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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)