Are Unions Completely Overrun by Radicals?

The New American ^ | 09 June 2010 | Raven Clabough

[VitacoreVision]

The behavior of large unions like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), indicate the power of the radicals and Marxists in the unions.

Are Unions Completely Overrun by Radicals?


The New American
09 June 2010


On yesterday’s episode of the O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly asked, “Is corruption seeping into America’s big unions?” Fox News analyst Charles Krauthammer claimed, “The labor movement has always had its radicals and Marxists, but in America we’ve never had them take over the unions and become the dominating force.” However, in consideration of the behavior of large unions like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Krauthammer might have underestimated the power of the radicals and Marxists in the unions.

SEIU members disrupted a banquet hall dinner where leaders from the California Nurses Association (CAN) held a Labor Notes Conference addressing 800 various union members in August 2008. SEIU members had a bone to pick with CAN, accusing them of “busting an Ohio union drive,” according to the Union News. Unionized Baltimore dockworker Roland Day stated that the SEIU protestors “were banging on the doors like a marching band base drum. Real quick they rushed through the door.”

Of the event, the Union News explained, “Things quickly got out of control in the lobby, as fliers spilled to the floor and a cacophony of chants, noisemakers and screams ensued from the SEIU group’s push towards the banquet doors.” Retired union member Dianne Feeley was pushed to the floor by an SEIU member, hitting her head and requiring stitches.

In August 2009, at a forum on aging called by Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-St. Louis), a black conservative activist, Kenneth Gladney, was physically attacked by SEIU members after he handed out yellow flags that read “Don’t tread on me.” One of the union members, who was also black, called Gladney a racial slur. In this video, you will see that those involved in the violent outburst are wearing SEIU t-shirts.

On May 16, approximately 500 SEIU members were bussed to the home of Bank of America’s senior executive Greg Baer to indicate their opposition to banks. While this went on, Baer’s son was home by himself and frightened so severely that he took refuge in the bathroom of his home while his father attended his youngest son’s baseball game. The event was witnessed by Nina Easton, a journalist and one of Baer’s neighbors.

Ronald VanTilburg of Associated Content analyzed the “communist behavior” of the SEIU. VanTilburg described the SEIU’s protest outside of Baer’s home as “not surprising when one knows the background of the organizations Marxist philosophies as described by its recently retired President Andy Stern.” Behavior such as that of the protest outside of Baer’s home is similar to that described in The Black Book of Communism, where Pascal Fontaine describes Fidel Castro’s “Committees for Defense of the Revolution” (CDRs). The CDRs were expected to “marginalize and break the resistance of opponents … and their families,” says VanTilburg.

While the SEIU members protesting outside of Baer’s home were not violent, as opposed to the CDRs, they did in fact violate the property rights of a citizen, “another attribute of Marx’s Communist Manifesto”; their presence alone was intimidating, which seemed to be the goal.

VanTilburg also pointed to Andy Stern’s remark that alludes to Karl Marx: “Workers of the world united! It’s just not a slogan anymore. It’s a way we’re going to have to do our work.”

About the SEIU, Bill O’Reilly noted, “The SEIU has a tremendous amount of money that they get from dues and give to people like Barack Obama. They have a lot of power and they purport to be the spokesperson for the working American. We underestimate their power.”

According to the Chicago Daily Examiner, union workers in Illinois resorted to violent tactics to indicate their disapproval of Illinois-based LyondellBasell plant’s decision to hire out-of-state workers to “perform temporary ‘turnaround’ work at the facility.” The Chicago Daily Examiner noted, “According to eyewitnesses and other sources, the unions have been damaging company and personal property and even hurling stones at individuals working at the plant.”

In 2009, when two members of the Communications Workers of America union (CWA) blew the whistle on other union workers who were paid for work that they did not actually perform, they faced intimidation tactics from their “union brothers” that led to violence. One of the whistleblowers, DiStefano, found a dead rat in his locker, and was later called a rat while being hit in the face and head by another union member, resulting in two herniated discs. Instead of the CWA taking action against the attacker, DiStefano was terminated for “starting the fight.”

Glenn Beck has asserted that many of the anti-Arizona immigration law rallies were led by the SEIU, AFL-CIO, Workers World Party, Socialist Party USA, etc., the very same rallies where protestors were caught on video throwing bottles at the police. In Pheonix, Arizona, protestors spray-painted “Burn this Racist City” on sidewalks.

World Net Daily points out that John Sweeney, leader of the AFL-CIO, “repealed language in the federation’s bylaws barring members of the Communist Party from full participation.” WND adds that the leadership of the AFL-CIO has “either been completely compromised by the extreme left or they are hopelessly naïve or desperate for members no matter what rock they might crawl out from under.” Not surprisingly, the change in the AFL-CIO’s bylaws was not covered in the mainstream media.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), California Faculty Association, California Federation of Teachers, and California Teachers Association came out in support of SB 1322, a bill that would have allowed the promotion of communism in public schools. Capitol Resource Institute spokesperson Karen England explained, “SB1322 would delete the requirement that an individual or organization wanting to use the school property is not a Communist action organization or Communist front organization” and would also “strike the law that a public school or community college employee may be fired if he or she is a member of the Communist Party.” Above all, SB 1322 would allow teachers to provide instruction that indoctrinates in students a preference for communism. Luckily, this bill was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Now, Congress is currently considering a $165 billion bailout of union pensions. The unions have already pledged their full-fledged support of President Obama’s reelection campaign in 2012, as well as the upcoming 2010 elections. The incestuous relationship between politicians and the unions continues to deepen.

It is becoming indisputable that unions transformed from their original origins as a force against corruption in the workplace to a powerful, and often violent, ally of Washington. Unfortunately, the normally level-headed Krauthammer afforded unions the seemingly undeserved “benefit of the doubt.”


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/3143-are-unions-completely-overrun-by-radicals

[Rome2000]

The degenerate communist union bosses are pissed that their membership has been freed from compulsory witholding of union dues , thats what this is about and nonthing else.

That son of a bitch Warren in US Vs. Brown threw out the provision in Taft Hartley that required union leadership to sign affidavits that they were not communists.

As a result, union leadership is comprised of nothing but.

We are getting ready to hit the CPUSA and the American communist movement so hard that they wont have time to crawl back under the rocks they came out from.

No worker in the US should be held hostage to unions period, compulsory union dues are unconstitutional under the first and 14th amendments, and the unions need to be stripped of their ability to steal money from workers paychecks on a national level.

If the workers love unions so much they will be happy to voluntarily send them dues.

There’s nothing patently illegal about the next GOP POTU issuing an executive order immediately ending withholding of union dues nationwide, and ordering the National Labor Relations Board to get a Federal Court Order enforcing the Presidents decision

Its stupid to allow the Communists to use the same mechanism (witholding) the Federal apparatus uses to fund itself.

U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. BROWN, 381 U.S. 437 (1965) 381 U.S. 437

UNITED STATES v. BROWN. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 399. Argued March 29, 1965. Decided June 7, 1965.

Respondent was convicted under 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which makes it a crime for one who belongs to the Communist Party or who has been a member thereof during the preceding five years wilfully to serve as a member of the executive board of a labor organization. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding 504 violative of the First and Fifth Amendments. Held: Section 504 constitutes a bill of attainder and is therefore unconstitutional. Pp. 441-462.

(a) The Bill of Attainder Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 3, was intended to implement the separation of powers among the three branches of the Government by guarding against the legislative exercise of judicial power. Pp. 441-446.

(b) The Bill of Attainder Clause is to be liberally construed in the light of its purpose to prevent legislative punishment of designated persons or groups. Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333; United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 . Pp. 447-449.

(c) In designating Communist Party members as those persons who cannot hold union office, Congress has exceeded its Commerce Clause power to enact generally applicable legislation disqualifying from positions affecting interstate commerce persons who may use such positions to cause political strikes. Pp. 449-452.

(d) Section 504 is distinguishable from such conflict-of-interest statutes as 32 of the Banking Act, where Congress was legislating with respect to general characteristics rather than with respect to the members of a specific group. Pp. 453-455.

(e) The designation of Communist Party membership cannot be justified as an alternative, “shorthand” expression for the characteristics which render men likely to incite political strikes. Pp. 455-456.

(f) A statute which inflicts its deprivation upon named or described persons or groups constitutes a bill of attainder whether its aim is retributive, punishing past acts, or preventive, discouraging future conduct. In American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 , where the Court upheld 9 (h) of the National [381 U.S. 437, 438] Labor Relations Act, the predecessor of 504, the Court erroneously assumed that only a law visiting retribution for past acts could constitute a bill of attainder, and misread the statute involved in United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 ,which it sought to distinguish from 9 (h), as being in that category. Pp. 456-460.

(g) The legislative specification of those to whom the enacted sanction is to apply invalidates a provision as a bill of attainder whether the individuals are designated by name as in Lovett or by description as here. Pp. 461-462.

334 F.2d 488, affirmed.

Solicitor General Cox argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Yeagley, Nathan Lewin, Kevin T. Maroney and George B. Searls.

Richard Gladstein argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Norman Leonard.

Briefs of amici curiae, urging affirmance, were filed by Melvin L. Wulf for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California et al., and by Victor Rabinowitz and Leonard B. Boudin for the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case we review for the first time a conviction under 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which makes it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to serve as an officer or (except in clerical or custodial positions) as an employee of a labor union. 1 Section 504, the purpose of which is to protect [381 U.S. 437, 439] the national economy by minimizing the danger of political strikes, 2 was enacted to replace 9 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, which conditioned a union’s access to the National Labor Relations Board upon the filing of affidavits by all of the union’s officers attesting that they were not members of or affiliated with the Communist Party. 3 [381 U.S. 437, 440]

Respondent has been a working longshoreman on the San Francisco docks, and an open and avowed Communist, for more than a quarter of a century. He was elected to the Executive Board of Local 10 of the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union for consecutive one-year terms in 1959, 1960, and 1961. On May 24, 1961, respondent was charged in a one-count indictment returned in the Northern District of California with “knowingly and wilfully serv[ing] as a member of an executive board of a labor organization . . . while a member of the Communist Party, in wilful violation of Title 29, United States Code, Section 504.” It was neither charged nor proven that respondent at any time advocated or suggested illegal activity by the union, or proposed a political strike. 4 The jury found respondent guilty, and he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed and remanded with instructions to set aside the conviction and dismiss the indictment, holding that 504 violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. 334 F.2d 488. We granted certiorari, 379 U.S. 899 .

Respondent urges - in addition to the grounds relied on by the court below - that the statute under which he was convicted is a bill of attainder, and therefore violates Art. I, 9, of the Constitution. 5 We agree that 504 is void as a bill of attainder and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals on that basis. We therefore find it unnecessary to consider the First and Fifth Amendment arguments. [381 U.S. 437, 441]

[Rome2000]

Mr. Arens. Now, the affidavit says, does it not, sir, the affidavit that you signed, “I am not a member of the Communist Party or affiliated with such party,” is that correct, is that the affidavit you signed?

Mr. Nelson. That is what it says.

Mr. Arens. As of the time you signed the last Taft-Hartley affidavit in 1958, were you a person who had ever been a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. Nelson. You have my answer.

Mr. Scherer. All right. We haven’t the answer. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to direct the witness to answer that question.

Mr. Willis. You are directed to answer the question. You are not answering it.

Mr. Nelson. Mr. Chairman, I endeavored to answer the question honestly and fully that I have signed affidavits

Mr. Willis. We are not talking about affidavits at all. This is something brand new.

Mr. Nelson. - under the Taft-Hartley since 1949 which says that I am not a member of the Communist Party. And I will not go beyond the period which is covered by the affidavit. I will not go beyond that period because I do not believe it to be relevant or pertinent to the stated purpose of this particular committee.

Mr. Willis. All right. In other words, you signed or have signed non-Communist affidavits once a year, is that correct?

Mr. Nelson. At least once a year.

Mr. Willis. At least once a year. And that affidavit provides that on the day, on the respective days that you have signed those affidavits you swore that on those days, let us say maybe twelve times, that the only thing you have sworn to in those affidavits if you signed twelve of them, that on those twelve days that you signed them that you were not then a member of the Communist Party. That is all those affidavits provide for, isn’t that correct?

Mr. Nelson. Well, I am not so naive as to believe that the late Senator Taft and his associates who drew up the Taft-Hartley law were so foolish as to put in the Taft-Hartley law an amendment that covered the moment that I placed my pen on the paper. The affidavit means exactly what it says, that for the past 10 years and any given moment of those 10 years that you can name or anybody else can name, I was not a Communist, or a member of the Communist Party.

Mr., Willis. Now, let me ask you, forgetting the affidavits, have you been a member of the Communist Party at any time for 1 minute, or 3 hours, or 3 months during that period of time?

Mr. Nelson. I have not.

Mr. Willis. All right. Now, have you ever been a member of the Communist Party at any time in your lifetime?

Mr. Nelson. Prior to 1949, which was the first affidavit I signed, I decline to answer on the basis that it is remote and irrelevant and is n

[FrankR]

Unions make the KKK look like a boys choir.

[freekitty]

Communists is more like it.

[Peet]

Headline: Are Unions Completely Overrun by Radicals?

---

In the cases I’ve seen (1) union president is an out-of-the-closed communist — and dam proud of it

union officers were people with no life of their own who got their jollies exercising power over others.

[MrB]

Yep, my comment as well -

“radicals” is the wrong word. COMMUNISTS is the correct word.

[upcountryhorseman]

Haven’t you ever gone to a union meeting? Everyone speaks the communist party line!

[dragnet2]

Almost all labor unions were started and run by communists.

Unions are nothing but flat out socialism.

Many don't know.

There are now more unionized government employees in the U.S. than in the private sector.

What is more insidious here, is your paying the government union bosses wages and paying 100 percent of all unionized government employee wages.