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.
Friday, June 26, 2009
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-à-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-à-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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)