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


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”

Freedom of Speech and Public Employee Unions: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

U.S. labor unions have long been experiencing a decline. In 1954, union membership for both public and private sector employees combined peaked at 28.3 percent. Today only around 11 percent of all workers belong to unions. The overall rate of union membership would be much lower were it not for the public sector—teachers, police officers, other municipal workers— where the rate of union membership is considerably higher at nearly 36 percent. This higher rate among the public sector is why the outcome of Friederichs v. California Teachers Association is a major concern for labor leaders.

Rebecca Friederichs is a public school teacher employed by the Savanna School District in Anaheim, California. She was once a member of the teachers union that represents the teachers at Savanna but resigned from the union in 2012. Despite her not being a member, the school district continues to deduct from her pay an amount generally equal to the union dues. This money ends up in the coffers of the California Teachers Association and the National Education Association and its local affiliates. This is made possible because the school district has agreed to an “agency shop” which essentially requires all teachers, as a condition of continuing employment, to pay either union dues or an equivalent amount called an “agency fee.”

Current law concerning these agency fees is based on a case decided nearly 40 years ago—Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977). According to Abood, Rebecca Friederichs is required to pay for union expenditures that are used for “collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment” but not that portion of union expenditures that finance political/ideological activities of the union such as the support of political candidates. The Supreme Court in Abood went on to say that compelling employees to pay fees to support the union’s political/ideological causes such as lobbying and candidate support, with which they may not agree, is a violation of their First Amendment rights. In order to get back that “ideological/political” portion of the agency fee, Rebecca Friederichs is required to apply each year for a refund of monies that the union had no right to claim in the first place. If she and the other non-member teachers miss the deadline for filing, they get nothing back.

In the lawsuit, Friederichs and other teachers object to the cumbersome process by which they must retrieve the portion of the union’s fee devoted to political causes.

Friederichs and her fellow petitioners raise a second and more fundamental complaint. They argue that even the part of their pay check that is currently claimed by the union for its “collective bargaining services” violates their First Amendment rights. Public employee union leaders fear that if this view is upheld by the Supreme Court, the potential loss of non-member generated fees nationwide will be in the millions of dollars.

Are the First Amendment rights of this handful of California teachers in jeopardy? If so, how? Friederichs says that non-member teachers are being compelled to financially underwrite negotiating positions taken by the union during contract deliberations that are political and ideological in nature and are contrary to their interests and their political views. Friederichs maintains that Abood made a false distinction between negotiations with public school districts, on one hand, and other more obvious political lobbying and candidate support on the other. Her brief argues that both activities are designed to influence government decision-making with which non-members may well have disagreement. Both are political and ideological. The First Amendment principle that persons cannot be compelled to support speech by others with which they disagree, says Friederichs, means that the union is violating the constitutional rights of the non-members when it involuntarily collects agency fees from them that further ideological negotiating positions.

Friederichs and her fellow teachers are correct. Repeatedly, union negotiations with tax-supported public school districts aim at producing public policy outcomes with much the same result as direct political action. For example, when unions bargain for fixed-scale pay steps that increase depending largely on seniority (years of service), they negate a public-pay policy tied to individual teacher merit and effectiveness. When they stake out positions on a host of other topics—classroom size, medical and retirement benefits, transfer, reassignment, termination of teachers—they seek to influence public school districts to adopt those policies.

The Supreme Court should end this compelled support for the public employee union’s policy agendas. If due-paying union members choose to support these political/ideological positions taken by their union across the bargaining table, let them be the ones to pay, not their unwilling non-member colleagues.

Pennsylvania Just Dropped The Hammer On Labor Unions In A Way That’s Long Overdue

With a new law, union strikers and activists in Pennsylvania lost what many argued they should never have had in the first place: legal cover to threaten their opponents with stalking, harassment, and even use of “weapons of mass destruction.”

Last week, Governor Tom Wolfe (pictured above), a Democrat, signed House Bill 874, a new law that would outlaw such harassment by union members involved in a labor dispute. Oddly enough, before this new law, unions had been allowed a free pass under Pennsylvania law to commit these acts without incurring the wrath of law enforcement if said harassment was conducted during a labor dispute of some type.

“I believe it is important to allow men and women to come together and their voices heard,” Gov. Wolf said in a statement. “I also believe that any form of harassment by employees or employers is unacceptable.”

“Under current law there is an exemption for a person who is involved in a labor dispute as defined in the labor anti-injunction act preventing a person to be charged with one of those three crimes.” Wolfe continued. “House Bill 874 simply removes those three exemptions and adds legislative intent to specifically say the legislature intends that the exemptions should not apply in labor disputes moving forward.”

In past disputes, union toughs had harassed the children and spouses of business executives–and at times threatened violence and even death to business owners–but those businessmen had no recourse under the law to prevent the harassment or have those who perpetrated the crimes arrested.

This represents a big win for the Keystone Chapter of the Associated Building Contractors.

“These loopholes have allowed for horrific activities disguised as legitimate labor disputes for years,” ABC Keystone President and CEO Kate McCaslin said at Watchdog.org. “Today, ABC applauds Governor Tom Wolf for signing this legislation into law that will provide for equal protection for employers and employees from hostile work environments.”

This new law will go into effect early next year.

Obama Just Revealed Something Huge, And Democrats Are Furious With Him About It

Democrats are reading dark news between the lines of Obama’s Pacific Rim trade deal, now that the long-secret agreement has finally been made public.

The vast volumes of the Trans Pacific Partnership deal were made public Thursday. The agreement covers trade among the U.S., Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Australia, Chile, Peru, Canada, Brunei, Singapore, Vietnam and Malaysia. President Obama has said he will sign the agreement, which will go to Congress next year for an up-or-down ratification vote.

The United Steel Workers Thursday called the agreement “a dagger twisting in the heart of American manufacturing.”

“The American people deserve better and we can do better,” said Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md. Edwards. She said that serious concerns had been raised during the years of secrecy shrouding negotiations.

“It may indeed be worse than we thought,” she said. Edwards said the agreement falls short in ways that include, “a lack of enforceable workers’ and human rights protections, environmental standards, enforceable currency manipulation rules, food safety standards, strong government procurement Buy American provisions, and enforcement to ensure American wages are protected.”

Edwards promised to work to reject the agreement when it comes before Congress next year.

The impact of the deal on the auto industry concerned Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich.

“The agreement’s lack of any meaningful protections against currency manipulation means millions of American jobs – in the auto industry and many other sectors – will continue to be threatened by foreign governments who attempt to tilt the global playing field in favor of their industries and against the United States,” said Dingell, who noted America has already lost 5 million jobs due to foreign nations’ currency manipulation schemes.

Dingell said the deal threatens American jobs.

“It…will reward countries that support sweatshops and abusive working conditions, at the same time putting even more American jobs at risk,” she said.

h/t: Fox News

Should School Test Standards Be Changed?

Well, maybe yes, maybe no, maybe both.

It seems the Obama administration is deciding that maybe standardized testing in K – 12 education has gone too far:

Faced with mounting and bipartisan opposition to increased and often high-stakes testing in the nation’s public schools, the Obama administration declared Saturday that the push had gone too far, acknowledged its own role in the proliferation of tests, and urged schools to step back and make exams less onerous and more purposeful.

While a similar statement (followed by concrete action) on foreign military adventurism might offer an unequivocal cheer from lovers of less government intrusion everywhere, I cannot say that this is always and everywhere true for standardized testing.  But I am getting ahead of myself.

The so-called Common Core standards seem to have broken the camel’s back:

States, led by the National Governors Association and advised by local educators, created the so-called Common Core standards, which outlined the skills students should have upon graduation, and signed on to tests tied to those standards.

As a new generation of tests tied to the Common Core was rolled out last spring, several states abandoned plans to use the tests, while others renounced the Common Core…

What is motivating this change?

… “I can’t tell you how many conversations I’m in with educators who are understandably stressed and concerned about an overemphasis on testing in some places and how much time testing and test prep are taking from instruction.”

It is the educators. So says Arne Duncan, the secretary of education.

Teachers’ unions, which had led the opposition on the left to the amount of testing, declared the reversal of sorts a victory.

On the left, parents and unions objected to tying tests to teacher evaluations…

More precisely, it is the teachers’ unions.

Consider the lusciousness of this – the reason the federal government wants to reduce standardized testing has nothing to do with the students; it is because the teachers are failing the test.

Now, returning to the question that is the title of this post, and my answer to this question: Should school test standards be changed? Well, maybe yes, maybe no, maybe both.

There is something close to 55 million K – 12 students in the United States. 55 million. Let the number sink in.

Those of you who are parents consider – even in your small sample size of about two children per family: does one size fit both of your children when it comes to their interests, how they learn, how they study, how they progress, etc.?  To ask the question is to answer it.  Yet here we have a one-size-fits-all testing regimen for 55 million.

For some students, the regimen may be just fine; for most, I am certain that the regimen is wrong.

Just remember, they aren’t changing it because of the failure of 55 million students to conform to a one-size-fits-all curriculum; they are changing it because the test scores are used to grade the teachers, and the teachers are failing.

You see, they aren’t giving up on one-size-fits-all 55 million – they just want to try on a different size:

“I still have no question that we need to check at least once a year to make sure our kids are on track or identify areas where they need support,” said Arne Duncan, the secretary of education, who has announced that he will leave office in December.

How would he know – does he have a close relationship with each one of 55 million of them?

“What happens if somebody puts a cap on testing, and to meet the cap ends up eliminating tests that could actually be helpful, or leaves the redundancy in the test and gets rid of a test that teachers can use to inform their instruction?” asked Michael Casserly, the executive director of the Council of the Great City Schools, an organization that represents about 70 large urban school districts.

Who can say what is “helpful” for each one of 55 million students?

The administration said it would issue “clear guidance” on testing by January.

Apparently, the federal government can say.

Rest assured, nothing in the new testing regimen will come close to examining the pillars of the religion that is the American state.

Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.

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