While we all know that the proposed Employee Free Choice Act will mandate restrictions on the free speech of employers, the state of Oregon has leapt into the vanguard by passing a new law that eliminates an employer’s right to discuss unionization with employees.
Imagine having union organizers working day and night to get workers to sign card checks while employers are prohibited from offering counter arguments. It is the kind of law that one would expect to be enacted by a totalitarian dictatorship, not by the oldest, uninterrupted democracy in the world.
Now, corporations in Oregon have brought a law suit in federal court claiming that employers have the right to present its views of unionization to employees. They rightly claim that the new law is unconstitutional, a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. In addition, it is a violation of provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. They are asking for a preliminary injunction to prevent the law from taking effect.
Corporate America should take notice that Oregon may be a bellwether of labor relations in the new year. While we wish all of our readers a happy and prosperous 2010, the future state of labor relations in President Obama’s America will become increasingly pro-union and anti-employers.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
UNION MEMBERS REVOLT
AFSCME FACES PORTENTOUS REVOLT
Municipal employees in Portland Maine have decided to show their unhappiness with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Many local union members (Local 1373) feel that they pay expensive dues and are not receiving sufficient job protections. More than ninety of their members were laid off from their city jobs.
Now 450 members of the union have received ballots, giving them the opportunity to decertify the union. The local AFSCME sends the national office $130,000 a year, and feels that it’s not getting its money’s worth.
Local leaders had filed a petition in October with 200 signatures that asked for decertification ballots. As a result, those leaders were suspended from their leadership positions, and the Local’s assets were seized. In addition, the National office has been running local ads critical of the Local.
As we reported last week in our report about SEIU, a union that is in a war with a break-away union, this is another example of intense dissension within the ranks of organized labor. As unions become increasingly more superfluous, their internecine battles increase in ferocity. Organized labor, unable to connect with workers, are fighting with each other for the ever diminishing number of workers who still find what is chimerical value in being union members.
Municipal employees in Portland Maine have decided to show their unhappiness with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Many local union members (Local 1373) feel that they pay expensive dues and are not receiving sufficient job protections. More than ninety of their members were laid off from their city jobs.
Now 450 members of the union have received ballots, giving them the opportunity to decertify the union. The local AFSCME sends the national office $130,000 a year, and feels that it’s not getting its money’s worth.
Local leaders had filed a petition in October with 200 signatures that asked for decertification ballots. As a result, those leaders were suspended from their leadership positions, and the Local’s assets were seized. In addition, the National office has been running local ads critical of the Local.
As we reported last week in our report about SEIU, a union that is in a war with a break-away union, this is another example of intense dissension within the ranks of organized labor. As unions become increasingly more superfluous, their internecine battles increase in ferocity. Organized labor, unable to connect with workers, are fighting with each other for the ever diminishing number of workers who still find what is chimerical value in being union members.
Friday, December 11, 2009
ORGANIZED LABOR'S CIVIL WAR
One of the most aggressive unions in the country, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) will now face a challenge to its dominant role representing healthcare workers in California. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has called for an election to determine if SEIU or the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW) will represent 2,300 Kaiser healthcare workers in California.
The decision of the NLRB came as a blow to SEIU in its ongoing battle with the breakaway healthcare union, NUHW. SEIU had hoped to stop NUHW’s ongoing march to win the allegiance of thousands of healthcare workers in a wide array of states. As part of its PR war, the two sides have exchanged charges of various acts of wrong doing, including financial mismanagement. Perhaps the most hilarious charge leveled by the unions is union-busting. It’s usually the paladins of Corporate America who are accused of being union busters. If the labor movement has ever evidenced its true agenda, the bitter battle between these two unions indicates that power and money are as important to unions as they are to other institutions.
Determined to preserve its power, the SEIU says it will appeal the NLRB decision. If, however, the SEIU appeal fails, balloting is expected to take place in January.
The fight between SEIU and NUHW amounts to a civil war within the labor movement. The unintended victor will be Corporate America, and the millions of workers who will regard unionization with a richly deserved sense of skepticism, if not disgust.
The decision of the NLRB came as a blow to SEIU in its ongoing battle with the breakaway healthcare union, NUHW. SEIU had hoped to stop NUHW’s ongoing march to win the allegiance of thousands of healthcare workers in a wide array of states. As part of its PR war, the two sides have exchanged charges of various acts of wrong doing, including financial mismanagement. Perhaps the most hilarious charge leveled by the unions is union-busting. It’s usually the paladins of Corporate America who are accused of being union busters. If the labor movement has ever evidenced its true agenda, the bitter battle between these two unions indicates that power and money are as important to unions as they are to other institutions.
Determined to preserve its power, the SEIU says it will appeal the NLRB decision. If, however, the SEIU appeal fails, balloting is expected to take place in January.
The fight between SEIU and NUHW amounts to a civil war within the labor movement. The unintended victor will be Corporate America, and the millions of workers who will regard unionization with a richly deserved sense of skepticism, if not disgust.
Friday, December 4, 2009
ANOTHER BLOW TO DEMOCRACY
According to a recent editorial in The Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration has delivered a body blow to Corporate America, specifically the airline and railway industries, which do not need any further impediments to their respective economic woes.
Both of those industries have their labor relations policies governed by The National Mediation Board (NMB), and the Board has maintained a consistent policy for the last seventy-five years.
Now, however, under a proposed new rule, the board plans to tilt the playing field in favor of organized labor. To wit: In order to obtain certification, a union will no longer need to win the approval of a majority of workers. Rather than obtain a majority of workers, a union will only have to win a majority of workers who choose to vote in a union election. That works well for unions, because only a minority of workers usually votes. Getting a majority of that minority to vote for a union will be easy. Imagine, if only 100 workers out of a total workforce of 1,000 agree to vote: the union would need only 51 votes to unionize 1,000 workers! The winning team will always be the union.
This dramatic change has been the result of President Obama appointing the former president of a pilots’ union and the former president of the Association of Flight Attendants to the NMB. It is comparable to a single football team using its own players as the sole referees in all of its games. Would such a team ever lose a game?
This change will invite numerous strikes, which will cripple the nation’s transportation system. We are now light years away from the time when President Reagan fired air traffic controllers, members of The Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) for going on strike. Their strike was against the national interest. President Reagan’s actions led to the demise of PATCO and to a robust airline industry that benefitted all travellers. It was a milestone in the history of labor relations, a milestone that will not - unfortunately – be repeated anytime soon.
Both of those industries have their labor relations policies governed by The National Mediation Board (NMB), and the Board has maintained a consistent policy for the last seventy-five years.
Now, however, under a proposed new rule, the board plans to tilt the playing field in favor of organized labor. To wit: In order to obtain certification, a union will no longer need to win the approval of a majority of workers. Rather than obtain a majority of workers, a union will only have to win a majority of workers who choose to vote in a union election. That works well for unions, because only a minority of workers usually votes. Getting a majority of that minority to vote for a union will be easy. Imagine, if only 100 workers out of a total workforce of 1,000 agree to vote: the union would need only 51 votes to unionize 1,000 workers! The winning team will always be the union.
This dramatic change has been the result of President Obama appointing the former president of a pilots’ union and the former president of the Association of Flight Attendants to the NMB. It is comparable to a single football team using its own players as the sole referees in all of its games. Would such a team ever lose a game?
This change will invite numerous strikes, which will cripple the nation’s transportation system. We are now light years away from the time when President Reagan fired air traffic controllers, members of The Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) for going on strike. Their strike was against the national interest. President Reagan’s actions led to the demise of PATCO and to a robust airline industry that benefitted all travellers. It was a milestone in the history of labor relations, a milestone that will not - unfortunately – be repeated anytime soon.
Friday, November 20, 2009
THE UNION AS CULT
While the New York Times is generally thought of as being union friendly in its reporting, it recently reported on a union situation so egregious that the Times could not avoid it.
According to a report by Steven Greenhouse, the hotel and restaurant workers’ union, Unite Here, pressures it organizers to reveal the most embarrassing and distressing personal information to their superiors. Such information may include stories of childhood or spousal abuse, family members who were alcoholic or drug addicted, sexual abuse, phobias, etc.
Once that information is obtained by the union, it is then used as leverage against the organizers who had revealed that information.
According the Times article, “…several Unite Here organizers described high-pressure meetings where they were brought to tears as supervisors pushed them, sometimes in front of a dozen colleagues, to divulge personal information in what several organizers said was an effort to beak their will and ensure obedience.”
Such tactics smack of those used by cults to control members. And those tactics are nothing short of being highly manipulative and cynical.
If this is what organized labor has devolved to, then Corporate America must be on heightened alert to the efforts of organizers who have been turned into aggressive automatons whose sole purpose is to capture the hearts and minds of workers who will follow orders and pay their dues, no questions asked.
According to a report by Steven Greenhouse, the hotel and restaurant workers’ union, Unite Here, pressures it organizers to reveal the most embarrassing and distressing personal information to their superiors. Such information may include stories of childhood or spousal abuse, family members who were alcoholic or drug addicted, sexual abuse, phobias, etc.
Once that information is obtained by the union, it is then used as leverage against the organizers who had revealed that information.
According the Times article, “…several Unite Here organizers described high-pressure meetings where they were brought to tears as supervisors pushed them, sometimes in front of a dozen colleagues, to divulge personal information in what several organizers said was an effort to beak their will and ensure obedience.”
Such tactics smack of those used by cults to control members. And those tactics are nothing short of being highly manipulative and cynical.
If this is what organized labor has devolved to, then Corporate America must be on heightened alert to the efforts of organizers who have been turned into aggressive automatons whose sole purpose is to capture the hearts and minds of workers who will follow orders and pay their dues, no questions asked.
Friday, November 13, 2009
TAX PAYERS BEWARE
TAX PAYERS BEWARE
According to the Bureau of National Affairs, most unionized employees now work for the government. While the overall number of unionized workers is just above 12% of the workforce, only 7.3% of those union members work in the private sector.
What is amazing is that more than 37% of all government employees belong to unions! That amounts to 8-million unionized government workers! The government has become the largest employer of unionized workers, and those unionized workers make sure that their voices ring loud and clear in the halls of congress as well as in the White House. After all, unions contributed more than $56-million to Democratic political campaigns in 2008.
While those government workers cannot go on strike for higher wages, increased benefits, or more paid vacation days; they can and do have their officers lobby congress to achieve those results.
An example of union strategy has become apparent on the west coast where unions have been running television ads and supporting ballot initiatives to raise taxes so that their members can receive higher wages. One need only stand on line at a local post office or motor vehicles office to experience union-protected inefficiencies and lack of initiative.
As a result of union demands, taxpayers will be footing the bill for increased taxes. And those taxes will go to pay for unionized government workers increased salaries and benefit. As the government pays ever high wages, it will have no alternative but to impose ever higher taxes to meet the demand. It is a classic vicious circle.
According to the Bureau of National Affairs, most unionized employees now work for the government. While the overall number of unionized workers is just above 12% of the workforce, only 7.3% of those union members work in the private sector.
What is amazing is that more than 37% of all government employees belong to unions! That amounts to 8-million unionized government workers! The government has become the largest employer of unionized workers, and those unionized workers make sure that their voices ring loud and clear in the halls of congress as well as in the White House. After all, unions contributed more than $56-million to Democratic political campaigns in 2008.
While those government workers cannot go on strike for higher wages, increased benefits, or more paid vacation days; they can and do have their officers lobby congress to achieve those results.
An example of union strategy has become apparent on the west coast where unions have been running television ads and supporting ballot initiatives to raise taxes so that their members can receive higher wages. One need only stand on line at a local post office or motor vehicles office to experience union-protected inefficiencies and lack of initiative.
As a result of union demands, taxpayers will be footing the bill for increased taxes. And those taxes will go to pay for unionized government workers increased salaries and benefit. As the government pays ever high wages, it will have no alternative but to impose ever higher taxes to meet the demand. It is a classic vicious circle.
Friday, November 6, 2009
UNIONS LOSE!
One thing that Tuesday’s elections proved is that union money is not going to win elections this year. In 2008, the Service Employees International Union spent $60-million to help elect President Obama and Democratic candidates to both houses of congress. Altogether, organized labor gave Democratic candidates $400-million in 2008. That money may have been well spent then, but look at the outcome in 2009!
Governor John Corzine’s various and well-publicized relationships with unions hurt both him and the unions in New Jersey. In Virginia, Governor-elect Bob McDonnell won by large margin after vigorously campaigning against the Employee Free Choice Act. In both states, conservative Republicans triumphed over union supported candidates.
And now many Democrats, having analyzed the election results, are against the so-called “card check” provision of the Employee Free Choice Act. Unions have invested their members’ money with, what some would consider, Quixotic abandon. And what has been the return on that investment? The defeat of two pro-union candidates and the likely demise of “card checks.” Union members should demand refunds!
Governor John Corzine’s various and well-publicized relationships with unions hurt both him and the unions in New Jersey. In Virginia, Governor-elect Bob McDonnell won by large margin after vigorously campaigning against the Employee Free Choice Act. In both states, conservative Republicans triumphed over union supported candidates.
And now many Democrats, having analyzed the election results, are against the so-called “card check” provision of the Employee Free Choice Act. Unions have invested their members’ money with, what some would consider, Quixotic abandon. And what has been the return on that investment? The defeat of two pro-union candidates and the likely demise of “card checks.” Union members should demand refunds!
Friday, October 30, 2009
ON THE WINGS OF COMMON SENSE
The safety of airline passengers is of paramount importance not just to passengers, but also to airlines. No one wants to fly on the planes of an airline whose pilots may be negligent when it comes to passenger safety.
When FAA regulators revoked the licenses of the two pilots who flew Northwest Flight 188 more than 100 miles beyond its destination and who had not responded to air traffic controllers, the flying public breathed a sigh of relief.
Yet, officials of the Airline Pilots Association, which represents more than 50,000 pilots, complained that the FAA acted too quickly and disregarded voluntary safety reporting programs.
Blatant acts of negligence that could possibly endanger the lives of airline passengers cannot be tolerated, even if those acts are voluntarily reported.
Had that plane collided with another aircraft or experienced some other deadly catastrophe, the airline would have been held financially responsible and there would have been millions of dollars in law suits.
The FAA did the right thing, and the pilots’ union should understand that. Unfortunately, unions too often raise picayune issues that are of concern to their members, but fail to address more important issues that affect millions of people.
When FAA regulators revoked the licenses of the two pilots who flew Northwest Flight 188 more than 100 miles beyond its destination and who had not responded to air traffic controllers, the flying public breathed a sigh of relief.
Yet, officials of the Airline Pilots Association, which represents more than 50,000 pilots, complained that the FAA acted too quickly and disregarded voluntary safety reporting programs.
Blatant acts of negligence that could possibly endanger the lives of airline passengers cannot be tolerated, even if those acts are voluntarily reported.
Had that plane collided with another aircraft or experienced some other deadly catastrophe, the airline would have been held financially responsible and there would have been millions of dollars in law suits.
The FAA did the right thing, and the pilots’ union should understand that. Unfortunately, unions too often raise picayune issues that are of concern to their members, but fail to address more important issues that affect millions of people.
Friday, October 23, 2009
SENATOR McCAIN TAKES A STAND
As we reported last week, President Obama continues to pack the NLRB with pro-union advocates. We cited the recent example of Craig Becker, a union lawyer, as well as numerous others. Now Senator John McCain has announced on the floor of the Senate that he will block Mr. Becker’s appointment to the NLRB.
Senator McCain has reiterated what we have claimed that Mr. Becker will support unions at the expense of Corporate America and will likely curtail its free speech. Mr. Becker’s articles indicate that he would restrict the rights of employers to present pro-management arguments to their employees during union organizing drives. As an associate general counsel for the Service Employees Union, one of the most aggressive unions in the country, Mr. Becker has been a dedicated advocate of the union’s agenda.
In a 1993 Minnesota Law Review article, Mr. Becker argued that "employers should be stripped of any legally cognizable interest in their employees' election of representatives. Employers should have no right to raise questions concerning voter eligibility or campaign conduct.
"Because employers lack the formal status either of candidates vying to represent employees or of voters, they should not be entitled to charge that unions disobeyed the rules governing voter eligibility or campaign conduct.”
Such arguments obviously favor unions over corporations; yet, the NLRB should be an unbiased, objective body that rules on existing laws and regulations.
We agree with the point of view expressed in a letter that Jay Timmons, Executive Vice President of the National Association of Manufacturers, sent to Senator Tom Harkin. To wit: "Mr. Becker has espoused extreme positions far outside mainstream thought on how our nation's labor laws should be interpreted."
It is imperative that the senate votes to maintain the integrity of the NLRB by maintaining a level playing field for both management and workers. We believe that is what Senator McCain is attempting to accomplish, and we applaud his effort.
Senator McCain has reiterated what we have claimed that Mr. Becker will support unions at the expense of Corporate America and will likely curtail its free speech. Mr. Becker’s articles indicate that he would restrict the rights of employers to present pro-management arguments to their employees during union organizing drives. As an associate general counsel for the Service Employees Union, one of the most aggressive unions in the country, Mr. Becker has been a dedicated advocate of the union’s agenda.
In a 1993 Minnesota Law Review article, Mr. Becker argued that "employers should be stripped of any legally cognizable interest in their employees' election of representatives. Employers should have no right to raise questions concerning voter eligibility or campaign conduct.
"Because employers lack the formal status either of candidates vying to represent employees or of voters, they should not be entitled to charge that unions disobeyed the rules governing voter eligibility or campaign conduct.”
Such arguments obviously favor unions over corporations; yet, the NLRB should be an unbiased, objective body that rules on existing laws and regulations.
We agree with the point of view expressed in a letter that Jay Timmons, Executive Vice President of the National Association of Manufacturers, sent to Senator Tom Harkin. To wit: "Mr. Becker has espoused extreme positions far outside mainstream thought on how our nation's labor laws should be interpreted."
It is imperative that the senate votes to maintain the integrity of the NLRB by maintaining a level playing field for both management and workers. We believe that is what Senator McCain is attempting to accomplish, and we applaud his effort.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
PACKING THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As we have reported numerous times, President Obama continues to work diligently to reform the composition of the National Labor Relations Board by nominating as many pro-labor advocates as the law allows. He has been supported by numerous unions, each of which has been lobbying not only for the addition of pro-union officials to the board, but also for the passage of pro-union legislation, such as the Employee Free Choice Act, which will make it easy for union organizers to sign up new members.
Now, one of America’s foremost business groups, The American Chamber of Commerce, has raised an important and well-reasoned objection to one particular nomination, that of union lawyer, Craig Becker.
The Chamber has made public a letter to senators that outlines why Mr. Becker should not be put on the Board.
“Mr. Becker has written prolifically about the National Labor Relations Act, the law he will be charged with interpreting and enforcing should he be confirmed. Many of the positions taken in his writings are well outside the mainstream and would disrupt years of established precedent and the delicate balance in current labor law.”
The Chamber also raised objections to the way Mr. Becker might restrict the free speech rights of employers, particularly during union organizing efforts. Conversely, the Chamber is concerned that Mr. Becker would extend the ability of union organizers to have increased access to workers during those same organizing efforts. While employers’ rights would be curtailed, the rights of union organizers would be greatly expanded.
Altogether, Corporate America will be driven to a position where it will be significantly more vulnerable to intensely aggressive union organizing tactics than at any time since the 1930s.
Now, one of America’s foremost business groups, The American Chamber of Commerce, has raised an important and well-reasoned objection to one particular nomination, that of union lawyer, Craig Becker.
The Chamber has made public a letter to senators that outlines why Mr. Becker should not be put on the Board.
“Mr. Becker has written prolifically about the National Labor Relations Act, the law he will be charged with interpreting and enforcing should he be confirmed. Many of the positions taken in his writings are well outside the mainstream and would disrupt years of established precedent and the delicate balance in current labor law.”
The Chamber also raised objections to the way Mr. Becker might restrict the free speech rights of employers, particularly during union organizing efforts. Conversely, the Chamber is concerned that Mr. Becker would extend the ability of union organizers to have increased access to workers during those same organizing efforts. While employers’ rights would be curtailed, the rights of union organizers would be greatly expanded.
Altogether, Corporate America will be driven to a position where it will be significantly more vulnerable to intensely aggressive union organizing tactics than at any time since the 1930s.
Friday, October 9, 2009
PRO-UNION ADVOCATE NOMINATED AS SOLICITOR AT LABOR DEPARTMENT
President Obama has nominated M. Patricia Smith to be solicitor at the Labor Department. Ms Smith has served as New York State’s Labor Commissioner, where her department helped to create the New York Wage Watch. While the organization's mission is ostensibly to be a watch dog and make sure that immigrant workers receive fair wages, it is really a stalking horse for union organizers. The Wage Watch was not formed in a vacuum, but was promoted and aided by unions.
Ms. Smith has a consistent record as a vigorous labor advocate for three decades, and Corporate America can legitimately be concerned that its interests are not foremost on Ms. Smith’s agenda.
As a solicitor for the Labor Department, Ms. Smith will place Corporate America in the cross hairs of her agenda. It is no wonder that disinterested parties have raised objections to Ms. Smith’s nomination. Indeed, while corporations are struggling to survive in a global economy during a recession, they certainly don’t need to be fighting off investigations inspired by unions and their advocates in the Labor Department
Ms. Smith has a consistent record as a vigorous labor advocate for three decades, and Corporate America can legitimately be concerned that its interests are not foremost on Ms. Smith’s agenda.
As a solicitor for the Labor Department, Ms. Smith will place Corporate America in the cross hairs of her agenda. It is no wonder that disinterested parties have raised objections to Ms. Smith’s nomination. Indeed, while corporations are struggling to survive in a global economy during a recession, they certainly don’t need to be fighting off investigations inspired by unions and their advocates in the Labor Department
Friday, October 2, 2009
LABOR ECONOMISTS: UNIONIZATION WILL HURT ECONOMY
The University of New Hampshire recently completed a survey of 925 labor
economists on behalf of the Center for Union Facts. It should come as no surprise to any historian of business and astute observers of Corporate America that unions have had an injurious effect on the overall economy as well as on specific industries (e.g., General Motors, the Port of New York, newspapers, etc.).
The surveyed labor economists then went to note that the proposed (and mis-named) Employee Free Choice Act, which would impose binding arbitration on contract disputes, would have a further negative effect on business. More than 2/3 of the surveyed economists believe that Congress should not pass the EFCA. In addition, more than half of the surveyed economists believe that President Obama’s job creation program would hurt the economy.
It is apparent that the government is on the wrong track; and the only reason that it is pursuing a pro-union game plan is that the AFL-CIO, SEIU, and other unions have contributed millions of dollars to elect representatives who will do their bidding.
economists on behalf of the Center for Union Facts. It should come as no surprise to any historian of business and astute observers of Corporate America that unions have had an injurious effect on the overall economy as well as on specific industries (e.g., General Motors, the Port of New York, newspapers, etc.).
The surveyed labor economists then went to note that the proposed (and mis-named) Employee Free Choice Act, which would impose binding arbitration on contract disputes, would have a further negative effect on business. More than 2/3 of the surveyed economists believe that Congress should not pass the EFCA. In addition, more than half of the surveyed economists believe that President Obama’s job creation program would hurt the economy.
It is apparent that the government is on the wrong track; and the only reason that it is pursuing a pro-union game plan is that the AFL-CIO, SEIU, and other unions have contributed millions of dollars to elect representatives who will do their bidding.
Friday, September 25, 2009
WHAT'S HAPPENING TO UNION PENSIONS?
According to an editorial in a recent edition of The Wall Street Journal, a number of union pensions are in the red. That bad news must be causing unionized workers a great deal of anxiety, especially during the current economic recession, when so many workers are losing their jobs.
The SEIU’s National Industry Pension Fund, covering more than 100,000 members, is now in “critical status,” which means that it lacks the necessary capital to pay 100% of benefits. Federal government officials have stated that the Fund has only 74.4% of the necessary assets to meet its obligation to pay those benefits.
And the list goes on: Thirteen plans operated by the Teamsters have a mere 59.3%. The Journal states that seven locals at the United Brotherhood of Carpenters …are at 67%.
While all of that is bad news for rank and file members of those and other similarly afflicted unions, union officers have nothing to worry about. The pension plan for officers and employees at the SEIU, for example, was funded at 102.2% as of 2007. In addition, the officers and employees get an annual 3% cost of living increase, while its members do not. There are many such disparities.
The dramatic reduction in union pension funds is just one reason why unions are aggressively attempting to organize new members and collect their dues. And it is why the unions are putting pressure on congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act as soon as possible.
Increased union membership will mean increased labor costs, increased unemployment, and a worsening recession. But the pensions for union officers will, no doubt, remain intact.
The SEIU’s National Industry Pension Fund, covering more than 100,000 members, is now in “critical status,” which means that it lacks the necessary capital to pay 100% of benefits. Federal government officials have stated that the Fund has only 74.4% of the necessary assets to meet its obligation to pay those benefits.
And the list goes on: Thirteen plans operated by the Teamsters have a mere 59.3%. The Journal states that seven locals at the United Brotherhood of Carpenters …are at 67%.
While all of that is bad news for rank and file members of those and other similarly afflicted unions, union officers have nothing to worry about. The pension plan for officers and employees at the SEIU, for example, was funded at 102.2% as of 2007. In addition, the officers and employees get an annual 3% cost of living increase, while its members do not. There are many such disparities.
The dramatic reduction in union pension funds is just one reason why unions are aggressively attempting to organize new members and collect their dues. And it is why the unions are putting pressure on congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act as soon as possible.
Increased union membership will mean increased labor costs, increased unemployment, and a worsening recession. But the pensions for union officers will, no doubt, remain intact.
Friday, September 18, 2009
ON THE WATERFRONT: THE SEQUEL
Waterfronts, from New York to California, have a long history of union difficulties. And now, according to an editorial in The Wall Street Journal, the Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa (a former union organizer), is urging congress and the Obama administration to change federal law so that the Teamsters Union will be able to organize independent truckers who work in the Port of Los Angeles.
The mayor wants the federal law changed so that harbor trucking companies will be banned from contracting with independent drivers. Instead, he wants the Port to permit “employee drivers” to operate in the Port, because those drivers are eligible for membership in the Teamsters.
Federal law, however, does not now permit state and local authorities to make their own laws regarding ports, for that would defeat the purpose of having uniform regulations throughout the land. If the mayor’s proposal became law, truckers in one port would not be allowed into another port. The resulting chaos would ruin interstate commerce.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has found that the mayor’s intended change would violate the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, and so an injunction was issued. As a result, the mayor wants Washington to change the law.
Should that happen, the Teamsters would have incredible leverage to affect wages, benefits, and the price of shipped goods. No doubt, the result would be a huge spike in labor and consumer costs. In such an environment, if the Teamsters did not get what they want, they could call strikes and shut down one port after another.
This is another example of how the Democrats are working to increase the power of unions at the expense of everyone else.
The mayor wants the federal law changed so that harbor trucking companies will be banned from contracting with independent drivers. Instead, he wants the Port to permit “employee drivers” to operate in the Port, because those drivers are eligible for membership in the Teamsters.
Federal law, however, does not now permit state and local authorities to make their own laws regarding ports, for that would defeat the purpose of having uniform regulations throughout the land. If the mayor’s proposal became law, truckers in one port would not be allowed into another port. The resulting chaos would ruin interstate commerce.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has found that the mayor’s intended change would violate the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, and so an injunction was issued. As a result, the mayor wants Washington to change the law.
Should that happen, the Teamsters would have incredible leverage to affect wages, benefits, and the price of shipped goods. No doubt, the result would be a huge spike in labor and consumer costs. In such an environment, if the Teamsters did not get what they want, they could call strikes and shut down one port after another.
This is another example of how the Democrats are working to increase the power of unions at the expense of everyone else.
Friday, September 11, 2009
GALLUP SURVEY FINDS UNION SUPPORT DROPPING
According to Gallup’s 2009 Work and Education Survey, more than half of all U.S. citizens disapprove of the role of unions. The percentage of those who do approve of unions has dropped from 59% a year ago to 48% now, “an all time low,” according to Gallup which started asking if people approved of disapproved of unions in 1936. That year, 72% of citizens approved of unions and 20% disapproved. The tables have dramatically turned against unions.
Gallup also noted that the perception that unions hurt companies has risen form 39% in 2006 to 46% in 2009. In addition, more than half of all citizens now agree that unions hurt the entire U. S. economy. That’s a jump from 36% in 2006 to 51% in 2009.
Such a low opinion of unions should give Congress pause before voting to pass the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, which should be renamed the Freedom to Hurt America Act!
Gallup also noted that the perception that unions hurt companies has risen form 39% in 2006 to 46% in 2009. In addition, more than half of all citizens now agree that unions hurt the entire U. S. economy. That’s a jump from 36% in 2006 to 51% in 2009.
Such a low opinion of unions should give Congress pause before voting to pass the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, which should be renamed the Freedom to Hurt America Act!
Thursday, September 3, 2009
OBAMA'S PRO-UNION STRATEGY
In addition to supporting the Employee Free Choice Act, President Obama has more than signaled his unwavering support for a pro-union agenda. It began when he not only tossed out a series of executive orders signed by President George W. Bush, but it was emphasized by his issuing new executive orders that favor organized labor. Those include creating union friendly agreements for federally funded construction projects and insisting that federal agencies post workers’ rights notices in all workplaces. Such notices inform workers of their right to strike, to file law suits, and to bring complaints to the National Labor Relations Board. In addition, one of the president’s executive orders bans any company that receives federal funds from using those funds to educate workers about the negative effects of unionization.
Earlier, we expressed our disappointment when President Obama nominated Wilma Liebman as chair of the National Labor Relations Board, for she has a record of favoring unions over management.
In keeping with the spirit of that appointment, the president plans to nominate two attorneys who also have a record of favoring unions over the interests of management. They are Randy Babbit to run the Federal Aviation Administration and Jordan Barab to go to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Mr. Babbit is expected to sign a pro-union agreement with the Air Traffic Controllers Association, which would make former President Reagan turn over in his grave. It was President Reagan, after all, who fired the controllers in the 1980s for going out on strike and endangering the lives of air travelers. As if that were not sufficiently indicative of President Obama’s pro-union thrust, he has named Joe Szabo to head the Federal Railroad Administration. Mr. Szabo had been the legislative director of the United Transportation Union in Illinois.
We can expect many more such appointments in the coming months, and the overall effect will be to make America less competitive and productive in a global economy in which many other countries are not hampered by the excesses of bureaucratic rules and regulations that are in conflict with free market economies.
Earlier, we expressed our disappointment when President Obama nominated Wilma Liebman as chair of the National Labor Relations Board, for she has a record of favoring unions over management.
In keeping with the spirit of that appointment, the president plans to nominate two attorneys who also have a record of favoring unions over the interests of management. They are Randy Babbit to run the Federal Aviation Administration and Jordan Barab to go to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Mr. Babbit is expected to sign a pro-union agreement with the Air Traffic Controllers Association, which would make former President Reagan turn over in his grave. It was President Reagan, after all, who fired the controllers in the 1980s for going out on strike and endangering the lives of air travelers. As if that were not sufficiently indicative of President Obama’s pro-union thrust, he has named Joe Szabo to head the Federal Railroad Administration. Mr. Szabo had been the legislative director of the United Transportation Union in Illinois.
We can expect many more such appointments in the coming months, and the overall effect will be to make America less competitive and productive in a global economy in which many other countries are not hampered by the excesses of bureaucratic rules and regulations that are in conflict with free market economies.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Toyota's One Unionized Factory to Close
If there was ever any doubt that unions are injurious to workers and management, one need only look at what will happen to Toyota’s one unionized factory in Fremont, California, where the company makes the popular Corolla.
Toyota’s management voted yesterday to close its Fremont facility, which employees 4,700 workers. Atsushi Nimi, Toyota’s VP for North America, reported that “it would not be economically viable” to keep the factory operating. In other words, during the current economic slump, which has had a devastating effect on the auto industry, Toyota finds it far more profitable to operate its numerous non-union facilities in Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Texas, and West Virginia, where the UAW has not been able to organize pro-management employees.
Toyota will import Corollas manufactured in Canada and Japan. Economists believe that the closing of the Fremont facility will ultimately cost 40,000 jobs in the state.
Gary N. Chaison, a professor at Clark University, where he teaches labor relations, stated that factory’s unionized status probably sealed its fate, according to a report in The New York Times.
Once again, unions are proving to be a major obstacle to our economic recovery, especially for manufacturers who operate in heavily unionized states.
Toyota’s management voted yesterday to close its Fremont facility, which employees 4,700 workers. Atsushi Nimi, Toyota’s VP for North America, reported that “it would not be economically viable” to keep the factory operating. In other words, during the current economic slump, which has had a devastating effect on the auto industry, Toyota finds it far more profitable to operate its numerous non-union facilities in Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Texas, and West Virginia, where the UAW has not been able to organize pro-management employees.
Toyota will import Corollas manufactured in Canada and Japan. Economists believe that the closing of the Fremont facility will ultimately cost 40,000 jobs in the state.
Gary N. Chaison, a professor at Clark University, where he teaches labor relations, stated that factory’s unionized status probably sealed its fate, according to a report in The New York Times.
Once again, unions are proving to be a major obstacle to our economic recovery, especially for manufacturers who operate in heavily unionized states.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Union Wrongs, Business Rights
Films and television shows often portray Big Business as villainous and unions as manifestations of pure virtue selflessly devoted to the needs of workers. However, based upon information compiled by Union Facts and the Bureau of National Affairs, unions have repeatedly committed acts that are injurious not just to non-union workers, but also to their own members. And those, of course, are the people whose interests unions supposedly represent and are charged with protecting.
One should also know that wrongful acts by unions far outnumber charges of unfair labor practices committed by management and alleged by those same unions. Such is the information issued by the National Labor Relations Board.
The NLRB report of 2005, for example, contained the following information:
Unions faced 6,381 allegations.
82% of those charges alleged illegal restraint and coercion of employees by their unions.
By contrast, 53% of charges were against management and those were for a refusal to negotiate contracts.
Of all the listed allegations against unions, nearly 600 charges were based upon union discrimination against workers.
In the previous year, unions filed more than 100 complaints against other unions
Virtually every union in the United States, according to the Bureau of National Affairs, has had to defend itself against charges of violating union laws. And for some of those unions, the numbers of charges against are in the thousands!
It’s time that the media and the current administration in Washington stop treating Corporate America as if it were a nefarious monster and start realizing that union leaders are not the altruistic and benevolent leaders that they pretend to be.
One should also know that wrongful acts by unions far outnumber charges of unfair labor practices committed by management and alleged by those same unions. Such is the information issued by the National Labor Relations Board.
The NLRB report of 2005, for example, contained the following information:
Unions faced 6,381 allegations.
82% of those charges alleged illegal restraint and coercion of employees by their unions.
By contrast, 53% of charges were against management and those were for a refusal to negotiate contracts.
Of all the listed allegations against unions, nearly 600 charges were based upon union discrimination against workers.
In the previous year, unions filed more than 100 complaints against other unions
Virtually every union in the United States, according to the Bureau of National Affairs, has had to defend itself against charges of violating union laws. And for some of those unions, the numbers of charges against are in the thousands!
It’s time that the media and the current administration in Washington stop treating Corporate America as if it were a nefarious monster and start realizing that union leaders are not the altruistic and benevolent leaders that they pretend to be.
Friday, August 14, 2009
The Power of One
Management and workers have long known that high levels of productivity are the result of good relations and of all parties working together to achieve positive goals. That, however, is not the underlying message of Executive Order 13496, which President Obama signed. Here is a sentence from that order: “The attainment of industrial peace is most easily achieved and workers’ productivity is enhanced when workers are well informed of their rights under the Federal labor laws, including the National Labor Relations Act.”
The Order is aimed at those who do business with the government, and it – in effect – guarantees that workers will know about all of their options when it comes to strikes, walkouts, and slow downs. The government has said that the order will provide labor peace. If that sounds unbelievable, it is. The government has handed organized labor another weapon to use against Corporate America.
How will informing workers of union tactics for securing their demands increase productivity? If it does anything, it will put Corporate America at a disadvantage when hiring workers for federal jobs. Not only will contractors have to abide with the Order, but so will their sub-contractors. Each will have to post all the information for their workers; and if it is not posted, delinquent contractors and sub-contractors will be barred from doing business with the government and be liable for various sanctions.
Actions taken against companies will be at the discretion of the Secretary of Labor, who is responsible for the enforcement of the Order. While the Secretary may exempt certain companies, the Secretary can also cancel contracts and prohibit future contracts with the government.
The Executive Order and the power invested in the office of Secretary of Labor is further evidence that the Obama administration is not only on the side of unions, but it is actively advancing union interests to the detriment of Corporate America.
The Order is aimed at those who do business with the government, and it – in effect – guarantees that workers will know about all of their options when it comes to strikes, walkouts, and slow downs. The government has said that the order will provide labor peace. If that sounds unbelievable, it is. The government has handed organized labor another weapon to use against Corporate America.
How will informing workers of union tactics for securing their demands increase productivity? If it does anything, it will put Corporate America at a disadvantage when hiring workers for federal jobs. Not only will contractors have to abide with the Order, but so will their sub-contractors. Each will have to post all the information for their workers; and if it is not posted, delinquent contractors and sub-contractors will be barred from doing business with the government and be liable for various sanctions.
Actions taken against companies will be at the discretion of the Secretary of Labor, who is responsible for the enforcement of the Order. While the Secretary may exempt certain companies, the Secretary can also cancel contracts and prohibit future contracts with the government.
The Executive Order and the power invested in the office of Secretary of Labor is further evidence that the Obama administration is not only on the side of unions, but it is actively advancing union interests to the detriment of Corporate America.
Friday, August 7, 2009
The Ongoing Saga of Union Corruption
The New York District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of America has had a sordid history. In 1990, federal officials attempted to remove mob influence within the union. In 1994, their efforts resulted in a consent decree that was followed by a court appointed corruption monitor. The New York Times has now reported that “federal authorities…announced new corruption charges on Wednesday against the union’s leader and nine other union officials and contractors. The charges include racketeering, bribery, fraud and perjury.”
A twenty-nine count indictment was issued, following a lengthy investigation by the FBI, the Department of Labor, and Manhattan prosecutors. It alleges that union officials accepted $1 million in bribes to permit contractors to pay below union scale benefits and hire non-union and illegal alien workers, and to forego payments to union benefit funds.
We were further reminded of union corruption this week when we learned of the death of Budd Schulberg, who wrote one of the greatest screenplays ever filmed about union corruption, On The Waterfront, starring Marlon Brando and Karl Malden, who also recently died.
With a pro-union administration in Washington and with the likely passage of the Employee Free Choice Act on the horizon, unions will again be in a position where they can take advantage of workers and corporations. It will be a lose-lose situation for everyone, except - of course - for the unions and their political enablers.
A twenty-nine count indictment was issued, following a lengthy investigation by the FBI, the Department of Labor, and Manhattan prosecutors. It alleges that union officials accepted $1 million in bribes to permit contractors to pay below union scale benefits and hire non-union and illegal alien workers, and to forego payments to union benefit funds.
We were further reminded of union corruption this week when we learned of the death of Budd Schulberg, who wrote one of the greatest screenplays ever filmed about union corruption, On The Waterfront, starring Marlon Brando and Karl Malden, who also recently died.
With a pro-union administration in Washington and with the likely passage of the Employee Free Choice Act on the horizon, unions will again be in a position where they can take advantage of workers and corporations. It will be a lose-lose situation for everyone, except - of course - for the unions and their political enablers.
Friday, July 31, 2009
EFCA's Binding Arbitration: Down the Road to Ruin
As we recently reported, the congress may remove card check from the Employee Free Choice Act, but it will still keep binding arbitration. With pro-union arbitrators making final decisions on union contracts, Corporate America will be facing one the most destructive challenges to collective bargaining.
If a company and union cannot come to an agreement, then a government appointed arbitrator will step in and make a decision for a first contract. In effect, someone who has little or no knowledge or experience about how a particular company is run will make a decision that will have far reaching financial consequences. This may have been exactly what organized labor wanted all along; in other words, card checks was a red herring, for binding arbitration will deliver precisely the results that unions want to obtain.
Binding arbitration may be used by a company and a union to settle a specific individual dispute, but when it is used to determine an entire contract, the effects can be devastating. Salaries, wage and hour issues, medical insurance, length of paid vacations, seniority, could all be decided by a single arbitrator!
If Corporate America hopes to defeat the provision for binding arbitration in the Employee Free Choice Act, it must continue lobbying congress. If the unions succeed in making binding arbitration the focal point of the ACT, they will have set many companies on a fast-paced trip down a road to ruination.
If a company and union cannot come to an agreement, then a government appointed arbitrator will step in and make a decision for a first contract. In effect, someone who has little or no knowledge or experience about how a particular company is run will make a decision that will have far reaching financial consequences. This may have been exactly what organized labor wanted all along; in other words, card checks was a red herring, for binding arbitration will deliver precisely the results that unions want to obtain.
Binding arbitration may be used by a company and a union to settle a specific individual dispute, but when it is used to determine an entire contract, the effects can be devastating. Salaries, wage and hour issues, medical insurance, length of paid vacations, seniority, could all be decided by a single arbitrator!
If Corporate America hopes to defeat the provision for binding arbitration in the Employee Free Choice Act, it must continue lobbying congress. If the unions succeed in making binding arbitration the focal point of the ACT, they will have set many companies on a fast-paced trip down a road to ruination.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Better Free Than Unionized
According to a recent poll commissioned by the Center for Union Facts (CUF) and conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation, 82% of non-unionized employees do not want their jobs to be unionized! No wonder unions are desperate to have the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) passed by congress and signed into law by the president.
And Democrats in Congress, indebted to unions, continue to support the EFCA; it is the only way that union organizers can win new members, for the Act gives a decided advantage to unions over management. (Please read last week’s blog which enumerates all of the anti-management rules that would will take effect once the EFCA becomes law).
Once it does become law, the EFCA would, in effect, drive millions of American workers into the confining box of union membership where their dues would be used to support political agendas that they may be against.
The CUF poll proves that there is no national movement amongst workers to join unions. In fact, when asked about joining unions, workers find the prospect of no interest to them. Therefore, one can see that rather than being a populist movement, increased unionization is a cause embraced and promoted by Washington elites and union officials who will financially benefit from increased union dues, pots of gold that will cause union hearts to flutter.
And Democrats in Congress, indebted to unions, continue to support the EFCA; it is the only way that union organizers can win new members, for the Act gives a decided advantage to unions over management. (Please read last week’s blog which enumerates all of the anti-management rules that would will take effect once the EFCA becomes law).
Once it does become law, the EFCA would, in effect, drive millions of American workers into the confining box of union membership where their dues would be used to support political agendas that they may be against.
The CUF poll proves that there is no national movement amongst workers to join unions. In fact, when asked about joining unions, workers find the prospect of no interest to them. Therefore, one can see that rather than being a populist movement, increased unionization is a cause embraced and promoted by Washington elites and union officials who will financially benefit from increased union dues, pots of gold that will cause union hearts to flutter.
Friday, July 17, 2009
One Down, Four to Go: EFCA
This week, the U. S. Senate decided to eliminate card checks from its proposed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). Unions will not be able to represent employees simply by getting them to sign cards expressing a desire to be represented by a union. This victory was won by the concerted efforts of Corporate America and all those who believe in the democratic principle of secret ballot elections.
The bad news is that a revised EFCA bill will call for a rapid time frame for new elections. Union elections would have to take place within a five to ten day period after 30% of workers had signed cards indicating that they want to be represented by a union. Current campaigns often run more than a month and often up to two months.
In addition, the revised bill would require that union organizers be permitted on company property.
As if that were not bad enough, the revised bill would also prevent management from requiring that workers attend anti-union, pro-management educational sessions.
Finally, the bill would contain a demand that employers, who fail to reach agreement on a contract with a new union, submit to binding arbitration. This, in effect, means that government agents will impose an agreement on managment, one which may be one sided and financially unsound.
The bad news is that a revised EFCA bill will call for a rapid time frame for new elections. Union elections would have to take place within a five to ten day period after 30% of workers had signed cards indicating that they want to be represented by a union. Current campaigns often run more than a month and often up to two months.
In addition, the revised bill would require that union organizers be permitted on company property.
As if that were not bad enough, the revised bill would also prevent management from requiring that workers attend anti-union, pro-management educational sessions.
Finally, the bill would contain a demand that employers, who fail to reach agreement on a contract with a new union, submit to binding arbitration. This, in effect, means that government agents will impose an agreement on managment, one which may be one sided and financially unsound.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Environment Friendly Unions?
Those who have negotiated with unions know they will often resort to bargaining tactics that, if used by management, would cause the unions to cry foul. They would go to union-friendly reporters, playing the lachrymose role of outraged victims, and plead for fairness.
Now, however, The New York Times, has reported that California Unions for Reliable Energy(CURE) have attempted to influence the awarding of contracts by playing both sides of an environmental issue.
When a large California solar power company, Ausra, sought approval to build a new power plant, CURE (an ironic acronym if there ever was one) demanded that a study be conducted to determine the effects of the power plant on the lives of the short-nosed kangaroo rat and the ferruginous hawk.
One might have admired CURE’s concern for those poor creatures; however, when Bright Source Energy, one of Ausra’s competitors, also filed plans for a solar facility that would be larger than Ausra’s, the union did not voice any concerns for the endangered desert tortoise, an animal that lives where the new plant would be built.
One may guess the reasons for such contradictory manifestations of concern. Asura, the Times reported, had rejected demands that it employ union workers to build its solar facility. Bright Source, by contrast, agreed to hire “labor-friendly contractors.”
The Times went on to report that “…some developers contend they are being pressured to sign agreements pledging to use union labor. If they refuse, they say, they can count on the union group to demand costly environmental studies and develop and deliver hostile testimony at public hearings.
“If they commit at the outset to use union labor, they say, the environmental objections never materialize.”
With a pro-union congress and administration in Washington, one can expect more such condoned behavior.
Now, however, The New York Times, has reported that California Unions for Reliable Energy(CURE) have attempted to influence the awarding of contracts by playing both sides of an environmental issue.
When a large California solar power company, Ausra, sought approval to build a new power plant, CURE (an ironic acronym if there ever was one) demanded that a study be conducted to determine the effects of the power plant on the lives of the short-nosed kangaroo rat and the ferruginous hawk.
One might have admired CURE’s concern for those poor creatures; however, when Bright Source Energy, one of Ausra’s competitors, also filed plans for a solar facility that would be larger than Ausra’s, the union did not voice any concerns for the endangered desert tortoise, an animal that lives where the new plant would be built.
One may guess the reasons for such contradictory manifestations of concern. Asura, the Times reported, had rejected demands that it employ union workers to build its solar facility. Bright Source, by contrast, agreed to hire “labor-friendly contractors.”
The Times went on to report that “…some developers contend they are being pressured to sign agreements pledging to use union labor. If they refuse, they say, they can count on the union group to demand costly environmental studies and develop and deliver hostile testimony at public hearings.
“If they commit at the outset to use union labor, they say, the environmental objections never materialize.”
With a pro-union congress and administration in Washington, one can expect more such condoned behavior.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Financial Woes of Pro-Union States
The National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR), a proponent of right-to-work policies, recently released a report that the demands of unions have greatly added to the financial woes of New York, California, and New Jersey. The Cabot Institute for Labor Relations has also been studying this phenomenon, and it concurs with the findings of the NILRR.
The percentage of unionized workers in those three states ranges from 20% to 27%, while the number of unionized workers in the rest of the country is between 12% and 13%. In the three heavily unionized states, workers receive the largest hourly wages in the country, and public-service employees receive the most generous pensions. For example, a retired police officer in Westchester county receives $200,000 a year and another in Suffolk county, New York, receives $100,000 a year. When one multiplies those numbers by the number of public-service retirees, many of whom retire in their mid-forties, it’s easy to understand why those three states are in such deep financial trouble.
When one compares job growth in right-to-work states where non-union auto makers have set up manufacturing facilities with a state, such as Michigan, home to domestic auto makers, the numbers are indeed startling. It is obvious that right-to-work states are enjoying far more robust employment figures than pro-union states. And because right-to-work states offer greater non-union employment opportunities than the big industrial states, the former states are in far better financial shape than New York, New Jersey, Michigan, and California.
Washington law makers, unfortunately, are intent on making it easier for unions to organize workers, and the results will be higher labor costs, greater unemployment, and more states in financial trouble.
The percentage of unionized workers in those three states ranges from 20% to 27%, while the number of unionized workers in the rest of the country is between 12% and 13%. In the three heavily unionized states, workers receive the largest hourly wages in the country, and public-service employees receive the most generous pensions. For example, a retired police officer in Westchester county receives $200,000 a year and another in Suffolk county, New York, receives $100,000 a year. When one multiplies those numbers by the number of public-service retirees, many of whom retire in their mid-forties, it’s easy to understand why those three states are in such deep financial trouble.
When one compares job growth in right-to-work states where non-union auto makers have set up manufacturing facilities with a state, such as Michigan, home to domestic auto makers, the numbers are indeed startling. It is obvious that right-to-work states are enjoying far more robust employment figures than pro-union states. And because right-to-work states offer greater non-union employment opportunities than the big industrial states, the former states are in far better financial shape than New York, New Jersey, Michigan, and California.
Washington law makers, unfortunately, are intent on making it easier for unions to organize workers, and the results will be higher labor costs, greater unemployment, and more states in financial trouble.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Ejecting Union Spies from Corporate America
For many years, unions had sent their organizers to the personnel offices of companies so that they could be hired to infiltrate workforces. Once they had joined the workforces, they proselytized in favor of union representation and often spoke of management as selfish ogres. Such people became known as “salts” and their words and deeds often led to a diminution in productivity and profitability for companies.
Now, two Republican Congressmen have introduced a bill, the Truth in Employment Act (H.R. 2808/S 1227), that is designed to amend the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) so that employers can legally discharge “salts,” who are nothing but undercover agents for unions seeking to unionize workers.
The proposed bill states: "Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requiring an employer to employ any person who seeks or has sought employment with the employer in furtherance of other employment or agency status."
The bill is meant to obviate a Supreme Court ruling that “salts” could not be terminated from their employment.
The bill further notes that “salting has evolved into an aggressive form of harassment not contemplated when the National Labor Relations Act was enacted and [it] threatens the balance … of collective bargaining."
It is absolutely necessary that the collective bargaining playing field be kept level and that there be a balance between workers and management. The Truth in Employment Act will go a long way to ensuring such an outcome.
Now, two Republican Congressmen have introduced a bill, the Truth in Employment Act (H.R. 2808/S 1227), that is designed to amend the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) so that employers can legally discharge “salts,” who are nothing but undercover agents for unions seeking to unionize workers.
The proposed bill states: "Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requiring an employer to employ any person who seeks or has sought employment with the employer in furtherance of other employment or agency status."
The bill is meant to obviate a Supreme Court ruling that “salts” could not be terminated from their employment.
The bill further notes that “salting has evolved into an aggressive form of harassment not contemplated when the National Labor Relations Act was enacted and [it] threatens the balance … of collective bargaining."
It is absolutely necessary that the collective bargaining playing field be kept level and that there be a balance between workers and management. The Truth in Employment Act will go a long way to ensuring such an outcome.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Congress Keeps On Truckin'
Congress is determined to promote the unionization of FedEx Express drivers by passing a bill that would change the labor status of those drivers. Rather than operating under the Railway Labor Act, FedEx Express would have to operate under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Under the rules of the Railway Labor Act, drivers can only join a union if there is national vote. Under the rules of the NLRA, however, drivers could vote to join unions in individual geographical areas.
Once the bill is passed by the Senate, union organizers will encourage drivers to vote for union representation, and it is likely that the majority of workers will do so. Should that occur, the labor costs for FedEx (where many drivers are independent contractors who own their routes) would skyrocket. In addition, the competitive edge that FedEx enjoys vis-Ã -vis UPS would vanish, for all UPS drivers operate under the NLRA.
It’s not surprising that UPS has been lobbying Congress to get FedEx Express classified under the NLRA.
FedEx is fighting back by accusing UPS on its website BrownBailout.com, that the federal government, in effect, is giving UPS a government bailout by supporting a change of rules for FedEx drivers. U.P.S. and the Teamsters union, however, have denied the accusations of FedEx and are planning a PR campaign to the present their point of view. The Teamsters represent about 240,000 UPS workers.
This is just another example of a Democratic congress doing the bidding of organized labor, and it portends bad times for Corporate America.
Under the rules of the Railway Labor Act, drivers can only join a union if there is national vote. Under the rules of the NLRA, however, drivers could vote to join unions in individual geographical areas.
Once the bill is passed by the Senate, union organizers will encourage drivers to vote for union representation, and it is likely that the majority of workers will do so. Should that occur, the labor costs for FedEx (where many drivers are independent contractors who own their routes) would skyrocket. In addition, the competitive edge that FedEx enjoys vis-Ã -vis UPS would vanish, for all UPS drivers operate under the NLRA.
It’s not surprising that UPS has been lobbying Congress to get FedEx Express classified under the NLRA.
FedEx is fighting back by accusing UPS on its website BrownBailout.com, that the federal government, in effect, is giving UPS a government bailout by supporting a change of rules for FedEx drivers. U.P.S. and the Teamsters union, however, have denied the accusations of FedEx and are planning a PR campaign to the present their point of view. The Teamsters represent about 240,000 UPS workers.
This is just another example of a Democratic congress doing the bidding of organized labor, and it portends bad times for Corporate America.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Burning Union Money
The Wall Street Journal and other publications have reported that the unions spent many millions of dollars to elect Barack Obama to the Presidency. In fact, the president of the Service Employees International Union, Andy Stern, stated: “We spent a fortune t o elect Barack Obama.” To that fortune can be added the many millions of dollars spent by the AFL-CIO. The unions apparently spent their members’ money not like drunken sailors, but like lobbyists on a mission.
Now Bloomberg News has reported that one of the AFL-CIO’s officials has circulated a report claiming that the union indulged in “creative accounting.” The union members would no doubt like an explanation of how their union went from a $45 million surplus to liabilities of more than $90 million. And the net assets of the SEIU went from $64 million to $34 million. Yet a few years back, Andy Stern vociferously declaimed that the AFL-CIO was spending too much on Washington politics and not enough on union organizing efforts. We can assume that both men finally came to an agreement after realizing that if they financed the election of a pro-union congress and president, they could spend a lot less money on organizing, especially if their indebted friends on Capitol Hill pass the Employee Free Choice Act.
When President Bush strengthened and dilated the union disclosure rules, the unions howled as if the hammer justice were about to smash their piggy banks. Now, however, Washington is overrun with union advocates, and they are listening to union concerns about the Bush Administration’s rules. If the unions aren’t asking for those rules to evaporate, then they certainly want them to be watered down.
Now Bloomberg News has reported that one of the AFL-CIO’s officials has circulated a report claiming that the union indulged in “creative accounting.” The union members would no doubt like an explanation of how their union went from a $45 million surplus to liabilities of more than $90 million. And the net assets of the SEIU went from $64 million to $34 million. Yet a few years back, Andy Stern vociferously declaimed that the AFL-CIO was spending too much on Washington politics and not enough on union organizing efforts. We can assume that both men finally came to an agreement after realizing that if they financed the election of a pro-union congress and president, they could spend a lot less money on organizing, especially if their indebted friends on Capitol Hill pass the Employee Free Choice Act.
When President Bush strengthened and dilated the union disclosure rules, the unions howled as if the hammer justice were about to smash their piggy banks. Now, however, Washington is overrun with union advocates, and they are listening to union concerns about the Bush Administration’s rules. If the unions aren’t asking for those rules to evaporate, then they certainly want them to be watered down.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Call It a Politburo for Unions
The National Labor Relations Board, comprising five members, will soon be supervising union elections from a decidedly pro-union viewpoint. Two newly nominated members of the Board, Mark Pearce and Craig Becker, along with Chairwoman Wilma Liebman are expected to provide rubber stamp approvals in support of unions.
The president of the AFL-CIO, John Sweeney, has endorsed t the new nominees, stating that they are aware of “the need to restore balance” to the Board. Business groups, such as the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, do not agree and, indeed, have misgivings about what will be in store for Corporate America.
Among the questions the Board will respond to are the following: Who is entitled to join a union? Can unions use e-mail solicitations in organizing efforts? What constitutes tactics of intimidation? One can expect the answers to those and other questions to favor unions.
In addition, Corporate America can expect to see quicker responses to hold elections for union representation than occurred during the Bush Administration. Indeed, all pro-union decisions are expected to arrive with a breathtaking alacrity so that union membership will increase and Corporate America will find itself in a new defensive position as it futilely seeks fair hearings before an NLRB with a pro-union majority.
The president of the AFL-CIO, John Sweeney, has endorsed t the new nominees, stating that they are aware of “the need to restore balance” to the Board. Business groups, such as the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, do not agree and, indeed, have misgivings about what will be in store for Corporate America.
Among the questions the Board will respond to are the following: Who is entitled to join a union? Can unions use e-mail solicitations in organizing efforts? What constitutes tactics of intimidation? One can expect the answers to those and other questions to favor unions.
In addition, Corporate America can expect to see quicker responses to hold elections for union representation than occurred during the Bush Administration. Indeed, all pro-union decisions are expected to arrive with a breathtaking alacrity so that union membership will increase and Corporate America will find itself in a new defensive position as it futilely seeks fair hearings before an NLRB with a pro-union majority.
Friday, May 29, 2009
A Sign of Things to Come: Common Sense Up in Smoke
Eight months ago, we reported that fourteen state universities and colleges in Pennsylvania had banned smoking. No doubt deans, chancellors, and presidents wanted to protect the health of their students.
That admirable and beneficent goal, to the bewilderment of most students and faculty, was put in jeopardy by the Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties, which objected to the policy because it had not been the result of negotiations with union representatives, and so the Association filed a grievance.
In response to that grievance, the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board overruled the smoking ban at the fourteen state universities and colleges. The labor board said that the government, the universities, and the colleges had no authority to prohibit smoking without first negotiating with the appropriate unions then gaining their consent.
Since President Obama has been intent on appointing pro-union members to the National Labor Relations Board (and since he is allegedly a surreptitious smoker), we can not only expect smoking bans to be eliminated, but we can also expect Big Brother rulings from the NLRB that will defy common sense and prove injurious to the commonweal.
That admirable and beneficent goal, to the bewilderment of most students and faculty, was put in jeopardy by the Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties, which objected to the policy because it had not been the result of negotiations with union representatives, and so the Association filed a grievance.
In response to that grievance, the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board overruled the smoking ban at the fourteen state universities and colleges. The labor board said that the government, the universities, and the colleges had no authority to prohibit smoking without first negotiating with the appropriate unions then gaining their consent.
Since President Obama has been intent on appointing pro-union members to the National Labor Relations Board (and since he is allegedly a surreptitious smoker), we can not only expect smoking bans to be eliminated, but we can also expect Big Brother rulings from the NLRB that will defy common sense and prove injurious to the commonweal.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Less Transparency from Unions
In 1959, Congress realized that unionized workers needed protection from union officials who indulged in unethical behavior. As a result, the Landrum-Griffin Act was passed and signed into law. It was specifically designed to curtail the opportunities for embezzlement and other forms of fraud.
Now, it looks as if a Democratic Congress will attempt to vitiate the 50-year old Act. For example, shortly after President Obama took office, the Labor Department delayed the implementation of a regulation that would have demonstrated how union dues are tied to the compensation of union officials. The regulation would have called for full and complete documentation of all purchases and asset sales by unions. In addition, the Labor Department has recently announced that it will not enforce compliance with a newly revised conflict of interest disclosure rule. (There was a brilliant editorial about this by former Labor Secretary Elaine Cho on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal).
On a regular basis, since January 20, the Labor Department and the Democratic Congress have made it abundantly apparent that they will do the bidding of organized labor, which spent tens of millions of dollars to make sure that their own advocates were firmly installed in pivotal government offices.
Now, it looks as if a Democratic Congress will attempt to vitiate the 50-year old Act. For example, shortly after President Obama took office, the Labor Department delayed the implementation of a regulation that would have demonstrated how union dues are tied to the compensation of union officials. The regulation would have called for full and complete documentation of all purchases and asset sales by unions. In addition, the Labor Department has recently announced that it will not enforce compliance with a newly revised conflict of interest disclosure rule. (There was a brilliant editorial about this by former Labor Secretary Elaine Cho on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal).
On a regular basis, since January 20, the Labor Department and the Democratic Congress have made it abundantly apparent that they will do the bidding of organized labor, which spent tens of millions of dollars to make sure that their own advocates were firmly installed in pivotal government offices.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Bad News for Corporate America
Have you heard of Craig Becker? He is a recently named appointment of President Obama to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). While awaiting senate confirmation to take his new position, Mr. Becker is serving as Associate General Counsel for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which is run by one of the most aggressive union leaders in North America, Andy Stern.
Mr. Becker, like most members of organized labor, is not an advocate of secret ballot elections. While Corporate America has been gritting its teeth awaiting the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), it may have even more to worry about. Craig Becker wrote that employers should be not be permitted to attend NLRB elections and should not be permitted to challenge election results. An editorial in the Wall Street Journal reported that Mr. Craig wrote that “Employers should also be barred from ‘placing observers at the polls to challenge ballots.’ ”
The editorial continued: “Mr. Becker advocated a new ‘body of campaign rules’ that would severely limit the ability of employers to argue against unionization. He argued that any meeting a company holds that involves a ‘captive audience’ ought to be grounds for overturning an election. If a company wants to distribute leaflets that oppose the union, for example, Mr. Becker said it must allow union access to its private property to do the same.”
With its majority in both houses of Congress, the Democrats will no doubt confirm Mr. Becker as a member of the NLRB. No one likes to play cards with a dealer using a stacked deck; and under the Obama selected NLRB, the deck will be decidedly stacked against Corporate America. And that’s bad for economy, bad for America, and bad news for democratic traditions.
Mr. Becker, like most members of organized labor, is not an advocate of secret ballot elections. While Corporate America has been gritting its teeth awaiting the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), it may have even more to worry about. Craig Becker wrote that employers should be not be permitted to attend NLRB elections and should not be permitted to challenge election results. An editorial in the Wall Street Journal reported that Mr. Craig wrote that “Employers should also be barred from ‘placing observers at the polls to challenge ballots.’ ”
The editorial continued: “Mr. Becker advocated a new ‘body of campaign rules’ that would severely limit the ability of employers to argue against unionization. He argued that any meeting a company holds that involves a ‘captive audience’ ought to be grounds for overturning an election. If a company wants to distribute leaflets that oppose the union, for example, Mr. Becker said it must allow union access to its private property to do the same.”
With its majority in both houses of Congress, the Democrats will no doubt confirm Mr. Becker as a member of the NLRB. No one likes to play cards with a dealer using a stacked deck; and under the Obama selected NLRB, the deck will be decidedly stacked against Corporate America. And that’s bad for economy, bad for America, and bad news for democratic traditions.
Friday, May 8, 2009
George McGovern Blasts The Employee Free Choice Act - AGAIN!
GEORGE MCGOVERN BLASTS
THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT – AGAIN!
George McGovern, former senator and presidential candidate known for his liberal viewpoints, has once again blasted the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) for its proposed debasement of democratic practices. His criticism appears on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal.
He was particularly irked by the fact that if employers and unions cannot reach agreements then the government will step in and impose, in each case, binding arbitration.
Under the National Labor Relations Act, which has been in place since 1935, employers are free to reject union demands, and unions can strike if they are dissatisfied with employer proposals. If, however, the EFCA becomes law, then government bureaucrats with little understanding of the unique subtleties of various positions will impose their own solutions. Such a process is hardly in keeping with the principles of collective bargaining.
Former Senator McGovern wrote: “A federally appointed arbitrator cannot be expected to understand the nuances specific to each business dispute, the competitive market position of the business, or the plethora of other factors unique to each case…. Compulsory arbitration is, in one sense, government dictating to employees what they will win or lose in the deal with no opportunity to approve the agreement.”
Such an outcome would be disastrous for Corporate America. Even George Meany, while head of the AFL-CIO, stated that “mandatory arbitration is an abrogation of freedom.”
Should Congress pass the EFCA (which seems more likely now that Senator Specter has switched parties) and should President Obama sign the bill into law, then America will be taking a major step away from the free market principles which have been the basis for the country’s remarkable record of commercial achievements, industrial innovations, and the creation of one of the most affluent societies in the history of the world.
THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT – AGAIN!
George McGovern, former senator and presidential candidate known for his liberal viewpoints, has once again blasted the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) for its proposed debasement of democratic practices. His criticism appears on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal.
He was particularly irked by the fact that if employers and unions cannot reach agreements then the government will step in and impose, in each case, binding arbitration.
Under the National Labor Relations Act, which has been in place since 1935, employers are free to reject union demands, and unions can strike if they are dissatisfied with employer proposals. If, however, the EFCA becomes law, then government bureaucrats with little understanding of the unique subtleties of various positions will impose their own solutions. Such a process is hardly in keeping with the principles of collective bargaining.
Former Senator McGovern wrote: “A federally appointed arbitrator cannot be expected to understand the nuances specific to each business dispute, the competitive market position of the business, or the plethora of other factors unique to each case…. Compulsory arbitration is, in one sense, government dictating to employees what they will win or lose in the deal with no opportunity to approve the agreement.”
Such an outcome would be disastrous for Corporate America. Even George Meany, while head of the AFL-CIO, stated that “mandatory arbitration is an abrogation of freedom.”
Should Congress pass the EFCA (which seems more likely now that Senator Specter has switched parties) and should President Obama sign the bill into law, then America will be taking a major step away from the free market principles which have been the basis for the country’s remarkable record of commercial achievements, industrial innovations, and the creation of one of the most affluent societies in the history of the world.
Friday, May 1, 2009
The Specter Switch & The Employee Free Choice Act
Now that Senator Arlen Specter has switched his membership from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party, one may ask “will he fall in line with the rest of his party and support the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA)?”
A spokesman for the Teamsters Union stated that “this certainly gives us more opportunity to talk to [Specter] and address our concerns about his position on the Employee Free Choice Act.” Such a nuanced statement certainly portends a likelihood that Senator Specter may go along with his new party, especially if it adopts certain modifications that make the EFCA more palatable to the senator.
Labor leaders and their congressional supporters need 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a Republican filibuster on EFCA. With Specter in the fold, they’ll have 59 votes. All they will need is for Al Franken to be officially seated as the new senator from Minnesota.
Though Specter has said that his party switch does not mean that he will vote in favor of the EFCA, he has indicated that he would like to see changes in the language of the bill. If such changes are forthcoming, one may logically assume that Senator Specter will give his assent to the passage of the bill. To help engineer Senator Specter’s support, Teamsters’ President James P. Hoffa recently met with the senator so that they could discuss the EFCA. Hoffa need not have reminded Specter that Pennsylvania has 80,000 Teamster members as well as thousands of members of other unions, the vast majority of whom will vote next year for their senator.
Does anyone doubt that with a few cosmetic face-saving changes to the EFCA bill that Senator Specter will not vote for the bill? One doesn’t switch parties to become a pariah in one’s new party.
A spokesman for the Teamsters Union stated that “this certainly gives us more opportunity to talk to [Specter] and address our concerns about his position on the Employee Free Choice Act.” Such a nuanced statement certainly portends a likelihood that Senator Specter may go along with his new party, especially if it adopts certain modifications that make the EFCA more palatable to the senator.
Labor leaders and their congressional supporters need 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a Republican filibuster on EFCA. With Specter in the fold, they’ll have 59 votes. All they will need is for Al Franken to be officially seated as the new senator from Minnesota.
Though Specter has said that his party switch does not mean that he will vote in favor of the EFCA, he has indicated that he would like to see changes in the language of the bill. If such changes are forthcoming, one may logically assume that Senator Specter will give his assent to the passage of the bill. To help engineer Senator Specter’s support, Teamsters’ President James P. Hoffa recently met with the senator so that they could discuss the EFCA. Hoffa need not have reminded Specter that Pennsylvania has 80,000 Teamster members as well as thousands of members of other unions, the vast majority of whom will vote next year for their senator.
Does anyone doubt that with a few cosmetic face-saving changes to the EFCA bill that Senator Specter will not vote for the bill? One doesn’t switch parties to become a pariah in one’s new party.
Friday, April 24, 2009
CITIZENS OPT FOR SECRET BALLOT UNION ELECTIONS
CITIZENS OPT FOR SECRET BALLOT UNION ELECTIONS
According to a survey by the National Retail Federation (NRF) conducted from March 31 to April 7, 81% of US citizens support the use of secret ballots for employees when it comes to accepting or rejecting union representation. When the survey was conducted solely amongst union members, the number choosing secret ballot elections rather than card checks was even higher! It was 84%.
The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which Congress will soon begin debating, is designed to do away with secret ballot elections in union organizing elections. Secret ballot elections have been integral to all organizing efforts since 1935 when Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act. If the EFCA becomes law, the NLRB would then have to recognize a new union if a majority of workers sign cards authorizing union representation.
Replacing secret ballot elections with card check will certainly open the door for union organizers to intimidate and coerce reluctant employees to join unions.
We hope that President Obama and the U.S. Congress are listening to the voices of citizens, for it is those citizens that the government represents.
According to a survey by the National Retail Federation (NRF) conducted from March 31 to April 7, 81% of US citizens support the use of secret ballots for employees when it comes to accepting or rejecting union representation. When the survey was conducted solely amongst union members, the number choosing secret ballot elections rather than card checks was even higher! It was 84%.
The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which Congress will soon begin debating, is designed to do away with secret ballot elections in union organizing elections. Secret ballot elections have been integral to all organizing efforts since 1935 when Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act. If the EFCA becomes law, the NLRB would then have to recognize a new union if a majority of workers sign cards authorizing union representation.
Replacing secret ballot elections with card check will certainly open the door for union organizers to intimidate and coerce reluctant employees to join unions.
We hope that President Obama and the U.S. Congress are listening to the voices of citizens, for it is those citizens that the government represents.
Friday, April 17, 2009
IT WILL GET WORSE WHEN THE EFCA BECOMES LAW
IT WILL GET WORSE WHEN THE EFCA BECOMES LAW
In Grantie City, Illinois, an employee at AT&T filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The employee has claimed that the Communications Workers of America, Local 6300, that represents him made threatened legal action when he refused to go on strike.
The employee, David McBride, filed an unfair labor practices charge against the CWA because McBride and other union members refused to support a national strike. He is being represented by the National Right to Work Foundation.
If the Employee Free Choice Act becomes law, more and more employees will be subjected to union coercion not only when it comes to strikes, but also when it comes to organizing efforts. Corporate America must press for the defeat of the EFCA to ensure that American industries will be able to be competitive with industries throughout the world.
In Grantie City, Illinois, an employee at AT&T filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The employee has claimed that the Communications Workers of America, Local 6300, that represents him made threatened legal action when he refused to go on strike.
The employee, David McBride, filed an unfair labor practices charge against the CWA because McBride and other union members refused to support a national strike. He is being represented by the National Right to Work Foundation.
If the Employee Free Choice Act becomes law, more and more employees will be subjected to union coercion not only when it comes to strikes, but also when it comes to organizing efforts. Corporate America must press for the defeat of the EFCA to ensure that American industries will be able to be competitive with industries throughout the world.
Friday, April 10, 2009
OBAMA'S PRO-LABOR ADMINISTRATION
OBAMA’S PRO-LABOR ADMINISTRATION
In addition to Hilda Solis, Secretary of Labor, who comes from a strongly pro-union family, the Obama administration is full of many pro-labor advocates who will do what is necessary to consummate the successful passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. The list of pro-labor members of the current administration includes the following:
Parrick Gaspard, a political director in the White House, had been executive VP for legislation for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
Ronald W. Bloom, who had been an assistant to the president of the United Steelworkers of America, is a member of the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry.
J. Randolph Babbitt, who had been president of the Air Line Pilots Association, is now an FAA Administrator.
T. Michael Kerr, an Assistant Labor Secretary, has worked for AFSCME and the SEIU.
Wilma Liebman, who will serve as chair of the NLRB, had previously served as counsel to the Bricklayers and Teamsters Unions.
Joseph C. Szabo, Federal Railroad Administrator, had been the Illinois legislative director of the United Transportation Union.
Helen Kanovsky, general counsel at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, had previously worked for the AFL-CIO.
The list goes on and on, and it is apparent that the Obama Administration will be profoundly pro-labor. It is, therefore, essential that Corporate America develop effective and innovative techniques for dealing effectively with aggressive new union organizing and bargaining policies.
I have recently written an article entitled How Corporate America Can Deal with the Proposed Employee Free Choice Act, which appears on the website of Industry Week magazine and can be found at http://www.industryweek.com/articles/viewpoint_--_how_corporate_america_can_deal_with_the_proposed_employee_free_choice_act_18884.aspx
In addition to Hilda Solis, Secretary of Labor, who comes from a strongly pro-union family, the Obama administration is full of many pro-labor advocates who will do what is necessary to consummate the successful passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. The list of pro-labor members of the current administration includes the following:
Parrick Gaspard, a political director in the White House, had been executive VP for legislation for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
Ronald W. Bloom, who had been an assistant to the president of the United Steelworkers of America, is a member of the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry.
J. Randolph Babbitt, who had been president of the Air Line Pilots Association, is now an FAA Administrator.
T. Michael Kerr, an Assistant Labor Secretary, has worked for AFSCME and the SEIU.
Wilma Liebman, who will serve as chair of the NLRB, had previously served as counsel to the Bricklayers and Teamsters Unions.
Joseph C. Szabo, Federal Railroad Administrator, had been the Illinois legislative director of the United Transportation Union.
Helen Kanovsky, general counsel at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, had previously worked for the AFL-CIO.
The list goes on and on, and it is apparent that the Obama Administration will be profoundly pro-labor. It is, therefore, essential that Corporate America develop effective and innovative techniques for dealing effectively with aggressive new union organizing and bargaining policies.
I have recently written an article entitled How Corporate America Can Deal with the Proposed Employee Free Choice Act, which appears on the website of Industry Week magazine and can be found at http://www.industryweek.com/articles/viewpoint_--_how_corporate_america_can_deal_with_the_proposed_employee_free_choice_act_18884.aspx
Friday, April 3, 2009
THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT WILL BE AN ANTI FREE SPEECH ACT
By passing the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) and imposing card checks on Corporate America, the Democrats will – in effect – eliminate the free speech of workers. Since 1935, when the National Labor Relations Act was passed and signed into law, workers were assured that their opinions about unionization would be protected. During secret ballot elections in which employees could vote their preference about unionization, the opinions of workers would be kept private. Under the EFCA, however, private opinions will no longer be private. A worker’s colleagues and union organizers will readily know if that worker is in favor of unionization. Such a worker will no doubt be pressured and perhaps coerced into signing a card check authorizing union representation.
As two former Justice Department lawyers, David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, who served under President Reagan and President George H. W. Bush, wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial: "Three of the Constitution's Framers -- James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay -- wrote the Federalist Papers supporting its ratification under the anonymous pen name Publius." If they had announced their identities, British authorities would have arrested them for sedition.
The authors further wrote: "When courts have upheld restrictions on anonymous speech, they have required that such provisions be narrowly tailored to serve an overriding governmental interest." There is, obviously, no government interest in denying the protection of anonymity to workers.
Imagine what would happen to American democracy if we all had to state our votes in public, and our private speech was curtailed. We would all become victims of coercive politics. Strong arm tactics would be the order (or disorder) of the day.
This is another reason why the Employee Free Choice Act should not become the law of the land.
As two former Justice Department lawyers, David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, who served under President Reagan and President George H. W. Bush, wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial: "Three of the Constitution's Framers -- James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay -- wrote the Federalist Papers supporting its ratification under the anonymous pen name Publius." If they had announced their identities, British authorities would have arrested them for sedition.
The authors further wrote: "When courts have upheld restrictions on anonymous speech, they have required that such provisions be narrowly tailored to serve an overriding governmental interest." There is, obviously, no government interest in denying the protection of anonymity to workers.
Imagine what would happen to American democracy if we all had to state our votes in public, and our private speech was curtailed. We would all become victims of coercive politics. Strong arm tactics would be the order (or disorder) of the day.
This is another reason why the Employee Free Choice Act should not become the law of the land.
Friday, March 27, 2009
SENATOR SPECTER & THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT
Senator Arlen Specter (R- Pennsylvania) has ostensibly spoken out against the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA); yet, one can infer from his words, that a compromise might be acceptable.
Senator Specter started out by saying that “the bill’s requirement for compulsory arbitration if an agreement is not reached within 120 days may subject the employer to a deal he or she cannot live with. Such arbitration runs contrary to the basic tenet of the Wagner Act for collective bargaining, which makes the employer liable only for a deal he or she agrees to.” He added that “the problems of the recession make this a particularly bad time to enact [the] Employees’ Free Choice legislation. If [however] efforts are unsuccessful to give labor sufficient bargaining power through amendments to the NLRA, then I would be willing to reconsider [the] Employees’ Free Choice legislation when the economy returns to normalcy.”
The Senator emphasized that his decision was “a close call” and that “labor has a valid point that they have suffered greatly from outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries and losses in pension and health benefits.” Again, he suggested revisions to the National Labor Relations Act, which further indicates that a compromise may be in the offing
The make-up of the Senate, which would be 59 to 40 if Al Franken is seated, would make Senator Specter’s vote the one that could deicide passage of the EFCA, which at this point will sail through a Democratically controlled House of Representatives.
At this time, Corporate America must not only keep up the pressure on its elected representatives to defeat the probable passage of even a watered-down EFCA, but it must also prepare for its possible passage by initiating effective pro-management strategies.
Senator Specter started out by saying that “the bill’s requirement for compulsory arbitration if an agreement is not reached within 120 days may subject the employer to a deal he or she cannot live with. Such arbitration runs contrary to the basic tenet of the Wagner Act for collective bargaining, which makes the employer liable only for a deal he or she agrees to.” He added that “the problems of the recession make this a particularly bad time to enact [the] Employees’ Free Choice legislation. If [however] efforts are unsuccessful to give labor sufficient bargaining power through amendments to the NLRA, then I would be willing to reconsider [the] Employees’ Free Choice legislation when the economy returns to normalcy.”
The Senator emphasized that his decision was “a close call” and that “labor has a valid point that they have suffered greatly from outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries and losses in pension and health benefits.” Again, he suggested revisions to the National Labor Relations Act, which further indicates that a compromise may be in the offing
The make-up of the Senate, which would be 59 to 40 if Al Franken is seated, would make Senator Specter’s vote the one that could deicide passage of the EFCA, which at this point will sail through a Democratically controlled House of Representatives.
At this time, Corporate America must not only keep up the pressure on its elected representatives to defeat the probable passage of even a watered-down EFCA, but it must also prepare for its possible passage by initiating effective pro-management strategies.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Warren Buffett Is Against Card Checks
WARREN BUFFETT IS AGAINST CARD CHECKS
In a recent interview on CNBC, Warren Buffet categorically came out against card checks. He said that he is in favor of secret ballot elections, for it has been a traditional aspect of our American democracy.
Now, Berkshire Hathaway, Mr. Buffet’s multifaceted enterprise, owns many companies that are unionized. Though he claims that unions play an important role in Corporate America, a position with which I have serious disagreements, Mr. Buffet nevertheless understands the damage that would occur if the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) becomes law.
Indeed, the EFCA would result in significantly increased labor costs, thus reducing corporate profitability, which would be reflected in the diminished value of the stocks of companies unionized under the undemocratic rules imposed by the EFCA.
In a recent interview on CNBC, Warren Buffet categorically came out against card checks. He said that he is in favor of secret ballot elections, for it has been a traditional aspect of our American democracy.
Now, Berkshire Hathaway, Mr. Buffet’s multifaceted enterprise, owns many companies that are unionized. Though he claims that unions play an important role in Corporate America, a position with which I have serious disagreements, Mr. Buffet nevertheless understands the damage that would occur if the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) becomes law.
Indeed, the EFCA would result in significantly increased labor costs, thus reducing corporate profitability, which would be reflected in the diminished value of the stocks of companies unionized under the undemocratic rules imposed by the EFCA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)