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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

AN OMINOUS ATTEMPT TO GAG CORPORATE AMERICA

While we all know that the proposed Employee Free Choice Act will mandate restrictions on the free speech of employers, the state of Oregon has leapt into the vanguard by passing a new law that eliminates an employer’s right to discuss unionization with employees.

Imagine having union organizers working day and night to get workers to sign card checks while employers are prohibited from offering counter arguments. It is the kind of law that one would expect to be enacted by a totalitarian dictatorship, not by the oldest, uninterrupted democracy in the world.

Now, corporations in Oregon have brought a law suit in federal court claiming that employers have the right to present its views of unionization to employees. They rightly claim that the new law is unconstitutional, a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. In addition, it is a violation of provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. They are asking for a preliminary injunction to prevent the law from taking effect.

Corporate America should take notice that Oregon may be a bellwether of labor relations in the new year. While we wish all of our readers a happy and prosperous 2010, the future state of labor relations in President Obama’s America will become increasingly pro-union and anti-employers.

ORGANIZED LABOR'S CIVIL WAR

One of the most aggressive unions in the country, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) will now face a challenge to its dominant role representing healthcare workers in California. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has called for an election to determine if SEIU or the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW) will represent 2,300 Kaiser healthcare workers in California.

The decision of the NLRB came as a blow to SEIU in its ongoing battle with the breakaway healthcare union, NUHW. SEIU had hoped to stop NUHW’s ongoing march to win the allegiance of thousands of healthcare workers in a wide array of states. As part of its PR war, the two sides have exchanged charges of various acts of wrong doing, including financial mismanagement. Perhaps the most hilarious charge leveled by the unions is union-busting. It’s usually the paladins of Corporate America who are accused of being union busters. If the labor movement has ever evidenced its true agenda, the bitter battle between these two unions indicates that power and money are as important to unions as they are to other institutions.

Determined to preserve its power, the SEIU says it will appeal the NLRB decision. If, however, the SEIU appeal fails, balloting is expected to take place in January.

The fight between SEIU and NUHW amounts to a civil war within the labor movement. The unintended victor will be Corporate America, and the millions of workers who will regard unionization with a richly deserved sense of skepticism, if not disgust.

SENATOR McCAIN TAKES A STAND

As we reported last week, President Obama continues to pack the NLRB with pro-union advocates. We cited the recent example of Craig Becker, a union lawyer, as well as numerous others. Now Senator John McCain has announced on the floor of the Senate that he will block Mr. Becker’s appointment to the NLRB.

Senator McCain has reiterated what we have claimed that Mr. Becker will support unions at the expense of Corporate America and will likely curtail its free speech. Mr. Becker’s articles indicate that he would restrict the rights of employers to present pro-management arguments to their employees during union organizing drives. As an associate general counsel for the Service Employees Union, one of the most aggressive unions in the country, Mr. Becker has been a dedicated advocate of the union’s agenda.

In a 1993 Minnesota Law Review article, Mr. Becker argued that "employers should be stripped of any legally cognizable interest in their employees' election of representatives. Employers should have no right to raise questions concerning voter eligibility or campaign conduct.

"Because employers lack the formal status either of candidates vying to represent employees or of voters, they should not be entitled to charge that unions disobeyed the rules governing voter eligibility or campaign conduct.”

Such arguments obviously favor unions over corporations; yet, the NLRB should be an unbiased, objective body that rules on existing laws and regulations.

We agree with the point of view expressed in a letter that Jay Timmons, Executive Vice President of the National Association of Manufacturers, sent to Senator Tom Harkin. To wit: "Mr. Becker has espoused extreme positions far outside mainstream thought on how our nation's labor laws should be interpreted."

It is imperative that the senate votes to maintain the integrity of the NLRB by maintaining a level playing field for both management and workers. We believe that is what Senator McCain is attempting to accomplish, and we applaud his effort.

PACKING THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

As we have reported numerous times, President Obama continues to work diligently to reform the composition of the National Labor Relations Board by nominating as many pro-labor advocates as the law allows. He has been supported by numerous unions, each of which has been lobbying not only for the addition of pro-union officials to the board, but also for the passage of pro-union legislation, such as the Employee Free Choice Act, which will make it easy for union organizers to sign up new members.

Now, one of America’s foremost business groups, The American Chamber of Commerce, has raised an important and well-reasoned objection to one particular nomination, that of union lawyer, Craig Becker.

The Chamber has made public a letter to senators that outlines why Mr. Becker should not be put on the Board.
“Mr. Becker has written prolifically about the National Labor Relations Act, the law he will be charged with interpreting and enforcing should he be confirmed. Many of the positions taken in his writings are well outside the mainstream and would disrupt years of established precedent and the delicate balance in current labor law.”
The Chamber also raised objections to the way Mr. Becker might restrict the free speech rights of employers, particularly during union organizing efforts. Conversely, the Chamber is concerned that Mr. Becker would extend the ability of union organizers to have increased access to workers during those same organizing efforts. While employers’ rights would be curtailed, the rights of union organizers would be greatly expanded.
Altogether, Corporate America will be driven to a position where it will be significantly more vulnerable to intensely aggressive union organizing tactics than at any time since the 1930s.

PRO-UNION ADVOCATE NOMINATED AS SOLICITOR AT LABOR DEPARTMENT

President Obama has nominated M. Patricia Smith to be solicitor at the Labor Department. Ms Smith has served as New York State’s Labor Commissioner, where her department helped to create the New York Wage Watch. While the organization's mission is ostensibly to be a watch dog and make sure that immigrant workers receive fair wages, it is really a stalking horse for union organizers. The Wage Watch was not formed in a vacuum, but was promoted and aided by unions.

Ms. Smith has a consistent record as a vigorous labor advocate for three decades, and Corporate America can legitimately be concerned that its interests are not foremost on Ms. Smith’s agenda.

As a solicitor for the Labor Department, Ms. Smith will place Corporate America in the cross hairs of her agenda. It is no wonder that disinterested parties have raised objections to Ms. Smith’s nomination. Indeed, while corporations are struggling to survive in a global economy during a recession, they certainly don’t need to be fighting off investigations inspired by unions and their advocates in the Labor Department

GALLUP SURVEY FINDS UNION SUPPORT DROPPING

According to Gallup’s 2009 Work and Education Survey, more than half of all U.S. citizens disapprove of the role of unions. The percentage of those who do approve of unions has dropped from 59% a year ago to 48% now, “an all time low,” according to Gallup which started asking if people approved of disapproved of unions in 1936. That year, 72% of citizens approved of unions and 20% disapproved. The tables have dramatically turned against unions.

Gallup also noted that the perception that unions hurt companies has risen form 39% in 2006 to 46% in 2009. In addition, more than half of all citizens now agree that unions hurt the entire U. S. economy. That’s a jump from 36% in 2006 to 51% in 2009.

Such a low opinion of unions should give Congress pause before voting to pass the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, which should be renamed the Freedom to Hurt America Act!

Union Wrongs, Business Rights

Films and television shows often portray Big Business as villainous and unions as manifestations of pure virtue selflessly devoted to the needs of workers. However, based upon information compiled by Union Facts and the Bureau of National Affairs, unions have repeatedly committed acts that are injurious not just to non-union workers, but also to their own members. And those, of course, are the people whose interests unions supposedly represent and are charged with protecting.

One should also know that wrongful acts by unions far outnumber charges of unfair labor practices committed by management and alleged by those same unions. Such is the information issued by the National Labor Relations Board.

The NLRB report of 2005, for example, contained the following information:
Unions faced 6,381 allegations.

82% of those charges alleged illegal restraint and coercion of employees by their unions.

By contrast, 53% of charges were against management and those were for a refusal to negotiate contracts.

Of all the listed allegations against unions, nearly 600 charges were based upon union discrimination against workers.

In the previous year, unions filed more than 100 complaints against other unions
Virtually every union in the United States, according to the Bureau of National Affairs, has had to defend itself against charges of violating union laws. And for some of those unions, the numbers of charges against are in the thousands!

It’s time that the media and the current administration in Washington stop treating Corporate America as if it were a nefarious monster and start realizing that union leaders are not the altruistic and benevolent leaders that they pretend to be.

The Power of One

Management and workers have long known that high levels of productivity are the result of good relations and of all parties working together to achieve positive goals. That, however, is not the underlying message of Executive Order 13496, which President Obama signed. Here is a sentence from that order: “The attainment of industrial peace is most easily achieved and workers’ productivity is enhanced when workers are well informed of their rights under the Federal labor laws, including the National Labor Relations Act.”

The Order is aimed at those who do business with the government, and it – in effect – guarantees that workers will know about all of their options when it comes to strikes, walkouts, and slow downs. The government has said that the order will provide labor peace. If that sounds unbelievable, it is. The government has handed organized labor another weapon to use against Corporate America.

How will informing workers of union tactics for securing their demands increase productivity? If it does anything, it will put Corporate America at a disadvantage when hiring workers for federal jobs. Not only will contractors have to abide with the Order, but so will their sub-contractors. Each will have to post all the information for their workers; and if it is not posted, delinquent contractors and sub-contractors will be barred from doing business with the government and be liable for various sanctions.

Actions taken against companies will be at the discretion of the Secretary of Labor, who is responsible for the enforcement of the Order. While the Secretary may exempt certain companies, the Secretary can also cancel contracts and prohibit future contracts with the government.

The Executive Order and the power invested in the office of Secretary of Labor is further evidence that the Obama administration is not only on the side of unions, but it is actively advancing union interests to the detriment of Corporate America.

EFCA's Binding Arbitration: Down the Road to Ruin

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.

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.

Ejecting Union Spies from Corporate America

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.

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.

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.

A Sign of Things to Come: Common Sense Up in Smoke

Eight months ago, we reported that fourteen state universities and colleges in Pennsylvania had banned smoking. No doubt deans, chancellors, and presidents wanted to protect the health of their students.

That admirable and beneficent goal, to the bewilderment of most students and faculty, was put in jeopardy by the Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties, which objected to the policy because it had not been the result of negotiations with union representatives, and so the Association filed a grievance.

In response to that grievance, the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board overruled the smoking ban at the fourteen state universities and colleges. The labor board said that the government, the universities, and the colleges had no authority to prohibit smoking without first negotiating with the appropriate unions then gaining their consent.

Since President Obama has been intent on appointing pro-union members to the National Labor Relations Board (and since he is allegedly a surreptitious smoker), we can not only expect smoking bans to be eliminated, but we can also expect Big Brother rulings from the NLRB that will defy common sense and prove injurious to the commonweal.