOYEES through binding arbitration.

Snort.

Now if you want bile and name-calling, you can always read the comments at Daily Kos.

Todays’ Wall Street Journal editorial, “Shut Up, They Said – Big Labor threatens banks on ‘card check.’”

The biggest bailout news this week wasn’t the ritual shaming of bank CEOs Wednesday on Capitol Hill. The real political cudgels were wielded in a February 10 letter that Big Labor sent to Wall and K Streets: Any business that takes a bank rescue dollar must give up its rights to free political speech and free association.

Anna Burger, chair of the Change to Win federation, wrote that financial services firms and their trade group should “immediately cease all lobbying and advocacy” against “card check” legislation that would end the secret ballot in union elections. The letter was sent to Steve Bartlett, the head of the Financial Services Roundtable, with helpful copies to Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Christopher Dodd, who happen to have life or death power over the banks.

It seems the Roundtable, a banking lobby, has dared to join the rest of American business in opposing the Employee Free Choice Act. Ms. Burger even took exception to the group’s plans to make the bill “a highlighted topic” for discussion at its spring meeting. She also noted that two members of the Roundtable’s board “engaged in direct partisan opposition to Employee Free Choice.” Someone call the Stasi.

In their campaign for the Employee Free Choice Act, labor always claims they to want to protect workers from bullying and intimidation. How do they make their case? Through bullying and intimidation!

The Journal’s conclusion:

The real goal of the Burger letter is to intimidate the people who oppose “card check,” which is Big Labor’s No. 1 priority but has mobilized business in united opposition because of the great harm it would do to the U.S. economy. We hope the banks tell Ms. Burger we still live in a free country, though sometimes it’s hard to tell.

From pages 60-61 of the criminal complaint against Illinois Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris, an account of a Nov. 7 phone call among the governor, Harris and Advisor B, a Washington D.C.-based consultant, discussing what positions Blagojevich might be handle to arrange.

During the call, ROD BLAGOJEVICH, HARRIS, and Advisor B discussed the prospect of working a three-way deal for the open Senate seat. HARRIS noted that ROD BLAGOJEVICH is interested in taking a high-paying position with an organization called “Change to Win,” which is connected to Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”). HARRIS suggested that SEIU Official make ROD BLAGOJEVICH the head of Change to Win and, in exchange, the President-elect could help Change to Win with its legislative agenda on a national level. 

Advisor B asked why SEIU Official cannot just give the job to ROD BLAGOJEVICH. HARRIS responded that it would be just a big “give away” for SEIU Official and Change to Win since there are already individuals on the Change to Win payroll doing the functions of the position that would be created for ROD BLAGOJEVICH. HARRIS said that Change to Win will want to trade the job for ROD BLAGOJEVICH for something from the President-elect. HARRIS suggested a “three-way deal,” and explained that a three-way deal like the one discussed would give the President-elect a “buffer so there is no obvious quid pro quo for [Senate Candidate 1].” ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that for him to give up the governorship for the Change to Win position, the Change to Win position must pay a lot more than he is getting paid right now. Advisor B said that he liked the idea of the three-way deal. ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that he is interested in making $250,000 to $300,000 and being on some organization boards. Advisor B said they should leverage the Presidentelect’s desire to have Senate Candidate 1 appointed to the Senate seat in order to get a head position with Change to Win and a salary. Advisor B agreed that the three-way deal would be a better plan than ROD BLAGOJEVICH appointing Senate Candidate 2 to the Senate seat and getting more done as Governor.

As U.S. Attorney Peter Fitzgerald stressed today, just because Blagojevich or Harris talked or speculated about somebody in no way implicates that person they were talking about. Still, it sure seems like they thought SEIU could be bargained with.

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

NATIONAL CENSUS OF FATAL OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES IN 2007

A total of 5,488 fatal work injuries were recorded in the United States in 2007, a decrease of 6 percent from the revised total of 5,840 fatal work injuries reported for 2006. While these results are considered preliminary, this figure represents the smallest annual preliminary total since the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) program was first conducted in 1992. Final results for 2007 will be released in April 2009.

Based on these preliminary counts, the rate of fatal injury for U.S. workers in 2007 was 3.7 fatal work injuries per 100,000 workers, down from the final rate of 4.0 per 100,000 workers in 2006, and the lowest annual fatality rate ever reported by the fatality census.

From Labor Secretary Chao’s statement:

“This is continued evidence that the initiatives and programs to protect workers’ safety and health, designed by and implemented in this administration, are indeed working. In addition to a decline in the overall number of fatalities, the rate for 2007 declined to 3.7 fatalities per 100,000 workers. This is the lowest fatality rate in recorded OSHA history.”

From The New York Times story, “Fatalities in the Workplace Declined in 2007“:

Eric Frumin, health and safety coordinator for Change to Win, a federation of seven unions, said Ms. Chao’s take was misleading because the sharp drop in workplace transportation deaths, one of the causes of the overall drop in fatalities, largely fell under the jurisdiction of state and federal transportation agencies, not OSHA.

Moreover, Mr. Frumin pointed to a series of fatal construction accidents in Las Vegas and a death at an industrial laundry plant in Tulsa, all of which occurred in 2007, as evidence that OSHA was still not adequately enforcing its own regulations.

So attacking the Administration is more important to this top union official than is acknowledging progress. Frumin’s reaction tells you that politics and power drive organized labor, more so than concern for the employees.

The Times story, by the way, appeared on page A16 of the New York print edition; we didn’t find it in the edition that comes to the Washington area. But how about Page A1, or lead of the business page? You can bet that a story reporting a record high of workplace fatalities would be a top story.