The New York District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of America has had a sordid history. In 1990, federal officials attempted to remove mob influence within the union. In 1994, their efforts resulted in a consent decree that was followed by a court appointed corruption monitor. The New York Times has now reported that “federal authorities…announced new corruption charges on Wednesday against the union’s leader and nine other union officials and contractors. The charges include racketeering, bribery, fraud and perjury.”

A twenty-nine count indictment was issued, following a lengthy investigation by the FBI, the Department of Labor, and Manhattan prosecutors. It alleges that union officials accepted $1 million in bribes to permit contractors to pay below union scale benefits and hire non-union and illegal alien workers, and to forego payments to union benefit funds.

We were further reminded of union corruption this week when we learned of the death of Budd Schulberg, who wrote one of the greatest screenplays ever filmed about union corruption, On The Waterfront, starring Marlon Brando and Karl Malden, who also recently died.

With a pro-union administration in Washington and with the likely passage of the Employee Free Choice Act on the horizon, unions will again be in a position where they can take advantage of workers and corporations. It will be a lose-lose situation for everyone, except - of course - for the unions and their political enablers.

If a company and union cannot come to an agreement, then a government appointed arbitrator will step in and make a decision for a first contract. In effect, someone who has little or no knowledge or experience about how a particular company is run will make a decision that will have far reaching financial consequences. This may have been exactly what organized labor wanted all along; in other words, card checks was a red herring, for binding arbitration will deliver precisely the results that unions want to obtain.

Binding arbitration may be used by a company and a union to settle a specific individual dispute, but when it is used to determine an entire contract, the effects can be devastating. Salaries, wage and hour issues, medical insurance, length of paid vacations, seniority, could all be decided by a single arbitrator!

If Corporate America hopes to defeat the provision for binding arbitration in the Employee Free Choice Act, it must continue lobbying congress. If the unions succeed in making binding arbitration the focal point of the ACT, they will have set many companies on a fast-paced trip down a road to ruination.

And Democrats in Congress, indebted to unions, continue to support the EFCA; it is the only way that union organizers can win new members, for the Act gives a decided advantage to unions over management. (Please read last week’s blog which enumerates all of the anti-management rules that would will take effect once the EFCA becomes law).

Once it does become law, the EFCA would, in effect, drive millions of American workers into the confining box of union membership where their dues would be used to support political agendas that they may be against.

The CUF poll proves that there is no national movement amongst workers to join unions. In fact, when asked about joining unions, workers find the prospect of no interest to them. Therefore, one can see that rather than being a populist movement, increased unionization is a cause embraced and promoted by Washington elites and union officials who will financially benefit from increased union dues, pots of gold that will cause union hearts to flutter.

Those who have negotiated with unions know they will often resort to bargaining tactics that, if used by management, would cause the unions to cry foul. They would go to union-friendly reporters, playing the lachrymose role of outraged victims, and plead for fairness.

Now, however, The New York Times, has reported that California Unions for Reliable Energy(CURE) have attempted to influence the awarding of contracts by playing both sides of an environmental issue.

When a large California solar power company, Ausra, sought approval to build a new power plant, CURE (an ironic acronym if there ever was one) demanded that a study be conducted to determine the effects of the power plant on the lives of the short-nosed kangaroo rat and the ferruginous hawk.

One might have admired CURE’s concern for those poor creatures; however, when Bright Source Energy, one of Ausra’s competitors, also filed plans for a solar facility that would be larger than Ausra’s, the union did not voice any concerns for the endangered desert tortoise, an animal that lives where the new plant would be built.

One may guess the reasons for such contradictory manifestations of concern. Asura, the Times reported, had rejected demands that it employ union workers to build its solar facility.  Bright Source, by contrast, agreed to hire “labor-friendly contractors.”

The Times went on to report that “…some developers contend they are being pressured to sign agreements pledging to use union labor. If they refuse, they say, they can count on the union group to demand costly  environmental studies and develop and deliver hostile testimony at public hearings.

            “If they commit at the outset to use union labor, they say, the environmental objections never materialize.”

With a pro-union congress and administration in Washington, one can expect more such condoned behavior.