Monday, January 28, 2008

After nearly 25% of the UAW's membership leaves, will the UAW shakedown continue?

The UAW has its work cut out for it in the coming years. How can new auto workers be loyal to a union that will do nothing other than take their dues?

With the news of the Big Three offering buyouts to 130,000 workers represented by the United Auto Workers, the UAW will be losing nearly 25% of its existing membership. Although the union will be out some money, it really won't be a money issue for the union. This is because, in most cases, the 'replacement workers' will still be forced (through the continuation of the UAW's stranglehold on the Big Three) to become dues-paying members of the union in order to hold the job.

However, like any shakedown, paying a union under the threat of termination and being loyal to the union are two different things.

Unlike their predecessors, the incoming generation of Big Three workers, owe nothing to the UAW. In fact, the only thing the UAW can take credit for (in their case) is crippling the very companies who hire these the point that the UAW has been forced to agree to concessions that dumped the older union members in order to ensure union dues from the new workers.

This will prove to be an issue for the UAW bosses in the years to come and which may ultimately lead to the UAW fending off efforts by these new workers to dump the very union that negotiated for its old members to get dumped.

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Democrats: The Walking Dead

Following a week of race-tainted warring and Obama's subsequent South Carolinian stomping of Her Highness Hillary, we thought this 'oldie but a goodie' was well suited for the times.

Although it had been a while since we'd seen this video, it always does the heart good to know that the impression of Democrats hasn't changed much in the last 68 years.

Friday, January 25, 2008


A client e-mailed this to us a few minutes ago.


A word of caution though: If you're offended by the "F-Bomb" or other profanities don't watch the whole thing, but the end is hilarious!

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

For $33K, Congress Will Vote Your Rights Away

We always knew politicans could be bought and sold, so there's no surprise there. In fact, it seems these days, the whole darn town of Washington is nothin' but a den of elected whores and hillbillies.

What we didn't know until tonight though was how cheaply the US Congress could be bought...I mean, we're talking really, really cheap. Especially cheap, it seems, when it comes to buying a vote to do away with the rights of American citizens.

Hell, by today's standards, it's cheaper to buy a congressional vote than it is to buy a Chevy Silverado. Talk about the Heartbeat of America!

According to, a new website we were turned on to (so to speak) this evening, labor unions spent a measly $32,940 on each legislator who voted "yes" to support the cynically-named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).
EFCA, for those who may not remember, is that piece of legislation that strips the American worker of his (or her) right to vote in a secret-ballot election on whether or not (s)he gets unionized. You know, it's that law that, if passed will probably cause just a ton of companies to outsource or die a slow death (sort of like the US auto industry).

Conversely, the proponents of preserving workers right to vote on the matter of unionization only gave $22,705 to legislators who voted "no." However, those proponents also gave $10,872 to the "yes" voters(!).

Yeah, it didn't make sense to us either. Therefore, we can only assume that there are some proponents who are secretly sleeping with the enemy.

Afterall, we are talking about Washington, DC are we not? The land where politicians are bought and sold cheaper than the chaw spit, spilled and stuck on the bottom of a cowboy boot.

Yeah, we though you'd think that was gross too.

But, then again, so are politicians.
For more labor union news, go to

Monday, January 21, 2008

Dude! The Teamsters Are Selling Drugs Down at the Hall...

...Well, sort of...
It seems that the Canadian Teamsters have opened their own pharmacy to combat the high price of drugs, according to an article on

And the idea apparently comes from union halls here in the US having their own pharmacy--right in the union hall!

Mayor Hazel McCallion, who attended Monday's official opening, hailed the initiative. “It’s unique because everybody is concerned about the cost of drugs... our health system just can’t cope with it. So I want to congratulate you on this venture, which I know will be very successful,” she said.
Wait a damn minute here!?! Isn't the Canadian health care system (socialized medicine) something we Americans are supposed to be envious of???

Sshh! Don't tell the liberals about this...They'll be beside themselves.

The article goes on to state that the Teamsters' president Larry McDonald got the idea from his years living and working in the good ol' U.S. of A.

“Many unions down there have opened their own pharmacy right in the union hall," McDonald said.

Oh really??? The Teamsters (and other unions) are dispensing drugs right out of their union in the States?

Now that is news to us! Does the DEA know about this, Larry?

If there are union halls dispensing drugs here in the U.S., we certainly have never heard of them.

Hell, they didn't dispense drugs when we were in the union....Well, not legal drugs anyway!

Hey, by the way, isn't pot legal in Canada?
If so, we have one word for this whole story: Duuuude!

For more labor-related news go to

Tuesday, January 15, 2008


by Charles Baird, Ph.D
Professor of Economics, Emeritus

On August 15 this year The New York Times reported that several major unions asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to force employers to bargain with them even when they represent only a minority of employees at a firm. Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) an employer is forced to bargain with a union only if the union achieves majority support among its employees. Usually this majority support must be demonstrated in a NLRB-supervised secret ballot election.

In the private sector, labor unions are becoming economically irrelevant. In 2006 only 7.4% of the private sector workforce was unionized. The decline has been uninterrupted since the mid 1950s when the figure was 35%.

Although they are becoming economically irrelevant unions remain politically powerful as a special interest. For example, they have forced most Democrats in the House and Senate to support an amendment to the NLRA that would eliminate the requirement that majority support must be demonstrated by secret ballot. Instead, majority support would be assumed if the unions collect the signatures of a majority of workers. These signatures would be collected on a face-to-face basis by union organizers who don’t take kindly to not getting their way. Cynically, they call this measure the Employee Free Choice Act.

The attempt to get the NLRB to force employers to bargain with unions that do not have majority support is another attempt by unions to reverse their private sector decline. The unions expect that once they are in the door representing a minority, it will be easier to draft additional workers. If the NLRB doesn’t comply, the unions will likely force congressional Democrats to try to amend the NLRA to force minority bargaining.

Under the principle of “exclusive representation” if a union demonstrates majority support among workers it gets to represent all the workers in a firm – even the minority who don’t want union representation. I call this monopoly bargaining, for when a union has majority support it represents those who voted for it, those who voted against it, and those who didn’t vote. Individuals are forbidden to represent themselves. Unions defend this as “industrial democracy.” But democracy is a form of government, and unions are not governments. The terms and conditions of sale of one’s labor services are a private, not governmental, matter. One may choose to be represented by a union in such sales, but no one ought to be forced to do so.

The principle of freedom of association, embodied in the First Amendment, forbids government to prevent any person from associating with any willing other person (or group) for legal purposes. The word “willing” is crucial. Any A forced to associate with any B doesn’t have freedom of association. Any worker forced to associate with any union doesn’t have freedom of association.

In light of freedom of association the idea of minority bargaining, by itself, is not all bad. Of course, unions want to have minority bargaining when they don’t have majority support and monopoly bargaining when they do. But the logical flip side to permitting unions to bargain for a minority of workers who want union representation is that unions should not be permitted to bargain for a minority of workers who do not want union representation. All minorities should have freedom of association. This was the case before the NLRA, and it was called members-only bargaining.

In 1934 there was a serious strike threat in the automobile industry. The Auto Workers Union wanted the employers to grant them monopoly bargaining privileges. The auto companies agreed to bargain with the union about the terms and conditions of employment of union members, but they refused to bargain with the union concerning union-free workers. President Roosevelt, who thought a strike in the auto industry would damage the economy, imposed a strike-threat settlement based on members-only bargaining. Indeed, he went on national radio and proclaimed that members-only bargaining was the only form of collective bargaining consistent with freedom of association. A bit more than a year later he capitulated to union pressure and signed the NLRA which abolished members-only bargaining and imposed monopoly bargaining.

Mandatory good faith bargaining is another feature of the NLRA. Under normal contract law for a contract between private parties to be valid it must have been the case that all the parties consented to bargain with each other and, at the end of the bargaining, all parties must have consented to the terms of the contract. Coerced contracts are considered null and void. Under the NLRA this rule does not apply. If a union wants to bargain about something (except something that is illegal) an employer is forced to bargain on the subject. Moreover, the employer is forbidden to make any take-it-or-leave-it offers. The employer must compromise with the union. Failure to compromise is taken as proof of lack of good faith and is an “unfair labor practice.”

I have often argued that the NLRA ought to be repealed and replaced with legislation modeled on New Zealand’s 1991 Employment Contracts Act (ECA, which was repealed at the behest of unions in 2000). Under the ECA there was members-only representation. If a worker chose to be represented by a union, an employer would have to recognize the union as the worker’s representative. If the employer wanted to bargain for the worker’s labor services he would have to do so with the union. But the employer was not forced to bargain with the union or the worker himself. This is the only form of collective bargaining and union representation consistent with freedom of association. Alas, since American politics has become little more than a game of plunder of some for the benefit of others, we are stuck with the NLRA or worse for a long time to come.

For more labor related news, go to

UNIONISM AT THE POINT OF A GUN: The Debate About Minority Unionism

It seems our blog MINORITY RULES: Unions' New Tactic to Try to Infiltrate Companies has drawn some well-thought out, as well as some irrational comments from a few of our readers--most notably from the collectivist ilk.

As most of our readers' comments (from both sides) center around the workers' rights argument only, none seem to care to comment on either the practical or philosophical justification of a government forcing an employer to recognize a minority (or, for that matter, a majority) union, which is the only way the minority unionism model could be even remotely considered, let alone be applied.

However, in response to their comments, here is where the workers would be trampled (by right and by practice) under this inane theory:

As stated on Monday, the unions' collective argument centers around employees' Section 7 Rights under the NLRA, which provide that workers can pick representatives of their own choosing...

Well, in order to do so, the workers must be convinced that a 'representative' can do better for them than they can (either individually or collectively) themselves. If this involves an external representative (i.e. a labor union), that means that the workers must be 'sold' some product that has no guarantee of actually working for them, right?

Because unions are legally allowed to mislead workers, selling workers on unions is easy (like taking candy from a baby). In fact, unions are legally alowed to make workers promises that even the organizers know are untrue. It happens all the time in today's union campaigns.

[The case law on union promises goes all the way back to 1953, for those who would argue that the sky is green.]
The hard part for the union, however, is delivering a product that actually works. Despite the fact that, after convincing workers that unions are the answer to all things bad in the workplace, unions fail today half of the time to ever get a contract for newly unionized workers. And, of the other half, how good are those contracts?

This means the union product is failing workers--and that's under the majority rules principle--after convincing workers (hook, line and sinker) to buy the product.

Caveat emptor, right, collectivists?
Now, think about it under the 'minority rules' principle of unionism being proposed.

What realistic arguments could a union organizer make to lure only a handful of workers into joining it? Either the organizer would have to be one hell of a persuader (and there are many who are), or the workers would need to be gullible enough to believe they'll have collective 'power' as a minority-represented bargaining unit.

Okay, notwithstanding the fact that today's organizers are specifically targeting workers who have limited abilities to speak English and even less understanding about unions and labor law, we'll give the workers the benefit of the doubt and suppose for a moment that the union's organizer is a good enough 'trickster' enough to make a convincing argument to a minority population of a workforce...What then?

Why would any employer agree to any proposal by a union representing only a minorty of its workers? And since a union's only real economic weapon is its ability to call workers out on strike, what good does that do?

What would this minority union do if the business owner said "no" to the minority union's demands?...Call its minority membership out on strike?

Go ahead. Then watch the minority-union leadership watch its minority membership get replaced. What has that achieved? And, wouldn't it ,therefore, seem that the minority-represented workers would have been been sold a bill of goods? Again, caveat emptor, right?

Oh, you say, the employer shouldn't be allowed to replace the workers who wish to withhold their services...We must pass a law to stop that.

Once that law is passed, unions will be able to strike to their collectivist hearts' content, right?

Or, you say, we must pass a law that binds the employer to whatever a government-appointed arbitrator decides, right?
Good. How long do you think that will last before capital says to labor 'see ya.'

But, you argue, they're already doing that!...

Yes, and have you thought about why?

Now, on to the philosophical side:

Does not the First Amendment (of which the NLRA's Section 7 Rights are based) apply to employers, as well as employees?

If workers have a freedom to associate, do employers not have the same right? If so, the freedom to associate also expressly implies a right not to associate, does it not? Does the Consitution apply only to one class and not the other? If this is the case, then one must argue, why should an employer be required to recognize any union (be it a majority or a minority) at the point of a gun (vis a vis the government)?

Before those "pro" readers, who are seemingly part of today's collectivist labor movement, get themselves into a tizzy about all that is implied in the above, consider this:

The founders of the modern labor movement never, ever wanted government intrusion into labor relations. But today's labor leaders, in their haste to have a collectivist society have all but abandoned their founder's principles.

One may ask, Why did labor's founding fathers eschew government involvement into labor relations? It's very simple: He who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword.

A word of caution: Be careful what you ask for, collectivists, you may get what it is you're asking for.


For more labor-related news, go to

Monday, January 14, 2008

When Workers Fight Unions to Keep Their Jobs Union-Free

When 93% of the American private-sector workforce chooses to be union-free, there is bound to be a backlash from labor union bosses. Thus, unions buy politicians to try to pass anti-worker, anti-freedom legislation like the cynically-named Employee Free Choice Act.

Often, however, when workers get sick and tired of being targeted by the ruthless tactics of the modern-day union organizer, workers occasionally must make take matters into their own hands. Sometimes, they become vocal opponents of the union bureacrats. And, because they do not have billions of dollars at their disposal, as unions do, they do it on their own—creatively and with little resources.

Such is the case of a number of Toyota workers who have begun a website simply known as These courageous workers are battling a behemoth that wants to take over their jobs and their company—the behemoth, of course, is the UAW aka the United Auto Workers, aka the Union of Ailing Workplaces.

In the auto industry, as General Motors, Ford and Chrysler have all fallen to a fraction of their former size—due in large part to the United Auto Workers—Toyota and other foreign auto makers have filled the void in providing secure jobs for American workers.

This, however, has not sat well with the labor bosses at the UAW’s Solidarity House. Afterall, the Union of Ailing Workplaces (UAW) has become the symbol of much that is wrong with today’s parasitic labor movement—outdated work rules, wage and benefit structures that cripple companies and, of course, the hundreds of thousands of job losses.

Recently, the folks at wrote us to tell us the latest of the UAW’s assault on their workplace.

Dear EmployerReport:

Here is an update on the UAW's latest tactic at Toyota's Georgetown plant. Father John Rausch of the Catholic Diocese of Lexington recently announced the launch of YET ANOTHER anti-Toyota campaign called Toyota Owners for Fairness. The Lexington Herald Leader carried the story:

In the past, Father Rausch has been asked to publicly denounce the UAW's use of HITs (Harrassment, Intimidation & Threats) but he has yet to do so. Perhaps his decision making is influenced by the large contributions that the UAW has made to Catholic Charities. This point was exposed in the ad that we ran in the Herald Leader. The ad can be viewed on our website,

The 20,000 letters that the Jobs With Justice tried to deliver were solicited over the last 8+ months on pro-union websites and internet message boards. Most of the letters are likely written by Detroit’s Big Three UAW members who would like to see Toyota hurt by and/or burdened with the UAW.

If Father Rausch and the UAW feel that the team members at Toyota need the UAW then why don't they call for an NLRB election and let the team members partici-pate in a secret ballot election?

Because they would lose - that's why!

How does hurting Toyota help Kentucky and Toyota's team members? It doesn't! We exposed this point several years ago in a post on our website. The post is titled "UAW Launches Corporate Smear Campaign Against Toyota". It is still available for viewing on our site. The UAW knows that if they succeed in unionizing Toyota, they win. If they fail to unionize Toyota but manage to hurt them in the process, then they still win. Hurting Toyota will likely result in more sales for the Detroit's Big Three.

State Reps. Jim Glenn and Reginald Meeks served on the Jobs With Justice panel that condemned Toyota. How many pieces of legislation have they introduced that would outlaw Toyota's "objectionable practices"? Our guess would be none! Just like Father Rausch, Meeks and Glenn have received considerable contributions from the UAW. This was exposed in our Herald Leader ad as well.

As their battle against the UAW bosses continues, we encourage you, our readers, to help spread the word about these courageous workers. Help spread the message that there are workers who need help in their quest to remain union-free.

Visit, drop them a word of encouragement.

For more labor-related news, visit

MINORITY RULES: Unions' new tactic to try and infiltrate companies

In August of last year, in an attempt to short circuit the principle of 'majority rules' in the workplace, the United Steelworkers, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Communications Workers of America, the United Auto Workers, the International Association of Machinists, the California Nurses Association, and the Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America petitioned the National Labor Relations to issue a proposed rule recognizing that federal labor law forces employers to bargain collectively with a union that represents a minority of the employees.

Clearly an attempt to do an end run around the rights of workers and employers, the attempt nevertheless demonstrates the level to which today's unions will stoop in order to secure workers' wages through union dues and control the American workplace.

Well, on January 4th, the Change to W(h)in(e) federation jumped on the 'minority rules' bandwagon and sent in its own me-too petition to the NLRB.

To read the Change to W(h)in(e) Petition to the NLRB click here.

The sad fact is, although this distorted theory is rooted in the National Labor Relations Act's Section 7 Rights that state that workers entitled to (among other things) "...bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing...", the NLRB may, at some point in the not-too-distant-future and given a future next president's political appointees, actually grant the union's request.

As/if unionization occurs under regulatory fiat, similar to the potential enactment of the cynically-named Employee Free Choice Act, causing the unionization of hundreds of thousands of employers (and their workers) against their will and without a secret-ballot election, America will no longer be the land of opportunity, but the land of mediocre and the unemployed.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Vegas union fix for Obama is in...

As most of our readers can attest, we're no fan of Her Highness Hillary. However, Obama and Edwards are not much better, in our opinion.

That said, even the most novice political observer should be able to recognize the rigging of Nevada's caucus by Obama's backers. Following Obama's first national union endorsement by UNITE-HERE, the union that essentially controls the Vegas strip, as well as the endorsement of Nevada's SEIU, Barak has almost assuredly won the Nevada caucus.

Here's why:

LAS VEGAS -- Next Saturday, gamblers at the Bellagio, the opulent Las Vegas casino immortalized in the George Clooney blockbuster "Ocean's Eleven," will be treated to an unusual sight.

Just before noon, the hotel's dishwashers, cocktail waitresses, porters and bellhops will go on break and gather in a 30,000-square-foot ballroom to vote for
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama or maybe John Edwards to be the Democratic nominee for president.

A similar scene will play out in eight other casinos on or near Las Vegas's Strip as Democrats caucus in
Nevada, the next stop in the party's fiercely competitive presidential race.
However, this is not sitting pretty with Her Highness or her backers.

The same day, another union -- the Nevada State Education Association -- contended that Obama and the culinary workers are altogether too friendly, and asked a federal court to shut down the casino caucus sites because, the association said, they give preferential treatment to culinary union members.

Culinary officials have been prepping their union's members on caucus rules-- the doors close promptly at noon, and no late attendance, for example -- at meetings for months. Although their endorsement of Obama came late, they predict a near-united front for him, adhering to the labor movement's notion that division weakens a union's hand, whether in contract bargaining or politics.
(Excerpted from the Washington Post)

For more union-related news, go to

Friday, January 11, 2008


As if the Japanese imports haven't already crushed the Big Three auto makers and its parasitic union, the United Auto Workers, the Indians will surely be the UAW's death blow...

While the UAW's corporate victims here in the US struggle to stay alive against the Toyotas, Nissans, and Hondas of the world, few have been keeping an eye on Tata...

[insert gratuitous tata pic here]

NO! Not Ta-tas!... TATA...As in the the Indian car company headed by Ratan Tata. [Yeah, we're serious!]

It seems Mr. Tata's company has designed, built and introduced the world's most inexpensive mass production car called the Nano.

This little beast of burden is designed to carry four passengers, has a pee-wee engine and trunk that can carry as much cargo that can fit in a duffle bag.
No, it likely does not meet any of the DOT requirements by having standard airbags and the like (yet). In fact, over here in the states, there's no way the little tin can-sized car would survive a fender bender with a good 'ol American SUV.

In sum, the Nano is a rickshaw with a motor.

Obviously, it won't be produced for car buyers here in the U.S. (yet). BUT, that's not who Tata's aiming at anyway.
Tata's targets are those poor people living in countries that are developing (like India, China and just about the whole African continent)....All those countries the Big Three are hoping to compete in with their down-sized versions of their 'el cheapo' cars. After all, if it weren't for the car sales in Europe and the developing countries, the UAW would have killed the Big Three already.

The problem is Mr. Tata's Nano is only going to sell for about $2500 (or 100,000 rupees). And at that low of a price, the UAW health care costs we Americans pay per UAW-built car are barely paid.

If, however, Tata adds a pair of airbags and a stereo and, like everything else, the US begins importing these Tatas, the Big Three and the UAW will only wish that the term Tata applied to these:

And not this:

For more labor-related news, visit

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Writing about the Writers Strike... getting really, really boring.

Perhaps it's because of America's collective addiction to the TV set, but we really cannot understand why the writer's strike has captivated so much media attention (Google lists over 1,700 stories on the topic).

Karl Marx once proclaimed that religion is the opiate of the masses; however, he never tuned into American Idol, Desperate Housewives, or Monday Night Football. Talk about opiates...

The Golden Globes ceremony has been scrapped...(yawn).

The Oscars may be next...(Zzzz).

Then there's the faux sympathy for the strikers (see Letterman and Obrien) as some late night talk-show hosts return to the air. And don't forget the faux anger from other late night talk show hosts who decided to become strike-breakers (see Colbert's sarcastic 'I don't like union's and I don't need writers' comment).

And, poor, poor Jay Leno, the doughnut-bearing friend of the strikers who now may be put on trial by the Writer Guild for (gasp!) writing his own jokes.

Why it's enough to make the average American...

...go to sleep.

However, there is the occasional moment of interest like today's op-ed in the LA Times from writer John Ridley on why he decided to become a financial core member and the hassle he's had to endure as a WGA member over the last 15 years.

So, what exactly is the issue that has over 10,000 writers out on the streets and the media in such a snit?
(Drum roll please...)

Residual payments for the writers when their content is put out on the internet or DVD. That's it in a nutshell.

The writers want more money when their products are used outside the boob tube and the producers are saying 'no.'

End of story. Time for REM.

That said, from time to time, we get comments from our blog readers that we like to post. A couple of days ago, we got an anonymous comment on our blog that really put the whole issue of the striking writers into perspective, as follows:
A writer has no more claim to downstream income than a set designer or a caterer, they are all just components in a complex business process that involves many people in many roles, from Janitor to Financier...

Like a clap of thunder, this anonymous reader's comment kicked the living crap out of our ho-hum, we're-so-bored-and-could-care-less observations on this whole stupid scribe strike.

The more we thought about it, the more pathetic the writers' claim for their strike seems.

Our reader is right.

If a worker is paid for his work on a product, should that worker be paid more if the buyer of that work has found other uses for it? Wouldn't that basically be double-dipping?...Getting paid for your product, then getting paid for it again and again and again?

We think that's the fundamental question that should be answered. So, in an effort to further define this, let's apply it to other industries.

Sports. Michael Jordan gets paid a gazillion dollars to play for the Chicago Bulls. He plays, he gets paid. Although he makes a gazillion more dollars on endorsing underwear and sneakers, he doesn't get paid every time a re-run of his jump shot is shown, does he? Nah.

Medicine. The Jarvik dude on TV who invented the artificial heart has made a ton of money, right? Hell, he invented a ticker that keeps ticking when your real one doesn't--that's something, right? Well, anyway, he got a patent on his pumper, and probably gets a legal kickback whenever someone installs one of his pumpers. BUT (here's the question), if one of the recipients of his pumps kicks the bucket and another doc reuses the same pumper, does Jarvik get to double dip?

How about this example: If you work in a lawnmower factory and you build a lawn mower, you should be entitled to some recompense for every blade of grass your mower mows?

You think that's ridiculous, don't you?

Well, what's the difference?

If you're writing a story and being paid for that story at the time of product delivery, why does the buyer of your story need to keep paying you over and over again?

Seems to us, that's double-dipping and that's what the writer's are striking for.

Now, if you'll pardon us, we're going to watch some re-runs so we can fall back to sleep...

Sunday, January 6, 2008

Change to Win is losing more elections than the AFL-CIO

An interesting statistic was recently reported by the Bureau of National Affairs that calls into question the whole Change to Win defection from the AFL-CIO.

Most readers may recall that the entire engineered split from the AFL-CIO that occurred in 2005 was over the issue of how unions spent money on organizing. Change to Win's chief architects, SEIU's Andy Stern, UFCW's Joe Hansen, UNITE-HERE's Bruce Raynor, and Teamsters honcho Jimmy Hoffa, as well as Laborers' boss Terry O'Sullivan (who defected later) all whined about how the John Sweeney regime was spending too much on politics and not enough on organizing.

Well, one would think that the Change to W(h)in(e) gang would be able to brag that its efforts are paying off. But, alas, this is not the case.

According to BNA, citing National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) election result reports for the first half of 2007:

AFL-CIO-affiliated unions won 56.6 percent of the 350 elections in which they participated in the first six months of 2007, compared with 60.1 percent of 398 elections in the first half of 2006. Whereas Change to Win-affiliated unions only won 53.1 percent of the 343 elections in which they participated in the first half of 2007.

What makes matters worse for the Change to Whiners is the fact that they only unionized 10,912 workers, compared to the AFL-CIO's 12,493.

On top of that, Sweeney can now boast of expanding his control of the Democratic Party as a result of the November 2006 mid-term election.

To us, it appears as though Andy & Gang are wearing more than a little egg on their face, while Sweeney has earned a big belly laugh at his former protege's expense.

For union-related news, go to