Comments on: Bush’s Labor Department Sets Priorities Against Organized Labor

By: vanzetti

vanzetti — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:48:28 +0000

Indeed, not scientific In fact, since the Bush administration has gone after union corruption like gangbusters, and virtually ignored other workplace issues, such as illegal union busting, you are going to get results you did. It is, in effect, a pre-determined outcome.

I actually do not think illegal union busting is a huge problem. I do think that unions help workers, and everyone has a Constitutional right to join a union without harassment or threat of termination. The Republicans clearly do not think so, or they would have put the government's money into things other than cracking down on unions.

You cited someone being charged for embezzling $1,700. Do you know how much money it costs the government/state to prosecute a case like that? For crying out loud, the government has far better things to do and spend our tax dollars on crawling around in the weeds looking for a missing $1,700.

Winona Rider steals more than that in an afternoon.

By: vanzetti

vanzetti — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:32:20 +0000

Actually, I tried to make that point a few times... but Truthteller kept evading the point. You are absolutely right about mismatched priorities, even bringing up other excellent examples like OHSA and mine safety.

Protecting mine workers from deadly accidents is far more important than putting behind bars someone who embezzled $1,700.

The only rationale for the huge increase in chasing after union wrongdoing as opposed to other workplace issues is ideology and a political desire to crush unions.

By: SupportOurWorkers

SupportOurWorkers — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:33:33 +0000

More then corruption It seems everyone on this discussion board has completely missed the major issues here. This is not about union corruption or even corporate corruption. There is plenty in both, but that is not the important issue Ms. Rosa's article raises. The major issue is the misplaced priorities of the current Labor Department and the reasons for it. The significance of Secretary Chao's emphasis on OLMS is that is comes at the expense of critical safety agencies such as MSHA and OSHA. Because of this thousands of fines for dangerous mines go unenforced, combustible dust standards remain sub-standard, and a plethora of other safety issues that put America's workers in danger every day. Why is the Department of Labor more concerned with union transparency then enforcing safety regulations that can very easily prevent thousands of injuries and deaths every year? A simple look at Secretary Chao's past, the corporate cronies and union-busters she's appointed to key regulatory positions, and even her personal relationships give clear insight to her misplaced priorities. It is a trend we've seen throughout this administration of appointing people to regulatory positions who have an opposing ideology to the original intent of the agency/department. Yes, unions have problems, many problems that need oversight, but they are also essential to success of workers and the middle class that cannot be denied. We have a Department of Labor working against workers and thousands have paid the cost, that is the real issue that union corruption doesn't even come close to in importance.

By: Erin Rosa

Erin Rosa — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:04:10 +0000

I dont' read it that way A group of state employees do not make decisions for the state, nor are they a formally constituted body of any state agency as you point out in 1(d). Therefore, it was not a public meeting.

This isn't to say there wasn't a miscommunication problem. Obviously something was botched somewhere down the line to give a writer a wrong impression that she could attend the meeting. If this had happened to me, I'd probably be frustrated too. But it still doesn't appear to be illegal.

By: Snowy

Snowy — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:50:34 +0000

What is your motivation, “TruthTeller” So “TruthTeller”, you still haven't told us who you really are. Who do you work for? What's your big motivation to help protect working families from the big evil unions who do nothing, so it seems according to you, except exploit them?

By: tallport

tallport — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 10:17:34 +0000

You have trashed the facts… Your claim that most unions are corrupt is false on its face and you cannot support that with evidence. Again, I could list corporate crime, but I refuse to go to your level. I am not going to paint a group with one board brush. That would be ignorant. You are fine example of why unions are needed as people like you often say or do anything to keep employees from exercising their rights.

By: Truthteller

Truthteller — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:54:54 +0000

Oooooooo. I seem to have touched.... .....a VERY large nerve with this particular union official. Wonder why that is?

I notice, Mr. Allport, that you are unable to refute or contradict even ONE fact that I have cited in support of my positions. I think that speaks for itself....and tells us a great deal about who is putting out "garbage" and who isn't.

But thanks for playing.

By: tallport

tallport — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 01:17:53 +0000

Try Again….. So what? You can get more hits searching corporate crime or corporate corruption. That does not change the basic fact that most unions and most businesses are good organizations. Your claim that unions have a corner on corruption is garbage, pure and simple. If you have any backbone for “truth”, you just state that your claims and opinions on the subject are political motivated and leave it at that.

By: tallport

tallport — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 01:04:05 +0000

More of the same…….. I do not defend unions no matter what, but you put down unions any cost. You despise unions because they bring about necessary balance that you do not want to see. Your political attacks are just that and nothing more. Telling somebody they are “trash talking” is not a “personal attack”, but call it as you wish. I can google corporate crime and run countless pages too, but that would not make most businesses bad. People like yourself are big reason why unions will always be needed in my opinion.

By: Truthteller

Truthteller — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:08:14 +0000

Since state officials/employees were pretty clearly on duty... ...in that it was them who refused access to the reporters in response to the demand by the union, wasn't it pretty clearly "during working hours?"

Or perhaps some crack investigative reporter should look into this further....since they are "prohibited to hold meetings during working hours?"