From the desk of Stephen Cabot:
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is seeking new ways to help unions increase their ability to organize workers. It is doing so by investigating and promoting the possibility of permitting employees to vote via home-based computers and other offsite computers in union representation elections. Electronic voting would clearly hamper goals of management, while significantly broadening the opportunities for organized labor. Here are four problems of electronic voting:
1. Electronic voting would replace paper ballot voting, which is monitored in the workplace. Paper ballot voting has proven successful in eliminating fraud and in preventing union organizers from coercing and intimidating workers.
2. Electronic voting would be a boon to unions, for it would accelerate election procedures and truncate the time during which employers could inform employees of the disadvantages of union membership.
3. If remote electronic voting were to replace paper ballot voting, there would be enormous opportunities for union organizers to coerce and intimidate workers. Furthermore, it would be impossible to determine if people, other than legitimate employees, were doing the actual voting.
4. Votes that have been electronically registered could be altered by hackers, resulting in stolen elections.
The introduction of electronic voting may be the NLRB’s first of several steps to sneak elements of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) into the National Labor Relations Act. Such administrative action is a clever way of helping organized labor achieve its goals, two of which are to increase the number of unionized workers and put more money in union coffers.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
A RADICAL NLRB THREATENS CORP AMERICA
It is no secret that a Democratic majority on the National Labor Relations Board would favor unions. If one of those is a former union lawyer who believes that the Employee Free Choice Act should become law, the putative impartiality of the NLRB could be abrogated with the stroke of a pen.
Craig Becker, who was appointed to the Board by President Obama during the spring recess of Congress (an action known as a presidential recess appointment), will decidedly and perhaps aggressively tilt the Board to an unfair and dangerous pro-union position.
Mr. Becker, who was a top lawyer for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and Democrat Mark Pearce, will give the Board a three-vote Democratic majority. There had been just one Democrat and one Republican on the Board prior to the appointments of Becker and Pearce. The Board should have five members.
Many in Corporate America as well as students of labor relations and pro-management attorneys believe that the newly composed Board will act to affirm a pending petition that would require employers to bargain with unions that represent less than a majority number of any employer’s workers. In addition, it is also believed that the Board will vote to shorten the period of time from when an organizing petition is accepted by the Board and when a vote is held. While the Employee Free Choice Act may be doomed in Congress, the acts of the NLRB could now advance the mission of unions so that more and more workers become unionized and labor costs skyrocket. It is essential, therefore, that Corporate America invests in strategic action plans for union avoidance as well as plans to achieve decertification of unions already in place.
A dark cloud is hanging over Corporate America, and only if it implements a pro-active battle plan will the sun shine again on our traditional free enterprise system.
Craig Becker, who was appointed to the Board by President Obama during the spring recess of Congress (an action known as a presidential recess appointment), will decidedly and perhaps aggressively tilt the Board to an unfair and dangerous pro-union position.
Mr. Becker, who was a top lawyer for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and Democrat Mark Pearce, will give the Board a three-vote Democratic majority. There had been just one Democrat and one Republican on the Board prior to the appointments of Becker and Pearce. The Board should have five members.
Many in Corporate America as well as students of labor relations and pro-management attorneys believe that the newly composed Board will act to affirm a pending petition that would require employers to bargain with unions that represent less than a majority number of any employer’s workers. In addition, it is also believed that the Board will vote to shorten the period of time from when an organizing petition is accepted by the Board and when a vote is held. While the Employee Free Choice Act may be doomed in Congress, the acts of the NLRB could now advance the mission of unions so that more and more workers become unionized and labor costs skyrocket. It is essential, therefore, that Corporate America invests in strategic action plans for union avoidance as well as plans to achieve decertification of unions already in place.
A dark cloud is hanging over Corporate America, and only if it implements a pro-active battle plan will the sun shine again on our traditional free enterprise system.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
WOULD THE PRISONERS GUARD THEMSELVES?
From the desk of Stephen Cabot:
When referring to illogical situations, it has often been said that the prisoners are running the prisons, the inmates are running the asylums, the foxes are guarding the hen houses.
Such a situation was successfully avoided at a prison in Chester County, Pennsylvania.
The Teamsters Union, ever on the look out for possible new members, had attempted to organize the Chester County Prison correction officers. The officers, ever vigilant of their responsibilities, voted 155 to 35 against forming the Chester County Corrections Officers Independent Union, which – had it succeeded – would have been allied with the Teamsters.
One can only imagine what would have occurred in the prison, if –at some future time – unionized corrections officers would have be unable to reach an agreement with the warden and the county. Would the officers have felt obliged to go out on strike? Would certain prisoners be given the responsibility of guarding their fellow prisoners?
The fact that the corrections officers believe that they can negotiate on their own, without the normal threats that unions often bring to the bargaining table, says much about their apprehension of realism and their sense of responsibility. They are to be commended for putting professional responsibilities ahead of personal interests.
The adversarial relationships that so often characterize the bargaining between management and workers have proven to be counterproductive and should be tossed onto the ash heap of labor relations history. It has proven utterly injurious to the economic health of the country.
When referring to illogical situations, it has often been said that the prisoners are running the prisons, the inmates are running the asylums, the foxes are guarding the hen houses.
Such a situation was successfully avoided at a prison in Chester County, Pennsylvania.
The Teamsters Union, ever on the look out for possible new members, had attempted to organize the Chester County Prison correction officers. The officers, ever vigilant of their responsibilities, voted 155 to 35 against forming the Chester County Corrections Officers Independent Union, which – had it succeeded – would have been allied with the Teamsters.
One can only imagine what would have occurred in the prison, if –at some future time – unionized corrections officers would have be unable to reach an agreement with the warden and the county. Would the officers have felt obliged to go out on strike? Would certain prisoners be given the responsibility of guarding their fellow prisoners?
The fact that the corrections officers believe that they can negotiate on their own, without the normal threats that unions often bring to the bargaining table, says much about their apprehension of realism and their sense of responsibility. They are to be commended for putting professional responsibilities ahead of personal interests.
The adversarial relationships that so often characterize the bargaining between management and workers have proven to be counterproductive and should be tossed onto the ash heap of labor relations history. It has proven utterly injurious to the economic health of the country.
Friday, March 26, 2010
PRESIDENT OBAMA PLAYS THREE CARD MONTE AT THE NLRB
From the desk of Stephen Cabot
The National Labor Relations Board needs a quorum of three. If President Obama hopes to enact his pro-union agenda, he will need to have another pro-union advocate on the NLRB. He won’t say who is the pro-union advocate; he won’t even say that there is a pro-union advocate.
But as the names are flipped from hand to hand, one name keeps turning up. And if you guessed Craig Becker, you would be right.
According to The Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com) “In a 1993 Minnesota Law Review article [Becker] said that the ‘core defect in union election law…is the employer’s status as a party to labor representation proceedings’ and that ‘employers should be stripped of any legally cognizable interest in their employees’ election of representatives.’”
If an NLRB member believes that employers should not be permitted to educate their employees about he disadvantages of unionization, he can hardly be considered a fair minded adjudicator of labor issues.
Yet, according to Senator Tom Harkin, President Obama will appoint Craig Becker to the NLRB during the Easter recess. It’s called a recess appointment, and it’s an end run around the Senate. No votes are required.
With his pro-union advocates on the NLRB, President Obama will have won his three card Monte game, for no matter which member Corporate America appeals to, the results will always favor the union.
The National Labor Relations Board needs a quorum of three. If President Obama hopes to enact his pro-union agenda, he will need to have another pro-union advocate on the NLRB. He won’t say who is the pro-union advocate; he won’t even say that there is a pro-union advocate.
But as the names are flipped from hand to hand, one name keeps turning up. And if you guessed Craig Becker, you would be right.
According to The Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com) “In a 1993 Minnesota Law Review article [Becker] said that the ‘core defect in union election law…is the employer’s status as a party to labor representation proceedings’ and that ‘employers should be stripped of any legally cognizable interest in their employees’ election of representatives.’”
If an NLRB member believes that employers should not be permitted to educate their employees about he disadvantages of unionization, he can hardly be considered a fair minded adjudicator of labor issues.
Yet, according to Senator Tom Harkin, President Obama will appoint Craig Becker to the NLRB during the Easter recess. It’s called a recess appointment, and it’s an end run around the Senate. No votes are required.
With his pro-union advocates on the NLRB, President Obama will have won his three card Monte game, for no matter which member Corporate America appeals to, the results will always favor the union.
Friday, March 19, 2010
MORE AIRLINE EMPLOYEES TO UNIONIZE, LABOR COSTS TO ERASE PROFITS
FROM THE DESK OF STEPHEN CABOT
According to a recent report by Market Watch, we can expect more airline employees to join unions, driving up labor costs and the cost of flying. While traveling by air has been somewhat unpleasant over the last few years, one can now expect it to become more expensive, not only for tickets, but also for basic amenities.
A new organizing rule is to blame for what’s about to happen. Under the new rule, the agency that referees labor relations for airlines and its employees would permit workers to join a union if a majority of those workers votes for unionization. In the past, those who did not vote had their absent ballots counted as no votes; now, those absent ballots will count as yes votes! It will likely mean that airlines will have tens of thousands of newly unionized employees. Increased wages and benefits would leave airlines no alternative but to increase the fees that are charged to flyers.
There are currently 75 union contracts being negotiated in the airline industry. And each of those negotiating airlines will now face a major threat to its profitability. The Association of Flight Attendants, for one, has already made it known that it will attempt to organize 20,000 attendants at Delta Air Lines, and that’s just the beginning of a devastating industry trend. The management of American and United Airlines are currently negotiating multiple open contracts, and under the new rule, profits at both carriers could be wiped out.
The new rule is a direct result of a pro-union policy emanating out of the White House and promoted by union officials who frequently meet behind closed doors with President Obama. The rule is not only injurious to the airline industry; it is also injurious to the entire national economy.
.
According to a recent report by Market Watch, we can expect more airline employees to join unions, driving up labor costs and the cost of flying. While traveling by air has been somewhat unpleasant over the last few years, one can now expect it to become more expensive, not only for tickets, but also for basic amenities.
A new organizing rule is to blame for what’s about to happen. Under the new rule, the agency that referees labor relations for airlines and its employees would permit workers to join a union if a majority of those workers votes for unionization. In the past, those who did not vote had their absent ballots counted as no votes; now, those absent ballots will count as yes votes! It will likely mean that airlines will have tens of thousands of newly unionized employees. Increased wages and benefits would leave airlines no alternative but to increase the fees that are charged to flyers.
There are currently 75 union contracts being negotiated in the airline industry. And each of those negotiating airlines will now face a major threat to its profitability. The Association of Flight Attendants, for one, has already made it known that it will attempt to organize 20,000 attendants at Delta Air Lines, and that’s just the beginning of a devastating industry trend. The management of American and United Airlines are currently negotiating multiple open contracts, and under the new rule, profits at both carriers could be wiped out.
The new rule is a direct result of a pro-union policy emanating out of the White House and promoted by union officials who frequently meet behind closed doors with President Obama. The rule is not only injurious to the airline industry; it is also injurious to the entire national economy.
.
Friday, March 12, 2010
UNIONS INVESTING MILLIONS TO ELECT PRO-UNION LEGISLATORS
From the desk of Stephen Cabot:
It’s no secret that unions are extremely unhappy with many Democratic legislators who have failed to support the proposed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) as well as other pro-union measures. Now those unions are supporting a host of Democratic candidates who have promised, that if elected, they will support the EFCA.INV
One need only look at the primary battle facing Blanche Lincoln for the Democratic senatorial nomination in Arkansas. Four unions have pledged $4 million to defeat Senator Lincoln in the primary and to elect Lt. Governor Bill Halter.
In addition, the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) will endorse pro-union Democratic candidates in Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky.
While President Obama decried the recent Supreme Court decision permitting corporations to invest in political candidates, he did not complain about unions doing the same thing. And now that the Supreme Court has opened the door to increased spending, unions are going to invest millions of dollars to make sure that their chosen candidates get elected.
While many in Corporate America breathed a sigh of relief that the EFCA was dead, it could come back to life if new union-backed candidates are elected to the US Senate.
It’s no secret that unions are extremely unhappy with many Democratic legislators who have failed to support the proposed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) as well as other pro-union measures. Now those unions are supporting a host of Democratic candidates who have promised, that if elected, they will support the EFCA.INV
One need only look at the primary battle facing Blanche Lincoln for the Democratic senatorial nomination in Arkansas. Four unions have pledged $4 million to defeat Senator Lincoln in the primary and to elect Lt. Governor Bill Halter.
In addition, the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) will endorse pro-union Democratic candidates in Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky.
While President Obama decried the recent Supreme Court decision permitting corporations to invest in political candidates, he did not complain about unions doing the same thing. And now that the Supreme Court has opened the door to increased spending, unions are going to invest millions of dollars to make sure that their chosen candidates get elected.
While many in Corporate America breathed a sigh of relief that the EFCA was dead, it could come back to life if new union-backed candidates are elected to the US Senate.
Friday, March 5, 2010
ONCE AGAIN A UNION HURTS WORKERS & CORPORATE AMERICA
In DeWitt, New York, Magna’s Power Train division decided that the installation of surveillance cameras was an appropriate undertaking. Keeping tabs on workers’ productivity is a responsibility of management. Not according to the UAW. It said that the cameras should not have been installed without first consulting with the union. This is one of numerous union generated complaints against Magna.
Because of the barrage of union complaints and because workers repeatedly rejected contract changes, Magna has decided that it will close one of its divisions. Work from Magna’s New Process Gear plant has now been transferred to other Magna facilities and to a factory in Mexico. That means that 112 workers will lose their jobs.
This is just another example of why the majority of Americans regard unions as an obstacle to their economic well being. As companies, such as Magna, close plants and send manufacturing to foreign lands, workers will suffer, Corporate America will suffer, and America’s role as an economic powerhouse will diminish while the economies of other countries, such as China and India, continue to grow. It’s a sad commentary on the state of management labor relations in our time.
Because of the barrage of union complaints and because workers repeatedly rejected contract changes, Magna has decided that it will close one of its divisions. Work from Magna’s New Process Gear plant has now been transferred to other Magna facilities and to a factory in Mexico. That means that 112 workers will lose their jobs.
This is just another example of why the majority of Americans regard unions as an obstacle to their economic well being. As companies, such as Magna, close plants and send manufacturing to foreign lands, workers will suffer, Corporate America will suffer, and America’s role as an economic powerhouse will diminish while the economies of other countries, such as China and India, continue to grow. It’s a sad commentary on the state of management labor relations in our time.
Friday, February 26, 2010
PEW RESEARCH: UNIONS' FAVORABILITY RATINGS DROP
According to The Pew Research Center for People and the Press, the public has an increasingly unfavorable opinion of unions. A mere 41% of the general public has a favorable opinion of unions, while 42% expressed an unfavorable opinion of unions. Such figures contrast dramatically with those ascertained in January 2007 when 58% of the public had a favorable opinion of unions, while only 31% had an unfavorable opinion.
The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press conducted its survey from February 3 to 9 and queried 1,383 adults via cell phones and landlines. According to the survey, “61% agreed with the statement ‘labor unions are necessary to protect the working person,’ down from 68% in 2007 and 74% in 2003. In the same survey, six-in-ten (61%) agreed that ‘labor unions have too much power,’ up from 52% in 1999.
The survey ratifies a belief that we have been espousing for some time that unions no longer represent the best interests of workers. The public realizes that if America is to maintain its position as a world economic leader it must support innovation, entrepreneurship, and capital investment in the future. Unions are often an obstacle to all three.
No matter how much support unions give to President Obama and how much he does their bidding, the public believes that the era of the union as the best representative of workers is rapidly fading and will soon become utterly superfluous.
The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press conducted its survey from February 3 to 9 and queried 1,383 adults via cell phones and landlines. According to the survey, “61% agreed with the statement ‘labor unions are necessary to protect the working person,’ down from 68% in 2007 and 74% in 2003. In the same survey, six-in-ten (61%) agreed that ‘labor unions have too much power,’ up from 52% in 1999.
The survey ratifies a belief that we have been espousing for some time that unions no longer represent the best interests of workers. The public realizes that if America is to maintain its position as a world economic leader it must support innovation, entrepreneurship, and capital investment in the future. Unions are often an obstacle to all three.
No matter how much support unions give to President Obama and how much he does their bidding, the public believes that the era of the union as the best representative of workers is rapidly fading and will soon become utterly superfluous.
According to The Pew Research Center for People and the Press, the public has an increasingly unfavorable opinion of unions. A mere 41% of the general public has a favorable opinion of unions, while 42% expressed an unfavorable opinion of unions. Such figures contrast dramatically with those ascertained in January 2007 when 58% of the public had a favorable opinion of unions, while only 31% had an unfavorable opinion.
The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press conducted its survey from February 3 to 9 and queried 1,383 adults via cell phones and landlines. According to the survey, “61% agreed with the statement ‘labor unions are necessary to protect the working person,’ down from 68% in 2007 and 74% in 2003. In the same survey, six-in-ten (61%) agreed that ‘labor unions have too much power,’ up from 52% in 1999.
The survey ratifies a belief that we have been espousing for some time that unions no longer represent the best interests of workers. The public realizes that if America is to maintain its position as a world economic leader it must support innovation, entrepreneurship, and capital investment in the future. Unions are often an obstacle to all three.
No matter how much support unions give to President Obama and how much he does their bidding, the public believes that the era of the union as the best representative of workers is rapidly fading and will soon become utterly superfluous.
The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press conducted its survey from February 3 to 9 and queried 1,383 adults via cell phones and landlines. According to the survey, “61% agreed with the statement ‘labor unions are necessary to protect the working person,’ down from 68% in 2007 and 74% in 2003. In the same survey, six-in-ten (61%) agreed that ‘labor unions have too much power,’ up from 52% in 1999.
The survey ratifies a belief that we have been espousing for some time that unions no longer represent the best interests of workers. The public realizes that if America is to maintain its position as a world economic leader it must support innovation, entrepreneurship, and capital investment in the future. Unions are often an obstacle to all three.
No matter how much support unions give to President Obama and how much he does their bidding, the public believes that the era of the union as the best representative of workers is rapidly fading and will soon become utterly superfluous.
Friday, February 19, 2010
PLAY BALL!
With the start of the baseball season just around the corner, players and owners have much to consider. To wit: stadium attendance has dropped by more than 6%, and the collective bargaining agreement of the baseball franchises expires just after the 2011 season. Thus far, there has been scant news about disputes between management and players; however, that is not necessarily an indication that numerous dissatisfactions aren’t brewing.
According to an article in New York Newsday, Bud Selig stated: "I've been thinking about it [the collective bargaining agreement] a lot. (Major League Baseball executive vice president of labor relations and human resources) Rob Manfred and I have a lot of conversations about it. Rarely do I have it off my mind. We've had 14 straight seasons of uninterrupted action, though, featuring two CBAs negotiated peacefully. The first one, in 2002, went down to the final minutes. The more recent one, in 2006, reached agreement months before the deadline. That history must count for something, to both sides, as do the relatively positive relationships that have been constructed.”
While the Obama administration is attempting to push forward its pro-union agenda, baseball fans, disturbed by past labor conflicts, are generally hopeful that there will be no strike to disrupt the call of “Play Ball.” And not only the fans, but also the owners and players are hopeful that labor peace can be maintained.
In fact, professional baseball may offer an example of how labor and management can cooperate for the overall good of the economy. Corporate America and organized labor both have a vital stake in increased productivity, profitability, and cooperation. And that can be achieved by putting aside petty differences and working together to bring about shared goals. The adversarial culture, which often permeates all aspects of labor relations, is an obstacle that both sides should work to eliminate, regardless of who in Washington is pushing a pro-union agenda.
According to an article in New York Newsday, Bud Selig stated: "I've been thinking about it [the collective bargaining agreement] a lot. (Major League Baseball executive vice president of labor relations and human resources) Rob Manfred and I have a lot of conversations about it. Rarely do I have it off my mind. We've had 14 straight seasons of uninterrupted action, though, featuring two CBAs negotiated peacefully. The first one, in 2002, went down to the final minutes. The more recent one, in 2006, reached agreement months before the deadline. That history must count for something, to both sides, as do the relatively positive relationships that have been constructed.”
While the Obama administration is attempting to push forward its pro-union agenda, baseball fans, disturbed by past labor conflicts, are generally hopeful that there will be no strike to disrupt the call of “Play Ball.” And not only the fans, but also the owners and players are hopeful that labor peace can be maintained.
In fact, professional baseball may offer an example of how labor and management can cooperate for the overall good of the economy. Corporate America and organized labor both have a vital stake in increased productivity, profitability, and cooperation. And that can be achieved by putting aside petty differences and working together to bring about shared goals. The adversarial culture, which often permeates all aspects of labor relations, is an obstacle that both sides should work to eliminate, regardless of who in Washington is pushing a pro-union agenda.
Friday, February 12, 2010
WILL DOC BURNSTEIN'S ICE CREAM MELT?
In the town of Santa Maria in California, there is a popular ice cream shop: Doc Burnstein’s Ice Cream Lab. Doc’s is not General Motors nor is it Ford. It is not Pepsi nor is it Coca Cola. It is a small establishment run by its founder, Greg Steinberger.
It seems that the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local 150 is not pleased with Doc’s. On the other hand, the carpenters’ union is not popular with the local Tri-Counties Building and Construction Trades Council, nor is it popular with the AFL-CIO. It has disassociated itself from both groups.
Member of the carpenters’ union have been protesting outside Doc’s Ice Cream Lab since October 2009, because they believe that the ice cream shop used non-union workers to expand the size of the store.
According to the Santa Maria Times: “People hired by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters Local 150 of Camarillo have been holding a banner outside Doc Burnstein’s Ice Cream Lab on the belief the Arroyo Grande business hired a nonunion contractor to build out its space in the Santa Maria Town Center, a job the union wanted. However, Doc Burnstein’s is not paying for the drywall work; it is paid for by the mall. Steinberger said the National Labor Relations Board, which oversees union activities, believes the protest in Arroyo Grande violates the National Labor Relations Act by being [sic] actions against a third party. He filed charges against the union with the NLRB, but those charges are awaiting final review by the board.”
This is just another example of a union victimizing a small business. It is no wonder why the vast majority of Americans believe that unions are an obstacle to the success of the country and its entrepreneurs who create small businesses and provide employment to millions of workers.
It seems that the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local 150 is not pleased with Doc’s. On the other hand, the carpenters’ union is not popular with the local Tri-Counties Building and Construction Trades Council, nor is it popular with the AFL-CIO. It has disassociated itself from both groups.
Member of the carpenters’ union have been protesting outside Doc’s Ice Cream Lab since October 2009, because they believe that the ice cream shop used non-union workers to expand the size of the store.
According to the Santa Maria Times: “People hired by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters Local 150 of Camarillo have been holding a banner outside Doc Burnstein’s Ice Cream Lab on the belief the Arroyo Grande business hired a nonunion contractor to build out its space in the Santa Maria Town Center, a job the union wanted. However, Doc Burnstein’s is not paying for the drywall work; it is paid for by the mall. Steinberger said the National Labor Relations Board, which oversees union activities, believes the protest in Arroyo Grande violates the National Labor Relations Act by being [sic] actions against a third party. He filed charges against the union with the NLRB, but those charges are awaiting final review by the board.”
This is just another example of a union victimizing a small business. It is no wonder why the vast majority of Americans believe that unions are an obstacle to the success of the country and its entrepreneurs who create small businesses and provide employment to millions of workers.
Friday, February 5, 2010
HIGHER TAXES BENEFIT UNIONS
According to a recent editorial in The Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com), while union membership amongst private industry workers is declining, union membership for government employees is dramatically increasing. While 7.2% of private industry workers belong to unions, more than 37% of government workers belong to unions.
Since government has become the primary employer of unionized workers, it is understandable why Andy Stern, head of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO, are such frequent visitors to the White House. And since the Democrats reliably do the bidding of unions, it also explains why unions earmark tens of millions of dollars to elect Democrats to Congress.
It also explains why unions want higher taxes, for higher taxes mean additional revenue to pay unionized government workers’ salaries. And ever increasing salaries mean greater amounts of money available for union dues. In other words, millions of American workers, who do not belong to unions, will be paying for ever higher, ever increasing union wages for government workers!
Should the demands of government workers not be met, they can always bite the hands that feed them by going on strike. Striking public service workers was once outlawed; but self-destructive Democrats will never put road blocks on the highway that leads to union goals. So if the workers don’t get what they want, one could witness government grinding to a halt. So much for the welfare of the tax-paying public!
Since government has become the primary employer of unionized workers, it is understandable why Andy Stern, head of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO, are such frequent visitors to the White House. And since the Democrats reliably do the bidding of unions, it also explains why unions earmark tens of millions of dollars to elect Democrats to Congress.
It also explains why unions want higher taxes, for higher taxes mean additional revenue to pay unionized government workers’ salaries. And ever increasing salaries mean greater amounts of money available for union dues. In other words, millions of American workers, who do not belong to unions, will be paying for ever higher, ever increasing union wages for government workers!
Should the demands of government workers not be met, they can always bite the hands that feed them by going on strike. Striking public service workers was once outlawed; but self-destructive Democrats will never put road blocks on the highway that leads to union goals. So if the workers don’t get what they want, one could witness government grinding to a halt. So much for the welfare of the tax-paying public!
Friday, January 29, 2010
STICKS & STONES CAN BREAK YOUR BONES, BUT CARELESS EPITHETS ARE SELF-DEFEATING
In politics, there is a great deal of name calling, disparagement of one’s opponents, and assorted calumnies spread through rumor mills. There is also a maxim that “it is easier to attract flies with honey than with vinegar.”
Attempting to defame one’s political enemies is a sure sign of desperation that will have a contrary effect to one’s intentions. Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is his latest broadside has accused Senators Joe Leiberman and Ben Nelson of being “terrorists” for their opposition to the bill that would create “card checks” under the union-endorsed Employee Free Choice Act.
From Osama bin Laden to the Christmas Day bomber, America has been targeted by one terrorist after another. To place Senators Lieberman and Nelson in that same criminal category as those who are motivated to kill Americans is not merely absurd, but it is a form of defamation that will generate considerable skepticism about Andy Stern’s values and methods of cogitation.
If one’ mission as head of a union is to convince as many Americans as possible that union membership is desirable outcome for all, Andy Stern has a peculiar tactic for convincing them of his project. How many pro-union entomological subjects has he attracted by spritzing vinegar on the reputations of others? No wonder why most Americans perceive unions as creating obstacles to national prosperity.
Attempting to defame one’s political enemies is a sure sign of desperation that will have a contrary effect to one’s intentions. Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is his latest broadside has accused Senators Joe Leiberman and Ben Nelson of being “terrorists” for their opposition to the bill that would create “card checks” under the union-endorsed Employee Free Choice Act.
From Osama bin Laden to the Christmas Day bomber, America has been targeted by one terrorist after another. To place Senators Lieberman and Nelson in that same criminal category as those who are motivated to kill Americans is not merely absurd, but it is a form of defamation that will generate considerable skepticism about Andy Stern’s values and methods of cogitation.
If one’ mission as head of a union is to convince as many Americans as possible that union membership is desirable outcome for all, Andy Stern has a peculiar tactic for convincing them of his project. How many pro-union entomological subjects has he attracted by spritzing vinegar on the reputations of others? No wonder why most Americans perceive unions as creating obstacles to national prosperity.
Friday, January 22, 2010
AN OVERLOOKED ELEMENT IN THE GREAT MASS UPSET
According to various polls, most Americans believe that unions have often been an obstacle, standing in the way of American companies being able to compete with foreign-based and non-union companies. One need only look at the sorry state of GM.
In addition, Americans have not voiced approval for President Obama’s pro-union activities, such as attempting to staff the NLRB with pro-union advocates and cozying up to the leaders of the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO. Leaders of both unions have been frequent visitors to the White House.
Though many commentators noted Senate candidate Martha Coakley’s gaff about the Boston Red Sox, there was also another element responsible for her loss to Senator Scott Brown. Seemingly unaware of public sentiment about unions, Ms. Coakley announced during her campaign that she supported the Teamsters’ efforts to organize the workers of FedEx. She stated that she supported the Express Carrier Employee Protection Act. "As someone deeply committed to ensuring a level playing field for our workforce, I am pleased to support this legislation that will end FedEx's unfair ability to deny workers' rights," stated Ms. Coakley. She didn’t, of course, state that consumers are pleased with the services that they get from FedEx. Furthermore, she did not state that many FedEx drivers prefer the opportunity to own their own routes, be their own bosses, buy additional routes, and enjoy the opportunity of earning as much money as their ambitions and energies permit. By accepting union support and not balancing that with the sentiments of the electorate, she self-destructively hammered another nail into her own political coffin.
Driving around during the campaign in his pick-up truck, Scott Brown seemed to voters as independent and as free of union influence as FedEx drivers. It’s just another reason why Massachusetts voters went to the polls to express their own independence. Being a union stooge is no way to run for political office.
In addition, Americans have not voiced approval for President Obama’s pro-union activities, such as attempting to staff the NLRB with pro-union advocates and cozying up to the leaders of the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO. Leaders of both unions have been frequent visitors to the White House.
Though many commentators noted Senate candidate Martha Coakley’s gaff about the Boston Red Sox, there was also another element responsible for her loss to Senator Scott Brown. Seemingly unaware of public sentiment about unions, Ms. Coakley announced during her campaign that she supported the Teamsters’ efforts to organize the workers of FedEx. She stated that she supported the Express Carrier Employee Protection Act. "As someone deeply committed to ensuring a level playing field for our workforce, I am pleased to support this legislation that will end FedEx's unfair ability to deny workers' rights," stated Ms. Coakley. She didn’t, of course, state that consumers are pleased with the services that they get from FedEx. Furthermore, she did not state that many FedEx drivers prefer the opportunity to own their own routes, be their own bosses, buy additional routes, and enjoy the opportunity of earning as much money as their ambitions and energies permit. By accepting union support and not balancing that with the sentiments of the electorate, she self-destructively hammered another nail into her own political coffin.
Driving around during the campaign in his pick-up truck, Scott Brown seemed to voters as independent and as free of union influence as FedEx drivers. It’s just another reason why Massachusetts voters went to the polls to express their own independence. Being a union stooge is no way to run for political office.
Friday, January 15, 2010
RESPECT FOR WHOM?
In the current political climate, Corporate America (to borrow a phrase from Rodney Dangerfield) “gets no respect.” Unions are rallying again for what they cleverly call RESPECT for supervisory personnel. At issue is the Re-Empowerment of Skilled and Professional Employees and Construction Tradeworkers (RESPECT), which had originally been introduced in 2007 by Senator Dodd, but which may be taken up by a new congress.
The National Labor Relations Act defines a supervisor as an employee with the authority to “hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or to responsibly direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action.” In other words, supervisors are part of a company’s management, and management cannot be organized by unions. To do so would create divided loyalties.
The Respect Act would eliminate the responsibility of supervisors from assigning and responsibly directing non-supervisory personnel. The effect would be that all supervisors would become like all other employees and be eligible to join unions. The ensuing value to union coffers is estimated to be in the many millions of dollars. In this Alice in Wonderland world proposed by unions to the NLRB, there would be no line separating supervisors from workers. Where would the allegiance of supervisors be if they are on the picket lines, cheek by jowl, with those they had once supervised? And should card checks become law, one can easily imagine supervisors pressuring employees to sign those cards! In such a situation, it would be impossible for supervisors to carry out the goals of management.
This proposed Act is obviously no respecter of logic or common sense. It is, instead, part of our brave new world where union leaders not only frequently visit the White House whose occupant’s political campaign enjoyed the benefits of tens of millions of dollars raised by unions, but where unions are visiting upon the country an ongoing assault on economic well being and growth. Corporate America does – indeed - get no respect.
The National Labor Relations Act defines a supervisor as an employee with the authority to “hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or to responsibly direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action.” In other words, supervisors are part of a company’s management, and management cannot be organized by unions. To do so would create divided loyalties.
The Respect Act would eliminate the responsibility of supervisors from assigning and responsibly directing non-supervisory personnel. The effect would be that all supervisors would become like all other employees and be eligible to join unions. The ensuing value to union coffers is estimated to be in the many millions of dollars. In this Alice in Wonderland world proposed by unions to the NLRB, there would be no line separating supervisors from workers. Where would the allegiance of supervisors be if they are on the picket lines, cheek by jowl, with those they had once supervised? And should card checks become law, one can easily imagine supervisors pressuring employees to sign those cards! In such a situation, it would be impossible for supervisors to carry out the goals of management.
This proposed Act is obviously no respecter of logic or common sense. It is, instead, part of our brave new world where union leaders not only frequently visit the White House whose occupant’s political campaign enjoyed the benefits of tens of millions of dollars raised by unions, but where unions are visiting upon the country an ongoing assault on economic well being and growth. Corporate America does – indeed - get no respect.
Friday, January 8, 2010
GUILT BY ASSOCIATION?
People are often judged by the company they keep. That is why probation officers direct ex-convicts not to associate with other criminals.
Should Corporate America judge President Obama by the company that he keeps?
Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and Anna Burger, Secretary-Treasurer, have visited the White House 60 times. Ms. Burger also serves on the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board. There have also been numerous visits by other union leaders, such as Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO and Lou Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers.
Big labor had ensured such entrée by the amount of money it spent on the 2008 election: approximately $450 million; of that sum, $85 million was spent by SEIU.
What do these cozy relationships portend for Corporate America? To begin, there will be the Employee Free Choice Act, which will be introduced this year. Card checks and government administered binding arbitration will not be the only bad news for corporations. Unions would also like Congress to pass a tax-payer funded union pension bailout. Unions want President Bush’s union reporting requirements about union finances watered down, so that unions would no longer have to reveal how they spend their political dollars. Unions also want more stimulus money to be devoted to preserving unionized government jobs as well as preferential treatment for union contractors. And finally, unions want to make sure that the National Labor Relations Board is staffed by pro-union advocates.
Mothers throughout America warn their impressionable children that they will be judged by who their friends are. Corporate America needs no such warning: the writing is on the walls of union halls and the White House.
Should Corporate America judge President Obama by the company that he keeps?
Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and Anna Burger, Secretary-Treasurer, have visited the White House 60 times. Ms. Burger also serves on the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board. There have also been numerous visits by other union leaders, such as Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO and Lou Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers.
Big labor had ensured such entrée by the amount of money it spent on the 2008 election: approximately $450 million; of that sum, $85 million was spent by SEIU.
What do these cozy relationships portend for Corporate America? To begin, there will be the Employee Free Choice Act, which will be introduced this year. Card checks and government administered binding arbitration will not be the only bad news for corporations. Unions would also like Congress to pass a tax-payer funded union pension bailout. Unions want President Bush’s union reporting requirements about union finances watered down, so that unions would no longer have to reveal how they spend their political dollars. Unions also want more stimulus money to be devoted to preserving unionized government jobs as well as preferential treatment for union contractors. And finally, unions want to make sure that the National Labor Relations Board is staffed by pro-union advocates.
Mothers throughout America warn their impressionable children that they will be judged by who their friends are. Corporate America needs no such warning: the writing is on the walls of union halls and the White House.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)