The World Economic Forum is now under way in Davos, in der Schweiz, and Business Week editor Diane Brady provides a succinct report on attitudes and priorities. From Marketplace Morning Report:

Diane Brady: I think the general mood is a real sense of confusion. There’s a sense that there’s going to be unprecedented government intervention in the next year, and so there’s more CEOs and chairpersons than ever in the history of Davos. There’s also more world leaders here, so I think you’re dealing with people whose industries have collapsed in a way that they’ve never seen, and they’re trying to figure out what will get the world out of this, nevermind their own companies.

Jagow: Well, a record number of world leaders there, but one glaring omission, and that is that President Obama and his people aren’t there. What’s the response to that?

Brady: In fact, it was commented on last night. In many ways, the timing of the Obama administration coming in has not been ideal. Valerie Jarrett, who’s one of his senior advisors, is coming on Thursday. But in a year when the Chinese premiere, the German chancellor, even Vladimir Putin is here, the fact that you really don’t have much of a presence from Washington is disappointing I think to a lot of people.

No doubt, but can you imagine the political heat the President would have gotten if he’d flown to Davos?

Jay Nordlinger of National Review is again attending Davos and will be writing a daily journal from the scene, there. He’s always good. In his Davos Journal, Part I, he notes this, reported in MarketWatch:

“This is not just another Davos,” said Andy Stern . . .

A regular foe of private-equity firms and an advocate of tougher regulation of businesses and markets, Stern will make his first trek to the mountain resort for the annual gathering. Stern said he hopes the current economic turmoil will result in a “humbling and mind-opening moment” for many of the forum’s regular attendees.

“These experts have failed the citizens of the globe. They have wrought economic havoc with financial manipulation, greed and deregulation,” he said, in a telephone interview. “I don’t know if it will do any good, but there is a need for straight talk and ending the backslapping, self-congratulatory noblesse-oblige attitude that I think has been more prevalent in the past.”

Andy Stern in Davos? Funny. Maybe he’s negotiating with one of these national leaders, arranging sanctuary abroad for Governor Blagojevich.

From BNET Industries, “New DoE Head, Illinois Line Up in Favor of Clean Coal“:

The stars are aligning up once again for clean coal as Barack Obama approaches his presidential coronation. At both the Federal and state level, policymakers are talking about the technology. And sensing an inexorable change on its way, utilities and energy companies are duly lining up to help, albeit for a price.

Within the states, several larger actors are working to pass laws encouraging or even mandating new clean coal plants. At the forefront is Illinois, which just passed a bill allowing $18 million for a full-size clean coal plant some 25 miles southeast of Springfield. The two companies that will construct and operate the plant are Tenaska and MDL Holding, both privately held, while ComEd, a division of Exelon, would be required to buy electricity from the plant, provided rates didn’t rise too high.

More from The Chicago Tribune, “‘Clean coal’: Law could open door to new generation of coal-burning power plants.”

From the St. Paul Pioneer-Press, “Big Stone II pushes clean-energy alternative“:

Can an offer of clean-energy technology seal the deal for Big Stone II?

A group of rural utilities hoping to gain approval for high-voltage power lines from the proposed coal-fired power plant in South Dakota on Tuesday offered to equip the plant with such technology at a hearing before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.

The offer was the latest effort by utilities led by Otter Tail Power of Fergus Falls, Minn., to support the proposed Big Stone II power plant in Milbank, S.D. The matter has been before the PUC for more than three years.

And from September, Der Spiegel, “New German Facility Begins Testing CO2 Sequestration“:

A remote spot in Brandenburg has become a popular destination for politicians in the past few months: the Schwarze Pumpe coal power station near Spremberg. Former SPD leader Kurt Beck visited, as did Transport Minister Wolfgang Tiefensee. Brandenburg’s Governor Matthias Platzeck has been there several times.

The attraction? Over the last two years, Swedish power supplier Vattenfall has built a pilot program to demonstrate how CO2 emissions from coal plants can be captured and pumped underground. The technology, known as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), could play a major role in the future of coal-fired energy sources. CCS may give the coal business, regarded as a harmful player in global warming, a much-needed green touch.

Oh yes, as to the photo inset, that’s another one of the ads in the D.C. Metro by the big-money coalition of green activists attacking clean coal. See below. We think it’s a mermaid, but it’s not too terribly clear. Maybe it’s just a cheesecake photo to draw the eye of male commuters.

Sexists.

Quickly overshadowed by Blagojevich developments in Chicago last week was an orchestrated, publicized and cheered factory seizure by activists from a radical labor union. The Republic Windows takeover deserves continued attention, however, as first, a crime, and as second, indication that ’30s-style sit-down strikes may return as attacks against the rule of law and the economy.

Thankfully, Walter Olson of the Manhattan Institute has cast a critical eye at the events in an article in City Journal, “Windows on the Future? — A radical union’s action in Chicago could be a sign of things to come.” The lead:

On December 5, badly hurt by the long housing slump and having maxed out its line of credit with Bank of America, the Republic Windows and Doors factory of Chicago announced that it would close and lay off its employees. In response, most of its 250 workers refused to leave the factory floor and announced through their union—the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers (UE)—that they would occupy the premises until they received severance pay. In the days that followed, activist supporters, including local left-wing and interfaith groups, waged a spectacularly successful public campaign: more than 4,000 news stories on the action have appeared so far on Google News, typically taking a tone highly favorable to the union cause. Support also came from local Chicago and Illinois politicians, including the city’s most celebrated public official of all, president-elect Barack Obama. Fielding a question about the plant occupation two days after it began, Obama declared his support for the workers: “I think they’re absolutely right. . . . if they have earned these benefits and their pay, then these companies need to follow through on those commitments.”

Summarizing at his Point of Law blog, Olson adds:

• You’d have had trouble guessing from a lot of the coverage, but it’s far from clear that the window factory owners owed any severance at all under the terms of the federal WARN (plant-closings) act. And it’s abundantly clear that the actual targets of the protest, the two banks, owed nothing.
• The whole point of this sort of illegal action is to resolve by force a dispute that would otherwise be consigned to the ordinary processes of law — put differently, to make sure the action’s targets never get their right to a day in court to put forth their (quite possibly meritorious) defense. When Chicago and Illinois officials jumped in to arm-twist the targets into settling, they endorsed this way of resolving disputes. That may come as little surprise given the reputation of Chicago governance. But why should anyone feel secure in locating a politically sensitive business in that city (or state) from now on?

The purportedly objective media wrote favorable articles, and some columnists went further, Olson notes: “Boston Globe columnist James Carroll, applauded the illegal action and left-leaning Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson called for more of the same: ‘Barack Obama means to build a more equitable nation, but it would help him in that task if more workers sat down.’” Olson asks: Does Obama agree?

We certainly think the same question should be posed in confirmation hearings for the next Secretary of Labor (praised prolifically by Meyerson just yesterday). A nominee’s views of sitdown strikes and factory seizures warrant a full airing.

The Wall Street Journal reports, “Blagojevich Planned to Issue Order Benefiting Labor Union “:

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was preparing to issue an executive order prior to his arrest last week that would have allowed union organizing of home-care workers that could have benefited a labor union with close ties to the governor.

The existence of this executive order, though never signed, illustrates the close ties between the embattled governor and the powerful Service Employees International Union, the nation’s fastest growing labor organization. Last week, Gov. Blagojevich was arrested on federal corruption charges, including that his office suggested a deal in which he would be given a job with an SEIU-affiliated group in exchange for naming a labor-friendly senator to fill the vacancy left by President-elect Barack Obama.

The executive order would have enabled the SEIU or another union to organize about 1,200 workers in the state who care for developmentally disabled people in their homes and would have augmented one signed by the governor in 2004, said Michelle Ringuette, an SEIU spokeswoman. The prior order opened the way for the SEIU to target a far larger number of home health-care workers. Such workers traditionally are not covered by federal labor law, though a number of states have enacted laws in recent years allowing unions to organize them.

Would Blagojevich’s executive order have allowed organizing via card check as opposed to an employee election conducted via secret ballot? The 2003 executive order governing the bargaining of personal care assistants makes no mention of the process of representation, that is, no mention of election. “Designated by a majority” could certainly embrace card check.

The State shall recognize a representative designated by a majority of the personal assistants as the exclusive representative of all personal assistants, accord said representative all the rights and duties granted such representatives by the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act, 5 ILCS 315/1 et seq., and engage in collective bargaining with said representative concerning all terms and conditions of employment of personal assistants working under the Homes Services Program that are within the State’s control.

By the way, various arms of the SEIU have contributed $1.1 million $1.36 million in reportable funds to Blagojevich since his first campaign for governor in 2002, a huge amount. You can see the list of contributions here. And the SEIU has certainly put card check on the top of its list of political priorities.

(Note: Reworked the contribution spreadsheet today, now available in .pdf format.) 

Excellent post at The Heritage Foundation’s The Foundry blog, “The Ugly Face of Progressive Corporatism“:

Unfortunately, this shakedown mentality is all too common to the Service Employees International Union’s way of doing business. A Democratic source confirms that SEIU President Andy Stern is the “SEIU official” referred to in the federal complaint against Blagojevich. Since taking his union out of the AFL-CIO and forming the Change to Win federation in 2005, Stern has sought to assert his union’s influence over private equity firms, centralize his authority within the union by forcing various locals to merge, and negotiate large deals with employers without member participation.

All of this union-related corruption comes at a crucial point in U.S. public policy. Organized labor has a tall wish list for Obama’s administration, including the abolition of secret ballot voting in union organizing elections and ensuring that as much of the $1 trillion Obama plans to spend to stimulate the economy goes to Davis-Bacon compliant jobs. Our economy simply cannot afford organized labor’s priorities to be placed above strong economic growth.

Davis-Bacon. Right, the guaranteed way to get less stimulus bang for the buck out of any infrastructure plan.

From The Washington Post, “Union Official Allegedly Liaison Between Governor, Obama Team“:

SEIU leaders, who were gathered yesterday at a Denver hotel to discuss the “card-check” legislation that would make it easier to form unions, declined to comment yesterday, saying through a spokeswoman, “We have no reason to believe that SEIU or any SEIU official was involved in any wrongdoing.”

You can regard that as a dodge, or maybe it’s laser-like focus: Make sure your expand your political clout by forcing unwilling employees into union membership through “card check.” Only THEN bother explaining the extended discussions between a top SEIU official and Illinois Gov. Blagojevich.

Blagojevich apparently thought — or fantasized — he could work with SEIU to exchange favors with the new Administration. To be clear: There’s no evidence anything went beyond the spouting off stage.

Funny, though, we never really thought of SEIU as a major pro-Obama union during the campaigns, so who’s to deal? Thus, the Post’s added context is useful:

[SEIU President Andy] Stern resisted attempts by some SEIU chapters to endorse Obama early in the primaries, because Stern also liked former North Carolina senator John Edwards and hoped to preserve the union’s resources for the general election. But Stern went along with a full endorsement in February, and the union invested heavily in the general election — though it probably played less of a role in key Rust Belt states than the AFL-CIO did. A former SEIU official, Patrick Gaspard, was named Obama’s political director.

More on Gaspard, the union guy in the White House to be.

From the Washington Post, “Battle Deepens Over Union Organizing“:

In recent television ads, opponents have linked heavy unionization to job cuts and other problems afflicting the airline, steel and automobile industries.

“I really worry that this issue is a public policy disaster and political nightmare in waiting,” said political strategist Mark McKinnon.

McKinnon, who worked for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) during the Republican primary season but refused to work against Obama in the general election, argued that the opposition to the issue could jeopardize the rest of Obama’s legislative agenda. “I think it has the potential to be like gays in the military was for Clinton if they try to roll this out quickly,” he said.

Weekly Standard, The Blog, “The Tale of Blagojevich, and What (If Anything) the Transition Knew“:

If the SEIU was freelancing with Blagojevich, Obama’s inclination to extend himself for Big Labor by pushing Congress on card check should shrink considerably.

You would sure hope.

It now appears the Democrats will not reach the 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filisbuster. Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic comments in “60 Might Have Mattered“:

A Republican senator, speaking to reporters this morning, offered up EFCA, the “Employee Free Choice Act” — card check — as a prime example of where Republicans would unite to fight tooth and nail against the Democrats and the Obama White House.

“We will do everything we possibly can to get every Republican on board,” the senator said.”We’re even working on Arlen,” the senator said, referring to Pennsylvania’s Sen. Specter, a reliable ally of labor unions. A few Democrats, the senator said, will be targeted…[snip]

Card check would allow workers to “show cards” at a union-sponsored event; if more than 50% of them did, then the union would be recognized as the bargaining agent for the workers. Alternatively, employees could ask for a secret ballot election, but employers would have to recognize its results. Labor unions have been salivating for card check elections, as their ranks would significantly expand because of it; Obama has promised to sign it.

Well, that’s not right. Here’s the text of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. No meetings required. You can intimidate the employees into signing individually. Although in a small group, perhaps you could crowd them all into a room at one time and impress upon them the need to sign.

If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bar gaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).

No allegation of wrongdoing. Just powers that be, swimming powerfully through the seas of power. From Politico, Ben Smith’s blog:

Source: ‘SEIU official’ was Stern

A Democratic source confirms that SEIU President Andy Stern is the “SEIU official” referred to in the federal complaint against Rod Blagojevich.

There’s no allegation that the SEIU official did anything wrong, and what appears to be a wiretap transcript has the official reacting non-commitally to Blagojevich’s offer of a quid pro quo. Another Democratic source tells me that Stern was been in Chicago November 3 meeting with Blagojevich, a discussion thought to have included talk about the Senate seat — though that meeting isn’t mentioned in the complaint.

An SEIU spokesman didn’t respond to a call or email seeking comment.

Can’t stop too early in reading the Blagojevich criminal complaint. From pages 69-70:

109. On November 12, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH spoke with SEIU Official, who was in Washington, D.C. Prior intercepted phone conversations indicate that approximately a week before this call, ROD BLAGOJEVICH met with SEIU Official to discuss the vacant Senate seat, and ROD BLAGOJEVICH understood that SEIU Official was an emissary to discuss Senate Candidate 1’s interest in the Senate seat. During the conversation with SEIU Official on November 12, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH informed SEIU Official that he had heard the President-elect wanted persons other than Senate Candidate 1 to be considered for the Senate seat. SEIU Official stated that he would find out if Senate Candidate 1 wanted SEIU Official to keep pushing her for Senator with ROD BLAGOJEVICH. ROD BLAGOJEVICH said that “one thing I’d be interested in” is a 501(c)(4) organization. ROD BLAGOJEVICH explained the 501(c)(4) idea to SEIU Official and said that the 501(c)(4) could help “our new Senator [Senate Candidate 1].” SEIU Official agreed to “put that flag up and see where it goes.”
110. On November 12, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with Advisor B. ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Advisor B that he told SEIU Official, “I said go back to [Senate Candidate 1], and, and say hey, look, if you still want to be a Senator don’t rule this out and then broach the idea of this 501(c)(4) with her.”

The obvious question being, who is SEIU Official?

UPDATE (1:59 p.m.): From Chris Cillizza’s Washington Post blog, “Blagojevich Criminal Complaint: The Best of the Best“:

Blagojevich was convinced that President-elect Barack Obama wanted senior adviser Valerie Jarrett appointed to the Senate seat and, time and again in the indictment, is quoted laying out a variety of scenarios by which he could benefit from such a move. The two most mentioned: 1) Trade a Jarrett appointment for a spot as the head of the Department of Health and Human Services in an Obama Cabinet 2) Name Jarrett to the Senate in exchange for Obama helping him to get a job as the head of Change to Win, a labor coalition.

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.