Martha and the Unions - Members paid a fee to hold signs

[Stephen Coulter]

I was one of the many Brigadiers at the pre-debate rally at UMass and when I got there, I was pretty overwhelmed at the trailer truck of Martha signs and hundreds of union members holding them. While speaking with one of the union guys holding the Coakley sign, he admitted that his union was paying him $50 to stand and hold the sign. I was blown away, I always thought that these guys were out in the cold like us, doing what we thought was the right thing to do, not that they were actually being paid a fee to do it.

The best part was when he admitted that although he was there because he needed the money, he was voting for Scott!!

We are making history here in Massachusetts once again, keep up the great work everyone. We are all working hard to make Scott our next US Senator because we need him to go to Washington and fight for us! Get ready for the vote heard around the world.

[Kristi L. Devine]

Reporter roughed up outside Coakley fund-raiser

A Weekly Standard reporter says he was roughed up last night outside a Washington, D.C. fund-raiser for Attorney General Martha Coakley by someone he believes is associated with her U.S. Senate campaign. John McCormack, the magazine’s deputy online editor, writes about the incident outside...

http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1225332

Didn't you know unions paid their members to go out and do visibility for people like Martha Coakely?
hillbuzz | January 13, 2010 at 12:24 am | Tags: Teamsters bribe members to support political candidates, Union bribes members to support Martha Coakley, Union members really voting for Scott Brown | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/pdy0U-4Kh

In the 80s, one of our father's was a Teamster in Cleveland.

Teamsters did stuff like this all the time -- sometimes, they'd get like $200 to bring a whole family in a carload to something. We were forever, as kids, being dragged to (at the time, to us) boring speeches, parades in the cold, and other nonsense, whenever the Teamsters needed visibility for some candidate. It was always a Democrat, and usually someone who was so unlikeable and hated that people wouldn't come out on their own volition to be there in the cold, holding signs, freezing to death, with their kids with them.

One time, for someone really despicable, the Teamsters gave Nintendos...back when Nintendos first came out and were impossible to get. They all "fell off a truck" and into union hands, and the union gave them out to their "best guys", the ones who always did all this cockamamie Potemkin Village nonsense.

That's how we got our Super Mario Bros. and Duck Hunt.

[Stephen Coulter]

Michael Graham of 96.9 has it posted online today...I think normal people would be as shocked as I was to learn this, we should make sure we let everyone know. This completely underscores exactly why we need Scott to bring a change to the business as usual way that Washington and the Dem machine operates...Keep up the good work, we are headed to victory!!

http://michaelgraham.com/archives/how-much-is-it-worth-to-support-m...

[CJ]

Awesome video thanks for sharing. We know the Hard working familys know that Brown is better for thier family.

[Mary Anne Alliegro]

Fantastic! -and not surprising in the least.

[Kristi L. Devine]

ditto ditto ditto. It's one thing to have had the conversation. Quite another to capture it on video. I hope that that guy doesn't take any heat. He seemed really nice. Oh yea, and he was voting for Brown so that says a lot about him right there = )

[Stephen Coulter]

That is awesome!!

[Anthony]

Here's a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S518s32jjic

[Kristi L. Devine]

We really need to expose this, but I don't know how. We need to educate the people that WOULD not vote for her if they knew. One idea - - - should we look into all the cases where people have been screwed by the AG's office? At a minimum, contacting the "victims" and motivating them to get to the polls on Jan. 19th is probably a no brainer to us, but maybe not to them when we tell them we need THEM to rally all their friends and relatives.

[stephen brait]

Do you think the Unions have had any influence on decisions that came out of the Attorney Generals Office? Check these cases out and decide for yourself.

-Recent bid protests denied in favor of a Union Contractor;
http://www.dailynewstranscript.com/news/x740498159/Attorney-general...

-Recent bid protest in which the AG's Office accuses a Non-Union Contractor of providing misleading information;
http://www.patriotledger.com/business/x1659495209/AG-s-office-Hanov...

Is this a coincidence?
-Assistant District Attorney Joanne Goldstein has spent most of her career representing Labor Unions http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Goldstein_Joanne_1225184895.aspx


In the first case, the Attorney Generals Office sided with a Union Contractor stating that "while the companies should have included pending litigation...etc". In other words, decided to overlook the omission which is a clear violation of the public bidding statute.

With the second case, following a protest by the Laborer’s Union, the Attorney Generals Office accused a Non-Union Contractor of providing false information in its questionnaire. Based on the Attorney Generals decision, a Judge put an injunction on the project. That injunction was subsequently lifted by an appeals court and the Non-Union Contractor was awarded the project.

In Conclusion, there is no doubt that if one were to examine all similar cases and their outcome, the only conclusion one can reach is the fact that the Attorney Generals Office consistently hands out decisions that favor Unions. And, more often than not, these decisions are costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

[stephen brait]

Ever wonder why when you drive by the offices of Local 103 IBEW there are numerous signs, including that nice digital one, endorsing Martha Coakley? Heres an interesting article;

Obamacare: How the Unions are "Getting Well"

by Howard Rich







It’s already being called the “Second Louisiana Purchase,” but the sad truth is that a controversial payoff to U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu’s home state of Louisiana is among the smallest of the thinly-disguised bribes and kickbacks that are being offered in Washington D.C. to secure passage of President Barack Obama’s socialized medicine proposal.




In fact, at “only” $300 million, this disgustingly transparent (and yet transparently successful) effort by Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid to “negotiate” for Landrieu’s support on a key health care vote doesn’t hold a candle to the real graft that’s going on in our nation’s capital.



For example, you’d have to multiply that dollar amount dozens of times over to arrive at the $10 billion in so-called “reinsurance” money that has been tucked away for organized labor in the $2.6 trillion House bill.

What’s that “reinsurance” money for, exactly?



That’s simple - it’s a bailout for union leaders who have grossly “mismanaged” funds that were supposed to pay for their retirees’ insurance claims.



Of course in a bitterly ironic pill for taxpayers to swallow, at the same time Obama is hoping to shower money on these labor leaders for their ongoing corruption and incompetence, he has removed any accountability whatsoever over their future actions by rescinding Bush-era disclosure requirements on top union officials.

And you thought Capone’s Chicago was corrupt? Apparently it’s got nothing on Obama’s Washington, D.C.

Amazingly, though, both versions of Obamacare do something far worse than slipping billions of dollars into the pockets of organized labor leaders as a payoff for their support in the 2008 election: They actively seek the forced unionization of the entire health care industry.



In the $2.5 trillion Senate proposal, for example, a union-stacked “personal care attendants workforce advisory panel” would be established under the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). This panel would have the authority to compel union affiliation – and payment of union dues – in exchange for allowing “private” providers access to federal reimbursements for community care.



Similarly, the House proposal gives sweeping regulatory authority – including the approval of compulsory union dues – to DHHS in its role as the provider of public plans.

“The House resolution establishes a scenario that would effectively exclude non-union employers from eligibility to work on program-funded contracts,” a recent opinion-editorial published in the Houston Chronicle noted. “It also requires participating health care providers to pay wages and benefits that have been collectively bargained or that union-friendly appointees determine are competitive.”



The scam works like this: In order to become eligible for federal reimbursements, employees who provide home care must agree to be “reclassified” as federal employees, with the strings of compulsory union membership and dues attached, of course.



Pioneered by former California Gov. Gray Davis and disgraced Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich – both of whom also owed huge campaign debts to organized labor – this scam lies at the heart of both the House and Senate versions of Obamacare. In fact, it is being pushed most aggressively by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which like the rest of these declining organized labor behemoths is desperate for new dues-paying members.



This scam is also why Obama and the leadership of both the House and Senate refuse to consider passing a bill that doesn’t include a so-called “public option.”



Obama and Congressional leaders know that compulsory union membership – established within the framework of a government-administered health care system – is vital to organized labor’s long-term survival.

Bailout billions from the government may come and go, but the effective nationalization of hundreds of thousands of doctors, nurses and home care providers would provide the unions with a steady stream of billions of dollars in annual revenue for years to come.