7 Of The Worst Liberal Places To Work At

Liberal groups are always claiming they’re for the little guy. Labor unions claim to support employee rights and their best interests. Liberal candidates rail against “unfair” pay and high CEO salaries. They pledge workplace “fairness.”

But do they walk the walk? A surprising number don’t.

The website Glassdoor, which allows current and former employees to rate their companies, offers a peek behind the curtain at whether liberal groups are so high and mighty. The truth, according to former and current employees, is revealing.  

Image credit: JStone / Shutterstock.com

Image credit: JStone / Shutterstock.com

Clinton Health Access Initiative

An arm of the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Health Access Initiative recently came under scrutiny after a performance review found that its CEO had shown “disdain” for the board of directors and shown “duplicitousness with management.” A number of employee reviews show that the name “Clinton” shouldn’t be confused with “golden.”  

What Employees Say:

“In most cases, individuals are promoted on the basis of nepotism. As a result, the organization has really horrible managers as high up as even the Director-level. In any case, one learns more from bad managers than good ones.”

“CHAI staff used to pride itself on being frugal and money was being channeled to programs. Recently directors have started purchasing brand new Land Cruisers and drive around town in these fancy cars. Wait, what? We used to drive some of the most basic cars and now we have these shiny fancy SUVs.”

“Pay is poor, benefits are the bare minimum. … [L]ow overheads which is good since most benefit to client/patient but results in worker burnout due to poor work-life balance coupled first point above on poor pay. The personality cult of [CEO] Ira Magaziner overshadows implementation in some cases.”

“Turnover at CHAI is due to two main factors: burnout due to high stress with lack of coaching and poaching from other teams for projects suddenly deemed more important that month/quarter/semester… CHAI’s reputation in country is definitely in jeopardy because of the lack of an effective structure to engage with partner countries and no experienced (real) managers.”

Image credit: a katz / Shutterstock.com

Image credit: a katz / Shutterstock.com

Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

One of the major labor unions in the country and a group that spent $28 million supporting Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, SEIU claims to represent and support service workers such as nurses and security guards. Now behind the supposedly employee-oriented “Fight for $15” movement, the SEIU’s own employees say this place is far from a workers’ paradise.

What Employees Say:

“12-18 hour workdays…fighting for things that you as an organizer will never have.”

“Catty, viscous atmosphere. Everyone seemed to think everyone else was an idiot behind their back which meant they were likely saying the same thing about you. Very little ever got done.”

“No promotion. Racist. Sexist. Ablest. All the people of color get fired or look for other places. Office politics. Horrible people in management. The toxicity is promoted and encouraged from above. You have to brown nose.”

“Insane hours, vicious manipulative and petty lead organizers, rampant nepotism that makes it impossible to get ahead unless you’re somebodies sister or sleeping with the boss, no acknowledgement of good work only criticism.”

“The leadership is racist & negligent under the pretense of ‘fighting for the cause’. They help each other advance in ranks by stepping on the work of others. There’s SUPER HIGH turnover.”

“Staff routinely work 60 – 80 hours a week. We were expected to regularly work evenings, weekends and holidays, in addition to the ‘regular’ work week, for no additional pay. Forget about having any personal plans or a personal life if you work there.”

Image credit: Patrick Kwan/Flickr

Image credit: Patrick Kwan/Flickr

Humane Society of the United States

Despite its name, the Humane Society of the United States isn’t actually affiliated with the numerous humane societies in cities and counties across the country. Instead, it’s a liberal lobbying group with an extreme animal rights agenda intended to shut down hunting and meat-eating. But this group doesn’t seem to get what the word “humane” means, according to some reviewers. Reviewers have complained about sexism and cronyism, as well as an extreme pay gap between execs and younger employees.

What Employees Say:

“Low pay and everyone appears to be overworked and stretched. Infighting and executive staff pay (compared to mid tier, hands on workers) is excessive.”

“Toxic work environment at times. If you think you left the world of bullying and mean-girl cliques behind in high school, think again.”

There are very valid concerns of female staff that a male leadership volunteer with a history of sexual harassment and rape charges had extensive contact with our staff and no one has ever been notified or warned to stay away from him. This, and many other internal concerns, makes me fear that the organization is one scandal away from oblivion.”

“Work harder, for less money than you deserve. And if you don’t like it, leave. How’s that for progressive? Years of awful internal bureaucracy, including and especially from an often surly, insensitive, unresponsive and indifferent HR department, nepotism, red tape, low morale, and lack of investment in staff is dismantling this organization from the inside out.”

“There’s cronyism, nepotism, and ‘mean girl’ cliques. … The execs are out of touch and the board is out of reach.”

Image credit: Tory/Flickr

Image credit: Tory/Flickr

Media Matters for America

Calling itself a “media watchdog,” Media Matters was founded by Clinton hack David Brock. This progressive outfit has been outed before for not practicing what it preaches—such as when a Media Matters staffer illegally carried a handgun to protect Brock and the organization. Additionally, it has kept many of its donors quiet despite criticizing right-leaning groups for doing the same thing—and its employees have shed some additional light on what goes on behind the curtains.

What Employees Say:

“High-turnover due to: lack of diversity, low ceiling, no built-in development. Senior-level management is too single-tracked minded, rarely consider and implement critical input from researchers to keep employees happy…does not pay nearly enough (starting salary: $35k) …folks of color rarely last here.”

“Media Matters doesn’t care about providing decent benefits or opportunities for advancement because there will ALWAYS be another round of kids to replace you. That’s pretty smart, but it makes it a bad place to work. Unsurprisingly, turnover was incredibly high while I was there.”

“Promotions are largely based on personal relationships rather than professional, which leads to underqualified people filling high positions while talent languishes in smaller capacity roles. Extremely high turnover due to low morale in research staff. At one point in my tenure there, almost every single researcher was searching for employment opportunities elsewhere.”

“All staff is often overworked as you’re basically fighting the ocean with a teaspoon and, as a ‘journalist,’ (or are you a non-profiter?), you’re supposed to like working all the time. Sometimes they clean house. Sometimes they hire more people than they can manage. It’s not clear who’s managing what. If you’re not a pseudo-journalist you will be shunned.”

Image credit: Juan Camilo Bernal / Shutterstock.com

Image credit: Juan Camilo Bernal / Shutterstock.com

Human Rights Campaign

The Human Rights Campaign lobbies for equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, and for protection from things like workplace discrimination. But it seems the organization has a “do as I say, not as I do” problem.

What Employees Say:

“A very hostile work environment.”

They will haze you the first year and make life or any idea of work/life balance impossible. Proceed with caution.”

HRC lives up to its image as an upper class ‘gay men’s’ organization. If you’re not ‘in’ with the gay men who run this organization, don’t expect any upward mobility. Expect sexism and cliquiness among employees. There is extremely high support staff turnover here because people continually quit after they are burnt out from being overworked, not taken seriously, and lousy pay.”

Not a great place to grow and they pay very low. Finance Department is all over the place and the people who are running the department obviously do not know what they’re doing. If you know someone in the company, you’ll definitely get in even if you’re not qualified. For a company that is supposed to support equality, many employees are not treated that way.”

Image credit: Richard Thornton / Shutterstock.com

Image credit: Richard Thornton / Shutterstock.com

Teamsters

The union notorious for its ties to the mafia is also a major funder of left-wing causes—more than 90 percent of the Teamsters’ political donations go to Democrats. But the union that pushes for worker equality could use some lessons in self-analysis.

What Employees Say:

“There are no really career opportunities. employees and managers never eat lunch together. you will find people who have been working on the same position for more than 20 years.”

“Expect to come here and waste away. Stuck in the 1950’s. Rampant sexual harassment. Member’s work hard to pay overpriced salaries and benefits and lots of luxury trips and dinners. There really should be investigations into this. Political backstabbing. People who aren’t qualified gets Cush jobs because of political favor or nepotism and they never ever leave. If only the members knew what really goes on. Shameful to do this on the backs of working people. No wonder unions are irrelevant.”

“Too many secrets from members, secretary treasurers don’t promote by seniority, and they fire older workers.”

“The old boy network is alive and well. Women are not valued and are segregated, not even invited to the Company Christmas luncheon. This is a labor union, but the current management treat their ‘office girls’ with contempt. They use the lessons they’ve learned from their worst employers against their own employees. The environment is full of suspicion and backstabbing.”

“Everything else – the backstabbing, the lack of helpful communication, the blatant cronyism and nepotism. If you want to learn something in your career and actually have management that doesn’t vacillate back and forth between non-existent and overly micro-managed, stay away.”

Image credit: Adrin Shamsudin / Shutterstock.com

Image credit: Adrin Shamsudin / Shutterstock.com

Open Society Foundations

Billionaire European George Soros has put loads of money into changing America’s culture and electing liberal politicians. His Open Society Foundations have pushed “progressive” causes from rolling back anti-drug laws to ‘gay rights.’ But it’s hardly a progressive workplace, per the reviews of its staff.

What Employees Say:

“Sometimes arbitrary management style, few managers are open to honest (critical) employee feedback, new foundation director has created far too much paperwork and bureaucracy for both staff and grantees.”

Top heavy and lack of responsibility at higher level, long working hours, no opportunities for promotions.”

You can work like a dog for very little money….Dealing with the toxic management wasn’t worth it, but maybe other parts of the organization are different. It’s a shame, it could be a nice place to work if it weren’t an abusive environment.”

Lack of integrity is very common. Dictatorial, infantile, self serving program directors. Systems make it possible for lots of mischief to happen. Amount spent on directors egos can run entire programs. Regions are closed societies and not open society.”

“Rampant racism and sexism remain a serious problem that management refuses to tackle. In short, while OSF espouses principles of human rights, this is only outward facing. Internally, human rights and employees rights are routinely set aside”

Exposed: Who’s REALLY Behind Black Lives Matter And What They Are Trying To Do Next

Black Lives Matter has made a name for itself by, some might say, fanning the flames of racial tension in the United States.

Questions remain about how the radical organizations that make up the Black Lives Matter movement are supported.

Now, though, key sources of support for the movement have been revealed.

The Washington Times exposed last January that leftist billionaire George Soros gave more than $30 million in seed money to Black Lives Matter affiliated groups.

According to Essence magazine, Google is also helping to fund the Black Lives Matter movement, giving $2.35 million in grants to activist organizations addressing the “racial injustices that have swept the nation.”

Now, Politico reports that “some of the biggest donors on the left plan to meet behind closed doors next week in Washington with leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement and their allies to discuss funding for the burgeoning protest movement.”

The major liberal donor group Democracy Alliance (DA) will be holding its annual meeting from Tuesday evening through Saturday morning in Washington, and meetings will be held to discuss funding the movement.

Wealthy donors including Tom Steyer and Paul Egerman are expected to attend the DA annual meeting.

The Los Angeles Times has reported that Steyer, a hedge fund billionaire, gave the most to political campaigns of any single person in the 2014 midterm elections, contributing a whopping $74 million–almost three times as much as the second biggest donor, Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg gave $27.7 million.

The DA was started in 2005 by major liberal donors, including George Soros and Taco Bell heir Rob McKay, who hoped to build a permanent infrastructure to support leftist causes.

Donors in the group are expected to contribute at least $200,000 a year to supported groups.

Combined donations to the groups now exceed $500 million, according to Politico.

DA President Gary LaMarche said about the upcoming meetings with Black Lives Matter leaders:

But we have a wide range of human beings and different temperaments and approaches in the DA, so it’s quite possible that there are people who are a little concerned, as well as people who are curious and supportive. This is a chance for them to meet some of the leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement, and understand the movement better, and then we’ll take stock of that and see where it might lead.

According to the organizer, a DA member named Leah-Hunt Hendrix, groups that will be at the meetings include the Black Youth Project 100, The Center for Popular Democracy, and the Black Civic Engagement Fund.

Does Soros Really Think He’s America’s ‘Deus Ex Machina’?

If our country was assigned an email address to most accurately define its current course, it would read: america@georgesoros.godcomplex.net

Look at the man, his mission, his influence, and subsequently our nation’s direction (and continued decline). Is there truly any further question?

The agenda proceeds undaunted by elections, lawsuits and/or investigative committees. Just follow the money trails and understand the man who shapes public opinion and bankrolls radical transformation.

Here’s a brief quote sampling from the god-man himself:

“I do not accept the rules imposed by others… And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.”

“I am kind of a nut who wants to have an impact”

“I am sort of a deus ex machina…”

“I am something unnatural. I’m very comfortable with my public persona because it is one I have created for myself.”

“It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.”

‘We The People’ are held in contempt. Social Justice and the New World Order lies at the feet of the global gods, and we are but insignificant little insects.

But in the end, so are they.

I’m not worried, but I don’t believe we should play ignorant either. If truth is ever a source of anxiety and suppression, then maybe those who seek to control and squelch it are on the wrong side. Standing for truth may not guarantee ease, or even safety, but it will ultimately reap security… the eternal kind.

Many faithful Americans do, in fact, have a “GOD complex,” and it is our GOD that will have the final say.

I am but a sinner and a worm, but I will continue to give praise to God for the day of Grace. What and whom shall we fear?

Social justice will be realized, not here, but in the life to come, when men of every nation are lifted up. The first will be last.

Will we be on the right side of Divine Justice to be administered on the last day?

“And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.” – Revelation 7:1-3

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Soros Pushes U.S. Bailouts, Weapons For Ukraine

If you look at the track record of the interventionists, you might think they would pause before taking on more projects. Each of their past projects has ended in disaster; yet still they press on. Last week, the website Zero Hedge posted a report about hacked emails between billionaire George Soros and Ukrainian President Poroshenko.

Soros is very close to the Ukrainian president, who was put in power after a U.S.-backed coup deposed the elected leader of Ukraine last year. In the email correspondence, Soros tells the Ukrainian leadership that the U.S. should provide Ukraine “with same level of sophistication in defense weapons to match the level of opposing force.” In other words, despite the February ceasefire, Soros is pushing behind the scenes to make sure Ukraine receives top-of-the-line lethal weapons from the United States. Of course, it will be up to us to pay the bill because Ukraine is broke.

But Soros seems to have the money part covered as well. In an email to Ukrainian leaders, he wrote that Ukraine’s “first priority must be to regain control of financial markets.” Soros told Poroshenko that the IMF would need to come through with a $15 billion package, which he was confident would lead the Fed to also come through with more money. He wrote: “the Federal Reserve could be asked to extend a $15 billion three months swap arrangement with the National Bank of Ukraine. That would reassure the markets and avoid a panic.”

How would the Fed be convinced to do that? Soros assured Poroshenko: “I am ready to call Jack Lew of the U.S. Treasury to sound him out about the swap agreement.”

So George Soros will use his influence in the U.S. government to put the American people on the hook for a bankrupt Ukraine — forcing us to pay for weapons, more military training, and Ukraine’s crippling debt.

Who is thrilled with Soros’ drawing the U.S. government into more intervention in the region? The military-industrial complex for one is happy at the prospect of big weapons “sales” to Ukraine. The bankers are thrilled. Washington power-brokers are thrilled. There is something in this for everyone who is politically well-connected. The only losers are the people who will be forced to pay for it: the American taxpayers.

No one seems to ask why we are involved in Ukraine at all. Is it really any of our business if the east wants to break away from the west? Is it a vital U.S. interest which flag the people wish to hang in Donetsk?

One thing we should be sure of is that Ukraine’s debt will not be paid. As in other bailouts, much of it will be transferred to the U.S. taxpayer through the IMF and the Federal Reserve. All of this is only possible because of the perception that the dollar is still the world’s reserve currency. But this too is coming to an end. U.S. military and financial interventionism worldwide are only speeding up the process.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Uncovered: Wikipedia’s Leftist Ties And Its Censorship Of The Facts

Despite the protests of countless experts claiming Wikipedia is often not a reliable source of information, it remains perhaps the most influential and one of the most-visited websites on the planet. But exactly who is really behind the world’s largest source of information? And does their agenda, if one exists, ever shine through their supposedly “unbiased” wiki pages?

After hearing of and experiencing incidents in which undeniable facts were removed from the site because editors at Wikipedia claimed the researchers who uncovered them were “not reliable”—which is, of course, irrelevant if the facts are demonstrably true—I began to research the prominent website’s leadership. That endeavor revealed that despite the site’s claims of being a neutral source of information, many of those leading Wikipedia have intimate ties to far-left organizations or openly support liberal policies and candidates.

Sue Gardner is just one example. She is the former executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation and served in that role from December 2007 to May 2014. Her influence on Wikipedia is substantial and unquestioned. She was even named one of the 100 most powerful women in the world by Forbes in 2012.

In addition to serving on Wikimedia’s Board of Trustees, Gardner has held a leadership position with the “nonpartisan” Sunlight Foundation (SF). SF has been funded by numerous left-wing organizations, such as the George Soros-funded Open Society Foundation and the Knight Foundation. SF even received $1 million in 2010 from the left-leaning Rockefeller Family Fund.

Also connected to SF is Wikipedia founder and Wikimedia Board of Trustees member Jimmy Wales, who serves on the SF Advisory Board. Wales is not only connected to leftist groups through his role at the Sunlight Foundation; he also has close personal ties to multiple left-wing bigshots. Wales even attended one of George Soros’ birthday parties, according to The New York Times.

Other Wikimedia Board of Trustees members have less extravagant ties to leftist causes but still openly admit they support such causes and politicians. Guy Kawasaki, Wikipedia’s “internet evangelist,” announced his support of Barack Obama on Election Day in 2012.

In one of her blog posts, Wikipedia board member Phoebe Ayers lamented that she had “white privilege” and reminisced about rifle-carrying “rednecks,” to whom she referred as “drunken yokel[s]” whose proximity she had to endure while growing up in the South. In another post, she applauded Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) for her “stands on the environment … and women’s issues” and worried someday the “unthinkable” might happen in California: A Republican could get elected.

Having a particular set of personal beliefs doesn’t necessarily mean there will be content bias, but the evidence suggests Wikipedia has been affected by its leftist leaders and many biased editors.

In 2012, for example, Northwestern University’s Shane Greenstein and the University of Southern California’s Feng Zhu analyzed more than 70,000 Wikipedia articles published over 10 years related to U.S. politics to determine whether any bias existed in the material. Greenstein and Feng found there was a distinct bias favoring Democrats and their positions. The authors also discovered that articles produced in the early 2000s were “very slanted” and less so after 2005. As time has gone on and more unbiased users have become involved in Wikipedia’s editing process, articles have become more balanced, Greenstein and Zhu say.

Things may be improving, but Wikipedia’s bias remains obvious. Not only are factual, credible sources being removed in an effort to censor information that reflects badly on political projects such as global warming alarmism, net neutrality, and Obamacare; but the editors have also allowed dishonest, biased sources to mislead people on numerous wiki pages. For instance, climate alarmist William Connolley repeatedly removed factual material from Wikipedia pages in 2010 and earlier because it didn’t support his belief in man-caused catastrophic global warming, even while he was being investigated for poor practices.

It’s true that Wikipedia is an enormous project, and that its leadership cannot be held responsible for every foolish decision; but from the top down, the evidence shows Wikipedia is decidedly not a neutral source operated by unbiased editors–and all of its readers should keep that in mind whenever visiting the site.

 

Justin Haskins (Jhaskins@heartland.org) is editor at The Heartland Institute and editor-in-chief of the New Revere Daily Press.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth