The Hill newspaper today carries a special feature, “2010 Top Lobbyists,” the kind of list journalism that’s fun and draws a lot of attention. No knock here.

Although we note the inclusion of Mary Kay Henry, the new president of the Service Employees International Union, the SEIU:

Mary Kay Henry, Service Employees International Union. The new president of the politically powerful union will play a pivotal role in the debate over comprehensive immigration reform and getting out the Democratic vote in midterm elections.

But she’s not a registered lobbyist and hasn’t been one since 2006, according to House lobbying disclosure forms.

The Senate disclosures show the same – not a registered lobbyist since 2006.

The Hill’s inclusion of Henry must just be a recognition of her prospective lobbying clout. The paper did a feature on Henry after her surprise election in May, “Powerful SEIU elects first woman president, successor to Stern,” and the union’s political influence is BIG. Excerpt:

SEIU has the biggest political action committee among labor unions, with close to $11.8 million in cash on hand by the end of 2009, according to Federal Election Commission records. In addition, it spent more than $58 million on its political and lobbying activities in 2009, working with groups as varied as the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America to the National Gay Lesbian Task Force, according to financial disclosure records filed with the Labor Department.

Come to think of it, her predecessor as SEIU president, Andy Stern, wasn’t a registered lobbyist either. The omission caused a ruckus because of his obvious advocacy, clout and political access — being the most frequent outside visitor to the White House, for example.

Does the  SEIU have a “carve out” from the lobbying disclosure laws no one knows about?

Peter A. List of LaborUnionReport.com reminds us of Craig Becker’s ethics pledge, signed in conjunction with his recess appointment to the National Labor Relations Board. The pledge includes this affirmation:

I will not for a period of two years from the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.

Becker served as Associate General Counsel to both the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations.

So explain this:

St. Barnabas Hospital and Committee of Interns and Residents, Local 1957, SEIU, Petitioner. Case 2–RC–23356

June 3, 2010

ORDER DENYING REVIEW

BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS SCHAUMBER AND BECKER [our emphasis]
The National Labor Relations Board, by a three member panel, has carefully considered the Employer’s request for review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election. The Regional Director directed an election among the Employer’s house staff. The Employer asserts, among other reasons, that the Regional Director should have considered the applicability of Brown University, 342 NLRB 483 (2004). We deny review.

We can guess the lawyerly defense: Oh no, I just recused myself from considering cases that involved SEIU International, not any of the locals. It’s a distinction without a difference: Local 1957, the Committee of Interns and Residents, affiliated with SEIU in 1997.

Indeed, Becker has already set the stage for the explanation. As the NAM’s Keith Smith wrote in a March 29 post about Becker’s confirmation hearing:

In his response to Senators’ questions, Becker committed to recusing himself for one year from any matters including either union internationals – the AFL-CIO or SEIU. This limited recusal is highly suspect. Most Board actions don’t normally involve internationals, but usually address conflicts between a local labor union and an employer. While Mr. Becker pledges not to be involved in the decisions of major labor organizations, he has not expressed a willingness to recuse himself of any decisions affecting labor local – and it’s entirely possible to make major changes in applying labor law through these decisions. This issue was noted by the letter sent from all 41 Republican Senators last week.

Well, if you’re going to blow through your ethics pledge, might as well be audacious about it. But Becker shouldn’t expect to be confirmed by the Senate via unanimous consent for a full term on the board.

Becker’s answers to three questions about recusal from SEIU cases are in the extended entry below:

13. Will you recuse yourself from all objections and SEIU complaints,
filed by or against the SEIU, while you are a Board Member?
Answer: I have entered into an ethics agreement with the NLRB which has been
approved by the Office of Government Ethics. I intend to fully comply with that
agreement, which provides as follows. Upon confirmation, I will resign from the
position of Associate General Counsel for the SEIU. Pursuant to 5 CFR 2635.502,
for a period of one year after my resignation, I will not participate personally and
substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which the SEIU
is a party or represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate, pursuant
to 5 CFR 2635.502(d). In addition, I am vested in the Pension Plan for Employees
of the Service Employees International Union. This is a defined benefit plan and,
upon eligibility, I will receive monthly retirement benefits. Because I will
continue to participate in this entity’s defined benefit plan, I will not participate
personally and substantially in any particular matter that will have a direct and
predictable effect on the ability or willingness of SEIU to provide me with this
contractual benefit, unless I first obtain a written waiver under 18 USC 208(b)(1),
or qualify for a regulatory exemption under 18 USC 208(b)(2). Finally, I
understand that as an appointee I am required to sign the Ethics Pledge (Executive
Order No. 13490) and that I will be bound by the requirements and restrictions
therein in addition to the requirements cited above.
14. What standards of recusal will you apply?
Answer: I will use the standards of recusal applicable to executive branch officials
set forth in 5 CFR 2635 and in Executive Order No. 13490, considering any
other arguments for recusal raised in a particular matter based on the
relevant facts and applicable law and, where prudent, in consultation with
the agency ethics officer.
15. Certainly, at the least, you will agree to recuse yourself from any SEIU
cases which arose while you were its Associate General Counsel?
Answer: Please see my answer to question 13. In addition, I will not participate
personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties that
arose while I was counsel to SEIU and in which the SEIU is a party, unless I am
first authorized to participate, pursuant to 5 CFR 2635.502(d)

The Washington Examiner editorializes today decrying the tactics of the Service Employees International Union last week who were bused to Chevy Chase, Md., to rally and trespass at the home of a Bank of America executive. As Nina Easton, a Fortune columnist and next door neighbor to the BoA executive, reported:

Waving signs denouncing bank “greed,” hordes of invaders poured out of 14 school buses, up Baer’s steps, and onto his front porch. As bullhorns rattled with stories of debtor calls and foreclosed homes, Baer’s teenage son Jack — alone in the house — locked himself in the bathroom. “When are they going to leave?” Jack pleaded when I called to check on him.

Baer, on his way home from a Little League game, parked his car around the corner, called the police, and made a quick calculation to leave his younger son behind while he tried to rescue his increasingly distressed teen. He made his way through a din of barked demands and insults from the activists who proudly “outed” him, and slipped through his front door.

The Examiner’s editorial protests the concomitant outrage, that D.C. Metro police officers escorted the SEIU bully boys into Maryland jurisdiction, in the process enabling the trespass. The editorial, “No more police escorts for union thugs“:

There are multiple lessons to be gleaned from this highly disturbing situation. Such tactics are standard fare for SEIU, whose leaders think it’s just fine to target the private homes and families of people associated with whatever company the union has decided to demonize. These assaults are clearly meant to shock and intimidate. Congress long ago banned secondary boycotts from union tactics. It’s time to put a stop to all such assaults on private homes and families. And the conduct of the D.C. police highlights another critical question — should law enforcement officers be pawns of union bosses? Collective bargaining should no longer have a place among those sworn to protect and serve the public.

We doubt you can write a constitutional aw prohibiting rallies in front of someone’s home. As for what the SEIU did in Chevy Chase, there’s already a law — trespass.

The SEIU, by the way, has endorsed the DISCLOSE Act, the legislation sponsored by Congressional Democrats meant to restrict political speech after the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC.

The union is not a credible advocate for speech, transparency, or civility in politics. That the union endorses the DISCLOSE Act speaks volumes about the legislation’s goals.

In an interview with BNA (subscription needed) the newly elected SEIU president, Mary Kay Henry, reports that her labor union’s top priorities will continue to be health care reform, immigration reform and passage of the jobs-killing Employee Free Choice Act.

We’ve highlighted before that labor leaders’ approach to passing this economically disastrous piece of legislation has changed. Political realities have forced labor groups to seek to implement the legislation by attaching it to other piece of legislation that are likely to move forward in Congress. Additionally Henry notes that labor is looking for ways to pursue the legislation at both state and national levels “any way [they] can.”

It’s still possible that labor group will seek to have the legislation called up for a political litmus vote in the Senate. Henry indicated that the groups wants to “hold Congress’s and the president’s feet to the fire,” presumably by forcing them express support for the bill through a vote.

One quote in particular provides a bit of insight into the mindset of this new labor head: “[There] always will be conflict because employers don’t want workers to have a say.” Talk about shutting off discussions before they can begin. Rather than pursuing conflict, shouldn’t employee representatives seek ways to work with employers and employees to seek solutions to the challenges facing our economy?

On this rainy Monday afternoon numerous labor groups staged a protest blocks away from NAM headquarters on K Street to blast Wall Street without any real discernible goals of their own.

Correction (2:50 p.m.): CW — We misidentified the photo originally posted above. It’s Liz Schuler of the AFL-CIO:

The Service Employees International Union has its sights on unionizing the fast food industry, encroaching on the United Food and Commercial Workers’ territory through an multifaceted, aggressive campaign that would rely on the anti-democratic force of the Employee Free Choice Act.

Peter List of LaborUnionReport.com has the ominous, fascinating details, “SEIU’s New Burger Queen? Internal Documents Expose Plan to Unionize Fast-Food Industry“:

Internal SEIU documents have exposed a December 2009 plan hatched to unionize the nation’s fast food workers. The SEIU plan details how the purple behemoth plans on targeting fast-food chains in Los Angeles first, the using L.A. and an “east coast” city as a spring board into other cities.

The SEIU’s plan is based on a labor landscape that is post Employee Free Choice Act, but its strategies demonstrate how the SEIU plans to use EFCA to unionize an almost-entirely union-free industry. While there is much to comment on about the SEIU plan about how a union targets workers within an industry (see highlighted text), we’re just going to you with the plan itself.

The point-by-point strategy document is well worth reading.

Ezra Klein had a piece in today’s Washington Post Online, “Andrew Stern departs the SEIU now weakened by infighting and expenses,” which reported:

[Stern's] own union’s spending — notably the multimillion-dollar tab from internal battles he has waged — is drawing sharp criticism from within the labor movement. Stern has expanded his union, but his decisions have left it, and the labor movement as a whole, financially strapped, according to disclosure reports that have received little scrutiny.

It looks like the SEIU’s campaign of expansion is driven by the need to continue bringing in new members to disguise its shaky financial foundation. First service workers, then government workers, then fast food workers, then … manufacturers?

But the only way the SEIU can effect its scheme is by applying anti-democratic power of the Employee Free Choice Act.

Andy Stern, who on Friday confirmed his retirement as president of the Services Employee International Union, partakes in a Q&A in today’s Washington Post. Most interesting passage for our manufacturing audience:

EK: It seems like you’re saying that the labor movement itself needs to be less employer-based.

AS: I think the labor movement needs to be more industry-based, more sectoral-based, and more focused on the needs of workers. I don’t think it can be simply as based on work site by work site, work rule by work rule, as opposed to industry by industry.

. . . I do feel like trying to figure out how to partner with employers, appreciating that it takes two to tango, is important. Our work has always been best when we try to make our employers successful and we share in that success.

Eh. In this forum, Stern wants to appear reasonable, but the demands of the government-employee unions have helped bring California to its economic knees. The public-sector unions showed no interest in partnering with the taxpayers, who are, after all, their employees.

And the Employee Free Choice Act represents the antithesis of the “partnering” approach, instead being intended to impose union representation on unwilling employers and employees alike.

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.

Sixty-six of organized labor’s allies at the universities have signed a letter supporting Becker’s nomination. They complain that “opponents have made a series of misleading and inaccurate statements about him and, in particular, about his published work. We urge anyone considering Mr. Becker’s nomination not to rely on sound bites, fragments taking out of context, and misquotations, but to actually read Mr. Becker’s scholarly writing.”

Yes, it’s the old “out of context” complaint. Because if we had the context, we would recognize that Mr. Becker really meant something else when he wrote the following in the preface to a 1993 Minnesota Law Review article, “On account of the asymmetry between representation elections in the workplace and the polity, Part IV [of the article] concludes that employers should have no legally sanctioned role in union elections.”

The article is “Democracy in the Workplace: Union Representation Elections and Federal Labor Law.”

Brad Peck of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce prefers this out-of-context quote: “[The article] concludes that employers should be stripped of any legally cognizable interest in their employees’ election of representatives.”

So unfair! Becker really needs a forum where he can fully explain his views.

How about a confirmation hearing before the Senate HELP Committee?

Hat tip: The Truth About EFCA blog, “It’s All Academic: Profs Push NLRB Nomination.” For more posts on Becker’s nomination, go here.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has written to Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) of the Senate Health, Labor, Education, and Pensions Committee requesting a hearing on the nomination of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. “I strongly urge you …” is the phrase.

McCain, who serves on the HELP Committee, notes his previous objection in 2009 to the Chairman’s decision to move Becker’s nomination without a hearing. The Senate returned Becker’s nomination at the end of 2009 to the White House, which renominated him on Jan. 20.

From Sen. McCain’s letter: [Wed: Link fixed]

With the new opportunity afforded to us by Mr. Becker’s nomination being resubmitted to the Senate, it is critical that we conduct a full committee hearing on this important nomination.

The NLRB is a bipartisan body that has the crucial task of overseeing, in a balanced fashion, our nation’s workplace laws government by the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRB supervises union organization campaigns and addresses unfair labor practices by unions and employers. Through its rulings and activities the NLRB, in essence, forms the nation’s labor-management relations policy for employers and unions.

As you know, Mr. Becker has a long career of writings and activities that suggest his views concerning labor-management relations are far outside the mainstream in America. As such, I have serious questions about whether Mr. Becker has the ability to fairly consider important cases that come before the NLRB.

So does the National Association of Manufacturers.

Becker, an assistant counsel to the SEIU and AFL-CIO, is the unions’ candidate for creating a labor-backed majority on the NLRB, with the possible goal of implementing the anti-democratic Employee Free Choice Act administratively. As the leftwing The Nation recently argued, “Should Obama persevere and see his nominations confirmed, there is reason to believe that much of what organized labor hopes to accomplish via EFCA will be realized through the rule-making power of the NLRB.”

Thus, the political left and labor are counting on Becker to enact policy changes that in the American political system are the province of the policymaking branch of government, Congress. All the more reason for the policymaking branch of government to question Becker in person, on the record, at a HELP Committee hearing.

From today’s Financial Times, “Union boss loses patience with US reform delays“:

Andy Stern, the powerful head of the Services Employees International Union, will push US senators for a vote on far-reaching reform of labour laws in “spring”, even if Democrats plead for delay and even if he has to accept a compromise.

Mr Stern, who White House records reveal was the most frequent visitor to Barack Obama in the first months of his presidency, expressed frustration at the time taken on Capitol Hill to pursue the administration’s agenda, which includes a divisive Employee Free Choice Act. [EFCA]

Stern is among a group of top union leaders who meet with President Obama in the White House today to talk about health care and the Senate bill’s excise tax on high-value insurance plans. Amanda Carpenter of The Washington Times tweets a good question: “Unions going to WH today–any possibility of a deal on EFCA in exchange for acceptance of caddy tax?”

Probably not. President Obama has not put serious political muscle behind passing card check, as far as we can tell. Given the current political/electoral dynamics in the Senate — the key EFCA battleground — it’s hard to see him really pushing this horribly unpopular measure. If jobs are the byword of 2010, turning control of more jobs-creating businesses over to labor unions is a definite campaign loser.

Oh, and did you know that Stern is not a registered lobbyist? And isn’t his refusal to register actually an admission of the lack of his influence, despite his many, many visits to the White House?

Addendum: In other SEIU news, the union is a major player in a “week of action” to promote expanded immigration, part of the Reform Immigration FOR America (RI4A) coalition. Odd to see a group representing union workers advocating for an increase in labor supply, pushing down wages for their members…unless the goal of political power takes precedent over representing their members.