Can The Koch Brothers Money Get To A Labor Leader? Ask Terry O'Sullivan

Although unions have been maligned, denigrated and marginalized by Big Business and their conservative political allies and by the right-wing propaganda machine, the contributions unions have made to the lives of ordinary working men and women are profound and undeniable. From abolishing child labor laws to pushing for Social Security, Medicare, health and safety standards and the minimum wage-- not to mention the whole concept of the weekend!-- unions have been in the forefront of every battle between democracy and the nefarious forces of plutocracy. The Republican Party and the plutocrats behind them understood that by weakening unions, they would be weakening the effective opposition to their greed and selfishness-based agenda. The Democratic Party, without the backbone of the millions of working people represented by unions is, for the most part, just another set of craven politicians eager to sell out. Unions have kept the Democrats on the right path-- at least most unions have.

For years we've been warning readers about the Building Trades Unions. When I was growing up, these were the pro-war, pro-Nixon, racist, hippie-hating disgraces to the union movement. Today, the Building Trades Unions, have basically not changed all that much. They're still the conservative end of the union movement and they still give more support to Republicans than to Democrats.

In 2012 the 4 biggest recipients of Building Trades congressional campaign contributions were all conservative Republicans: Steve LaTourette (R-OH), Jon Runyan (R-NJ), Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) and Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm (R-Gambino). The building trades unions are pulling the same pro-conservative bullshit again this cycle-- and they've pulled the AFL-CIO along with them on at least one crucial issue, the Keystone Pipeline.

This has some people surprised on the grounds that the project is set to create very few permanent jobs. The issue here, however, is all about the building trades unions. The building trades have been backing Keystone for a long time because from the viewpoint of a construction worker all jobs are temporary jobs. Actually building the pipeline will involve thousands of construction workers.

The larger union federation had been staying studiously "neutral" out of concern for larger issues of coalition politics, alliance with the environmental movement, etc. But there's no big countervailing forces inside the labor federation against the building trades' interest in the pipeline. The State Department's recent report that gave a favorable verdict to the pipeline changes the calculation in terms of the bigger coalition. If the State Department is giving it a thumbs up, then for all the unions that don't care it's not clear what's gained by neutrality. And for the building trades the upside of building the pipeline remains what it ever was-- construction jobs.

Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), one of the biggest supporters of unions and working families in America, gets it. "This pipeline will carry Canadian tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico for export. It's not about creating jobs in this country-- it's about lining pockets already full of cash. That's not in the national interest and it's not how we should be doing business." He's asking progressive sot continue pressuring President Obama not to give in. "It's about more than the environment, although that's an important part of our effort. It's about ending special treatment, taking conflicts of interest seriously, and restoring public trust in government decisions. When TransCanada, Keystone's parent company, gets to handpick the contractor that writes its environmental impact assessment-- and when the State Department doesn't think that's a problem-- we know things have gone off the rails. Well, let's fix that."

Unlike Raúl and a handful of intrepid progressives, many Democratic elected officials are reluctant to go up against Obama and the Big Money interests that are pushing for this horror. That's why we're taking a close look at the independent candidacy of Marianne Williamson to replace Henry Waxman in one of the most progressive districts in the country, CA-33. The Democratic Party is backing a state senator with a solid liberal reputation, Ted Lieu, but another of Williamson's main opponents is a former Republican who is being run by EMILY's List, Wendy Greuel, the careerist from the Valley who was just defeated by Eric Garcetti when EMILY's List tried to push her into that job. The worst kind of garden variety candidate of meaninglessness, Greuel parrots whatever her consultants think will position her best for a win in a district that she has no relation to whatsoever. An incredibly authentic person, Marianne Williamson can always be counted on to speak exactly what she thinks and feels for real. On the day the AFL-CIO announced they are backing Keystone XL, Marianne told us, "I am disappointed by today’s strong indication that the AFL-CIO will support the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline particularly when it creates very few permanent jobs for American workers while doing potential permanent damage to the environment. What we should be doing is creating large numbers of permanent jobs by investing in clean energy for the future, reducing our carbon footprint and becoming free of our addiction to fossil fuels. I strongly urge President Obama and all candidates in this race for Rep. Henry Waxman’s seat to continue Waxman’s legacy of preserving the environment while creating jobs through green energy production. We don’t have to trade our economy for our conscience, in this area or in any other."

So it should have come as no surprise yesterday when the Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) threatened progressives in Congress that they would help Koch-backed Republicans beat them in November. (We already saw them back conservative New Dem Colleen Hanabusa in Hawaii against progressive Senator Brian Schatz over Keystone XL.) Now they're threatening House incumbents that they will help Republicans. The imbeciles at that union have singled out several top targets-- all 100% union backers: Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Tim Ryan (D-OH), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Carol Shea Porter (D-NH), Alan Grayson (D-FL), Jackie Speier (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Mike Honda (D-CA) and Judy Chu (D-CA). Here's part of a letter the conservative shill who runs LIUNA sent to members in Jan Schakowsky's Illinois district, where she's facing a crackpot Republican who wants to abolish unions altogether.

As we head into the 2014 election season, I want to bring your attention to an issue of critical importance to our Union; your member of Congress is trying to destroy job opportunities for our LIUNA brothers and sisters. Representative Jan Schakowsky recently signed a letter to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry urging him to reject the Keystone XL Pipeline, a vital infrastructure project that would create millions of hours of work for LIUNA members, increase U.S. energy independence, and safely transport a resource that will be developed with or without the pipeline.

To all proud, strong and united LIUNA brothers and sisters, I say, enough is enough! Our members and their families are angry, disappointed and disillusioned with out-of-touch, job-killing politicians who choose to side with environmental extremists over work for our members. There so-called "friends" of ours are destroying good-paying work opportunities with family-supporting benefits, at a time when LIUNA members are trying to put food on their tables, keep roofs over their heads, and maintain middle-class lifestyles.

For every action, there is a reaction, and our reaction to this frontal assault on our way of life needs to be loud and clear. If you do not stand with us, we sure as hell will not stand with you.

…[Your] member of Congress has chosen to side with hard-core anti-Keystone organizations rather than with hard working LIUNA members and their families. Please keep that in mind when Congresswoman Schakowsky seeks your vote this fall, and be sure to let her know how angry and disappointed you are that she is trying to keep your brothers and sisters from working.

If Congresswoman Schakowsky and other politicians continue to stand in the way of jobs for Laborers, let's make sure they "feel the power" and fury of LIUNA this November.

I don't know how big of a bribe the Koch brothers have given LIUNA General President Terry O'Sullivan, but I bet it's pretty big. His whole assertion could have come right from an episode of the union-busting Rush Limbaugh show. He should be very proud of himself and he's completely in the tradition of other labor leaders who sold out their own members-- Ronald Reagan, of course, comes right to mind. When Republicans challenged Van Jones' assertion that the whole Keystone Pipeline project would only create 35 permanent jobs-- no, not 35 thousand or 35 hundred, just 35-- Politifact investigated and they found Jones telling the truth and the Republicans lying-- as usual. O'Sullivan is lying to his members as well.

The State Department report puts the total at 42,100 jobs, though the definition of a job in this sense is a position filled for one year. Much of the construction work would come in four- or or eight-month stretches. About 10,400 seasonal workers would be recruited for construction, the State Department said.

When looked at as "an average annual job," it works out to about 3,900 jobs over one year of construction or 1,950 jobs each year for two years.

The rest of the jobs would be the result of spillover spending (formally called indirect or induced economic activity) as Keystone workers buy equipment and materials to complete the project and spend their money on an array of services, including food, health care, and arts and entertainment. As you might expect, it’s much harder to measure the widespread effect on job creation.

There’s no doubting that most of the economic activity comes during construction. Jones honed in on jobs after construction, which aren’t really a source of sharp debate.

"There’s very few jobs operating pipelines," said Ian Goodman, president of the Goodman Group Ltd., an energy and economic consulting firm in Berkeley, Calif. "That’s one of the reasons why pipelines are attractive to the oil industry. They’re relatively inexpensive to build and operate."

The report says the project would provide jobs for about 35 permanent employees and 15 temporary contractors.

The full-timers would be "required for annual operations, including routine inspections, maintenance and repair." Some would work in Canada. The U.S. employees would work at pump stations along the pipeline route as well as a Nebraska office.

The project’s impact on housing, property taxes and service industries once in operation? Not much. Not much is known about the contractors’ workload except they would provide additional specialized support.

Still, arguments about the relatively small number of permanent jobs from the pipeline often belie the nature of construction jobs, which are comprised of temporary projects by definition, said Matt Dempsey, a spokesman for a coalition of pro-Keystone groups known as Oil Sands Fact Check.

"You build it, you move on," Dempsey said.

Our ruling

Jones said the Keystone pipeline will only result in 35 permanent jobs after construction.

The numbers, as reported by the State Department, back him up, though that’s the nature of any big construction project, be it a highway or monument.

Jones’ claim is True.