AFL-CIO Announces it Will Not Debate-or Even Appear on the Same TV Show-as National Right to Work

releases.usnewswire.com ^

[chance33_98]

AFL-CIO Announces it Will Not Debate -- or Even Appear on the Same Television Show -- as National Right to Work

8/29/03 10:34:00 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk

Contact: Dan Cronin of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, 703-770-3317

SPRINGFIELD, Va., Aug. 29 /U.S. Newswire/ -- In a stunning move, the AFL-CIO has flatly rejected CNN's request that they appear for a Labor Day weekend television discussion about the union movement with a spokesman from the National Right to Work Foundation, an organization that is providing free legal assistance to thousands of victims of union coercion and abuse.

Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason was booked to appear on the national cable network to debate representatives from the AFL-CIO on the relevance of today's union movement and issues such as whether union officials truly represent the interests of rank-and-file workers. Rather than debate, union operatives ultimately pressured the network to cancel the National Right to Work Foundation in favor of an opponent from the business community which would allow the AFL-CIO to frame the issue as "business vs. workers."

An AFL-CIO operative stated that they, "...absolutely will not even appear on any single solitary program even like (sic) within the same hour as somebody from the National Right to Work."

"This begs the question, what is the AFL-CIO afraid of?" asked Gleason. "The fact that they refuse to appear is the real story."

Attorneys from the National Right to Work Foundation are representing victims of abuse from AFL-CIO affiliated unions in more than 200 legal-aid cases nationwide. Foundation spokesmen welcome the opportunity to discuss -- or debate -- any issues related to the following topics:

-- How Big Labor's political agenda is out of step with many rank-and-file workers;

-- Big Labor's new push to advance forced unionism using top down organizing tactics -- rather than traditional grassroots organizing efforts.

-- Examples of abuse resulting from forced union membership, union violence, violations of religious freedom, and other violations of employee individual rights.

-- The growing support for job-producing Right to Work laws which make union membership strictly voluntary.

To schedule an interview call Daniel Cronin at 703-770-3317.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, is assisting thousands of employees in nearly 300 cases nationwide. Its web address is http://www.nrtw.org.

[bert]

The day of the labor union is over and so far gone that the leadership can't muster the resolve to go on TV and lie in the face of their rightous opposition.

Leftists are basically lazy.

[stevem]

"This begs the question, what is the AFL-CIO afraid of?" asked Gleason. "The fact that they refuse to appear is the real story."

The fact that CNN caved is the real story.

[donozark]

I would urge ALL reading this to contact their elected Representatives and DEMAND they vote for H.R. 1870-The Freedom from Union Violence Act. This legislation, introduced by Republican Wilson (SC) would close the loophole in Federal Law which ..."exempts union-boss-orchestrated extortionate violence from prosecution when it is committed pusuant to so-called 'legitimate union objectives.'" Source:NRTW Newsletter-May 2003.

Also, I would urge you to DEMAND your Congresscritter support The National Right to Work Act (H.R. 391). NRTWC has 103 sponsors but needs more!

[ex-snook]

"National Right to Work Foundation, an organization that is providing free legal assistance to thousands of victims of union coercion and abuse. "

Right to Work should mean Americans not Chinese.

[Myrddin]

During my employment at PacBell we had numerous incidents of union initiated vandalism during strike periods. Neither the police nor the unions would take any action against the individuals who cause the damage. Some of the vandalism was directed at company property. Other incidents were directed at the private property of company employees who were required to work during the strike.

[em2vn]

"This legislation, introduced by Republican Wilson (SC) would close the loophole in Federal Law which ..."exempts union-boss-orchestrated extortionate violence from prosecution when it is committed pusuant to so-called 'legitimate union objectives.'" Source:NRTW Newsletter-May 2003."
I think you would do well to examine this. There is no exemption for violent actions when committed pursuant to legitimate union activity. That statement is nothing more than right to work for less propaganda.

[eleni121]

I don't think most Americans realize how extreme left wing the unions have gotten.

Class envy, income redistribution, supportive of any and all of the left wing cultural (gay "rights", abortions ad nauseum) agenda...unions have not only become irrelevant but because they have they are dangerous. Unions subvert and undermine America and are therefore subversive organizations

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Its interesting to note that states where the right to work exists...

[MonroeDNA]

Yeah. They are the states everone is moving to.

[cars for sale]

name the hour day and year the AFL-CIO was
not mafia....Thanks in advance

[donozark]

Why then are the unions fighting passage of this Act (H.R.1870)?

Have you reviewed the legislation?

Here is another brief summary from NRTW Newsletter-July 2003:

"In the 1973 U.S. v. Enmons case, the Supreme Court exempted unions from the 1946 Hobbs Anti-Extortion Act, which forbids the obstruction of interstate commerce through violence or blackmail."

"...Thanks to the Enmons loophole, however, organized labor can escape federal Hobbs Act prosecution, provided its mayhem furthers 'legitimate union objectives,' such as higher wages."

If this is mere propaganda from NRTWC, as you claim, then why did Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) write legislation to "...end the Enmons exemption?"

[donozark]

Anyone who feels the "Enmons exemption" from union violence is NRTWC propaganda, or a figment of my imagination, simply got to GOOGLE-enter 'Enmons Exemption,' and prepare for hours of reading...read what Harvard Law School Dean, Roscoe Pound had to say about this Exemption in 1958. Many others attest to the FACT it exists.

[em2vn]

"The District Court granted the appellees' motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to state an offense under the Hobbs Act. 335 F. Supp. 641. The court noted that the appellees were union members on strike against their employer, Gulf States, and that both the strike and its objective of higher wages were legal. The court expressed the view that if "the wages sought by violent acts are wages to be paid for unneeded or unwanted services, or for no services at all," then that violence would constitute extortion within the meaning of the Hobbs Act. Id., at 645. But in this case, by contrast, the court noted that the indictment alleged the use of force to obtain legitimate union objectives: "The union had a right to disrupt the business of the employer by lawfully striking for higher wages. Acts of violence occurring during a lawful strike and resulting in damage to persons or property are undoubtedly punishable under State law. To punish persons for such acts of violence was not the purpose of the Hobbs Act." Id., at 646. The court found "no case where a court has gone so far as to hold the type of activity involved here to be a violation of the Hobbs Act." Id., at 645. [410 U.S. 396, 399]"

It is clear that the court ruled that the Hobbs Act didn't address the charges made in the case. Rather, it relied upon state law to prosecute those engaging in such acts. The court's ruling simply doesn't provide anyone with protection from prosecution for the commission of criminal acts not address by the Hobbs Act.
Representative Wilson may have introduced such legislation because he wished to carry on a long tradition of Republican Party allegience to Corporate American instead of blue collar America. He may have also performed the act to garner a campaign contribution or to further federalize state law. In the latter case this is something that I very much oppose as a conservative.

[donozark]

Next to the last sentence in Post 13 should read "...Roscoe Pound had to say about this exemption in 1958." Small 'e' in exemption. Perhaps a better word would have been immunity, as it was called prior to Enmons Exemption in '73.

[donozark]

US v. Enmons ended in 5-4 decision by SCOTUS. The dissenting opinion was written by CHIEF Justice Burger.

H.R. 1870, sponsored by Rep. Joe Wilson of SC and co-sponsored by others, including Ron Paul of TX., attempts to clarify/correct the oversight by the majority in this case. Previous attempts by Strom Thurmond,Orin Hatch, etal have not gotten the job done. But I hardly think Wilson sponsored said legislation for campaign contributions. He is a steadfast conservative, strong supporter of RKBA,etc. And being a Republican in SC, me thinks his position quite secure.

_________________________

From the National Center for Policy Analysis-Wall Street Journal ed. 'Protected Thuggery' Sept.9,1997:

"The Supreme Court has held that the 1946 Hobbs Act, designed to stop violence related to labor disputes, didn't apply to efforts aimed at acheiving 'legitimate union objectives.' Thus the FBI cannot investigate, nor the U.S. Department of Justice prosecute, such-while local prosecutors lack jurisdiction in labor-related disputes covered by federal law.

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese testified at recent hearings that due to the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Enmons, unions enjoy an exemption that 'permits union officials-alone among corporate or associational officers in the U.S.-to use violence and threats of violence to life and property to acheive their goals."

[donozark]

Another study, available from The CATO INSTITUTE-a Libertarian think tank cites the FREEDOM FROM UNION VIOLENCE study by David Kendrick. Here is page one of 40 page report (available in it's entirety off CATO.org)-

"Under the Supreme Court's 1973 Enmons decision, vandalism, assault, even murder by union officials are exempt from federal anti-extortion law. As long as the violence is aimed at obtaining property for which the union can assert a 'lawful claim'-for example, wage or benefit increases-the violence is deemed to be in furtherance of 'legitimate' union objectives. By the Court's peculiar logic, such violence does not count as extortion.

The result has been an epidemic of union-related violence. The National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) has recorded 8,799 incidents of violence from news reports since 1975. Those reports show only 258 convictions, suggesting a conviction rate of less than 3 percent. Moreover, local law enforcement authorities often get many more reports of strike violence than journalists can possibly cover.

Many states have taken a cue from the high court by enacting their own extortion laws with exemptions similar to those established by Enmons. As a result, employees trying to support their families during a violent strike are now denied protection against extortion under both state and federal laws.

Because the federal government for six decades has immersed itself in labor law under the rubric of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). federal action is necessary to see that violence does not accompany the exercise of powers created by that statute. One avenue for relife is the Freedom from Union Violence Act (FUVA), which targets all extortionate activity, even if committed by union militants in pursuit of 'legitimate' objectives."

_______________

David Kendrick is program director at the National Institute for Labor Relations Research.

Anyone wishing to read the entire 40 page study, simply go to CATO.org. At search function enter 'Freedom from Union Violence Act.'

[donozark]

Here is a brief summary of H.R.1870,

" The Freedom from Union Violence Act of 2003-Amends the Hobbs Act to authorize imposition of a fine of up to $100,000, 20 years imprisonment, or both for 1)obstructing, delaying, or affecting commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce by robbery or extortion (or attempting or conspiring to do so); and 2)threatening physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to interfere with commerce by threats or violence.

Makes provisions regarding any such interference inapplicable to conduct that: 1)is incidental to otherwise peaceful picketing during the course of a labor dispute; 2) consists solely of minor bodily injury, or minor damage to property, or threat or fear of such minor injury or damage; and 3) is not part of a pattern of violent conduct or of coordinated violent activity. Subjects such conduct to prosecution only by the appropriate State and local authorities."

This legislation introduced by Rep. Joe Wilson of SC 4-29-2003. Co-sponsored by others, including the most famous Libertarian in America, Ron Paul(R-TX).

I hope this addresses your concerns re:federalizing state law.

[em2vn]

"The National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) has recorded 8,799 incidents of violence from news reports since 1975."
I think that more reliable sources such as law enforcement agencies would be more accurate in determining the number of violet incidents than those sources chosen by the anti-union NILRR. To further examine this issue, would you accept news reports as the basis for any report? I think the answer is no. From the figures you present it appears there are about 500 acts of union violence a year. Do you actually believe that this is the case.
Nothing that you have as yet posted dispells my concern about the further federalization of state laws. I would think that a conservative approach would be to resist the legislation and allow state law to handle such violent acts as they occur. Otherwise the grip of the federal government will continue to tighten on the rights of states.

[donozark]

That's the same thing they said about the formation of the Interstate Compact. Bank robbers could hide out in the "canebreaks," where Missouri meets Arkansas and Oklahoma and Kansas and jump from one state to another to avoid prosecution.

From the July 2003 issue of NRTW Newsletter, page 3-

"The Institute (NILRR) has found that victims of union henchmen rarely get satisfaction in local, state or federal criminal courts.

According to media accounts the Institute has analysed, 2,193 incidents of union violence occurred nationally between 1991 and 2001. Only 62 individuals were arrested and 10 people punished ..."

The media is mostly liberal. Therefore, "union friendly." Many PD's are now unionized, or trying to organize. Look how Philadelphia PD treated our own "Freeper" Don Adams...

But yes, I would like to see a study done of ACTUAL police reports, witness statements,etc.

I think H.R 1870 addresses your concerns re:Federalization of state law. Please read entire bill-available off C-SPAN or elsewhere.