MINORITIES AND COUNCIL GET THE FINGER FROM UNION BOSS

HE MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN A LITTLE LADY ORDERED TO GIVE UP HIS SEAT ON A BUS, BUT PAUL SOLOMON HAS A LOT OF SIMILARITIES TO ROSA PARKS.

For those of you on Main Street in Middle America, who may not ever have had the (dis)pleasure of visiting the Big Cities of the East Coast, this story may be of little interest to you at first.

However, this story may have a ripple effect nationally that may end up spilling over into a political war between two of the Democrats staunchest constituencies, the African-American community and the union bosses.

For people who know the East, you will probably agree that what is happening in Philadelphia right now is truly astounding.

After you read the background to this story, be sure to read the letter below, which was sent to the head of Philadelphia's AFL-CIO by a Philadelphia City Councilman, issuing the union boss a stern "don't f**k with me" message.

For some background into this story, we'll try to keep it simple and brief:

1. Philadelphia is notoriously a "union town" and, because of this, has become something of a joke as the city has suffered from years of corruption, incompetence and union abuse


2. Traditionally, in order for a politician to get elected, they needed to be backed by the unions and were often forever under the thuggish thumbs of the union bosses


3. Philadelphia's building trade unions have a long history of excluding minorities and women from their unions. (For some history on one of the Philadelphia locals, click here)


4. In October, Paul Solomon, an African-American member of the Operating Engineers was taunted with a noose-carrying white construction worker from another union


5. When the African-American worker complained about the incident, the white worker was removed from the construction site and sent somewhere else, BUT...


6. The African American construction worker also, it seems, began getting retaliated against by his own union for lodging the complaint

Fast forward to last week:

1. Last Thursday, at Philly's City Council meeting, Mr. Solomon's incident became the catalyst for a verbal volley between the elected officials and an arrogant union boss named Pat Gillespie. When asked about the trade unions inclusion of minorities and women, the union boss snubbed his nose, flicked a booger at, or otherwise basically told the Philadelphia City Council to go "f**k themselves" (Those weren't his exact words but they may as well have been)


2. In response, the City Council passed an amendment to an agreement on a building expansion at the union-plagued Philadelphia Convention Center to allow non-union contractors to bid the work.

Ouch, Mr. Gillespie! You've never heard the phrase don't bite the hand that feeds you?

For a lengthier news account, you can go here.

Yesterday, an anonymous source gave us a copy of the letter that was sent to the top dog of Philly's AFL-CIO. This letter [emphasis added] details some of the same kind of frustration that has plagued public and private sector employers in Philadelphia for years in dealing with the unions, as well as issues a not-so-friendly warning to the union bosses...

Mr. Patrick Eiding, President
Philadelphia Council AFL-CIO
22 South 22nd Street, 2nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Dear Mr. Eiding:

On December 6th, City Council unanimously approved an amendment to the Convention Center agreement that would permit qualified non-union employers to obtain construction contracts as they relate to the construction of the Center. As the sponsor of that amendment, I believe that you, your member organizations and their members deserve an explanation of our actions.

For years, City Council has expressed concem over the Building Trades' inclusion of minorities and women. As such, Council requested that Mr. Pat Gillespie attend Thursday's hearing to discuss membership, the percentage of minority and female workers, what programs have been created to address the issue and what progress the Trades have made. Mr. Gillespie knew that he was there to discuss these issues and we expected him to be prepared to answer these questions.

Unfortunately, rather than provide statistical data as requested, Mr. Gillespie scoffed at Council's questions. He refused to accept Council's concerns as real and made no effort to address our questions. It is unclear whether Mr. Gillespie was simply woefully unprepared or whether he chose to disregard these issues. Whatever the case, Mr. Gillespie's perfonnance was inappropriate and I hope his member organizations take note.

During the hearing, it became clear that qualified minority construction firms were disenfranchised by some trade unions because they are required to meet goals that they do not have the capacity to meet. Therefore, in an effort to provide those finns with more
opportunities, the amendment was introduced and adopted.

Please be assured that I understand and appreciate Labor's concerns in this matter and while some labor leaders will accuse this Council and me personally as being "antiunion," the label is disingenuous. Over the past two years, over $2 billion worth of construction has been approved in the First Council District, alone. I was the prime sponsor ofthe IO-year tax abatement, which led to thousands ofunion jobs, and I continue to vigorously defend this program. This support of development will not waiver.

Historically, some of the Trades have harassed and insulted specific members. Some have disrupted Council hearings and sessions. Some have hurled insults publicly while others have issued "anonymous" fliers and letters attacking individual members. Despite this abuse, City Council has continued to support union labor and your members because it has been the right thing to do. At some point, however, I would hope that the Trades begin to treat the democratic process with the respect and dignity it deserves.

Further, while we have supplied organized labor, one concern has been continuously raised: minority and female participation. More importantly, that concern remains to be addressed.

Additionally, I understand that Mr. Gillespie has a signed Project Labor Agreement with the Pennsylvania Department of General Services and he feels that Council's actions mean nothing.

To be blunt, if Mr. Gillespie refuses to address Council's very real concerns, the Convention Center project may die. More importantly, my support of future projects will be in jeopardy. It is time for the Trade Council to represent their members and the communities that their members represent.

I believe City Council's desires are very simple. We want Philadelphia to be built by Philadelphians and we want our construction sites to resemble Philadelphia's diverse neighborhoods. Philadelphia is one of the final bastions of the unions. Help us keep it that way by working with us rather than against us.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. As always, I'm happy to discuss my
concerns with you or any ofyour member organizations.

Sincerely,
Frank DiCicco
1st District Councilman

cc: Governor Ed Rendell
Mayor John F. Street
Mayor-elect Michael Nutter
Congressman Bob Brady
Congressman Chaka Fattah
Congresswoman Allison Schwartz
Senator Bob Casey
Senator Arlen Specter
All City Council Members
City Councilmember-elect Bill Green
City Councilmember-elect Maria Quinones Sanchez
City Councilmember-elect Curtis Jones, Jr.
All members ofthe Pennsylvania General Assembly
All Board Members, Convention Center Authority
All members Philadelphia Council AFL-CIO
Building Contractors Association

TO US, IT SEEMS AS THOUGH, LIKE ROSA PARKS BEFORE HIM, PAUL SOLOMON MAY HAVE BECOME THE CATALYST THAT BROUGHT A MOVEMENT BORN OUT OF FRUSTRATION TO LIFE. WE SUPPOSE IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER ITS A BUS IN MONTGOMERY OR A UNION CONSTRUCTION SITE IN PHILADELPHIA, RACISM IS RACISM.

It's Time to End the Unions' Racist Monopoly in Philadelphia

One would think that with the amount of discrimination that's occurred with Philadelphia's trade unions, the union bosses would be more than aware of how they're doing, but apparently not.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Minority leaders have long complained that the city's construction unions have not done enough to bring blacks and Hispanics into the trades. Many union people agree, despite some recent progress.

Yet...

On Thursday, Councilman Frank DiCicco, who has been at loggerheads with the building-trades unions over casino construction, proposed the amendment, taking up a cause promulgated by African American council members.

He and Patrick Gillespie, business manager for the Philadelphia Building and Construction Trades Council, exchanged sharp words when Gillespie could not produce statistics about minority membership in the council's 42 unions.

At what cost?...

Now, the unions' lack of diversity and feigned (or real) ignorance may come back to haunt them as Philadelphia's City Council has proposed opening the normally union-only Convention Center to open bidding, which would allow non-union contractors into the Center.

Nevertheless...

Accusing trade unions of standing in the way of minority hiring objectives, City Council [last Thursday] declared the $700 million Convention Center expansion open to nonunion contractors and workers - an unprecedented gesture in a city
dominated by organized labor.

Citing the construction industry's repeated failures to meet minority hiring goals on public projects and the unions' refusal to disclose the racial makeup of their memberships, Council voted to amend the Convention Center's operating agreement to allow nonunion workers, to help increase minority participation.

Mayor-elect Michael Nutter appeared to support Council's action yesterday.

"Clearly, that amendment represents the frustration that many of us have felt in creating opportunities for African Americans and Latin Americans in terms of access to the construction trades and participating in all the tremendous construction activity in Philadelphia," said Nutter.

"We must create a more diverse workforce in the construction industry in the city."
The very thought of allowing nonunion contractors on a major public works project in Philadelphia stunned longtime observers.

"Wow," said public relations executive A. Bruce Crawley, one of the city's leading critics of the union's efforts at hiring minorities. "Wow."

"This is very encouraging for African American contractors who would simply
like not to be excluded from the work," he said.

Patrick Gillespie, business manager for the Philadelphia Building and Construction
Trades Council, said such a requirement would endanger the project labor agreement the 42 local unions he represents are negotiating with the Convention Center Authority. Such agreements are common before major projects -
they set the standards of work and pay, usually require union labor, and are meant to avoid job disruptions.

Yeah, bringing in non-union contractors will be the start of World War III in the heart of the City of Brotherly Love, but perhaps it's been too long in coming.

Perhaps it's time to open the Convention Center to open competition and end the unions' racist monopoly in Philadelphia.

Racism is Nothing New to Philadelphia's Trade Unions

They call Philadelphia the City of Brotherly Love. However, anyone who knows anything about Philly knows there's nothing brotherly about it--especially if you're a union construction worker who also happens to be a minority. In fact, it's surprising that the only sheets you see in Philadelphia are the bedsheets drying on clothes lines.

This morning, as we were posting news items for EmployerReport.com, we ran across the Philadelphia Inquirer story of Paul Solomon, a black construction worker in Philadelphia who, about a month ago, complained that another construction worker from the Glaziers' union had brandished a noose while working at the city's Comcast Center.

The incident spawned a demonstration called Build Smarter: End Discrimination in Philadelphia's Construction Industry Now!

Well, this morning's article mentioned a couple of things that piqued our attention:

First, the alleged perpetrator of the noose incident has not been allowed to work back at the Comcast Center. However, the Inquirer article does not say that the union (part of the Painters and Allied Trades) has done anything else to further discipline its member, nor does the article state that the union has done anything affirmative to ensure racial incidents will not occur in the future.

Second, Mr. Solomon's own union seems to be retaliating against him for lodging the complaint about the noose.

In fact, Mr. Solomon claims that since he complained about the Oct. 1st incident, he's been "blackballed as a 'trouble maker.'"

However, once we saw that Mr. Solomon is a member of Operating Engineers Local 542, in Fort Washington, PA, it didn't seem too hard to believe. You see, IUOE 542 seems to have a long history of denying diversity is a part of the American fabric--whether you're in a union or not.

In fact, instead of just calling the union hall and being satisfied with writing: "...Local 542 of the International Union of Operating Engineers did not return calls seeking comment yesterday," the Philly Inquirer writer should have dug a little deeper.

Had he done some real investigative journalism he might have found, based on Local 542's past, that Mr. Solomon may not be wrong in feeling as though he's being blackballed.

Although the union bosses in Philadelphia may want to keep their dirty little secret under their sheets, the problem is:

IUOE, LOCAL 542 HAS HAD MORE THAN 30 YEARS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATIONS, as well as a U.S. Court-Ordered Supervision of Local 542 because of Racial Discrimination

NOVEMBER, 1971: 12 black plaintiffs, on behalf of an entire class of minority workers, sued Local 542 of the Operating Engineers for:

• discriminatory membership practices;
• discriminatory hiring hall practices;
• discrimination in the hours of work given and the wages earned; and
• unfair representation.

JUNE 19, 1972: Plaintiffs John Dent and Marion Eaddy, while at a Local 542 hiring hall, were physically attacked by three white members of Local 542. This attack took place in front of Local 542’s business agent and approximately 15 members of the union.

JUNE 20, 1972: Plaintiffs Cleveland Allen, John Dent, and Marion Eaddy were beaten outside of Local 542’s hiring hall by at least fifteen white members of Local 542.

JUNE 20, 1972 - JUNE 22, 1972: An emergency hearing had to be held regarding the violence on June 19th and the morning of June 20th.

AUGUST 4, 1972: The Court found that white members of Local 542 had repeatedly attacked the plaintiffs, as retaliation for filing the lawsuit. Because of this, the Judge prohibited all members of Local 542 from:

Threatening, intimidating, harassing, assaulting, injuring, or otherwise interfering in any manner with the named and class plaintiffs’ federal statutory and Constitutional rights to be free from retaliation because of their instituting and processing the instant employment discrimination lawsuit; and

Doing any and all other acts which in any manner interfere with named and class plaintiffs’ federal statutory and Constitutional rights to institute and process the instant employment discrimination lawsuit.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et. al. v. Local Union No. 542, International Union of Operating Engineers, 347 F.Supp. 268, 302 (E.D. Pa. 1972). The Judge finished by writing that all Federal Marshalls would be available to enforce his order.

JANUARY 19, 1976: The trial into Local 542’s racially discriminatory practices begins.

NOVEMBER 30, 1978: Nearly three years later, the Judge ruled that Local 542 discriminated against minorities. Specifically, the court found:

“At the critical level of viable jobs and equal opportunities, there were intentional and persistent efforts to exclude and discourage most of the minorities who, but for their race, would have been considered for entry into the union and for the more lucrative jobs.” Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Raymond Williams, et. al. v. Local Union 542, International Union of Operating Engineers, 469 F. Supp. 329, 337 (E.D. Pa 1978), (emphasis added), aff’d 648 F.2d 922 (3rd Cir 1981).

The Court also found that Local 542 had repeatedly misrepresented the number of minorities in the union. In 1968, an official with Local 542 estimated that there were approximately 650 minority members out of the total membership of 5000. By 1969, the union determined that there were only 400 minority members out of a total membership of 6000. In a document filed with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Local 542 finally admitted that it had a mere 259 minority members out of a total membership of 6128. As the Judge wrote:

“It is not acceptable to describe the repeated gross inaccuracies as merely incorrect guesses. . . . While it is conceivable that in one instance the union could have inadvertently made a significant error in overestimating the number of minorities in the union, it is incredible that errors of this magnitude could have occurred consistently by any mere coincidence. . .. Only a finding of discriminatory intent can explain this subterfuge.” 469 F.Supp. at 344, (emphasis added).

AUGUST 8, 1979: The Court enters a “CONSENT DECREE” against Local 542. The first portion of that document, called a PERMANENT INJUNCTION, orders that:

“Defendants shall not discriminate against any minority person because of his color or national origin, with respect to acquisition, retention of membership or affiliation in said local union, with respect to referral and selection for employment, with respect to any training, retraining or upgrading programs, or with respect to any other terms and conditions of employment, union membership or affiliation.”

The document goes on to order Local 542 to increase minority representation in the union and ensure EQUAL WORK AND PAY between minority and white members.

The court decided it needed to oversee Local 542’s compliance with the order, at least through March 31, 1984. A Special Master, attorney Frank Jenkins, was appointed to monitor Local 542’s performance regarding these goals.

DECEMBER 15, 1982: The court approves a monetary settlement reached between the plaintiffs and the union. Local 542 agrees to pay the plaintiffs $1.5 MILLION because of the discrimination.

MAY, 1985: Special Master Frank Jenkins found that Local 542 was still discriminating against minorities.

OCTOBER 10, 1985: The Court, in agreeing with the Special Master, holds Local 542 in contempt of court for failing to take the actions required by the 1979 Consent Decree. Specifically, the Court found that:

“The union was given five years in which to prove to this court that it could operate the hiring hall in a non-discriminatory, fair and equitable manner. The court finds that the union has failed in this regard and to the contrary, has continued to use the hiring hall as a tool of discrimination, albeit at a reduced level, but discrimination nevertheless.” Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et. al. v. Local 542, International Union of Operating Engineers, 619 F.Supp. 1273, 1277 (E.D Pa 1985), aff’d 807 F.2d 330 (3rd Cir 1986).

As a result of the ongoing discrimination, the Court appointed a full-time Hiring Hall Monitor to oversee the day-to-day operations of the hiring hall. The Court also extended the Consent Decree through August 31, 1987.

MAY 12, 1987: The Judge established a Civil Rights Committee to monitor Local 542’s activities. The Judge also ordered that the Special Master (Mark Halpern, attorney-at-law) provide a report on Local 542’s activities by October 15, 1993.

APRIL 30, 1989: Special Master Halpern, and the Court, ended the day-to-day monitoring of Local 542. According to Mr. Halprin, Local 542 had “earned the right to serve as its own watchdog.”

MAY 25, 1993: Because of the numerous complaints received by the Court alleging discrimination by Local 542 against minority union members, the Court ordered Special Master Halpern to again investigate Local 542’s hiring/assignment practices.

APRIL 15, 1994: Local 542 is again placed under strict court supervision. According to Mr. Halpern’s report, the “gains made by minorities prior to April 1989, when court supervision was lifted by Bechtle, were ‘wiped out’ in the following four years.”

JULY 20, 1998: Even though the Civil Rights Committee had been around for over 10 years, Local 542 continued to violate the rules regarding the election of four of the members. Even though only minorities were entitled to vote on the four elected members, Local 542 allowed white women to also vote. Local 542 was ordered to pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees - $11,869.50 in total.

AND THE ISSUES CONTINUED MORE THAN 30 YEARS LATER. February 16, 2000, a lawsuit by five black members of Local 542 for discrimination was filed against Local 542 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (Willie Lee Jackson, et al. v. Local Union 542, International Union of Operating Engineers, Civil Action No. 00-854)

It would appear that Mr. Solomon isn't alone in feeling that the City of Brotherly Love's trade unions aren't living up to their city's motto. For, in Philadelphia, there is too much history of discrimination that, in the end, may prove Mr. Solomon wiser than the crackers who take his monthly dues.

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.

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!

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.

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 EmployerReport.com.