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.
Friday, July 31, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)