More Michigan Fraud: Unions Taking Names And …

The Michigan Civil Rights Commission, which has ardently opposed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative but is powerless to stop it, held hearings a few days ago on the “fraud” charges of BAMN and its Democratic friends. MCRI’s “fraud,” allegedly, consisted of its canvassers saying that banning racial preferences was actually a protection of civil rights. Imagine that!

In any event, the hearings may well have revealed some actual fraud. As reported, and filmed, by Chetly Zarko, John Riehl, president of AFSCME Local 207, and Michael Mulholland, secretary-treasurer, announced that they had cross-references their membership lists with the list of those who signed the MCRI petition.

We started last week when we learned by a database analysis between our membership list and the BAMN research on those who signed MCRI fraudulent petitions that approximately our estimate was about 125 members matched the MCRI petitions. We’re very angry about this. We’re very angry about this. We’re very angry about fraud. We started to do something about it. We started investigating, we started talking to our members. I went around and started to talk to some our members. … Collected over the last week 27 affidavits.

One of these 27 stated:

I support affirmative action. … The only way I would have signed such a petition is if the circulated misresented.

Of course MCRI, as mentioned here many times, would affect only “affirmative action” programs that employ racial preferences, but I think the news here is that despite this pressure from union leaders, only 20% of the union members were willing to change their stories.

Say What? (34)

  1. actus January 16, 2006 at 10:44 am | | Reply

    “but I think the news here is that despite this pressure from union leaders, only 20% of the union members were willing to change their stories.”

    Clearly.

    By the way, something i just recently learned. Unions were big in trying to get MLK day turned into a holiday. Another pro for the labor movement. Another anti for the people who resisted unions and MLK day.

  2. Independent Conservative January 16, 2006 at 1:34 pm | | Reply

    Union bosses in Michigan question Michigan Civil Rights Initiative supporters

    It would seem that this would be a violation of Union Members’ privacy, but even if it is not it shows that Unions can carry a great deal of leverage in actions done by Union members. Actions done outside of what would be considered Union activ…

  3. David Nieporent January 16, 2006 at 1:52 pm | | Reply

    Unions were big in trying to get MLK day turned into a holiday. Another pro for the labor movement.

    I’m shocked — shocked, I tell you — to learn that unions were pushing for extra days of paid vacation.

  4. actus January 16, 2006 at 2:19 pm | | Reply

    “I’m shocked — shocked, I tell you — to learn that unions were pushing for extra days of paid vacation.”

    I’ve also heard that some get election day off. Sad that its a progressive victory. I’ve never understood why that isn’t a holiday in this country.

  5. David Nieporent January 17, 2006 at 1:49 am | | Reply

    I’ve also heard that some get election day off. Sad that its a progressive victory. I’ve never understood why that isn’t a holiday in this country.

    Actus, you do understand that the government doesn’t run the economy, right? The government can make a day a holiday, but all that does is mean that the post offices and schools and courts and government buildings are closed. It doesn’t mean all the other businesses will shut down.

  6. Chetly Zarko January 17, 2006 at 3:56 am | | Reply

    Actus,

    Would unions accept the extra day off if there were a holiday honoring Ward Connerly?

    I think you’re right that one key piece of news is that only 20% (27 of 125) of the union members changed their stories.

    But another data point of interest is that 125 of 1100 members in that local signed the petition. That’s 11% of the population – a percentage that is statistically in-line with the percentage of registered voters that signed MCRI (10% required, roughly 14% achieved). Indeed, its slightly lower (so we didn’t “target” them) than what we collected which is to be expected given the anti-MCRI propaganda that would have been expected there, but its also within a statistical deviation that would suggest its not out-of-line with anything.

    Actus, civil liberties groups, including the ACLU, would go frecken bonkers if I started cross-referencing improperly-obtained union-membership lists for my independent political purposes. The invasion of privacy issues would be blaired across the universe. Where’s the outcry?

  7. Chetly Zarko January 17, 2006 at 4:11 am | | Reply

    By the way, Actus, I don’t see how the conflation you draw between unions and MLK day makes any sense. Just because unions lobbied to get MLK day enacted does not make them right or just in other situations, nor does it make opponents of MLK day necessarily opponents of unions and the multiple converses of each.

    Also, I support notion of a federal MLK day. There is no question that the role in history that King played is worthy of the recognition of the holiday.

  8. actus January 17, 2006 at 9:32 am | | Reply

    “he government can make a day a holiday, but all that does is mean that the post offices and schools and courts and government buildings are closed. It doesn’t mean all the other businesses will shut down.”

    Its not like the government has power to regulate interstate commerce or anything.

    “I think you’re right that one key piece of news is that only 20% (27 of 125) of the union members changed their stories.”

    Yes. of course it was a change.

    “Actus, civil liberties groups, including the ACLU, would go frecken bonkers if I started cross-referencing improperly-obtained union-membership lists for my independent political purposes. The invasion of privacy issues would be blaired across the universe.”

    Whats the invasion of privacy? You’re signing a statement of public support. Is signing a petition a private act?

    “ust because unions lobbied to get MLK day enacted does not make them right or just in other situations, nor does it make opponents of MLK day necessarily opponents of unions and the multiple converses of each.”

    Its just something I heard about unions on MLK day.

  9. actus January 17, 2006 at 10:00 am | | Reply

    “Would unions accept the extra day off if there were a holiday honoring Ward Connerly?”

    accept? I have no idea. Was he shot and killed while organizing a union?

  10. Richard Nieporent January 17, 2006 at 10:26 am | | Reply

    By the way, Actus, I don’t see how the conflation you draw between unions and MLK day makes any sense. Just because unions lobbied to get MLK day enacted does not make them right or just in other situations, nor does it make opponents of MLK day necessarily opponents of unions and the multiple converses of each.

    Its just something I heard about unions on MLK day.

    Actus, thanks for confirming what I always suspected. You just say anything that comes into your mind regardless of its relevancy to the discussion.

  11. actus January 17, 2006 at 10:51 am | | Reply

    “You just say anything that comes into your mind regardless of its relevancy to the discussion.”

    Well the topic was unions, and civil rights, and MLK, so I thought I’d share an interesting factoid that I hadn’t known. Sorry if it offends.

  12. Dom January 17, 2006 at 11:36 am | | Reply

    “Whats the invasion of privacy? You’re signing a statement of public support. Is signing a petition a private act?”

    The point being made is an obvious one. You have the right to sign a petition without suspecting that others, such as your union boss, will find out about your stand. If something similar were done on one of BAMN’s petitions, I’m sure we’d hear about it.

    Talk to any member of the roofer’s union in Philly. They stand to lose jobs if someone discovers they took the wrong political opinion.

    Dom

  13. actus January 17, 2006 at 11:44 am | | Reply

    “You have the right to sign a petition without suspecting that others, such as your union boss, will find out about your stand.”

    That’s shocking. This is a petition for a public process, for an initiative. You think these things should be secret?

    I do agree though that lists of union members should not be improperly obtained. But transparency and basic concepts of representation quite clearly tell me that signing a petition like this is and ought to be a public act.

  14. Two Tone January 17, 2006 at 3:21 pm | | Reply

    Looks like a verb is missing from the first sentence.

    The Michigan Civil Rights Commission, which has ardently *opposed* the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative but is powerless to stop it …

  15. Chetly Zarko January 17, 2006 at 3:49 pm | | Reply

    Actually, Actus, I’m not complaining as much about the approach of individuals who signed the petition based on the information they put on the petition, although it is an active question as to whether the addresses (as opposed to names) should be public information. I am complaining about the fact that the Union boss used a database developed for union business to check the political beliefs of its members against the MCRI list, and then to target union members who signed, strikes me of McCarthyist tactics inside the union. A misuse of the union database (I suspect the union members didn’t provide the union boss with the private information for that purpose).

    So if BAMN had approached the 125 union members AS PART OF ITS APPROACH OF ALL 500,000 signers, it wouldn’t know their status as union members without the union bosses disclosing that, it’s a less serious violation.

    Here, not only has the union misused the list internally, it has published and outed the names of 27 of its members and their status, and, if it were a real court of law, I’d insist on their entire list (which they would try to prevent) to verify their statistical claims as part of my fraud defense, setting up an interesting case for the discovery issues.

  16. actus January 17, 2006 at 5:06 pm | | Reply

    “A misuse of the union database (I suspect the union members didn’t provide the union boss with the private information for that purpose).”

    The union boss is not supposed to know who the union members are?

    But I do like your usage of the limited purpose of giving information. It’s very ‘Fair information practices’ and very not what our law is.

    “Here, not only has the union misused the list internally, it has published and outed the names of 27 of its members and their status,”

    They filled out affidavits. That was the members standing up. But ‘outing’ as what? as union members? or as having their names on a public petition? Is the latter an outing?

    “and, if it were a real court of law, I’d insist on their entire list (which they would try to prevent) to verify their statistical claims as part of my fraud defense, setting up an interesting case for the discovery issues.”

    I doubt their list of members would be protected in discovery, though I understand its common practice to get a protective order preventing you from further distributing the lists.

    Though there may be federal laws making union membership lists available in general. You know, as part of the hostile regulatory regime we impose on unions.

  17. mikem January 18, 2006 at 2:13 am | | Reply

    I love watching people like actus abandoning principles to score even the smallest point in a discussion.

  18. actus January 18, 2006 at 10:10 am | | Reply

    “I love watching people like actus abandoning principles to score even the smallest point in a discussion. ”

    What principles? I mean, I like ‘fair information practices,’ but its a harsh and extreme view of information that basically asks a union manager to not know who his union members are.

    Here is chetly saying that the union members that signed affidavits are lying. Do you think they’re liars?

  19. Chetly Zarko January 18, 2006 at 11:11 pm | | Reply

    Mike, Actus has pleasant company in abandoning his principles, including such previous privacy advocates as the ACLU.

    Actus, could you quote the part where I said the union members “are lying.” I will call someone a liar though – you – here on this forum, to make that assertion.

    The affidavits are, of course, very carefully written so as to avoid making any factual claims, let alone ones that would implicate a person in perjurious or otherwise non-truth telling. So, with this type of affidavit, I don’t believe lying is possible, but I also believe they have no factual value in “proving” anything, let alone fraud. Indeed, most of them prove that the circulator did their job.

    Also, I never said that the union boss’ misuse of their membership lists was illegal, although, you’re right, there are some special regulations on that (just like there are special regulations on corporations in campaign finance law) and there might be something on it.

    You reason by an absurd strawman – you write: “The union boss is not supposed to know who the union members are?”

    Of course he should know who his members are – but he shouldn’t seek to use his collected knowledge of their addresses and names to compare it to information on their political activities, especially political activities outside the union’s normal political interest. It was a misuse, not necessarily a mis-collection, of information.

    What if a corporation compiled a list of all its employees that had signed a petition for minimum wage (there’s one of those running now in MI) increases and then the corporate President called every employee and said, “you know, I found your name on this list of signers and another group of executive officers I know has evidence that the petition circulators never told signers that the petition would have the effect of causing unemployment increases … that didn’t happen to you, did it? … would you like to fill out this affidavit”)

  20. actus January 19, 2006 at 12:12 am | | Reply

    “Actus, could you quote the part where I said the union members “are lying.” I will call someone a liar though – you – here on this forum, to make that assertion.”

    Then its unclear what you say they’re doing. These people who signed affidavits are claiming that they never signed the petition or signed it via fraud or misrepresentation right? You say they signed it fair and square.

    So you say they’re liars. Or maybe these affidavits say something else?

    “Of course he should know who his members are – but he shouldn’t seek to use his collected knowledge of their addresses and names to compare it to information on their political activities, especially political activities outside the union’s normal political interest.”

    Can he compare the list to say, lists of criminals posted at the post office, even if that is not what the union members gave the info for? It seems legit for the boss to know who works for him, and legit for the boss to know who signed a public petition.

    “What if a corporation compiled a list of all its employees that had signed a petition for minimum wage (there’s one of those running now in MI) increases and then the corporate President called every employee and said, “you know, I found your name on this list of signers and another group of executive officers I know has evidence that the petition circulators never told signers that the petition would have the effect of causing unemployment increases … that didn’t happen to you, did it? … would you like to fill out this affidavit”)”

    Welcome to America. You don’t have first amendment right to have an opinion your boss doesn’t like unless you (1) bargain for them or (2) work for the government.

  21. Richard Nieporent January 19, 2006 at 9:13 am | | Reply

    Welcome to America. You don’t have first amendment right to have an opinion your boss doesn’t like unless you (1) bargain for them or (2) work for the government.

    Well actus I am glad you finally realize that like in Animal Farm the union bosses are no different than the company bosses. So why is again that you think unions actually benefit workers?

    By the way actus that was a rhetorical question!

  22. actus January 19, 2006 at 10:17 am | | Reply

    “Well actus I am glad you finally realize that like in Animal Farm the union bosses are no different than the company bosses.”

    Uh. The example was of a corporate boss, You want I reply to something other than that?

    If you want general language: welcome to america, where you don’t have the first amendment right to expressions that other private parties you deal with don’t like.

    “So why is again that you think unions actually benefit workers?”

    Among other things, because they’re one of the few institutions in society fighting against plutocracy, and they raise wages by equalizing competition between the many workers and few owners of capital.

  23. Richard Nieporent January 19, 2006 at 6:13 pm | | Reply

    Main Entry: rhe·tor·i·cal

    Pronunciation: ri-‘tor-i-k&l, -‘tär-

    Variant(s): also rhe·tor·ic /ri-‘tor-ik, -‘tär-/

    Function: adjective

    1 a : of, relating to, or concerned with rhetoric b : employed for rhetorical effect; especially : asked merely for effect with no answer expected

    Among other things, because they’re one of the few institutions in society fighting against plutocracy, and they raise wages by equalizing competition between the many workers and few owners of capital.

    Actus, Marxism is so 20th century!

  24. actus January 19, 2006 at 6:27 pm | | Reply

    “Actus, Marxism is so 20th century!”

    Whats so marxist? The competition effects are standard micro-economics. The problem of plutocracy and money power existed before Marx, secondly Marx’s answer to them were to eliminate money and property via social revolution, rather than to promote ways for non-plutocratic interest groups to have a say in our political system.

  25. Richard Nieporent January 19, 2006 at 10:46 pm | | Reply

    Is this what you were referring to actus?

    The five top Senate millionaires

    John Kerry, D-Massachusetts: $163,626,399

    Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin: $111,015,016

    John Rockefeller, D -West Virginia: $81,648,018

    Jon Corzine, D-New Jersey: $71,035,025

    Dianne Feinstein, D-California: $26,377,109

  26. actus January 19, 2006 at 11:07 pm | | Reply

    “Is this what you were referring to actus?”

    More of decisions being made for money, and our government being run for it, not just that the minority party has some rich people in the government. If anything its more about the people who aren’t elected, but still get their policy choices effected into national policy.

  27. Richard Nieporent January 19, 2006 at 11:59 pm | | Reply

    Oh, I guess it is these individuals you are concerned about.

    Top Individual Contributors to 527 Committees

    2004 Election Cycle

    Election cycle:

    Rank

    Contributor

    City, State

    Total Contributions

    1

    George Soros

    Soros Fund Management

    New York, NY

    $23,450,000

    2

    Peter Lewis

    Peter B Lewis/Progressive Corp

    Cleveland, OH

    $22,997,220

    3

    Steven Bing

    Shangri-La Entertainment

    Los Angeles, CA

    $13,852,031

    4

    Herb & Marion Sandler

    Golden West Financial

    OAKLAND, CA

    $13,008,459

    It seems that they are also Democrats/Leftists. Are you beginning to see a pattern here actus?

  28. actus January 20, 2006 at 12:18 am | | Reply

    “Oh, I guess it is these individuals you are concerned about.”

    Not just individuals, and not just donors. I’m sure you know what money power means.

  29. Richard Nieporent January 20, 2006 at 6:25 am | | Reply

    Not just individuals, and not just donors. I’m sure you know what money power means.

    My actus we are being deliberately obtuse now, aren’t we? Do you think money takes on a life of its own? In a plutocracy it is wealthy individuals who wield the power. Since you were complaining about that I though you would like to know whom these individual are. Now that you have learned that it is your fellow Democrats/Leftists who are using their money to control our society suddenly you are no longer concerned about these powerful individuals. In the famous words of Pogo “we have met the enemy and he is us”. I will stop confusing you with the facts since you have your mind made up. I guess it is unnecessary to call you a hypocrite since it is so self-evident.

  30. actus January 20, 2006 at 10:01 am | | Reply

    “In a plutocracy it is wealthy individuals who wield the power. Since you were complaining about that I though you would like to know whom these individual are.”

    But you only gave me political donors – do you think that’s all that plutocracy means?

    Another way to wield power is via control of resources. Say if hte biggest employer in your town doesn’t really make political contributions, but decides to leave town unless the town gives them XYZ subsidies, that’s a pretty naked excercise of money power.

    Another would be if this same employer also was a large landowner, and decided that no religious groups could use its parklands, but the softball league could. Thats also money, not people, making decisions.

    “Now that you have learned that it is your fellow Democrats/Leftists who are using their money to control our society suddenly you are no longer concerned about these powerful individuals.”

    Who said I was concerned about individuals? you did. not me. I’m concerned about concentrations of wealth, and they go much beyond a few rich guys in congress.

  31. Michelle Dulak Thomson January 20, 2006 at 12:57 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    Another would be if this same employer also was a large landowner, and decided that no religious groups could use its parklands, but the softball league could. Thats also money, not people, making decisions.

    And if the said employer happened to be local government, that might actually be what, say, Americans United for Separation of Church and State would demand of it. Though, granted, it’s rare for government to be a locality’s biggest employer, outside DC.

    Of course companies leverage their value to communities all the time to get concessions from local governments, just as valuable employees of companies threaten to leave unless they get raises. Both are “money power,” albeit on different scales. The employee has no leverage unless s/he’s worth enough more that meeting the demand is cheaper than trying to find another person to do the same work at the same level, yes? And in the other case, the company threatening to move has no leverage unless the jobs lost can’t be replaced for less money than it would cost to meet the demands. In both cases I suppose you could call it “money talking.” And in both cases you could call it a rather bland form of extortion. But individuals do it as much as corporations do, and not all the individuals are rich, either — this is just classic negotiating behavior, common to any retail environment where someone’s particular skills might be disastrous to lose in the short term. It’s strong-arm tactics, but they’re ubiquitous.

  32. actus January 20, 2006 at 1:40 pm | | Reply

    “And if the said employer happened to be local government, that might actually be what, say, Americans United for Separation of Church and State would demand of it.”

    It might be. In that case the argument would at least be heard by a court. You have constitutional rights when the government acts.

    “The employee has no leverage unless s/he’s worth enough more that meeting the demand is cheaper than trying to find another person to do the same work at the same level, yes?”

    And unions bring this worth, fighting against the power of capital to rule. That’s my point.

  33. Chetly Zarko January 21, 2006 at 2:11 pm | | Reply

    Actus writes:

    So you say they’re liars. Or maybe these affidavits say something else?

    Correct. I’m saying these affidavits say something else, although the “spin” by BAMN is that they say what you say they say. With about 4 exceptions (out of now hundreds), these affidavits don’t outline evidence of fraud. They outline evidence that, perhaps, the signer misunderstood something, or changed their mind. In many cases, they don’t even do that.

    Actus writes:

    Welcome to America. You don’t have first amendment right to have an opinion your boss doesn’t like unless you (1) bargain for them or (2) work for the government.

    Actually, in Michigan, the Bullard-Plawecki Act prohibits employers from retaliating or even taking active measures to compile information on the views of employees. I’m not sure what First Amendment law has to say here, but I was commenting on the inappropriateness (and hypocrisy) of this, not legality.

    Richard’s point at 9:13am on Jan 19 is right on.

  34. actus January 21, 2006 at 9:26 pm | | Reply

    “They outline evidence that, perhaps, the signer misunderstood something, or changed their mind. In many cases, they don’t even do that.”

    Misunderstood or was misrepresented? What do they say if not that someone changed hteir mind or misunderstood?

    “Actually, in Michigan, the Bullard-Plawecki Act prohibits employers from retaliating or even taking active measures to compile information on the views of employees.”

    How progressive. Does it work?

Say What?