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.

WHAT'S HAPPENING TO UNION PENSIONS?

According to an editorial in a recent edition of The Wall Street Journal, a number of union pensions are in the red. That bad news must be causing unionized workers a great deal of anxiety, especially during the current economic recession, when so many workers are losing their jobs.

The SEIU’s National Industry Pension Fund, covering more than 100,000 members, is now in “critical status,” which means that it lacks the necessary capital to pay 100% of benefits. Federal government officials have stated that the Fund has only 74.4% of the necessary assets to meet its obligation to pay those benefits.

And the list goes on: Thirteen plans operated by the Teamsters have a mere 59.3%. The Journal states that seven locals at the United Brotherhood of Carpenters …are at 67%.

While all of that is bad news for rank and file members of those and other similarly afflicted unions, union officers have nothing to worry about. The pension plan for officers and employees at the SEIU, for example, was funded at 102.2% as of 2007. In addition, the officers and employees get an annual 3% cost of living increase, while its members do not. There are many such disparities.

The dramatic reduction in union pension funds is just one reason why unions are aggressively attempting to organize new members and collect their dues. And it is why the unions are putting pressure on congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act as soon as possible.

Increased union membership will mean increased labor costs, increased unemployment, and a worsening recession. But the pensions for union officers will, no doubt, remain intact.

Better Free Than Unionized

According to a recent poll commissioned by the Center for Union Facts (CUF) and conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation, 82% of non-unionized employees do not want their jobs to be unionized! No wonder unions are desperate to have the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) passed by congress and signed into law by the president.

And Democrats in Congress, indebted to unions, continue to support the EFCA; it is the only way that union organizers can win new members, for the Act gives a decided advantage to unions over management. (Please read last week’s blog which enumerates all of the anti-management rules that would will take effect once the EFCA becomes law).

Once it does become law, the EFCA would, in effect, drive millions of American workers into the confining box of union membership where their dues would be used to support political agendas that they may be against.

The CUF poll proves that there is no national movement amongst workers to join unions. In fact, when asked about joining unions, workers find the prospect of no interest to them. Therefore, one can see that rather than being a populist movement, increased unionization is a cause embraced and promoted by Washington elites and union officials who will financially benefit from increased union dues, pots of gold that will cause union hearts to flutter.

Burning Union Money

The Wall Street Journal and other publications have reported that the unions spent many millions of dollars to elect Barack Obama to the Presidency. In fact, the president of the Service Employees International Union, Andy Stern, stated: “We spent a fortune t o elect Barack Obama.” To that fortune can be added the many millions of dollars spent by the AFL-CIO. The unions apparently spent their members’ money not like drunken sailors, but like lobbyists on a mission.

Now Bloomberg News has reported that one of the AFL-CIO’s officials has circulated a report claiming that the union indulged in “creative accounting.” The union members would no doubt like an explanation of how their union went from a $45 million surplus to liabilities of more than $90 million. And the net assets of the SEIU went from $64 million to $34 million. Yet a few years back, Andy Stern vociferously declaimed that the AFL-CIO was spending too much on Washington politics and not enough on union organizing efforts. We can assume that both men finally came to an agreement after realizing that if they financed the election of a pro-union congress and president, they could spend a lot less money on organizing, especially if their indebted friends on Capitol Hill pass the Employee Free Choice Act.

When President Bush strengthened and dilated the union disclosure rules, the unions howled as if the hammer justice were about to smash their piggy banks. Now, however, Washington is overrun with union advocates, and they are listening to union concerns about the Bush Administration’s rules. If the unions aren’t asking for those rules to evaporate, then they certainly want them to be watered down.

Less Transparency from Unions

In 1959, Congress realized that unionized workers needed protection from union officials who indulged in unethical behavior. As a result, the Landrum-Griffin Act was passed and signed into law. It was specifically designed to curtail the opportunities for embezzlement and other forms of fraud.

Now, it looks as if a Democratic Congress will attempt to vitiate the 50-year old Act. For example, shortly after President Obama took office, the Labor Department delayed the implementation of a regulation that would have demonstrated how union dues are tied to the compensation of union officials. The regulation would have called for full and complete documentation of all purchases and asset sales by unions. In addition, the Labor Department has recently announced that it will not enforce compliance with a newly revised conflict of interest disclosure rule. (There was a brilliant editorial about this by former Labor Secretary Elaine Cho on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal).

On a regular basis, since January 20, the Labor Department and the Democratic Congress have made it abundantly apparent that they will do the bidding of organized labor, which spent tens of millions of dollars to make sure that their own advocates were firmly installed in pivotal government offices.