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.

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.

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.

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.