Walmart, the Unions, and the Chicago Way

WalMart's history with the city of Chicago is long and often contentious. So far, the city has two WalMart stores. That's only because WalMart has done an enormous amount of lobbying, and because the store chain didn't give up after being roundly rejected many times. WalMart often has problems finding their way into urban areas. That's because those areas are often run by Democrats. Those same Democrats are often tied to unions. Unions hate WalMart. First, WalMart refuses to unionize itself. Second, their superior price structure becomes an unacceptable alternative to unionized stores. For instance, here in Chicago, too many WalMarts would become a serious problem for the unionized grocery chains of Jewel and Dominick's. That's why the city of New York has zero Walmarts. The Democratic dominated city council has far too much power to approve one.

It's easy to demonize WalMart during good economic times. Here's how WalMart opponent, city council woman Helen Schiller characterized her opposition in 2004.

We are dealing with a huge company with a long history of predatory practices," Alderman Helen Shiller argued during the meeting Wednesday, also accusing Wal-Mart of not providing its employees adequate health care.

"They count on the city to provide assistance to their workers," she said. "We are creating more loss than gains."

Such demonization, no matter how non sensical, is much easier during good economic times. No one notices the economic loss that a lack of a WalMart superstore brings when jobs are plentiful. In 2004, they were. Of course, it isn't, in my opinion, mere coincidence that supporters of proposed WalMarts are almost always the alderman that serve that particular neighborhood. For instance, in 2004, the most vocal supporter of the WalMart project was alder woman Emma Mitts. That WalMart, now a reality, was to be put up in her ward. It's almost always those that represent districts not directly affected by the WalMart that oppose it. That way they can get in bed with their union supporters without necessarily hurting their own constituents that much.

So, now we have the exact same scenario. Another WalMart is being proposed and it's being proposed in the area represented by alderman Howard Brookins of the 21st Ward. Brookins is the biggest supporter of the proposed WalMart. The proposed WalMart will be placed where there is currently an empty lot. It will employ 500 people, not to mention all those that will be needed just to build it. The city of Chicago's unemployment rate is north of 10% currently. So, unlike 2004, it's much more difficult a job creating project like building a WalMart.

So, what's a politician, tied to the unions, to do? They simply ignore the media entirely. Currently, the rules committee, chaired by powerful alderman Richard Mell (and father in law of disgraced former Governor Rod Blagojevich), has buried the proposal. The editorial board of the Chicago Tribune attempted to contact Mell to find out why it's still stuck in the committee. Mell ignored their attempted contacts.

That's not surprising. Chicago politics works like a giant boy's club. If you're in the club, you get preferential treatment. Nosey reporters are NOT part of the club. Instead, adoring reporters that look the other way are part of the club. That's why John Kass is so reviled by most of Chicago political class. The unions and Chicago's politicians have a very cozy relationship. Alderman Mell is really no longer answerable to the voters. That's because winning elections is no longer in doubt. What are the chances that a legitimate candidate would ever be able to orchestrate a campaign against such a powerful alderman? Instead, Mell is answerable to his allies, allies like the unions. Alderman Brookins, and his constituents, are simply not as powerful and as allied to Mell as the unions are. That's why WalMart's proposal continues to be buried.

Obama's Transparency Two Step

Throughout the campaign, Barack Obama made a point of demanding transparency not only from the government but from business. The President made this one of his first commitments right after being sworn in.

In the Presidential Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government, and the Presidential Memorandum on the Freedom of Information Act, the President instructs all members of his administration to operate under principles of openness, transparency and of engaging citizens with their government. To implement these principles and make them concrete, the Memorandum on Transparency instructs three senior officials to produce an Open Government Directive within 120 days directing specific actions to implement the principles in the Memorandum. And the Memorandum on FOIA instructs the Attorney General to in that same time period issue new guidelines to the government implementing those same principles of openness and transparency in the FOIA context.

President Obama has continued to beat the drum of transparency...at least when its convenient.

No more fine print, no more confusing terms and conditions," he told reporters Thursday after meeting with executives from the industry, including representatives from Bank of America Corp. and American Express Co. "We want clarity and transparency from here on out."

Obama demanded that credit-card issuers "eliminate some of the abuse" in the industry, citing sudden rate increases on cards and changes in fees. He also called on credit-card companies to make available "a plain vanilla' account with simple and easy to understand terms."

It seems as though in the Obama administration transparency is only important if you're not a constituency he seeks. So, while he is busy demanding more transparency from the credit card companies, he is also busy making the unions less transparent.

The Obama administration, which has boasted about its efforts to make government more transparent, is rolling back rules requiring labor unions and their leaders to report information about their finances and compensation.

The Labor Department noted in a recent disclosure that "it would not be a good use of resources" to bring enforcement actions against union officials who do not comply with conflict of interest reporting rules passed in 2007. Instead, union officials will now be allowed to file older, less detailed conflict reports.

These reports are known as the LM-30 Rule. Worse than the hypocrisy of it all is that there is a clear conflict of interest between the administration and the unions. That conflict is a former AFL-CIO attorney named Deborah Greenfield. Greenfield was an attorney for the AFL-CIO. She worked hard to reverse LM-30 Rule during the Bush administration. She also became an Obama advisor during the campaign. She worked on his transition team on labor issues. She's now a high ranking deputy in the Labor Department.



This isn't the first time that a clear and corrupt conflict between the administration and the unions has occurred. The most obvious example is the so called deal that the Obama administration to give the UAW a major ownership stake in both GM and Chrysler. The administration also stopped the D.C. voucher program. The program was opposed rather strenuously by the teacher's union. Now, we have this move. It appears that the administration's links to the unions are the real unholy alliance.

The UAW, the Democrats, and the Bailout

There is an ugly alliance between the Democrats and the Unions. I believe it is at the heart of the Democrat's push for a bailout to Detroit's big three. A representative of the UAW just finished up an interview with Megyn Kendall on Fox News. The rep insisted that the automakers were vital to the American economy. He said that GM's structure meant that thousands of employees, suppliers, as well as the entire state of Michigan would be crushed if the automakers were allowed to fail.

There were some stunning numbers that ran across the screen as the interview went on. First, the average hourly rate paid by General Motors per car is $71 per hour. For Toyota, that number is $41 per hour. The health care costs associated with the manufacture of automobiles is ten times as much for GM as it is for Toyota. This has everything to do with the lucrative contracts the UAW (United Auto Workers) negotiated. Furthermore, Ford currently pays 12000 people no longer working $31 per hour.

Ken Pool is making good money. On weekdays, he shows up at 7 a.m. at Ford Motor Co.'s Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne, signs in, and then starts working -- on a crossword puzzle. Pool hates the monotony, but the pay is good: more than $31 an hour, plus benefits.

"We just go in and play crossword puzzles, watch videos that someone brings in or read the newspaper," he says. "Otherwise, I've just sat."

Pool is one of more than 12,000 American autoworkers who, instead of installing windshields or bending sheet metal, spend their days counting the hours in a jobs bank set up by Detroit automakers and Delphi Corp. as part of an extraordinary job security agreement with the United Auto Workers union.

The jobs bank programs were the price the industry paid in the 1980s to win UAW support for controversial efforts to boost productivity through increased automation and more flexible manufacturing.

Here is how the UAW President characterized the bailout.

NLPC says the UAW wants additional taxpayer money to enrich health and retirement plans it controls. Indeed, UAW President Ron Gettelfinger has urged Congress to act immediately to provide a separate, additional $25 billion in loans so auto companies can meet their health care obligations to more than 780,000 retirees and dependents.

The over funded health care and retirement plans are one of the main reasons the automakers are failing. It is of course impossible for the big three to compete with foreign autos, which aren't unionized, given the current structure of their contracts. The UAW wants this bailout but they won't give at all on the health care, wages, and retirement plans of their workers. As such, the bailout will continue to fund the health care and retirement plans of their workers even though both of these are contributing directly to the hemorrhaging of the liquidity of the company.

In other words, if the big three get this bailout, but the retirement and health care plans aren't re negotiated, then the three companies will still be on a path to failure. At the same time, the members of the UAW will continue to get paid. As such, what this bailout will do is go to fund the workers of the big three.

It goes without saying that there has long been an alliance between the unions and the Democrats. Furthermore, one of the few pieces of President Obama's infomercial that I saw had then Senator Obama telling a retired autoworker that he had earned that pension and thus implicitly that a President Obama would do everything in his power to make sure that each and every worker got their earned pension and health care benefits.

This bailout as it stands now would do just that for a few years more at least. In fact, the only thing this bailout would do is guarantee that the tens of thousand of auto workers and retirees will continue for an indefinite time to receive the benefits negotiated for them by the UAW. Unfortunately, that's all it does. With the Democrats lead by President Obama pushing this bailout, it appears to be nothing more than a blatant pay back to its biggest constituency. It's being done with $25 billion of our own tax payer's money.

Unionize Grady Hospital

Introduction: As a generally conservative thinker, I have no special love for unions. In fact, a good friend of mine grew up in the wealthy Detroit suburb of Gross Pointe. He is fond of telling me that nothing has ruined the auto industry like unions. That is debateable, however I am usually in favor of less union power over more. In fact, I explained the corrossive effect unions would have on Wal Mart in this piece. Of course, in the case of Grady Hospital, the unions have no power because there are none. In the case of Grady Hospital, unions would actually fit just like two puzzle pieces. In fact, they would fit so well that as you will see that is much of the reason that it will be so difficult to unionize the hospital. Grady is currently in terrible financial turmoil and is estimated to need half a billion dollars to survive. It has a long history of corruption epitomized by the case of State Senator Charles Walker. There is also a history of retaliation against whistle blowers. (including Joyce Harris, the whistle blower in the case of State Senator Charles Walker)

Unions have had a longstanding tradition of playing a vital role in representing the staff of hospitals all around the country. SEIU, the powerhouse union, is among the most active unions in hospitals. As they rightfully explain, a union would play a very positive role in a hospital just like Grady Hospital...

Around the country, growing numbers of hospital employees are forming unions.
Whether we are nurses or other professionals, technicians or business office clericals,
housekeeping or dietary workers, hospital employees today need a voice in the decisions that affect their jobs and their patients.

Forming a union guarantees we are heard because we speak with one unified voice. By working together as a group, rather than as isolated individuals, we can address key issues and concerns in our hospitals and health care facilities, including:

Staffing & workloads

Pay & benefits.

Job security.

A voice in hospital policies.

Rather than leaving all the decisions about our jobs, pay and benefits, and professional standards to hospital administrators, having a union allows hospital employees to negotiate over these issues. Because a negotiated union contract is a legally binding document, management can’t arbitrarily change policies or cut benefits without the approval of hospital employees.

Everything that SEIU says a union can do is vital at Grady Hospital. A union would be just the right organization to investigate and force change against the alleged corruption and horrible patient care at Grady Hospital that I have been documenting. A union would act as the perfect counter balance to the powerful, and possibly corrupt administration, in matters where staff dares to blow the whistle on the poor patient care that goes on there.

If hospital employees witness corruption or unacceptable patient care, they would have the union to protect them against the the likely retaliation they would face if they reported it. In the case of Grady Hospital, unions would play the extra role of being the watch dog against corruption and protectors of whistle blowing employees along with the other functions that unions hold. In other words, unions could be the ones leading the charge in rooting out the systemic corruption that infects Grady Hospital. Whatever power the administration and its allies hold at Grady Hospital, they would not be able to ram over a national union like SEIU.

Unions would bring with them one other vital thing, a great health insurance plan. Along with the problems of corruption that Grady Hospital has, it has one other problem: simple demographics. While Grady Hospital is now and always will be a hospital that primarily serves the indigent, the unions would bring with them thousands of patients with a great health insurance package: the union's. It can and must be part of the agreement that unionizing Grady must be done in conjunction with the union or unions being able to send their members to Grady Hospital.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, and these new patients would be provided with top notch care. Grady measures up with any hospital in terms of services and facilities. Once the unions step in and root out the corruption and demand that conditions improve it would become a model hospital that its members would visit without being encouraged. Frankly, being a client of the place you are employed in, as this relationship is like, is natural and expected. The unions, like SEIU and others, would not only not mind, but they would frankly do much more in order to get the opportunity to unionize the large staff at Grady Hospital. By unionizing, it would solve in one fell swoop the inherent budgetary problems that an indigent hospital like Grady has.

Therein lies the rub, as Shakespeare once said. It is not so simple to get this done. That's because the unions likely would do what they intend to do and that is root out the corruption that is going on there. That's why the powers that be claim that turning over the board to some obscure non profit tax code (501(3)C) is the way to save Grady Hospital rather than a sensible idea like unionizing it. The powers that be don't want the corruption rooted out because they are the ones corrupting it. The ongoing narrative is that this 501(3)C is the only hope. It isn't. In fact, it is no hope at all. Unionizing Grady Hospital is a sensible idea who's time has come. Anyone who really cares about the future of this hospital should demand that this sensible idea be implemented.

Epilogue:

While I would love to take credit for this idea, for full disclosure this fine and sensible idea came from a source of mine who does care about the direction of the hospital.