Searching Google News can be fun, especially if you’re focused on a limited set of keywords — like “hypocrite,” “phony,” “devious,” and “two-faced.” That last one just netted me this, from yesterday’s London Times:

One of the most powerful trade unions in the United States has vowed to damage the reputation of “two-faced” Tesco around the world in an unprecedented attack on Britain’s biggest retailer.

The United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union (UFCW) condemned the supermarket yesterday for the way in which it treats staff in the US and said that there were stark differences with the rights and benefits enjoyed by workers in Britain. Union officials unveiling the “Two Faces of Tesco” campaign in London pledged to name and shame the retailer until its directors came to the negotiating table.

If you really want to read the UFCW’s report, here it is. But considering that Tesco is Britain’s version of Wal-Mart, I’m not all that impressed with what the union calls “two-faced.” They’re basically complaining about the lack of things like universal health care, paid sick-leave, and “living wages” which are required in the UK but not in the United States. Why on earth would a British company voluntarily extend those benefits to Americans when it opens up some stores on this side of the Atlantic? Doesn’t really sound “two-faced” to me. More like “When in Rome…”

That complaining union, on the other hand … well, here’s what union-watchdog group the Center for Union Facts has found in public records. It ain’t pretty.

While it’s been complaining about the “unfair” treatment of workers at the hands of big, bad supermarket chains that won’t match their 401(k) contributions, the UFCW has itself been the subject of over 2,000 federal-government “Unfair Labor Practice” investigations. Just since the year 2000.

Here’s a taste of what Tesco probably has to look forward to, from UnionFacts.com:

In late 2005, the former assistant to the president of UFCW International, Joseph DiFlumera, was sentenced for mail fraud, racketeering, and extorting more than $1.5 million from a grocery chain. DiFlumera told prosecutors that he would offer an “insurance policy” that allowed a company to “come under the umbrella” of protection from union organizing. DiFlumera “repeatedly advised these individuals that the monies paid to him were handed over to the president of Local 1445 and the UFCW. The defendant insisted that if these monies were not paid by the company the company would suffer extreme economic harm.”

And the union’s president made over $345,000 last year. Nice “living wage” if you can get it. Workers of the world, unite!