Skip to comments.Unpatriotic Teamsters Hoarding Mounds of Cash
Posted on 09/08/2011 11:25:59 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Left’s working motto consistently turns out to be “do as I say, not as I do.” How else could they possibly make bold pronouncements to the media but live the exact opposite?
The day before his declaration of war on the Tea Party movement, Teamsters President James Hoffa appeared on CNN and deemed American companies as “unpatriotic,” according to the Political Ticker.
“I think the president should challenge the patriotism of these American corporations that are sitting on the sidelines,” Hoffa said. “The problem in America isn’t that we don’t have enough money. We’ve got more money than any other country in the world. The problem is American businesses not spending it and not getting it in the game.”
Is Hoffa willing to have his own patriotism challenged? Because some inconvenient truths emerge from the financial report his Teamsters union filed with the federal government.
According to an LM-2 report filed earlier this year, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which represents truck drivers and some school employees, ended 2010 with $108,608,477 in the bank. That’s a whopping 24.9% increase in net assets over 2009, when the union reported $86,942,076 in assets.
In contrast, the Teamsters reported $88,371,439 in liabilities. So if the union could afford to go without any new revenue and still meet its obligations for well over 12 months.
There is a trend in the union’s growing net assets. The Teamsters ended 2009 with $86,942,076 in the bank, according to that year’s LM-2 report. That’s an even more impressive 33.4% increase in net assets over 2008, when the union reported $65,148,734 in assets.
From 2008 to 2010, the Teamsters net assets grew an impressive 66.7% - a rate that would make any corporate board of directors smitten with its CEO.
So, James, where is your American spirit? You’re hoarding cash, just like you accuse the corporations of doing. Why doesn’t the union do its part and hire some unemployed Americans to do whatever the Teamsters actually do?
Or is that just the responsibility of the fat cat, jet-owning, unpatriotic CEOs?
And while we’re at it, let’s talk about your $368,000 annual compensation package. Where’s your solidarity with the unemployed workers of Detroit? Can’t you give up your “fair share” of your salary and perks so they can have a little? Or do you enjoy living like a corporate CEO?
The reason corporations – and apparently unions – are hoarding investment dollars is because President Obama and his administration have cultivated an unstable environment in which to do business. Companies don’t know what their tax, regulatory and health care liabilities are going to be under this anti-business administration, so they’re sitting on the sidelines. They’re being responsible to their investors and existing employees.
The best thing to do is to drop the strong-arm rhetoric and convince the president to create a stable environment to allow business to do what it does best – create job opportunities for Americans. But that would run contrary to the leftist, Hoffa-type gasbag narrative of evil, unpatriotic corporations, and we just can’t have that in an election season.
Nope. The best thing to do is to give the president and his thugocracy pink slips and escort them off the premises as quickly as possible.
LONGVIEW, Wash. (AP) Hundreds of Longshoremen stormed the Port of Longview early Thursday, overpowered and held security guards, damaged railroad cars, and dumped grain that is the center of a labor dispute, said Longview Police Chief Jim Duscha.
So who opposed them? Did these opposing get arrested? Follow the dots - this nation is gone because nobody has the will to stand up to the enemy of freedom.
I’m wondering if the union membership realizes how much cash is being spent on political campaigns that really don’t do anything for their paycheck?
An analysis of their paychecks might reveal that they are making less than non-union counterparts in the same industry, if you take into account the amount of the union dues removed.
Oh, and they give up their right to have their efforts evaluated individually, which may cost many of them even more.
You won't hear anything negative about big spending by "special interests" in regards to it, however... (and Big Media will be getting much of it for campaign ads).
U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee
June 25, 1997
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson
Four Million 'Harry Becks' Voted In 1996
In 1988, the Supreme Court determined that 79 percent of telephone lineman Harry Beck's compulsory union dues were spent on political and other activities unrelated to collective bargaining or union organizing. His union, the Communications Workers of America (CWA), was required to return that portion of Mr. Beck's dues. Despite the Beck decision, however, millions of union employees are still forced to pay dues as a condition of employment while their union bosses continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on politicians and political causes that their rank and file members do not support.
According to Department of Labor statistics, 80 percent (8.2 million employees) of all private sector workers covered by a union contract are required under that contract to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Like Harry Beck, nearly 4 million of these workers are forced to devote a portion of their paychecks to political activities they may not support:
F.C. "Duke" Zeller, who for 14 years served as director of communications at Teamsters headquarters in Washington, D.C., estimates that unions spent about $400 million in the 1992 election cycle. Moreover, in his book, Devil's Pact: Inside the World of the Teamsters Union, Mr. Zeller quotes former Teamsters vice president Gene Giacumbo who states that he was present at an executive board meeting in which union president Ron Carey boasted of spending $56 million in Teamster funds to help Bill Clinton get reelected. If Mr. Giacumbo's recollection is correct, that figure represents more than 20 times the $2.4 million in PAC contributions the Teamsters reported to the FEC for the 1992 election.
Rutgers Economist Also Puts Price Tag at $300 to $500 Million in 1992
In March of 1996, during testimony before the Committee on House Oversight, Rutgers University economist Leo Troy also estimated that unions spent between $300 million and $500 million during the 1992 election cycle. This amount includes both cash contributions from union PACs and "in-kind" or "soft" money contributions consisting of such activities as voter registration drives, telephone banks, transportation to polls, and campaign "volunteers."
In a letter to the committee chairman, Professor Troy stated, "According to figures reported by the FEC (reproduced in the Statistical Abstract of the U.S. of 1995), in 1991-2, union political action committees spent just under $95 million. I estimate that "in-kind" expenditures could reasonably be a multiple of 3 to 5 times that amount."
Nothing "Soft" About Big Labor Money
By their own admission, union leaders place a high premium on in-kind political expenditures, making it easy to understand why soft money greatly exceeds PAC money. The following are excerpts from union newsletters and press accounts of soft money in action:
Paul Patton for Governor Campaign (Kentucky 1995)
Ron Wyden for Senate (Oregon 1996)
The day before his declaration of war on the Tea Party movement, Teamsters President James Hoffa appeared on CNN and deemed American companies as "unpatriotic," ...According to an LM-2 report filed earlier this year, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which represents truck drivers and some school employees, ended 2010 with $108,608,477 in the bank. That's a whopping 24.9% increase in net assets over 2009, when the union reported $86,942,076 in assets.Saying the IBT represents anyone is like saying the gangsters who offer not to burn down a store if they're paid represent the storeowner.