• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • SEIU Tells Workers to 'Disobey Laws' In Effort to Undermine Employers

    A Service Employees International Union “contract campaign manual,” recently released as part of an ongoing lawsuit against the union, reveals a host of unseemly tactics the SEIU recommends using against employers who resist unionization efforts. Those include efforts to undermine a business financially, intimidate individual managers, and use political pressure to increase the cost of doing business.

    Even more striking: the manual encourages workers to violate the law. “Union members sometimes must act in the tradition of Dr. Martin Luther King and Mohatma Gandhi,” the manual states, “and disobey laws which are used to enforce injustice against working people.”

    The manual, first exposed by Vincent Vernuccio of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, suggests workers conduct illegal activity that might still advance the cause of unionization. “Certain acts which might technically be illegal,” it advises, “might be seen by the public, news media, customers, or other potential worker allies as justifiable and not something the employer should be challenging.”

    As an example, the manual lists laws against possessing stolen documents: “let’s say workers obtain insider information showing that the polluted the environment or cheated on its taxes. Revealing that information might technically expose workers to charges of possessing stolen documents,” but it still may be an effective strategy to advance the SEIU’s case, the manual claims.

    “Even if the workers of the union might be found guilty,” the manual goes on to claim, “you have to consider what the penalty is likely to be.” In other words, illegal activities can be effective tools to advance the cause of unionization, and potential penalties should always be weighed against the central objective of those activities.

    The manual also details a number of legal though ethically questionable practices designed to hurt a company or its managers until it accedes to the union’s demands. In the introduction to its section on “Pressuring the Employer,” it recommends a number of tactics:

    • Outside pressure can involve jeopardizing relationships between the employer and lenders, investors, stockholders, customers, clients, patients, tenants, politicians, or others on whom the employer depends for funds.
    • Legal and regulatory pressure can threaten the employer with costly action by government agencies or the courts.
    • Community action and use of the news media can damage an employer’s public image and ties with community leaders and organizations.

    The manual was released as part of the discovery in process in a lawsuit filed against the SEIU by the food service company Sodexo. The company is alleging a massive effort on the part of the SEIU to intimidate and harass Sodexo employees and to hurt the company’s reputation in an effort to unionize more than 80,000 employees.

    Sodexo alleged a number of unseemly practices in a press release announcing the lawsuit:

    The complaint alleges that the SEIU, in face to face meetings, threatened Sodexo USA’s executives that it would harm Sodexo USA’s business unless they gave in to the union, and then carried out its threats through egregious behavior, including:

    • throwing plastic roaches onto food being served by Sodexo USA at a high profile event;
    • scaring hospital patients by insinuating that Sodexo USA food contained bugs, rat droppings, mold and flies;
    • lying to interfere with Sodexo USA business and sneaking into elementary schools to avoid security;
    • violating lobbying laws to steer business away from Sodexo USA, even at the risk of costing Sodexo USA employees their jobs; and
    • harassing Sodexo USA employees by threatening to accuse them of wrongdoing.

    A number of those alleged activities reflect the unionization-by-intimidation tactics outlined in the manual, suggesting, perhaps unsurprisingly, that employees learn from and follow the directions handed down by SEIU brass.

    Given that fact, it’s a bit unsettling that it also advises workers to violate the law whenever they feel it produces “injustice against working people” – especially where the interests of “working people” are considered synonymous with the interests of the SEIU.

    The SEIU did not return a request for comment by press time.

    UPDATE: Vernuccio discussed the dirty tricks on FOX Business yesterday:

    Posted in Scribe [slideshow_deploy]

    23 Responses to SEIU Tells Workers to 'Disobey Laws' In Effort to Undermine Employers

    1. Bobbie says:

      Please have the President address why he supports UNIONS to suggest employees inferior to their position they freely applied for! Employees lose a voice of their own by unions own logo- "We are one"…dictate. The record of unions of the 21st century serve no purpose but imposing burden and trouble and forcing innocent people to follow their lead at a high but needless cost. There is no worth in unions that isn't waste to productivity in the 21st century…

      Please ask the president if this is his meaning of "fair." Why does he see absolutely no worth and has absolutely no respect and shows complete ignorance, in the employees without "union" backing them?

    2. Roger says:

      Didn't the anointed one say SEIU's agenda is my agenda??? Hmm maybe the R's take this SEIU manual and compare it to this video. Also notice he speaks in what he believes in WITHOUT a teleprompter as someone should. When he speaks about anything else, he needs the prompter.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ1NJaCtIkM

      And continue launching the salvo's exposing this individual for who he is "The Radical in Chief"

    3. Tim Az says:

      These tactics are certainly unacceptable. They reminded me of much worse behavior the Teamsters engaged in in the 70's against private truck drivers that refused to strike. There were occasion when teamsters would occupy overpasses and shoot the windshields out of oncoming truckers. An even worse event ended up with a truck driver rolled up in barbed wire and left along the road to freeze to death in the winter. I was just a kid then but I was convinced that I would never work any job that could be prone to unionization, because I knew that I would retaliate in kind. I chose to avoid these types of events purposefully and successfully. Had enough yet?

    4. Concerned American says:

      Doesn't this come close to domestic terrorism? And if so, shouldn't the union officials be investigated by not only the Justice Dept. but also be brought in front of Congress to explain their behavior? In addition, they should be placed on the terrorist watch list.

    5. allen says:

      You have to keep Lawyers out of CONGRESS this is the problem. They do not produice anything just go back and read History of England in the Fifteen Hundreds, The Borgias and Henry VII, need not say anymore with the trickle down crap.

    6. Tim Az says:

      These tactics are certainly unacceptable. They reminded me of much worse behavior the Teamsters engaged in in the 70's against private truck drivers that refused to strike. There were occasion when teamsters would occupy overpasses and shoot the windshields out of oncoming truckers. An even worse event ended up with a truck driver rolled up in barbed wire and left along the road to freeze to death in the winter. I was just a kid then but I was convinced that I would never work any job that could be prone to unionization, because I knew that I would retaliate in kind. I chose to avoid these types of events purposefully and successfully. Had enough yet?

    7. Chris in California says:

      The only reason he supports unions is that they support him. He does not care about people as such, only as votes and money pits.

    8. Tim Az says:

      These tactics are certainly unacceptable. They reminded me of much worse behavior the Teamsters engaged in in the 70's against private truck drivers that refused to strike. There were occasion when teamsters would occupy overpasses and shoot the windshields out of oncoming truckers. An even worse event ended up with a truck driver rolled up in barbed wire and left along the road to freeze to death in the winter. I was just a kid then but I was convinced that I would never work any job that could be prone to unionization, because I knew that I would retaliate in kind. I chose to avoid these types of events purposefully and successfully. Had enough yet?

    9. Larry White says:

      A very close friend recently said " …capitalism is a dangerous word." When a SEIU recommends illegal activities AND:
      1. 90% of the waivers from ObamaCare GO TO UNION WORKERS and
      2. these THUGS SHOW UP CEO's home ( in buses) and
      3.When most of President Obama's $700 Billion Stimulus goes to State and Federal Employee's, all union workers. and
      4. State and Local Union workers' dues are collected by payroll deductions. and
      5. More than 70% of UNION POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS went to OBAMA and DEMOCRATS!…
      AND THEY (Obama, democrats, unions) AREN'T HAPPY.
      Does any one see a problem here?

    10. Wayne says:

      I agree with Eastman. Unions in the USA look a lot like those that caused the 1905 uprising in Russia and the threat of violence by these people to get what they want is just as real. They say right here that they don't care what the law says or what ethics are. Increasing union power trumps all other considerations. This is nothing more than rule by mob. Let us not forget that they use the same tactics against random individuals who opose unionization if it suits their purposes.

    11. Pingback: SEIU Tells Workers to ‘Disobey Laws’ In Effort to Undermine Employers

    12. Pingback: Rant for 7/19/11 | Facts Are Stubborn Things

    13. AZ Don says:

      Unions are not inherently bad. When first organized they had a definite purpose. In the thirties and forties they performed what we were otherwise unable to force industry to do. They stopped child labor and finally got a decent wage for workers. To some degree they can be credited with much of the successes made by labor up and until the end of the century in spite of the organized crime takeover in the 60′s.

      Although some think they were corrupt from the start, that is not true. It is true however unions did receive some support from organized crime. Organized crime however did not see the potential the unions had at first but soon after their inception organized crime discovered the error of their ways and started to take control. From that point on unions became more and more corrupt each year until now when they intend to change even our Democratic Republic. Another example proving absolute power corrupts absolutely.

      When the statement was made “if we cannot use the power of persuasion we will use the persuasion of power” the beginning of the end for unions began and they will not survive in the future with that attitude. I personally do not believe the rank and file member feels unions should be forced upon the population. I further do not believe the rank and file member believes union dues should be collected from all members, regardless of political affiliation and given in support of one party for the benefit of the leaders. That is akin to rape!

    14. Roger S. says:

      We don't call them "Union Thugs" without reason, do we?

      So if our Unicorn in Chief is "in bed" with these thugs to the tune of millions of bucks
      in campaign contributions, what does that make him? Merely a "fellow-traveler"? Is that
      all? How about his support of "card-check" legislation, the recent NLRB action against Boeing?

      A sitting president who supports illegal activities? Itself a crime? I say: IMPEACH!
      (even at the risk of having to finish his term with someone the likes of Joe Biden: IMPEACH!)

    15. Margaret says:

      Seven to twelve percent of the US population that are union members are holding the rest of us hostage. Government unions were always a bad idea, and they should be abolished.

    16. nastyned says:

      Unions are no more than the thugs that were left over from the 40's and 50's. They fell they have the right to come in and force people to pay them a percentage of their income so they are able to hold their job. This is communism at it's finest and SEIU and ACLU has stated that they are communist. This country needs to rid it's self of these types of organizations.What is needed is a mandatory living wage that pay's a worker a liveable wage depending on his needs and conditions at work and home.We all want the American dream and The minimum wage that is paid in my area is not a liveable wage for a family of 3. We also need a law that rewards a company that keeps their jobs in America and does not outsource by offering tax incentives and manufacturing conditions that do not penalize them for producing a product of high quality to be sold here in the US and abroad. Import taxes on products that are used in America to produce salable items should be lessened as to make it easier for a company to show a profit from export and import but in-turn the company should be willing to share the bounty with the workers through profit sharing programs . We also need to clean out Washington and start over. Fire everyone of the traitors and put them in jail.

    17. Pingback: 7-20-2011 The Weekly Claw - AllMilitary.com's Military Blog

    18. Mike DeVine says:

      The actions being advocated are in no way similar in kind to those of MLK.

    19. Cal P. says:

      This is justification for banning unions in government jobs, and for getting rid of the NLRB in it's current form, and to ban banks from being an influence as to who gets construction loans, and to make all federal contracts being passed out to training institutions labor union free, all a big piece of the big government/union pie.

    20. Cal P. says:

      This is justification for banning unions in government jobs, and for getting rid of the NLRB in it's current form, and to ban banks from being an influence as to who gets construction loans, and to make all federal contracts being passed out to training institutions labor union free, all a big piece of the big government/union pie.

    21. Cal P. says:

      Tthis is a reason for banning all government unions. Also, no federal contract should ever be tied to
      union contracts ( such as training workers with federal dollars, but only if they join the union after their federal paid training).

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×