Stephen Cabot has been invited to give an important speech about how to achieve transformational change in the workplace. The speech will be given to attendees at the annual convention of the American Society of Association Executives and the Center for Association Leadership to be held in San Diego from August 16 t0 19.

Mr. Cabot was invited to give the speech because he is highly regarded as one of the foremost labor relations experts and strategists in North America.

He is the author of three best-selling books: Everybody Wins!, Up From Confrontation, and Stephen Cabot’s Complete Guide to Labor Relations. He has been profiled on the front page of The Wall Street Journal and interviewed numerous times on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Nightline, ABC World News, and various other media outlets.

For further information about this valuable and important speech, please visit http://www.asaeannualmeeting.org/home.cfm

Alternatively, Mr. Cabot may be contacted at sjcabot@cabotinstitute.com

In an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal of August 8, former Senator George McGovern, a man who has had a long career supporting organized labor, announced that he is against The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which would do away with secret ballot elections to determine if workers can join unions. Organized labor and most Democrats support the EFCA, which would permit workers to sign cards indicating that they want to join unions. Of course, the cards would be presented by union organizers, who would pressure workers to add their signatures. No secret ballot elections would be necessary.

Senator McGovern wrote: “Under the EFCA, workers would lose the freedom to express their will in private, the right to make a decision without anyone peering over their shoulder[s], from fear or reprisal….We cannot be a party [the Democrats] that strips working Americans of the right to a secret-ballot election….To fail to ensure the right to vote free of intimidation and coercion from all sides would be a betrayal of what we have always championed….I think much of the of the congressional support is based on a desire to give our friends among union leaders what they want. But part of being a good steward of democracy means telling our friends ‘no’ when they press for a course that in the long run may… disrupt a tried an trusted method of conducting honest elections.”

It is remarkable and heartening to read Senator McGovern’s cogent argument against The Employee Free Choice Act, and one can only that his friends in the Democratic party not only heed his warning, but also have the courage to stand up to unreasonable and undemocratic union demands.

Frank Sinatra used to sing, Come Fly With Me. However, if you're a United Airlines pilot you may not be issuing that invitation.

United Airlines has asked a federal judge to issue an injunction, preventing the Air Line Pilots Association from encouraging pilots to misuse sick day allotments and to engage in work slowdowns. The Airline has also asked for an injunction against four pilots, who the company claims have taken advantage of sick days and who have refused to fly more than their normal amount of hours. Such illegal job actions have resulted in 329 flights being cancelled in just one week in July and of the Airlines losing $8-million in revenues. Management obviously didn’t have a big enough headache caused by the skyrocketing cost of jet fuel!

Under the Railway Labor Act, which governs airlines, the Air Line Pilots Association cannot encourage a sick-out of pilots, which is what United Airlines has accused them of doing.

This is another example of the high-handed attitude employed by unions in their ongoing efforts to achieve goals that should be negotiated through collective bargaining. One can only imagine how much more arrogant unions will become if Congress passes the Employee Free Choice Act. Corporate America will be at the mercy of organized labor.

Recently, Bernie Marcus, co-founder of Home Depot, and Senator Orrin Hatch, spoke out against the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, saying that it forces unionization upon companies without a secret-ballot election and establishes federal arbitrators as the ones who will decide on a company's payroll.

Senator Hatch said that the Employee Free Choice Act will force many American companies to go out of business or move their operations to countries where free choice is really free choice. In addition, Senator Hatch stated that not only would a President Obama support the (unfree) Free (no choice) Choice Act, but he would “ram it through” so that it becomes law with the full support of a Democratic legislative majority. He went on to say that America will become a second-rate country if the unions gain control over Corporate America. “It’s all about power,” said the Senator, the power of unions to dictate wages and benefits.

What is truly unfortunate, as Bernie Marcus noted, is that out of 100 top CEOs to whom he spoke only seven were aware of the pending Employee Free Choice Act and what it would mean for their companies. It’s time for Corporate America to wake up to the danger posed and organize to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act.

In Catawba County, in North Carolina, the Chamber of Commerce has organized a rally against the Employee Free Choice Act, which would eliminate secret ballot elections during union organizing campaigns and impose significant fines on employers. The Employee Free Choice Act not only does away with secret ballot elections (which are as American as apple pie), but it permits workers to sign cards, under the eyes of union organizers, and if enough of those cards are signed, the workers are then represented by the union. A magician could not have pulled off a neater trick. Presto! You’re company’s workers are unionized!

Now, however, fearing a Democratic controlled congress and the possibility of an Obama presidency, Corporate America has finally decided to act. Senator Obama has already declared that if he’s elected and the Act is passed by both houses of Congress, he will sign the Act into law.


The Business Labor Rally will take place on August 9 and be attended by important local political leaders, such as Senator Elizabeth Dole. In a press release issued by her office, Senator Dole stated: “By denying workers their basic right to a secret ballot, a right that has been enshrined in federal labor laws for over 60 years, this bill trades fair, democratic elections for intimidation and coercion.”

We hope that other Senators throughout the country follow Senator Dole’s leadership and rally against the Employee Free Choice Act. If they don’t, the Act could fundamentally change the entire labor management landscape as Corporate America will have to deal with a dramatic increase in unionization and significantly higher labor costs.

One would think that an employer has every right to know if employees are doing the work for which they have been hired. The Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) in New York, however, thinks otherwise.

Nassau County on Long Island said it would like to monitor its public employees via GPS devices in their cell phones and cars. The GPS phones would permit the County to record the arrival and departure times of its employees at inspection sites, while also providing precise mileage reports, which are important especially because of the high cost of gasoline.

The CSEA objected. The union claimed that, before the GPS devices could be installed, the county must ask the union for permission, through collective bargaining and negotiations.

Now the State Public Employees Relations Board has ruled that the County can, indeed, install GPS devises to monitor its employees. The rejection of the challenges posed by the Civil Service Employees Association is certainly justified.

The objections of the CSEA were absurd and just another example of organized labor attempting to block the legitimate actions of employers who have every right to expect the highest levels of productivity from their employees.

The possible election of Barack Obama as president combined with union and Democratic legislators backing The Employee Free Choice Act will mean a storm of new organizing efforts that will result in dramatically increasing the number of union members.

For years, union membership has been steadily declining: latest figures show that approximately 7.5% of private sector workers are union members.

Under the National Labor Relations Act, employers, unions, and workers had to hold secret ballot elections to decide if workers would join a union.

Under The Employee Free Choice Act, however, union organizers simply have to get workers to sign cards (known as Card Checks) stating that they want to join a specific union. Organizers are free to advocate and proselytize on the part of unions and will easily get a majority of signatures. Once 50% of workers sign cards, employers will be compelled to accept union representation for 100% of their workers. No elections need to be held.

So far, the Act has gone no place, because President Bush is against its passage; however, if Barack Obama is elected president and the Democrats maintain their union-backed majority in both houses of Congress, then the Employee Free Choice Act will become law. Its passage will mean dramatically higher labor costs, which will be particularly onerous during this period of slow economic growth and fierce international competition.

Corporate America needs to have an effective proactive strategic action plan in place to deal with the coming perfect storm.

A California law that enforced the Orwellian principle of "union neutrality," which in effect denied employers the right of free speech to counter union organizing efforts, has been struck down in a 7 to 2 decision by the U. S. Supreme Court. The law (it's amazing that such a law could even have been passed!) limited what employers could say in the workplace about ongoing union organizing efforts.

The case was brought to the Supreme Cout by the U S Chamber of Commerce, and the Court rightly ruled that the law limits employer free speech and so runs afoul of the First Amendment's guarantee of the right of free speech.

Justice John Paul Stevens, whom many consider to be a friend of organized labor, nevertheless wrote for the majority that employers have the right to engage in a "free debate on issues dividing labor and management." He further stated that Congress had expressly wanted such free speech to be intact when it passed the National Labor Relations Act.

Organized labor has long lobbied state legislatures to pass laws that would prevent employers from being able to voice their disagreements with unions during organizing campaigns. The Supreme Court's thoughtful and constitutionally correct opinion preserves an American tradition of free speech that is an essential and fundamental aspect of our Constitution.

Corporate America, workers, and consumers all benefit when the free expression of ideas in the marketplace is permitted to thrive. And employees should have every right to receive information from their employers.

The Service Employees International Union, one of the most aggressive organizers in the country, now wants to organize workers who feed kids their school lunches. The SEIU has targeted workers in 2,000 suburban communities.

The benefit to students and their parents will be higher fees for lunch and increased property taxes to pay for higher wages and benefits.

The SEIU is aiming its organizing campaign at the workers of the Philadelphia-based Aramark, which has 182,000 employees and is one of largest of several companies that provide school lunches. Other companies include Sodexho, Compass Group, and Arbor Management, the last of which has already been targeted by SEIU organizers.

Like most companies that provide school lunch services, Aramark pays competitive wages and provides health care to employees who work more than 20 hours a week.

SEIU is opportunistically attempting unionize all those it can, regardless of the effects on companies and family budgets.

In Mashantucket, Connecticut, the United Auto Workers did not keep their gunpowder dry and suffered another humiliating defeat. The UAW was unable to convince casino workers that their enemy was their employer. Technicians at the Foxwoods Resort & Casino simply said no. They did not want to enlist as members of the union.

The UAW, facing a determined majority of anti-union workers at the Mashantucket Pequot Nation's casino, had no choice but to beat a hasty retreat.

The union did not even wait for an NLRB decision as to whether those workers should even be permitted to vote. Talk about knowing when to fold your tents! This is the second rejection of union representation in less than a month!

Earlier, operating engineers at Foxwoods had voted 215 to 67 against joining the International Union of Operating Engineers.

It is apparent that unions do not understand that many workers feel that unions have outlived their usefulness. Workers feel they can make better deals for job security and benefits on their own, without having to pay union dues that contribute to the luxurious lifestyles of union executives.

Health departments across the country have been trying for years to get Americans to give up smoking. There are warnings issued regularly by the Surgeon General of the Untied States.

Who would have thought that in the light of all the evidence that smoking may cause lung cancer that a major American union would file an unfair labor practices charge against a company for prohibiting its workers to smoke on the job?

Well, it has happened: The mighty United Auto Workers has filed an unfair labor practices complaint against Caterpillar Tractor, alleging that the company's smoking ban should have been part of a collective bargaining procedure. The UAW wants the workers at Caterpillar to have the chance to smoke while working. Do they also want them to have a chance for developing lung cancer?

Caterpillar had decided to issue the ban after Illinois issued a Smoke-Free Illinois Act that bans smoking in public place and workplaces. The prohibition was enacted into law by the Illinois State Legislature.

The cause espoused by the UAW may be one of the most bizarre stances taken by a union, which lends further evidence to the consensus opinion that unions are out of touch with the strategic concerns of workers and Corporate America.

As firefighters and police officers are not permitted to strike against the public welfare, so health care workers should also not be permitted to strike. One can imagine the ensuing chaos and destruction that would occur if police and firefighters went on strike. One can also imagine how patients in hospitals and other health care facilities would suffer if their care givers decided en masse not to show up for work.

Yet, about 20,000 health care workers at ten University of California hospitals are planning to walk off their jobs. They are members of Local 3299 of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees union. They plan on striking for two days in an effort to increase their wages and benefits. Just imagine what may happen to patients during those two days!

The University of California has correctly asked the state’s Labor Board to issue a temporary restraining order against the union.

It is remarkable that health care workers would place a higher value on wages and benefits than on human life. One wonders if such people should even be employed by health care facilities.

The Transport Workers Union, seemingly unaware of the big economic picture, has rejected a perfectly reasonable contract proposal offered by American Airlines. The union seems to be unaware that the airline industry is suffering a loss of passengers while having its profits slashed by high oil prices. In addition, AA already provides the highest salaries in the airline industry, plus a highly generous profit-sharing plan. The airline addressed all of the union's issues and offered generous increases in vacation time, holidays, sick leave, and salaries for all employees represented by the TWU. In addition, it substantially increased the level of profit sharing for employees. Is it any wonder that so many workers in the airline industry are envious of American Airlines employees?

Not willing to say yes to such a generous offer, some union officials rejected the offer before even permitting TWU members to vote on the contract. According to an article in the Dallas Morning News, the members of the TWU Negotiating Committee voted to reject AA's offer without giving the union's members an opportunity to vote. Would the members have thoughtfully voted to approve it? Is that what worried the union? The TWU said that the airline put a time limit on voting for the contract. In that case, why not negotiate the time limit, so that that all workers would have an opportunity to vote?

If the airlines are to avoid being permanently grounded, they must be permitted to operate profitably without being shackled by unreasonable union demands.

Democrats believe they can taste victory, and organized labor believes that when the Democrats control both houses of Congress and the Executive branch, they will shout hosannas as the Employee Free Choice Act becomes law. Card Checks, as it is commonly known, will then permit union organizers to do end-runs around secret-ballot elections and sign up one union member after another. This would truly revolutionize the union movement, taking it out of the doldrums and making it a powerful anti-business force at a time when Corporate America is fighting the effects of a stagnant economy.

The Card check concept was a clever idea born of union frustration. The Democrats have signed on to supporting it while criticizing NAFTA. If organized labor were to choose a symbol, at this time, it would be a Cheshire cat, grinning from ear to ear.

In 2003, 2005, and 2007, the Employee Free Choice was defeated. In 2009, union organizers expect to pop champagne corks as it becomes law.

To ensure such a pro-union outcome, the AFL-CIO has earmarked $360-million to elect Democrats this year. Its campaign is called Change to Win. Some union officials are ironically concerned that the NLRB will not be able to keep up with validating all the new unions and union members.

Corporate America is now poised on the edge of a precipice, as is a democratic tradition: the secret ballot.

There was a time when unions were ostensibly concerned with the welfare of their workers. Their focus was invariably on wages and benefits.

Yet, in California, unionized longshoremen called a halt to their work to focus on the war in Iraq. One can only wonder if the State Department took notice of this unusual contribution to America's foreign policy?

The longshoremen apparently not satisfied with issues that affect their work decided to indulge in a walkout to protest the war. Pity the poor truckers who then arrived to pick up goods that that had been unloaded from ships. Are unionized truckers to be paid by their employers for sitting around unable to load their trucks?

One can only wonder what the ulterior motive of such a walkout was? Could it have been an effort to focus attention on the presidential race? Were the longshoremen reinforcing the message that Barrack Obama will not only renegotiate NAFTA, but also pull our troops out Iraq? If so, unions have wasted the wages paid by employers on political events that have nothing to do with workplace issues.