It appears the SEIU is up to its old tricks. Impatient with the President’s inability to ram through the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), a.k.a. card check, the SEIU is once again taking to the streets. This time outside a prestigious retail and office building in Los Angeles and utilizing its infamous “corporate campaign” mode to protect membership dues amid declining membership in California and other areas, the SEIU protested against the firing of 16 janitors at the adjacent Century Plaza building, a building owned by J.P. Morgan Chase.
However, it is doubtful the demonstration was an altruistic act to protect employee jobs, but rather the act of a union desperate to preserve revenues through its normal thuggish tactics of public pressure, misrepresentation and dissemination of misinformation. The SEIU subscribes to Saul Alinsky’s belief that “ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” When you break down the facts, the SEIU is using this approach to intimidate JP Morgan into reversing the employee layoffs and preparing for an active year of recognition campaigns against businesses.
The SEIU would have you believe the janitors laid off are employees of JP Morgan (misrepresentation), a company that received $ 95 million in federal bailout money (misinformation). Additionally, they want you to think the company has taken these taxpayer dollars and used them for the benefit of their most wealthy executives while firing the least fortunate and that they deserve to be keelhauled in front of the public (ridicule). The truth is the janitors work for American Building Maintenance (ABM), not for JP Morgan Chase. JP Morgan received $25 million in bailout money which has reportedly been repaid to the U.S. government. Finally, according to the articles below, JP Morgan was never approached by the SEIU to sit down and discuss the matter privately and professionally. These are the patented storm trooper tactics the SEIU employed against EMS as described in my book The Devil at My Doorstep. www.thedevilatmydoorstep.com
We all have empathy for people losing jobs, especially in today’s economy. However, is it logical to believe jobs were the reason for the SEIU’s actions? If it was, they would have approached the situation from a logical business perspective. Did the SEIU ever consider the layoffs, as unfortunate as they are, saved the jobs of the remaining employees, or if they approached ABM with an opportunity to renegotiate the contract, jobs may have been saved? It is doubtful the SEIU’s business model ever allowed them to consider these possibilities, nor will they ever. Instead their belief in redistribution of wealth allows them to view this through a different prism, the prism of social justice. It believes that JP Morgan should use its money, which actually belongs to its customers and shareholders, to keep these people employed. The SEIU is merely using social justice as a cover for its own greed for power and money and to mask its inability to compete on a professional basis.
Also, the embattled SEIU recently reached a settlement with rival union Unite Here (SEIU Watch) so it can place more resources towards a battle with another rival union NUHW, where an election for Kaiser employees has been set for September. The incumbent SEIU stands to lose 43,000 members and roughly $42 million dollars in dues in this ugly representation fight! There is no doubt the SEIU is ramping up for a significant increase in corporate campaigns in case card check is not rammed through during the lame duck session of congress after the November elections!
Maybe they should spend more time getting their own house in order and convincing a President they helped elect (approximately $60 million dollars in campaign contributions) to pass initiatives that would encourage job growth instead of job stagnation! Seems to me if the SEIU spent less on politics they could afford to hire the people laid off at Century City. Do the math, but from an SEIU perspective it would most likely be viewed as the wrong redistribution of wealth since it is their money. Wait a minute isn’t it the union members’ money?