Monday, November 26, 2007

New York's NannyGate: How Big Union Bosses have Bamboozled the Babysitter

Q: How is it that a union can win the right to represent (and collect dues) from 28,000 people when less than half of the workers actually voted for union representation?

A: With the government's help, of course.

It seems that the big scheme in union circles these days is how to buy politicians who will, in turn, reward their big union handlers by giving unions the unfettered ability to add bodies (and dollars) to their big union coffers.

Across the country, big union bosses are "convincing" their democrat puppets to give-away the store to bosses by letting them unionize babysitters. Now, before people get their diapers in an uproar, we know that the politically correct nomenclature is to call today's babysitters "day-care workers"--just like it's politically correct to call garbage collectors "sanitation engineers".

Nevertheless, according to union bosses' logic, today's public-sector babysitters get a portion of their income from the public coffers because their customers were coldly shoved off of the public coffers and, therefore, needed to get a babysitter to care for the kids that the public coffers once paid the babysitters' customers to have and, as a result, because the babysitters get their income from public coffers, they are not independent contractors (or entrepreneurs since they work out of their own homes), but really are state employees and, thus, should be unionizable. (You understood that, right?)

Well, in any case, union bosses have convinced eleven states to turn their babysitters over to the union and, with the exception of Maryland, there hasn't been much of a debate.

In New York, for example, the United Federation of Teachers just won the right to represent 28,000 babysitters--even though only 8,382 (or less than 30%) voted to unionize.

The ballot, it seems, was a mail-in ballot and more than 70% of the eligible babysitters apparently didn't even vote.

So, as the union bosses at the UFT are negotiating on behalf of 28,000 people whose incomes are dependent on money paid into the government coffers by the taxpayers, it is the taxpayer who will eventually foot the bill.

Sunday, November 25, 2007

A Union Boss with a Publicist

Amongst all the disappointed theater goers in New York, drifts a solitary figure not many have ever heard of until Broadway shut down was shut down by his union's strike. His name is James J. Claffey, Jr. and he's the president of IATSE, Local 1.

What?!? You've never heard of him?

Well, perhaps you would have if his publicist wasn't paid to keep him out of the press.

What?!? You didn't think union bosses had publicists?

Well, we didn't either. But, apparently this guy does.

According to the New York Times, Mr. Claffey doesn't like publicity.

“I don’t want this to be about me being a celebrity, about me getting my name in the paper,” said James J. Claffey Jr. “I just want to get a contract for my folks. That’s why I do not look to the cameras. That’s why I have a publicist to do that. Most of the time, I’m paying my publicist to keep me out of the press.”

Boy! Now that's a good use of union dues!

Friday, November 16, 2007

Attorneys & Clients Beware: The Poser

They say that 'imitation is the highest form of flattery.' However, when an individual allows an unsuspecting client to believe he's you, it seems a little more than disingenuous...It seems...well...rather pathetic.

As nearly 100% of our consulting work comes through either referrals from many of the top labor attorneys throughout the U.S., or through clients contacting us directly, we do not generally 'cold call' on companies when they're facing labor strife. That said, there are those consultants who have not built their own reputations and, therefore, must either rely on others or get on the telephone and cold call on companies (or both) in order to survive. [To be fair, I suppose we've all had to do that at some point early in our careers.]

Please allow me to give you some background to this little tale of deceit: Over the last few years, there's been a few instances of our having been introduced to a client through their counsel when at first meeting the client would say to me, "Oh, I talked to you on the phone the other day." When this would occur, I would assure them that they hadn't talked to me and would assume they were just mistaken, confused or just plain absent minded.

It wasn't until the second or third time that this happened that I realized that the client had mistaken their telephone discussion with someone else (whose name sounded eerily close to mine) as having had a conversation with me.

It was after the second or third time that I discovered that there is indeed some consultant somewhere in these United States who has a name that sounds almost identical to mine doing the same type of consulting work that our firm does.

Well, I hadn't given much thought to it over the last couple of years....Until this week.

Earlier this week, I had a conversation with an individual who has met this other person with a name like mine and was told that this poser says people confuse him for me all of the time. Unfortunately, my source explained, while the poser doesn't actually tell his unassuming client he's me, he doesn't dissuade his client that he's not me either!

So, there you have it. Some hillbilly has crawled out from under a rock and has found a way to enrich himself by using my reputation for his own gain.

The pathetic part about this whole thing is that some unsuspecting company executives (and their employees) may be thinking they're getting the real deal, when all they're getting is a pathetic poser.

Right now, I don't have the time to do anything other than to alert you about this subhuman who is profitting from my work and my successes in the field. However, perhaps some day when I'm bored I'll take the time to have an attorney send him a letter, or maybe I'll just jump on the bike and pay him a visit so we can have a little chat "mano a mano."

In the meantime, while his clients don't know he's not me, he does. And now you know what he is as well...0% man and 100% poser.

Sunday, November 4, 2007

An Intersting Couple of Weeks for Unions

It's been an interesting two weeks for unions around the country.

Within the last two weeks, union bosses with the United Auto Workers (aka the Union of Ailing Workplaces) trumpeted their new agreement with Chrysler stating things like:

"Jobs are protected in this contract, contrary to what people have been saying. There is a job security package in here" and

"Once again, teamwork in the leadership and solidarity in the ranks has produced an agreement that protects jobs for our communities and also protects wages, pensions, and health care for our active and retired members."

However, after berating their disgruntled members into ratifying the contract, Chrysler announced last Thursday that is was cutting up to 12,100 jobs on top of the previously announced 13,000 jobs to be eliminated. That brings the total to about 25,000 jobs to be cut.
If that weren't bad enough for union bosses...

Over at the SEIU, security company Wackenhut has whacked the union with a RICO suit over the SEIU's "malicious, four-year, international corporate campaign to force Wackenhut to recognize the Union as the employees' bargaining representative while denying the employees their federal rights to free choice and a secret ballot election."

In SoCal...

After only a week and a half of striking, the Teamsters union caved-in to Waste Management and accepted the contract offered. Why? Well, when the union went out on strike last Monday, they vowed to fight the company to the bitter end. However, when the company advertised for permanent replacement drivers last Friday, "the workers got the crap scared out of them," and decided to return to work earlier this week.

For these and many more amusing news stories, go to