DOCSLIB.ORG

Nomination Hearing for Deputy Secretary of Labor and Members of the National Labor Relations Board

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nomination Hearing for Deputy Secretary of Labor and Members of the National Labor Relations Board S. HRG. 115–374 NOMINATION HEARING FOR DEPUTY SECRETARY OF LABOR AND MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD HEARING OF THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON NOMINATION FOR DEPUTY SECRETARY OF LABOR AND MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD JULY 13, 2017 Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 26–334 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018 VerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Nov 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\DOCS\26334.TXT CAROL HELPN-004 with DISTILLER COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Chairman MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming PATTY MURRAY, Washington RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania RAND PAUL, Kentucky AL FRANKEN, Minnesota SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado BILL CASSIDY, M.D., Louisiana SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island TODD YOUNG, Indiana TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut PAT ROBERTS, Kansas ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM KAINE, Virginia TIM SCOTT, South Carolina MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire DAVID P. CLEARY, Republican Staff Director LINDSEY WARD SEIDMAN, Republican Deputy Staff Director EVAN SCHATZ, Minority Staff Director JOHN RIGHTER, Minority Deputy Staff Director (II) VerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Nov 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 S:\DOCS\26334.TXT CAROL HELPN-004 with DISTILLER CONTENTS STATEMENTS THURSDAY, JULY 13, 2017 Page COMMITTEE MEMBERS Alexander, Hon. Lamar, Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, opening statement ....................................................................... 1 Murray, Hon. Patty, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington, opening statement .............................................................................................................. 4 Isakson, Hon. Johnny, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia ....................... 12 Cassidy, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana .......................... 15 Casey, Hon. Robert P., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ...... 17 Paul, Hon. Rand, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kentucky ............................. 19 Warren, Hon. Elizabeth, a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts ........ 20 Young, Hon. Todd, a U.S. Senator from the State of Indiana ............................. 21 Franken, Hon. Al, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota .......................... 23 Murphy, Hon. Christopher, a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut ........ 25 Hassan, Hon. Maggie, a U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire ......... 27 Kaine, Hon. Tim, a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia ............................... 28 WITNESSES Pizzella, Patrick, Alexandria, VA, Nominated to be Deputy Secretary of Labor ..................................................................................................................... 5 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 Kaplan, Marvin, Cresskill, NJ, Nominated to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board ......................................................................................... 7 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 Emanuel, William, Santa Monica, CA, Nominated to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board ......................................................................... 10 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 ADDITIONAL MATERIAL Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc. New York Times article by Philip Shenon, July 18, 1993 ............................. 39 Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP Lobbying Registration Form submitted by Senator Franken .................................................................... 43 Letters of Support ............................................................................................. 46 Response by Patrick Pizella to questions of: Senator Murkowski ................................................................................... 52 Senator Murray ......................................................................................... 53 Senator Casey ............................................................................................ 60 Senator Franken ........................................................................................ 61 Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 62 Senator Warren ......................................................................................... 65 Senator Kaine ............................................................................................ 70 (III) VerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Nov 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\DOCS\26334.TXT CAROL HELPN-004 with DISTILLER Response by Marvin Kaplan to questions of: Senator Roberts ......................................................................................... 71 Senator Murray ......................................................................................... 71 Senator Casey ............................................................................................ 78 Senator Franken ........................................................................................ 79 Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 79 Senator Warren ......................................................................................... 80 Senator Kaine ............................................................................................ 80 Response by William Emanuel to questions of: Senator Roberts ......................................................................................... 81 Senator Murray ......................................................................................... 82 Senator Casey ............................................................................................ 86 Senator Franken ........................................................................................ 87 Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 88 Senator Warren ......................................................................................... 89 Senator Kaine ............................................................................................ 90 (IV) VerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Nov 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\DOCS\26334.TXT CAROL HELPN-004 with DISTILLER NOMINATION HEARING FOR DEPUTY SEC- RETARY OF LABOR AND MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THURSDAY, JULY 13, 2017 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m., in room SD–430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander, chairman of the committee, presiding. Present: Senators Alexander, Isakson, Cassidy, Paul, Young, Murray, Franken, Kaine, Bennet, Murphy, Hassan, Casey and Warren. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ALEXANDER The CHAIRMAN. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will please come to order. This morning, we’re holding a hearing on three nominations, Pat- rick Pizzella for Deputy Secretary of the Department of Labor and Marvin Kaplan and William Emanuel to serve as members of the National Labor Relations Board. Senator Murray and I will each have an opening statement. Then I’ll introduce the nominees. After their testimony, Senators will each have 5 minutes of questions, and we’ll take whatever time Senators would like to take for ques- tions after that, if they want a second round. Today’s hearing is an important one for our Nation’s workers and employers. It’s important to get the Department of Labor properly staffed and to ensure the open seats on the NLRB are filled. We need a full Board. I’m certainly not the only one of us who thinks so. One Democratic Senator said at a hearing on May 16, 2013, ‘‘I strongly support a fully functioning NLRB with five mem- bers. I think confirming the entire slate will ensure that the NLRB is working for American workers and employers.’’ Another Democratic Senator said at the same hearing, ‘‘What we don’t need now—the last thing we need here in this country is more rancor, more division, more ideology, at a time when we need the Board fully functioning. We need five people to get confirmed here. Any Senator who is standing in the way of getting five people confirmed and having a func- tioning Board has a lot of explaining to do.’’ (1) VerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Nov 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\26334.TXT CAROL HELPN-004 with DISTILLER 2 Our chairman then, Senator Harkin, said in September 2014, ‘‘Keeping the NLRB fully staffed and able to do its work will send a strong message to the American people that, yes, Wash- ington can work, and our government can function. It will give certainty to businesses and ensure workers that someone is looking out for their rights and ready and able to enforce our Nation’s
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 6 What's Wrong with the Employee Free Choice Act?
    6 What’s Wrong with the Employee Free Choice Act? Richard A. Epstein he first one hundred days of the Obama administration have been marked by its determination to pass the revolu- T tionary Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which was introduced in Congress on March 10, 2009. As of this writing, it looks as though the bill will not pass this year, given the unanimous Republican opposition to it in the Senate. But the issue is likely to be revived again during the Obama presidency, as it has been before, so it is important to examine its provisions because it raises important issues of principle. In addition, it has gathered an impressive level of political and intellectual support. In particular, the EFCA has received the endorsement of the Democratic National Convention Platform Committee of prominent economists, under the aegis of the Economic Policy Institute, and of President Obama and Vice President Biden. In a recent congressional hearing before the 110th Congress on February 8, the EFCA was defended as the means to return to the management-labor balance under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (the NLRA, in its original form is commonly referred to as the Wagner Act), said to be the surest way to revive the fortunes of a shrinking middle class. The reality, however, is otherwise. The EFCA would hamper the efficiency of labor markets in ways that make the road to economic 89 90 REACTING TO THE SPENDING SPREE recovery far steeper than necessary. Generally, it will severely hurt the very persons whom it intends to help.
    [Show full text]
  • Congress Amends LDA Forms to Require Reporting of Lobbyist Convictions
    Congress Amends LDA Forms to Require Reporting of Lobbyist Convictions April 8, 2019 Election and Political Law The recent passage of the Justice Against Corruption on K Street Act of 2018 (“JACK Act” or the “Act”) imposes new requirements on those registering and filing reports under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (“LDA”). The Act amends the LDA to require that LDA registrants disclose listed lobbyists’ convictions for criminal offenses involving bribery, extortion, embezzlement, illegal kickbacks, tax evasion, fraud, conflicts of interest, making a false statement, perjury, or money laundering. Background The JACK Act was inspired by Jack Abramoff, whose alleged corrupt lobbying activities placed him at the center of a political scandal that led to the conviction of more than twenty lobbyists, congressional aides, and politicians. Between 2006 and 2008, Abramoff himself was convicted of crimes including fraud, tax evasion, conspiracy to bribe public officials, and bribery of public officials. After serving four years in federal prison, Abramoff emerged as a purported political reformer, only to begin lobbying again. The Law Congress passed the JACK Act in response to Mr. Abramoff’s post-prison lobbying activities, in order to shed light on registered lobbyists with prior convictions. The Act specifically amends the LDA’s registration (form LD-1) and quarterly reporting (form LD-2) requirements to require registrants to report the date of conviction and a description of the offense “for any listed lobbyist who was convicted in a Federal or State court of an offense involving bribery, extortion, embezzlement, an illegal kickback, tax evasion, fraud, a conflict of interest, making a false statement, perjury, or money laundering.” Those who violate the JACK Act’s requirements are subject to the civil and criminal penalty provisions of the LDA.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 of 1 Law.Com: DOJ Keeps Pressure on Former Abramoff
    Law.com: DOJ Keeps Pressure on Former Abramoff Associate in Corruption Prosecution Page 1 of 1 Select 'Print' in your browser menu to print this document. Copyright 2010. ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Page printed from: http://www.law.com Back to Article DOJ Keeps Pressure on Former Abramoff Associate in Corruption Prosecution Mike Scarcella 07-07-2010 Just two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the honest services fraud laws, Justice Department attorneys Tuesday said they are pushing forward on the corruption prosecution of ex-lobbyist Kevin Ring, a former Jack Abramoff associate who is charged in a bribery scheme. At a hearing Tuesday in Washington federal district court, Public Integrity Section trial attorney Peter Koski said the high court's June 24 ruling in Skilling v. United States has "no impact whatsoever" on the prosecution of Ring. The Supreme Court in Skilling said the honest services law can reach only bribery and kickback schemes. Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle said she has a different take. The once wide-open honest service fraud statute "is not an unlimited category now," the judge said Tuesday. She said the "arena" today is different than when charges were first brought against Ring. There's a new definition of bribery and materiality, the judge said. Huvelle on Tuesday gave Ring's attorneys -- he is represented by a Miller & Chevalier team -- more time to file an amended motion for judgment of acquittal. Ring's trial last fall ended in a hung jury. Ring, a former lobbyist at Greenberg Traurig and then, later, at Barnes & Thornburg, could be retried this fall in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Ex-Istook Aide Pleads Guilty to Corruption Charges −
    NEWSLETTER Ex-Istook Aide Pleads Guilty to Corruption Charges − July 2008 Authors A former aide to retired Rep. Ernest Istook pleaded guilty on June 2, − Robert L. Walker 2008, to a federal public corruption charge as part of the ongoing Of Counsel Jack Abramoff investigation. 202.719.7585 [email protected] John Albaugh, once Chief of Staff to then-Oklahoma Congressman Istook, admitted to accepting thousands of dollars' worth of tickets for sporting events, concert tickets, and free meals from an Abramoff colleague and his clients, according to the plea agreement as reported by the FBI. These gifts violated the House gift rules then in place, and Albaugh failed to report them on his annual financial disclosure forms. In exchange for these gifts, Albaugh admitted to taking official action as a staff member for the congressman on behalf of Abramoff's clients in the form of assistance with transportation appropriations requests. Albaugh's former boss was then Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, and Related Agencies. Albaugh also admitted to accepting catering and tickets to events that were not properly disclosed to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) as contributions to Congressman Istook's re-election campaign. In total, Albaugh admitted to accepting more than $4,000 worth of meals and event tickets from Abramoff and his associates. Albaugh has agreed to cooperate in the ongoing investigation of former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and others. Albaugh will be sentenced in September and faces up to five years in jail and a fine of $250,000. According to his plea agreement, Albaugh will cooperate with the investigation surrounding Abramoff wiley.law 1 Ex-Istook Aide Pleads Guilty to Corruption Charges and others.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Democrats Progress on EFCA Compromise by Jay P
    Senate Democrats Progress on EFCA Compromise by Jay P. Krupin and Steven Swirsky July 2009 The past several days have brought potentially significant developments with respect to Senate Democrats’ efforts to enact labor law reform and bring the Employee Free Choice Act to a vote on the Senate floor. Reports have circulated that a consensus has begun to emerge among Senate Democrats for a bill that would remove EFCA’s controversial provisions eliminating secret ballot elections where a union has obtained signatures from more than 50 percent of the employees in the proposed bargaining unit, and instead would provide for significantly faster NLRB-conducted elections, within five to ten days of the filing of a representation petition. The bill would also provide for greater access to employees and to employer property during the campaign period. Presently, NLRB-conducted elections are typically held an average of 45 days after the union files a petition. Along with faster elections, the reported compromise would include increased access by unions to employer premises to campaign among employees, as well as increased restrictions on employer campaign rights. EFCA’s other most controversial component, compulsory binding arbitration of the economic and other terms of initial collective bargaining agreements where the parties do not quickly reach agreement, is reported to remain a part of the compromise bill. While the Democrats reached 60 votes in the Senate when Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania switched his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and Al Franken was finally declared the victor over Norm Coleman in Minnesota, the fact is that there remain a substantial block of Democratic senators who have expressed doubt about EFCA’s card check language and who have indicated that they are not prepared to support a bill that would eliminate secret ballot elections.
    [Show full text]
  • USSS) Director's Monthly Briefings 2006 - 2007
    Description of document: United States Secret Service (USSS) Director's Monthly Briefings 2006 - 2007 Requested date: 15-October-2007 Appealed date: 29-January-2010 Released date: 23-January-2010 Appeal response: 12-April-2010 Posted date: 19-March-2010 Update posted: 19-April-2010 Date/date range of document: January 2006 – December 2007 Source of document: United States Secret Service Communications Center (FOI/PA) 245 Murray Lane Building T-5 Washington, D.C. 20223 Note: Appeal response letter and additional material released under appeal appended to end of this file. The governmentattic.org web site (“the site”) is noncommercial and free to the public. The site and materials made available on the site, such as this file, are for reference only. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals have made every effort to make this information as complete and as accurate as possible, however, there may be mistakes and omissions, both typographical and in content. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused, or alleged to have been caused, directly or indirectly, by the information provided on the governmentattic.org web site or in this file. The public records published on the site were obtained from government agencies using proper legal channels. Each document is identified as to the source. Any concerns about the contents of the site should be directed to the agency originating the document in question. GovernmentAttic.org is not responsible for the contents of documents published on the website.
    [Show full text]
  • The Employee Free Choice Act: the Biggest Change in Labor Law in 60 Years by Robert Quinn and John Leschak
    LABOR LAW REGIONAL LABOR REVIEW, Fall 2009 The Employee Free Choice Act: The Biggest Change in Labor Law in 60 Years by Robert Quinn and John Leschak One of the most contentious proposals of the 2008 Presidential campaign and of the current Congressional season in Washington is the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). Supported by President Obama and opposed by Senator John McCain and most other Republicans, EFCA would be the most significant change to federal labor law in over sixty years. First, EFCA would allow the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) to certify a union without an election if a majority of workers voluntarily sign cards authorizing a union to represent them (this provision is also known as “card check”). Second, EFCA would impose new penalties on employers who violate workers’ rights during initial organizing campaigns. And third, EFCA would permit bargaining disputes between an employer and union to be decided by arbitration during first-time contract negotiations. However, several powerful groups are opposed to any change. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has launched a vociferous campaign against EFCA’s “Card Check” provision, which they claim will lead to intimidation and coercion in the workplace.1 Congressional Republicans have also been outspoken opponents of card check. Last February, Republican Senators Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Mike Enzi (Wyo.) introduced the Secret Ballot Protection Act, S. 478. This bill would make it illegal for an employer to voluntarily recognize a union through card check and would require NLRB elections. While many are opposed to EFCA, it cannot be denied that reform is needed.
    [Show full text]
  • A Report on the Litigation Lobby
    CENTER FOR LEGAL POLICY AT THE MANHATTAN INSTITUTE C L P STREET NW A REPORT ON THE LITIGATION LOBBY 2010 A Message from the Director merica’s litigation-friendly legal system continues to im- law is, for the most part, crafted by state judges rather than en- A pose a heavy burden on our economy. The annual direct acted by state legislatures, these efforts have centered on ensuring cost of American tort litigation—excluding much securities liti- a friendly judiciary, whether appointed or elected. gation, punitive damages, and the multibillion-dollar settlement With business groups now fighting back against Trial Lawyers, reached between the tobacco companies and the states in 1998— Inc.’s longtime grip on state judiciaries, the litigation lobby has exceeds $250 billion, almost 2 percent of gross domestic prod- turned its attention to state legislatures, where it is not only block- uct.1 The indirect costs of excessive litigiousness (for example, the ing tort reforms but working to expand its portfolio of litigation unnecessary tests and procedures characterizing the practice of opportunities. Among other things, state legislators are authoriz- “defensive” medicine, or the loss of the fruits of research never ing new kinds of lawsuits, raising damage caps, and giving private undertaken on account of the risk of abusive lawsuits) are prob- lawyers authority to sue on behalf of the state. ably much greater than the direct costs themselves.2 Of course, the growth in federal regulation and law has made Of course, tort litigation does do some good, and it does deter it necessary for Trial Lawyers, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Jack Abramoff Story
    In It to Win: The Jack Abramoff Story This 25-minute documentary draws from footage shot at The University of Texas at Austin when former lobbyist and convicted felon Jack Abramoff visited to talk about his life, politics, prison, and corrupt lobbying in Washington, D.C. During the Bush Administration, Abramoff was the most influential lobbyist in Washington, D.C. He was also at the center of one of the most significant political scandals since Watergate. His excesses led to his downfall and that of Congress members with whom he was closely connected, including aides, business associates, government officials, and lawmakers. As a video case, In It to Win: The Jack Abramoff Story includes the documentary, six short videos that each focus on a behavioral ethics bias as illustrated by Abramoff’s story, and a written case study. The documentary can be used on its own to stimulate discussion about ethical issues and lapses, or used with its supporting materials to supplement topics taught in disciplines such as government, business, and economics. The video case is also appropriate for courses such as American studies, history, political science, law, journalism, communications, film, and psychology. The main objective of the video case is to illustrate how well intentioned people can make serious ethical errors—and even commit crimes—if they are not careful. It exposes personal and systemic ethical concerns in government and business, and explores the responsibility of the individual to organizations and communities. It also looks at the relationship between law and ethics, issues of power and privilege, and above all, the potential pitfalls any ambitious person faces when operating within a hyper-competitive environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Employee Free Choice Act What It Means for You
    JUNE 2009 54224_P01_32_x2.indd 1 6/21/09 11:00:58 PM President’s Page Employee Free Choice Act What It Means For You uch that is written on the front pages of tively—free from coercion, intimidation, and retali- Mnewspapers all across America on the Em- ation, exactly what is needed to rebuild the middle ployee Free Choice Act (EFCA) has been about class. We know the erosion of the middle class fol- the battle lines drawn by Big Business and La- lows in the footprints of the steady decline of work- bor on this issue. It is easy to get caught up in ers’ rights over the past several decades. Below are the politics of it all, but the American public de- some of the reasons the Act is so important, and serves an answer to the question, “Is this good why the Iron Workers and the building trades have for America right now?” The U.S. House of Rep- supported passage of the EFCA in Congress: resentatives passed the EFCA on March 1, 2007 When workers in a non-union workplace at- by a 241-185 majority. However, though a ma- tempt to form support for a union, they are of- jority of the Senate supported the EFCA, a Re- ten times harassed and intimidated; 25 percent publican fi libuster blocked it. Published reports of companies unlawfully fi re pro-union workers. state approximately 60 million unrepresented The current laws against such corporate mis- Americans would join a union if given a chance. conduct are so weak companies often treat them The U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Employee Free Choice Act – What’S an Employer to Do?
    Reprinted with permission from the New York State Bar Association Journal, September 2009, Vol. 81, No. 7, published by the New York State Bar Association, One Elk Street, Albany, New York 12207. POINT OF VIEW BY EVE I. KLEIN, BRUCE J. KASTEN AND JOANNA R. VARON EVE I. KLEIN ([email protected]) is a partner at Duane Morris LLP in New York City practic- ing in the area of employment law, labor relations and litigation. She earned her law degree from Cornell Law School and her undergraduate degree, with distinction, from Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations. BRUCE J. KASTEN ([email protected]) is a partner at Duane Morris LLP in Philadelphia, practicing in the areas of employment law, labor relations and employment litigation. He is a graduate of the Columbus School of Law of The Catholic University of America and earned his undergraduate degree from the University of Scranton. JOANNA R. VARON ([email protected]) is an associate at Duane Morris LLP in New York City. She received her law degree from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, where she was senior articles editor of the Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal. She received her undergraduate degree, with high honors, from Rutgers University. The Employee Free Choice Act – What’s an Employer to Do? he labor movement’s top legisla- any corresponding increase in penal- cess; (3) potential revisions to EFCA; tive priority, the Employee Free ties for union misconduct. and (4) steps employers can take to TChoice Act (EFCA), proposes The chances for passage of at least be ready for the changes the EFCA is the most sweeping set of amendments some version of the EFCA this year expected to have on the organizing to the National Labor Relations Act have improved dramatically from last and collective bargaining processes.
    [Show full text]
  • Abramoff: More Unanswered Questions
    OPINION Abramoff: More Unanswered Questions By Rick Cohen It’s hard to believe that anyone stumbling into NCRP has- tional banking firms, and n’t heard the basics of Jack Abramoff’s network of corrup- major Israeli law firms. tion used philanthropy. Some brief exploration of articles According to The written about Abramoff by NCRP staff in issues of Washington Post, IIA Responsive Philanthropy, the Nonprofit Quarterly, the stands for “International online Philanthropy Journal, and shortly the Chronicle of Interactive Alliance” Philanthropy, provides the basics on lobbyist Abramoff’s which it identified as an misuse of his personal foundation, the Capital Athletic international gambling Foundation, in his corrupt schemes. company pushing internet No matter how much we write about the Capital gambling. However, IIA’s Athletic Foundation, Abramoff’s particular uses of philan- home base appears to be thropy raise some relatively unanswered questions that we in Gibraltar, not Israel. pose (in no particular order of priority): Was it connected to Rick Cohen. Abramoff’s financing of 1. Who or what is IIA and why did IIA contribute sniper and other military equipment for radical West $500,000 to the Capital Athletic Foundation in 2003? Bank settlers? Whether they were given the straight story or a bunch IIA’s contributions may not have been limited to of lies, just about every donor had a motivation for $500,000. It apparently gave $1.5 million to making major donations to Abramoff’s foundation, few Abramoff’s old firm, Greenberg Traurig, which turned of them related to CAF’s mission of promoting sports- some money to the right wing think tank, the National manship among under- privileged children.
    [Show full text]