Service Employees Union Attacks Labor Gathering
For Immediate Release
April 12, 2008
Contact Chris Kutalik 313-378-2588 or Mischa Gaus 773-627-3205
SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION ATTACKS LABOR GATHERING
CONFERENCE-GOERS ASSAULTED
Dearborn, MI—The Service Employees International Union turned their
dispute with the California Nurses Association violent by attacking a
labor conference April 12, injuring several and sending an American Axle
striker to the hospital.
A recently retired member of United Auto Workers Local 235, Dianne Feeley,
suffered a head wound after being knocked to the ground by SEIU
International staff and local members. Other conference-goers—members of
the Teamsters, UAW, UNITE HERE, International Longshoremen’s Association,
and SEIU itself—were punched, kicked, shoved, and pushed to the floor.
Dearborn police responded and evicted the three bus loads of SEIU
International staff and members of local and regional health care unions.
No arrests were made.
The assault took place at the Labor Notes conference, a biennial gathering
of 1,100 union members and leaders who met to discuss strategies to
rebuild the labor movement.
David Cohen, an international representative of the United Electrical
Workers, asked protesters why they came. He said one responded, “they told
us just to get on the bus.”
The protesters included several members with young children, who had to be
ushered away when SEIU tried to force their way into the conference
banquet hall. Protesters were targeting Rose Ann DeMoro, executive
director of the AFL-CIO-affiliated CNA. DeMoro was scheduled to speak but
declined to appear after threats were made against her union’s leadership.
Despite being welcomed to the conference earlier in the day—and given
space to debate supporters of the CNA and the National Nurses Organizing
Committee about neutrality organizing agreements—SEIU international and
regional staff shouted down speakers at workshops and panels throughout
the event.
“Labor Notes has always been a space for open debate, but when a union
decides to engage in violence against their brothers and sisters, we draw
a line,” said Mark Brenner, director of Labor Notes. “Violence within the
labor movement is unacceptable and we call on the national leadership of
SEIU, including President Andy Stern, to repudiate it.”
Further info:
http://www.labornotes.org/
This is not all at
This is not all at surprising. Labor unions have supported, tacitly and explicitly, violence and illegal actions since their inception. It's the only thing they know. That Mark Brenner says only that violence *against their brothers and sisters* in the unions is unacceptable is quite telling. What about violence against non-union human beings who simply don't want to march gestapo-like to the tune of the self-serving union bigwigs? I guess that is OK. Nice to know independence and free will is something union apologists can't abide.
Cloudy Vision?
Capitalism depends on violence against workers. Brenner doesn't _only_ say anything. He's speaking specifically about the attack.
If you want to grind an off-topic ax, then you ought to at least going to the trouble of setting up a strawman.
union violence
The purpose of a union is to gain a monopoly on the supply of labor in any given industry in order to gain salaries that are above what they would be in a free market. In order to maintain this monoply the union must act to suppress anyone that goes against their goals and objectives. Union members who defy the will of the union leadership often find themselves the victims of intimidation, coercion, and sometimes even physical violence. Throughout history there have been cases of workers (both union workers and non-union "scabs") being harassed, beaten, and even murdered for crossing picket lines. You'll notice that Mark Brenner only said that violence whithin the labor movement is unacceptable. A better statement would have been to say that any initiation of force of any kind is unacceptable. But he can't say that because coercion and violence are essential in order for unions to maintain their power.
Full of BS?
"The purpose of a union is to gain a monopoly on the supply of labor in any given industry..."
That hasn't happened yet in any industry in the US, ever, and violence associated with union complicity in any venue is so rare that it's stories like about the Labor Notes conference incidents that make it remarkable, so you must be talking about something else. Or you just don't know WTF you're talking about, period.
Of course, violence is associated with attempts by unions to give workers a voice. Examples are frequently found were immigrants are exploited, for instance:
http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0414-02.htm
Then there are countries that pursue so-called "free trade" agreements, like Colombia, where violence against workers and unions is rampant:
Union Killings Peril Trade Pact With Colombia
By SIMON ROMERO
BOGOTÁ, Colombia — Lucy Gómez still shudders when speaking of the murder of her brother, Leonidas, a union leader and bank employee who was beaten and stabbed to death here last month. His murder was part of a recent increase in killings of union members in Colombia, with 17 already this year.
“I want those who did this to pay for their crime,” said Ms. Gómez, 37, a seamstress, clutching a faded photograph of her brother, an employee of Citigroup’s Colombian unit who was 42. “But I feel in danger myself,” she said. “This is not a country where one can express such a wish without fear of being eliminated like my brother.”
Ms. Gómez’s fear and similar dread felt by union members and their families have long been features of labor organization during this country’s four-decade civil war. More than 2,500 union members in Colombia have been killed since 1985, with fewer than 100 cases resulting in convictions, according to the National Labor School, a labor research group in Medellín.
Now those killings are emerging as a pressing issue in Washington as Democrats and Republicans battle over a trade deal with Colombia, the Bush administration’s top ally in Latin America.
Colombia’s government is already struggling to recover from the latest salvo in this fight, a vote by House Democrats on Thursday to snub President Bush and indefinitely delay voting on the deal.
Since President Álvaro Uribe’s conservative government took office in 2002, there has been a marked decline in union killings. That has accompanied a broader decline in overall murders and kidnappings as the civil war, between leftist rebels on one side and government forces and right-wing paramilitary groups on the other, has eased somewhat from its peak in the 1990s.
Still, 400 union members have been killed since 2002, and dozens of Mr. Uribe’s supporters in Congress and his former intelligence chief are under investigation for ties to paramilitary death squads, which are classified as terrorists by the United States and responsible for some of the union killings.
Unions were often pulled into Colombia’s war when faced with suspicions among paramilitaries that their ranks had been infiltrated with leftist guerrilla sympathizers. Or sometimes union members suffered simply because they opposed the paramilitaries’ brutal assertion of control over large parts of Colombia.
In recent weeks a new wave of threats has emerged, from groups identifying themselves as a new generation of private armies, against human rights and labor organizers. Many of those organizers have opposed the trade deal, raising the specter of still more anti-union violence to come.
This year, 17 union members have been killed, a rate that suggests a substantial increase in anti-union violence compared with 10 such killings in the same period the year before. Several killings occurred in the days surrounding unusual protest marches against paramilitary forces here last month.
Complicating matters further, leftist guerrillas, who have sought to topple the government in Colombia’s long war, have also made union officials targets for assassination. Union leaders who are in favor of the trade deal, largely from export-oriented industries, have suggested some of the recent killings may have been carried out by factions opposed to stronger trade ties with the United States.
Some supporters of the trade deal are quick to point out that union members are still statistically less likely to be killed than members of the general population. But that ignores geographic and socioeconomic factors — poor rural residents in the country’s war zones bear a disproportionate risk from violence — and it is clear that union officials continue to be specific targets for intimidation and violence.
The case of Leonidas Gómez, Ms. Gómez’s brother, is one of several examples of union officials killed in recent weeks who were involved in organizing rare protest marches last month against paramilitaries. Government investigators here said they were investigating all the recent killings but had not yet identified those responsible.
Carlos Burbano was a vice president in the hospital workers’ union of the municipality of San Vicente del Caguán in southern Colombia who disappeared March 9. His body was found four days later in a garbage dump in an area considered paramilitary territory. Mr. Burbano, who had received threats before from paramilitaries, had been stabbed multiple times and burned with acid.
Like Mr. Burbano, Mr. Gómez, a member of the Bank Workers’ Union here in Bogotá, was an outspoken critic of the paramilitaries. He had also traveled throughout Colombia to speak against the trade deal, which he expected to raise salaries of senior Citigroup executives while eroding the benefits of employees, said Luis Humberto Ortiz, a fellow union official and Citigroup employee.
Mr. Gómez, last seen at a meeting with leftist politicians on the night of March 4, was found dead in his apartment on March 8, with stab wounds and his hands tied behind his back. Missing from his apartment were his laptop computer, U.S.B memory sticks and cash from his pockets, said his sister, Ms. Gómez.
Mr. Gómez’s family and his colleagues from the Bank Workers’ Union said they were convinced that he had been killed because of his union activities. But Maria Isabel Nieto, a vice minister of justice, said in an interview that investigators could not rule out a “crime of passion.”
Such uncertainty surrounds many union killings here, and critics of the unions insist that some of the killings are simple criminal cases rather than political violence. Union leaders say that despite a recent increase in murder convictions in cases involving union deaths, there are still relatively few convictions and that prison terms have been too lenient.
“Colombia has a horrible record of bringing the vast majority of those responsible for these killings to justice,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas Director for Human Rights Watch.
Some of the killings linger over commercial ties with the United States, Colombia’s largest trading partner. Paramilitaries, for instance, killed three union leaders in 2001 who were employed by Drummond Company, an Alabama coal producer with operations in northern Colombia. A jury in Birmingham, Ala., cleared Drummond last year of claims that it was responsible for the killings.
No one denies that assassinations of union members have dropped significantly from the 1990s, the worst years of Colombia’s war, when more than 200 such killings a year were reported.
In 2007, union killings fell to 39 from 72 the previous year, according to the National Labor School in Medellín. They were expected to decline further this year until the recent spike in killings. (Figures from Colombia’s government are often lower because of methods that refrain from including killings when motives are unclear; so far this year the government has counted 15 union killings compared with 17 documented by labor groups.)
“We must remember that these killings are not a matter of state policy,” Vice President Francisco Santos said in an interview here in March. “On the contrary, we abhor these acts and are doing everything we can to bring the number down as low as possible,” he said, citing an unprecedented increase in prosecutions of union killings in the past year.
For 2008, the government budgeted $45.7 million for protecting people at risk of assassination, of which about a third goes to threatened union members. Under the program, more than 200 unionists have armored cars or bodyguards, and more than 170 union buildings and homes of union members have bulletproofing improvements.
Still, revelations of ties between the private militias and some of Mr. Uribe’s most influential political supporters haunt official efforts to lower union killings. For instance, Jorge Noguera, Mr. Uribe’s former intelligence chief, is under investigation for handing over lists to paramilitaries of union leaders and other left-wing figures who were singled out for assassination.
Widespread ambivalence, bordering at times on hostility, persists in Colombian society over the role of unions. Many Colombians still view unions as redoubts of privilege for union leaders at a time when the private sector is driving an economic boom, through exports of legal commodities like coal and illicit ones like cocaine.
“Why don’t the Democrats worry about Chinese products that take jobs away from Americans or about trade with countries with terrible human rights violations?” asked Rafael Jordán Rueda, 54, a management consultant here. “I’m completely convinced Colombia has become a victim of the struggle for power in the presidential elections in the United States.”
Faced with the delays in Washington, senior government officials here are somewhat more cautious in expressing their shock at the possibility that Colombia might be denied the trade pact. “If the United States takes the rug out from under us, we would look like imbeciles internally and in the region,” Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos said in an interview.
El Espectador, an influential weekly newspaper in Bogotá, said in an editorial on Sunday that such a move would be misguided. “Blocking a tool like the free trade agreement, which seeks to foment development, does not seem like the best mechanism for defending Colombian trade unionists,” the editorial said. Instead, the newspaper suggested redirecting American aid to strengthen the Colombian judicial system’s investigations of human rights violations.
Still, for union leaders like Rafael Boada who are living with threats, the focus on political violence is welcomed as part of the debate over the trade pact. Mr. Boada, a bank employee in Bucaramanga in northeastern Colombia, escaped March 7 after two men on a motorcycle shot at him, their bullets lodging in the windshield of his car.
“We are a stigmatized group,” said Mr. Boada, explaining his role in helping to organize last month’s march against paramilitaries. “I am certain this happened because of my union activities.”
Jenny Carolina Gonzalez contributed reporting.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Of course, the New York Times is just now catching onto this story as debate over the treaty with Colombia continues. I suppose your ignorance could be excused. Just in case you think this is something new, though, you might want to do some catching up:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0619-06.htm
When someone makes what essentially sounds like the same statement using different screen names, maybe you ought to explain yourself better, because your delusional charges about unions are unconvincing.
Unsupported charges and ridiculous hand-wringing about virtually nonexistant union violence stand s in stark contrast with the reality that it is union members who are most frequently subjected to violence -- by management and those that management hires to do their bidding. Colombia is just one example among many. However, such charges are frequently made by those who support so-called "right to work" laws.
Just a few examples...
On the orders of the United Mine Workers (UMW), 16,000 miners went on strike in 1993. One subcontractor, Eddie York (who was not a UMW member), decided it was important to support his wife and three children and crossed picket lines to get to his job. He was shot in the head as he left the job site to go home.
In 1996, when the United Auto Workers Local 149 called a strike against Abex Friction Products in Winchester, VA, several of the workers decided they needed their paychecks and crossed the picket lines to work. They were targeted for harassment and intimidation. In one instance, an employee who crossed the picket line found a severed cow's head placed on the hood of her car. Later, someone made up a photograph with her face superimposed over the dead cow's head and mailed it to her.
In 1997, Teamsters Local 769 in Miami ordered a strike against United Parcel Service. One driver, Rod Carter (a former star linebacker for the University of Miami), announced that he did not support the strike and intended to continue working to support his family. His wife received a threatening phone call, but Rod went to work anyway. While driving his route, he was stopped and stabbed with an ice pick.
In 2004 Jeff Ward, an employee at the Thomas Built Bus Company plant in High Point, NC, led a successful legal challenge to the unionization of the plant where he worked. Without a vote, the company had recognized the United Auto Workers as the exclusive representative of the workers, just on the basis of cards signed under what Ward called coercion from both the company and the union. After the company was compelled to cancel its recognition of the union, flyers went up in the plant, giving Ward's phone number and detailed directions to his home. At the bottom of the flyer was the message, "Jeff Ward lives here. Go tell him how you really feel about the union." No one claimed responsibility for the threatening flyers, but one union official said that Ward "put himself in the limelight."
Laborers Union Local 91 in Buffalo, NY often relied on Andrew Shomers to harm and intimidate workers -- union or not -- who weren't paying dues to the local. Shomers pleaded guilty in June 2005 to a series of crimes involving violence and sabotage. His offenses included vandalizing the offices of the local housing authority (because it didn't use Local 91 labor to install a small section of sidewalk outside its offices), participating in a group assault on workers from another union, stalking and attacking non-union workers on an asbestos-removal project (by throwing a homemade firebomb through a window), and destroying work that had been done by workers from another union and ruining their tools. Shomers was just one of fifteen former Local 91 leaders indicted by authorities in 2003.
George Galley is an electrician who has worked for Colt Industries in Hartford, CT since 1961. When the union that represented him (the United Auto Workers) called a strike in 1985, he stayed off the job for just over one month, and then decided he needed to support his family and returned to work -- as was his right. (Galley's decision was a good one, because the strike dragged on for four years.) After the strike, Colt asked all the workers to sign cards authorizing the automatic deduction of union dues from their paychecks. Galley declined to sign and asked for information about his legal options. Neither Colt nor the UAW complied with his request, but the company began taking out dues anyway. When Galley eventually got Colt to stop the deductions, the UAW had the company fire him.
Scott Barnes did not want to be represented by the California Nurses Association, which sought to impose itself on the nurses at the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in 2002. To express his opinion, he posted these words on a website: "If the CNA is voted in, membership will NOT be voluntary, and YOU WILL have to give them $80 per month whether you like it or not. If the CNA really cared about any of us, they would let their reputation speak for itself, but they have no reputation and they have to force you to join." Subsequently, Barnes began to receive anonymous threatening calls saying that he should stop "f***ing with the union" and that his pet dogs might come to harm if he didn't. Threatening calls were also made to Christine Foxon, another nurse with whom Barnes had co-founded an independent nurses' group. One caller said he knew she "had two young daughters" and she needed to "think about her family and her girls and back off." After one of these calls, Foxon dialed *69 and discovered that she had been called from an office of the CNA.
During protests by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1547 against a non-unionized workforce getting a contract, picketters threatened and assaulted workers, spat at them, sabotaged equipment, and shot guns near workers. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the union had engaged in "ongoing acts of intimidation, violence, destruction of property".
On the first day of The New York Daily News strike, trucks were attacked with stones and sticks. One union member was immediately arrested for transporting Molotov cocktails. Strikers followed replacement laborers and threatened them with baseball bats. Strikers then started threatening newsstands with arson, or stole all copies of the Daily News and burned them in front of the newsstands. Independent sources estimated over a thousand reports of threats. The newspaper recorded over two thousand legal violations. The Police Department, recorded more than 500 incidents. 50 strikers were arrested. Bombings of delivery trucks became common, with 11 strikers arrested on one day in October.
In 1983 Eddie York was murdered for crossing a United Mine Workers (UMW) picket line.
In order for unions to maximize their effectivness they cannot tolerate people that make choices that are not in line with what the union wants. Since 1975, the National Institute for Labor Relations Research has collected more than 9,000 reports of union violence. Thats roughly one act of violence every working day for the past 33 years.
Plagirization = Lies?
Personally, I think someone who would plagiarize his posts will also have a tendency to embellish the facts. You should at least give credit to the site you cribbed from:
http://www.unionfacts.com/articles/crimeViolence.cfm
One can always find exceptions to the rule. Considering the millions of workers faithfully and non-violently represented by their unions, it's not surprising that over a 15 year period, someone could pick out 8 examples of wrong-doing by unions and make a webpage out of that. How many times did the corporations break the law over the same? More than likely, far more than 8 times.
Like any other democratic social organization, unions can be manipulated by those working for their own interest and against the interests of the group. There's really no better example than the fraud perpetrated by Bush in his war against Iraq built on a foundation of lies. But I digress. The point is that unions can be corrected by the will of their members. When was the last time you heard of a boss running for election?
Looks Like Lazy Troll
Isn't that cute? Looks like the latest incarnation of lazy troll. First the short, poorly argued critique of thoughtfully argued posts, then the cut-and-pastes.
The issue is power
Unionfacts is in itself a collection of articles and reports from various newspapers, reports etc. Since it would have taken quite a bit of time to track down all the orginal source material I posted the basics thinking that if anyone was really that interested they can find the sources on their own time. You also failed to address the findings of the NILRR. You accuse me of picking a small number of isolated incidents when, in fact, union violence and/or coercion is a documented daily occurence in this country. Unprovoked aggression is always wrong regardless of who initiates it. Unions need as much unity among their membership as possible in order to maximize their effectivness. Any worker who crosses a picketline or chooses to bargain with their employer independently is a threat. Union leaders get upwards of six-figure salaries while they tell their members that it is the boss that is screwing them. Meanwhile anyone who dares to speak ill of the unions or exercise independent personal freedom finds themselves being intimidated or harmed. In a free market workers are free to compete with each other for jobs and employers are free to compete with each other for workers. It is this freedom that threatens the unions power.
