Union 'worker centers': Another ploy
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Saturday, July 27, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Desperate over their share of the private-sector workforce shrinking to 6.6 percent, labor unions increasingly are using an insidious organizing method that pushes the legal envelope under the guise of community organizing.
The Wall Street Journal reports Big Labor is funding nonprofit community “worker centers” — whose true purpose is building support for union organizing, thereby laying groundwork for workplace unionization elections. Not “labor organizations” under national labor law because they don't have ongoing bargaining relationships with employers, these centers have more latitude than unions in terms of picketing and other tactics.
End runs around labor law, worker centers are the subject of an ad campaign by the Center for Union Facts. Sometimes offering language classes for immigrants, these centers are essentially union subsidiaries.
They often are affiliated with — and paying membership fees to — the AFL-CIO. Worker centers' funders include the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, the United Steelworkers and the Service Employees International Union — which last year gave $2.5 million to a Brooklyn center formed by ex-leaders of defunct ACORN's New York chapter.
John Raudabaugh, a Republican former member of the National Labor Relations Board, expects an upswing in court challenges to worker centers' operations. Such litigation bears watching. As do worker centers themselves, nothing less than Big Labor's latest attempt to force new members into its ranks.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- The Malaysian jetliner probe: Passport insecurity
- More reefer sanity
- The Thursday wrap
- Sunday pops
- THE BOX
- Another EPA crock: Sulfur silliness
- ‘Un-American’? That’s Harry Reid, the Senate’s lowly smear artist
- The new SAT: Rigor gets a pass