ANOTHER BLOW TO DEMOCRACY

According to a recent editorial in The Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration has delivered a body blow to Corporate America, specifically the airline and railway industries, which do not need any further impediments to their respective economic woes.

Both of those industries have their labor relations policies governed by The National Mediation Board (NMB), and the Board has maintained a consistent policy for the last seventy-five years.
Now, however, under a proposed new rule, the board plans to tilt the playing field in favor of organized labor. To wit: In order to obtain certification, a union will no longer need to win the approval of a majority of workers. Rather than obtain a majority of workers, a union will only have to win a majority of workers who choose to vote in a union election. That works well for unions, because only a minority of workers usually votes. Getting a majority of that minority to vote for a union will be easy. Imagine, if only 100 workers out of a total workforce of 1,000 agree to vote: the union would need only 51 votes to unionize 1,000 workers! The winning team will always be the union.

This dramatic change has been the result of President Obama appointing the former president of a pilots’ union and the former president of the Association of Flight Attendants to the NMB. It is comparable to a single football team using its own players as the sole referees in all of its games. Would such a team ever lose a game?

This change will invite numerous strikes, which will cripple the nation’s transportation system. We are now light years away from the time when President Reagan fired air traffic controllers, members of The Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) for going on strike. Their strike was against the national interest. President Reagan’s actions led to the demise of PATCO and to a robust airline industry that benefitted all travellers. It was a milestone in the history of labor relations, a milestone that will not - unfortunately – be repeated anytime soon.

OBAMA'S PRO-UNION STRATEGY

In addition to supporting the Employee Free Choice Act, President Obama has more than signaled his unwavering support for a pro-union agenda. It began when he not only tossed out a series of executive orders signed by President George W. Bush, but it was emphasized by his issuing new executive orders that favor organized labor. Those include creating union friendly agreements for federally funded construction projects and insisting that federal agencies post workers’ rights notices in all workplaces. Such notices inform workers of their right to strike, to file law suits, and to bring complaints to the National Labor Relations Board. In addition, one of the president’s executive orders bans any company that receives federal funds from using those funds to educate workers about the negative effects of unionization.

Earlier, we expressed our disappointment when President Obama nominated Wilma Liebman as chair of the National Labor Relations Board, for she has a record of favoring unions over management.

In keeping with the spirit of that appointment, the president plans to nominate two attorneys who also have a record of favoring unions over the interests of management. They are Randy Babbit to run the Federal Aviation Administration and Jordan Barab to go to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Mr. Babbit is expected to sign a pro-union agreement with the Air Traffic Controllers Association, which would make former President Reagan turn over in his grave. It was President Reagan, after all, who fired the controllers in the 1980s for going out on strike and endangering the lives of air travelers. As if that were not sufficiently indicative of President Obama’s pro-union thrust, he has named Joe Szabo to head the Federal Railroad Administration. Mr. Szabo had been the legislative director of the United Transportation Union in Illinois.

We can expect many more such appointments in the coming months, and the overall effect will be to make America less competitive and productive in a global economy in which many other countries are not hampered by the excesses of bureaucratic rules and regulations that are in conflict with free market economies.

Financial Woes of Pro-Union States

The National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR), a proponent of right-to-work policies, recently released a report that the demands of unions have greatly added to the financial woes of New York, California, and New Jersey. The Cabot Institute for Labor Relations has also been studying this phenomenon, and it concurs with the findings of the NILRR.

The percentage of unionized workers in those three states ranges from 20% to 27%, while the number of unionized workers in the rest of the country is between 12% and 13%. In the three heavily unionized states, workers receive the largest hourly wages in the country, and public-service employees receive the most generous pensions. For example, a retired police officer in Westchester county receives $200,000 a year and another in Suffolk county, New York, receives $100,000 a year. When one multiplies those numbers by the number of public-service retirees, many of whom retire in their mid-forties, it’s easy to understand why those three states are in such deep financial trouble.

When one compares job growth in right-to-work states where non-union auto makers have set up manufacturing facilities with a state, such as Michigan, home to domestic auto makers, the numbers are indeed startling. It is obvious that right-to-work states are enjoying far more robust employment figures than pro-union states. And because right-to-work states offer greater non-union employment opportunities than the big industrial states, the former states are in far better financial shape than New York, New Jersey, Michigan, and California.

Washington law makers, unfortunately, are intent on making it easier for unions to organize workers, and the results will be higher labor costs, greater unemployment, and more states in financial trouble.