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.
Friday, May 29, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)