MAFIA-FINANCIAL INDUSTRIAL

                                                       COMPLEX

                             http://www.centroimpastato.it/otherlang/finmafiaen.php3  

                                           www.nlcp.org/artindx.asp

                               TYPE LINK

 http://corporate-misconduct.com/unioncorrutionupdate.pdf

               www.ganglandnews.com/archives.html

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/organized_crime

      MAHARASTRA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED

         CRIME ACT NUMBER 30, 1999 - INDIA

     http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/document/actandordinances/maharashtra1999.htm  

                              http://www.fbiacademy.edu/pages/labor20%racketeer.htm

                                  http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/soi/soi_ch2.htm

                                                         http://www.ricoact.com

                     WWW.NILRR.ORG/

                   http://corporatemisconduct.com/unioncorruptionupdate.pdf

Modern day union is often little more than governments and their union
supporters bleeding the public dry in order to subsidize a political party
and a union leadership that brings in the votes for that party


Who Will Protect the People from the Unions?


By Daniel Greenfield  Sunday, January 2, 2011

It is often forgotten that one of the causes of the evolution of the modern
American urban union was the lawless suppression of workers by Democratic
party affiliated political machines, and yet it did not take so very long
before the union became an outgrowth of that same political machine. And
having wiped out nearly every independent industry with which it was
associated, the only unions still surviving are those in control of either
municipal services or state subsidized service providers, particularly in
the medical field.

   

If the union began as a way to negotiate salaries and working conditions
between employers and workers, the modern day union is often little more
than governments and their union supporters bleeding the public dry in order
to subsidize a political party and a union leadership that brings in the
votes for that party. The situation is most critical in California, but many
state and city budgets are almost as badly strained by the combination of
municipal union contracts and the subsidized services that they are
associated with.


Lethal work slowdown by union members in New York City during the blizzard


The recent lethal work slowdown
<http://patterico.com/2010/12/30/if-true-how-is-this-not-criminally-negligen
t-homicide/> by union members in New York City during the blizzard or the
multimillion dollar media blitzes by California unions for Jerry Brown and
New Jersey teacher's unions against Chris Christie is a harsh reminder of
the utter greed and ruthlessness of the union's last stand, their death grip
on public services fed by taxpayer money. These stands have little to do
with worker's rights. They have next to nothing in common with the old union
image of underpaid workers protesting outside of factories. It's still about
exploitation, but it's about the exploitation of the public by a
union-government political establishment.

As the bosses of old have given way to managers and then to politicians, the
union bosses are the only bosses still in the game, who enjoy wealth and
power far beyond those of the average taxpayer being fleeced without his or
her consent. Union rhetoric may pretend that they are contending with mayors
and governors, but in reality it's the public that they're really contending
with. Their strikes have hardly any effect on the politicians, but target
the public. And the money that they're paid with is the public's money. The
New Jersey's teachers union real target was New Jersey homeowners who
already pay the highest property taxes in the country. But when given a
choice, homeowners across New Jersey said no to paying more property taxes
into the union's pockets. And Governor Christie won so much acclaim, because
he called the union on what it was doing and insisted that the voters should
have a choice. But much of the time politicians are more than happy to give
in.

Union negotiations with politicians that they help elect are a corrupt
farce, because the money extracted from the public goes in part to the same
politicians who decide whether to accept or reject their offer. In any law
abiding system, this would be a tremendous conflict of interest, like
sending in your bank's loan officer to act as your real estate broker. But
under our current system it is actually commonplace for unions which live
off contracts with politicians, to be able to fund and work to elect those
same politicians. And it represents a level of corruption that makes the
Pentagon's 100 dollar screws or the corporate tax shelters that liberal
pundits complain about seem almost petty. And now entire states are
collapsing under the weight of dirty contracts with unions that act like a
Praetorian Guard, elevating and removing governors and mayors who displease
them.

Governor Schwarzenegger went in as a reformer, but after losing a battle
with California nurses unions turned into a Yes Man for Sacramento. His
replacement, Governor Jerry Brown was elected with millions of dollars of
union money
<http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/09/independent-gro
ups-keep-spending-for-jerry-brown.html> . The California media has made much
of how much Meg Whitman spent on her campaign, but Jerry Brown didn't have
to spend much money on his campaign. The unions were out there doing it for
him, with money extracted from a state budget in freefall. This arrangement
under which a new governor, who has never held any job that was not on the
public dole, got elected thanks to an arrangement with unions who live off
the public dole.


Corrupt collusion between union bosses and politicians, exchanging public
money for political support


If this was corrupt collusion between businesses and union bosses, as has
often been the case with some unions such as SEIU, then the only victims
would be union members. But this is corrupt collusion between union bosses
and politicians, exchanging public money for political support. And not
letting go even when the public is bleeding red and there's literally no
more money to give.

It means that unions get paid, while state tax refunds to
<http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/state&id=6636740>  the public
are delayed. Because the unions are always at the head of the line. When
Governor Schwarzenegger tried to temporarily cut worker pay, State
Controller John Chiang refused to comply
<http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/02/schwarzenegger-cuts-california-stat
e-workers-pay-to-minimum-wag/> . Chiang was also the man who decided that
working families could wait for their tax refunds. And it's no wonder
because John Chiang, the man with hands on the purse, was also elected by
the same unions he
<http://www.flashreport.org/commentary0b.php?postID=2009012212040576&authID=
2005081622025042&post_offsetP=0> 's pandering to. California unions spent
millions to put Chiang in place and more to keep reelecting him.

How long can the system go on before it breaks down? That doesn't really
matter. Because the man at the top in Washington D.C. also got there through
union backing. And ObamaCare exempts unions, but forces ordinary Americans
to buy into a health care system whose contracts are negotiated to benefit
unions. It's a safe bet that Barack Obama won't let Jerry Brown, John Chiang
and their unions go under. Because his own reelection campaign depends on
it. Money sent to California unions, is also money sent to the Campaign to
Reelect Barack Obama. But it's also a safe bet that the California taxpayers
won't just be the only ones hit with the bill. California may default on its
debts, state bonds may prove worthless and the federal government may go on
covering whatever entitlements funding is needed, but sooner or later the
system will still break down. It will just be a national system, rather than
a state one.

Political machines have robbed states and cities blind before, but in the
19th century they did not have access to a massive federal budget on this
scale. Even President Martin Van Buren, a Tammany Hall man, could not
command the kind of wealth and credit that Barack Obama does. President
Buchanan might have helped cover up a murder by Congressman Sickles, one of
his Tammany Hall favorites, who had been engaged in blatant corruption using
government money, but even accounting for inflation, he could have never
overseen a fraud and theft of this magnitude. The Pigford
<http://biggovernment.com/lstranahan/2010/12/19/pigford-video-blockbuster-ke
y-black-farmers-lawyer-admits-clients-got-away-with-murder/>  settlement
alone makes Tammany Hall's worst crimes seem like small change, and yet it's
far from the most notable misuse of money by this congress or
administration.

Politicians and bureaucrats could and did steal, but there was a limit and
scope to their theft. Those who stole too much would usually be brought down
before they caused too much damage, and drove an outraged public to cut off
the pipeline. Tammany Hall's leadership was repeatedly purged in just that
fashion. But while the current union system is essentially a legal version
of the old Tammany Hall system, in which municipal employees were obligated
to pay "the ring" for their jobs, it has no more limits. Not even the
bankruptcy of the system that it feeds off.

When the union is isolated enough and the public is desperately trying to
make ends meet, then the unions may lose. That's what happened with the
teacher's union in New Jersey. But when the unions are big enough and feed
off a huge membership that knows it has no choice but to vote union, and the
unions are closely tied up with an entitlements dependent electorate, then
the system may be irreparable. And that is what happened in California. You
can't fix a system like that, not without taking on millions of people who
are robbing it blind. And that's not an election, it's a civil war.

In his own time as governor of New York and police commissioner of New York
City, Theodore Roosevelt could not succeed in cleaning it up. And his many
times removed cousin, Franklin D. Roosevelt turned New York City's
corruption into a national standard with the New Deal. Together with Tammany
Hall's New York Senator Wagner, their National Labor Relations Act turned to
compulsory unionization as a means of forcing workers into supporting the
Democratic party, whether they wanted to or not. And by doing so, Wagner and
FDR began the process of reclaiming the unions from the Communist party and
organized crime, and integrating them into the nationwide structure of the
Democratic party.

FDR and Wagner were both New York politicians with a ground floor view on
how its dirty politics worked.  And the NLRB was not about worker
representation, but about money and political power. It favored large unions
with political affiliations, destroying small unions, and taking a
Northeastern urban alliance between the political machine and the union
bosses as its model. The workers were no longer being beaten by goons hired
by their employers and the political machine's police. Now they were being
beaten by goons hired by the union bosses and the political machine's
police. Organized crime had always worked both sides of the aisle, playing
for the highest bidder. The NLRB showed organized crime that unions were the
future and industry was the past. But the politicians were ahead of them.

The union became a parasite and union jobs either went south or were
outsourced. But the public sector union remained a tick fixed on the
bloodstream of the public. You didn't have to be a factory owned to be
drained by them. You didn't need to own a single share of stock. All you had
to do was live and pay taxes in an area where public sector unions had
gripped in their claws. The intersection of entitlements and public sector
unions and political machines meant that money was being exchanged for
political support, and the people outraged were not the ones that
politicians cared about. They still made a show of driving a hard bargain,
but more often they showed up at union conferences to loud cheers. Their old
electorate paid taxes. Their new electorate gobbled them.

And that brings us back to 2011 where the oppressed worker is now the
taxpayer, whose income and future are being garnished by unions. The poor
man standing out in the rain is not the union employee, but the man waiting
to collect another check, that will be torn apart and consumed by union
bosses and politicians. Who will then protect those workers-the people, from
the unions?