Following up on our previous post about the United Food and Commercial Worker’s support of legalized marijuana, the UFCW is back again to lobby for federal recognition of California’s marijuana legalization. And this time, they brought some friends:

In response to Obama’s visit, Northern California leaders in the cannabis community united today with Bay Area elected officials, patients, and business owners prior to an Obama campaign fundraiser in San Francisco to discuss the ramifications of the administration’s latest offensive against California’s medical marijuana community and to call for federal policy reform. In a first-time press conference presenting a united front, leaders including… representatives of the UFCW Local 5 were present.

Apparently, the UFCW has been busy forging a coalition with other pro-marijuana legalization groups, and they lend their authority as a union to the movement. UFCW Local 5’s Matthew Witemyre, a Special Projects Union Representative, had this to say: “If the federal government closes commercial dispensaries and collectives in California, thousands of hardworking and taxpaying citizens across the state will lose their jobs in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.”

The timing of this meeting is rather interesting, given that Obama has declared October 2011 as National Substance Abuse Prevention Month. In case the UFCW has forgotten, marijuana is still considered a Schedule 1 narcotic under the federal Controlled Substances Act, where Schedule 1 is defined as a substances with “a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision”.

Unfortunately for the UFCW, Obama’s Administration has not reacted too positively to their concerns, and recently shot down a petition to legalize marijuana on their online petition site:

…Marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory disease, and cognitive impairment. We know from an array of treatment admission information and Federal data that marijuana use is a significant source for voluntary drug treatment admissions and visits to emergency rooms. Studies also reveal that marijuana potency has almost tripled over the past 20 years, raising serious concerns about what this means for public health – especially among young people who use the drug because research shows their brains continue to develop well into their 20′s. …neither the FDA nor the Institute of Medicine have found smoked marijuana to meet the modern standard for safe or effective medicine for any condition.

These kinds of facts are definitely a buzz-kill, but still necessary to understand in context of UFCW’s support of medical marijuana. Their continued support of this dangerous substance endangers the lives of their members, as well as the citizens of California.

Bottom line- the UFCW needs to focus its efforts on issues that impact their dues-paying members, and prioritize efforts that will produce better working conditions rather than fighting an administration that shows no sign of changing on this issue. Their continued waste of time and focus ultimately hurts all of their members- something UFCW workers simply cannot afford.

H/T Labor Union Report

In his own words from a Washington Examiner article:

Under the proposed guidelines, union officials would have to disclose how much individual compensation they receive in the form of benefits, account for any travel and entertainment expenses, and identify union income streams.

The fact is most workers want more information about how their money is being spent by union officials. Last year, a poll revealed that nearly 90 percent of union members support strong union transparency requirements.

Disclosure is a simple but effective tool for fighting corruption and encouraging accountability. If union officials know their spending habits are part of the public record, they’ll be less interested in expensive getaways and more interested in effectively managing their members’ hard-earned dues.

That’s why I filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court to stop Solis from rolling back these vital union transparency requirements. Union officials shouldn’t be allowed to operate behind closed doors when billions of dollars of employees’ hard-earned money is at stake.

The rule Mosquera speaks of introduces some very common-sense accountability requirements for union leaders. They would show more of what the union leaders are actually doing with their member’s dues money beyond merely recording expenses and revenue:

Under the current rule, unions are required to report salaries of union leaders, revenue and expenditures. A new rule, which took effect in June 2009 and was repealed in October 2009, would have expanded those requirements.

Under the now-repealed rule, union officials were required to report deferred benefits, such as union cars and tickets to sporting events, provide more information about business transactions and report detailed travel and entertainment expenses.

Meanwhile, there has been very little in the way of defense of this change. The Labor Department has not issued an explanation and declined to comment on the issue:

A spokesman for the Labor Department declined to comment about legal matters. …

[Director of Legal Information for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Patrick] Semmens said Solis repealed the rule because the enhanced reporting was burdensome to union leaders. The Labor Department did not provide an explanation.

This is an obvious bone the Obama administration is tossing Big Labor Unions like the UFCW in reward for their support during his campaign. They have been recently making noise about not being catered to enough- this is the administration’s attempt to help pay them back, even at the expense of transparency and openness about how union worker’s dues money is spent.

For leading the “most transparent administration in history”, the Obama administration has certainly done a lot to obfuscate knowledge and information when it comes to union organization practices. Fortunately, at least one member of the UFCW has taken things into his own hands to try and correct the matter.

But of course the UFCW Local 400 has something to lose when it comes to having new jobs in the area—it represents “employees of area Giant, Safeway and Shoppers Food Warehouse stores.” Rather than asking the Walmart employees to join the UFCW family the union attacks and belittles them.

McNutt himself spells it out in a blog post on the UFCW 400 blog:

“For we are family,” he said. “One big family. Just like family, we’ve got to have each other’s backs. We’ve got to treat an attack on one like it’s an attack on all. And we’ve got to always put our family first.”

This “Family First” policy consists of pitting certain employees against other   employees. Walmart is expanding its’ company stores across new areas in Washington, D.C. and other major cities, and the UFCW is opposed to these new jobs at a time where unemployment is all the way up to 9.5% in D.C. Local UFCW chapters have launched campaigns aimed at stopping the consumer giant from establishing stores, with corresponding job opportunities, in new areas.

So what exactly is UFCW claiming Walmart will do?

One of the most prevalent claims against Walmart, the nations largest private employer, is that they achieve their low prices by paying their employees next to nothing. Leading the charge is the “Respect D.C.” project, co-sponsored by the UFCW. One tweet from the @RespectDC Twitter page even went as far as saying Walmart provided “slave wage jobs”:

Walmart jobs do not provide decent, livable wages or health care & are basically slave wage jobs that will hurt local small biz

UFCW does not explain why people line up for these jobs by the thousands.  Maybe is because UFCW claims are demonstrably false, in other words lies. The “Respect D.C.”website has a list of demands (PDF link) that “WalMart will pay every employee in its DC stores the DC Living Wage rate or higher,” which is currently $12.50 per hour.

If the D.C. living wage is currently $12.50 per hour, what exactly is Walmart paying their employees? Apparently just $0.01 less:

At its stores in Washington area suburbs, Wal-Mart pays an average of $12.49 an hour. Although Restivo would not say what wages would be at its District stores, he said the rates would be above that of most union jobs offered by competing grocers and that most jobs would be full-time positions.

Quite far from “slave wage jobs”, employees not in D.C. are actually paid far closer to the “DC Living wages” Respect D.C. is demanding.

Another well-worn knock on Walmart and other large retailers is that they hurt struggling small businesses. According to Andy Shallal, a hard-left anti-war restaurant owner, Walmart is “a big-box bully that depresses wages and crushes small competitors”, and that WalMart’s “track record of destroying local businesses speaks louder than any academic research”.

But what does that academic research actually say? A Competitive Enterprise Institute study (PDF link) found that:

DRCs (discount retail chains) benefitted the communities they entered by increasing wages and employment, and strengthening other businesses that did not compete directly with the new DRC… the presence of DRCs “may create alternative opportunities for businesses that are unable to compete with large discount retail chains,” and “new businesses emerge that provide either services or products that complement the DRC’s offerings.” … Rather than shutting down retail activity, the presence of DRCs actually stimulates dynamic local retail growth.

Clearly the economic case against Walmart is falling apart, so what’s left? Maybe a half-baked assertion that Walmart turns children into criminals? Funny enough, that’s exactly the claim Washington D.C.’s Ward 4 ANC Commissioner Brenda Speaks made in a recent rally against Walmart:

You’re putting kids in jeopardy of getting a record from shoplifting in this Walmart store. For the first time, some kids will have a record- they will start a record- because kids are kids and they will go in those stores and pick up things, and security is going to grab them, and that’s crime.

Mrs. Speaks seems to believe here that Walmart stores specifically will incite children (through no fault of their own) to begin lives of crime. Something about the goods and services Walmart would uniquely provide causes children to inevitably shoplift. (Perhaps the area Giant, Safeway and Shoppers Food Warehouse stores don’t have goods tempting enough to steal?) Sometimes the fiction people believe is truth is the strangest fiction of all.

So what does that leave us with?

The UFCW “Family First” model is fundamentally at odds with employees, consumers, and ultimately, the facts. If their goal is to increase benefits for all workers, they must change their model to account for political realities that may be undermining their arguments.

If the companies their members represent are threatened by competition by Walmart, they should find ways to follow the suggestions put forward by the CEI study, and find ways to provide complimentary services or products.

It is not Walmart that union members should be afraid of. Rather, it is the inability of their unions to adapt to change they should be worried about.

This has resulted in denial of $1.15 million in federal funds for the TAPS Bus System, causing them to shut down urban services effective last Friday.The Department of Labor had proposed a solution involving a Section 13(c) protective arrangement that would comply with federal and Texas law regarding labor negotiations between employees and a political subdivision, which TAPS agreed to but the UFCW opposed.

Complicating the matter is the fact that TAPS, as a political subdivision of the State of Texas, cannot be involved in collective bargaining under Texas State law.

Section 617.002 of the Texas Government Code states:

1. An official of the state or of a political subdivision of the state may not enter into a collective bargaining contract with a labor organization regarding wages, hours, or conditions of employment of public employees.
2. A contract entered into in violation of Subsection (a) is void.
3. An official of the state or of a political subdivision of the state may not recognize a labor organization as the bargaining agent for a group of political employees.

The UFCW maintains that there was a previous agreement between them and TAPS, however it has not been produced and the TAPS lawyers are questioning it’s existence, as well as pointing out it would be void under Texas law regardless.

Ultimately, UFCW’s efforts to pursue a labor agreement in violation of Texas law has resulted in discontinued service for many customers in Texas. According to the TAPS Chairwoman Cary Wacker:

…the actions of union officials in Tennessee are harming thousands of Texoma residents who depend on public transportation and that the employees of TAPS will be laid off.

And that’s exactly what’s happening. According to local news station KTEN, “An estimated 70 drives will be laid off. Nearly 800 TAPS passengers will no longer get rides.”

Worse still, TAPS’ discontinued service affects many children in after-school programs. According to an email sent out by Tammy McNew Blanton, chief executive officer of Girls Inc. of Sherman:

Each day during the school year 50-75 school children (K-6th grades) ride TAPS to Girls Inc. These children are supervised and entertained until their parents get off work. Girls Inc. is only one of 10-12 local children’s organizations that are serviced daily by TAPS.

…

Most of our families cannot afford after school care for their children and they will be forced to leave them alone.

The UFCW’s insistence on tying up public funding in the courts is costing employees their jobs, customers their transportation, and, perhaps gravest of all, depriving children of their after-school programs.

Americans for Limited Government has called for the elimination of the entire Section 13(c) program. We believe that it is a waste of approximately $4 Billion, and is the root cause of this issue. The reason UFCW has taken issue with TAPS is because of their complicated relationship with Texas state law and Federal labor law.

Eliminating the Section 13(c) program would give TAPS the opportunity to privatize, avoiding all of these issues and allowing the service to resume, and new negotiations with the UFCW to take place without the same complications and issues.

The director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy stated that the American people should be skeptical of anyone selling marijuana legalization as a cure-all. The director also claimed that the taxes collected from the legalization and sale of marijuana pale in comparison to the social and health care costs of widespread use.³

The DEA classifies marijuana as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act which means the drug has a high potential for abuse and no medical use. Marijuana impairs the ability to form memories, and recall events.⁴ It has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and respiratory tract as well as impair the immune system. One study found that the risk of heart attack increased four times within one hour of smoking marijuana

The Journal of the American Medical Association reported that marijuana users are four times more likely to use cocaine and crack cocaine and five times more likely to use hallucinogens than those who do not use marijuana. ⁵

Yet, Local 5 still supports the proposition. Dan Rush of its Local 5 also spoke out in favor of Proposition 19 claiming, ‘the marriage between the cannabis-hemp industry and the UFCW is a natural one.’⁶

Despite the health risks to the people of California, the UFCW is looking forward to a “marriage” with the cannabis industry. In the pursuit of more members, the UFCW seems eager to watch the Golden State go “up in smoke.”

² Carlos Lozano, “Union Endorses Initiative To legalize Marijuana In California,” Los Angeles Times, 7/14/10

³ Marijuana Legalization; A Non-Starter, ONDCP Director Gil Kerlikowske, 10/23/09

⁴ Marijuana Abuse, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH Publication Number 05-3859, July 2005

⁵ The DEA Position on Marijuana, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration Web site, http://www.justice.gov/dea/marijuana_position.html#19, Accessed 10/1/10

⁶ Carlos Lozano, “Union Endorses Initiative To legalize Marijuana In California,” Los Angeles Times, 7/14/10

From 2005, the time when 16,500 UFCW members’ wages were frozen, through 2009, Duran’s union compensation increased more than $80,000. Over the course of this time, Local 7 raised membership dues by nearly $200 a year.³

Over that same time, UFCW Local 7 spent $76,382 on tickets to Denver Bronco’s football games. This is the equivalent to using the yearly dues of 209 members solely for the purpose of purchasing tickets. ⁴

Duran had union members pay for his two week trip to Spain so he could learn Spanish.⁵ Duran also put his family members on the Union payroll, giving each of them compensation exceeding $130,000.⁶ The Durans used the union’s funds, taken from thousands of dues payers, to pay for lavish dinners where no business was discussed. ⁷

As a final thank you, when Duran retired at the end of 2009, the union gave him a car which cost nearly $50,000.⁸

While the thousands of UFCW Local 7’s rank and file members were forced into concessions and increased dues payments, the local’s leadership frivolously spent the members’ hard earned money. Duran bankrolled his personal life on the banks of the workers he claimed to represent.

In 2007, Providence Everett Medical Center had Washington States’ second busiest emergency department.² The hospital was said to be so overcrowded that ambulances were told they would be better off taking patients to different facilities.³ To resolve the problem, the medical center got approval from the state for 106 extra beds and additional facilities. ⁴

Despite the desperate need of the community for more hospital beds, UFCW Local 21 joined a coalition that petitioned the Washington State Department of Health to reconsider its decision to approve the expansion of the medical center. The union claimed the state Department of Health did not consider the financial impact on consumers. ⁵

UFCW’s decision to interfere with the need for more hospital beds was intended to support the Service Employees International Union, which had been working to organize Providence Health & Service workers in California and Oregon. The conflict spilled over into Washington State where the SEIU attempted to hold up a $466 million hospital expansion. ⁶

Both Providence officials and the local newspaper in Everett, WA believed union politics were a motive in challenging the project.⁷ The Snohomish County Herald believed the actions threatened to make health care worse in Snohomish County.⁸

Despite its claims to support health care for the middle class, the UFCW’s actions speak louder than words. When it came to choose between hospital beds for the sick or the opportunity to capture more dues paying union members, the UFCW told those needing health services to take a back seat.

The UFCW lauded the achievement “among the ranking highest in our national experience.”³ They may have been right with regard to the impact the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will have on the American experience. For example, it would add trillions of dollars in new government spending.⁴

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will also increase Medicare’s long term liabilities by nearly $50 trillion.⁵ The bill created more than $560 billion in new taxes and cut Medicare by more than $520 billion. ⁶

The UFCW claims to protect America’s middle-class by fighting for healthcare reform. ⁷ However, the same healthcare reform bill the union backed created a “destructive” tax on savings and investment income that would hurt middle-class American including rank and file UFCW members. The Tax is predicted to skew incentives to work, save and create jobs. ⁸

In response to the measure, the UFCW introduced its own series of referendums on the ballot that would increase taxes and impose new employer mandates.² The Denver Post criticized the union claiming they “went nuclear,” and put “poison pill” amendments on the ballot.³

During intense negotiations to resolve the matter, the President of UFCW Local 7, Ernest Duran, demanded millions of dollars from the business community to take their initiatives of the ballot. The money was to be used to fight against the Right to Work amendment.⁴ A Denver official described the agreement as extortion.⁵

With two weeks before the election, the business community raised $2.6 million and pledged to continue fundraising until they met their commitment.⁶ Ultimately, Colorado voters rejected Amendment 47.⁷

The UFCW has no problem placing its interests above the economic security of an entire state. Along with attempting to sabotage the economy of Colorado, the union extorted money from business in order to withhold economically poisonous ballot initiatives.