President-elect Obama's choice for Secretary of Labor portends difficult times for Corporate America. His choice is Hilda Solis, a congressional representative from East L.A., who has consistently supported the interests of organized labor in the House of Representative. In fact, according to an analysis conducted by the AFL-CIO, Ms. Solis voted on behalf of the interests of organized labor 100% of the time.

As expected, she supports the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act, supports increasing the minimum wage, and is against privatizing jobs in the public sector. In addition, Ms. Solis is on the board of directors of American Rights at Work, a pro-union advocacy group.

During this recession, it is the right-to-work states that have done far better economically than states with large numbers of unionized workers. If organized labor succeeds in unionizing more and more workers, with the help of Ms. Solis, then one can expect the recession to grow deeper and last longer than would occur if union influence were to decrease.

In an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal, Professor Richard Epstein, of the University of Chicago Law School, answers that question resoundingly in the affirmative.

He brilliantly makes the case that if the government makes the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) law, it will - in effect - give itself the right to deny free speech to employers. He has written that "there is simply no legitimate government interest in promoting unionization that justifies a clandestine organizing campaign which denies all speech rights to the unions’ adversaries."

In addition, he writes that if a company does not like the terms presented by a union, the company normally has the right to walk away from the negotiations. Under the proposed EFCA, however, a union can "force itself" on the company. In such a situation, a union could conceivably demand that a company pay its workers more than the company can afford. It would wind up confiscating the company’s capital without compensating it for its removal. Professor Epstein writes that "by flatly denying the employer any option to walk away, mandatory arbitration under the EFCA runs smack into the taking clause [of the Constitution]."

If the Employee Free Choice Act becomes law, it could serve to end competitive capitalism as we have come to experience it. It could result in the demise of numerous companies. If the Detroit auto makers have been brought to their knees by the United Auto Workers operating under the rules of the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, just imagine what would happen if unions are granted the extraordinary powers under the EFCA to deny basic Constitutional rights to other companies?

It is generally understood that the extraordinary salaries and benefits afforded to UAW workers have been an instrumental force in causing the financial meltdown of the Big 3 auto companies.

A bailout of the auto companies, if successful in changing the economic landscape of those companies, must include a reasonable re-negotiation of the labor contracts for UAW workers.

If such a re-negotiation does not take place, the American auto industry will be as prominent as the American horse-and-buggy industry!

Americans will exclusively be driving Toyotas, Nissans, Hyundais, BMWs, Mercedes and other foreign brands made by non-union workers in right-to-work states, if the UAW refuses to let its workers have wages and benefits that are competitive with those that workers receive from foreign auto makers. If the UAW remains recalcitrant, Americans will not only be driving foreign cars, but U. S. soldiers will also be dependent on foreign based companies for their mobility in time of war. That, by itself, is a worrisome outcome.

The Detroit auto makers find themselves in economic trouble not only because they gauged the market for SUVs incorrectly, but also because they went along - too long! - with the demands made by the United Auto Workers.

Detroit auto workers are paid far more than auto workers for Toyota and Nissan. In addition, the corporate costs for the pensions and medical care for Detroit auto workers have put the Big Three farther down the road to insolvency.

Knowing the deleterious results of capitulating to union demands has not prevented other unions from making ruinous demands at a time when not only the auto industry, but also the entire country is precariously poised to face greater economic troubles than it is currently enduring.

In Chattanooga, Tennessee, for example, union leaders are demanding that hourly wages paid by Volkswagen be increased by 25%. Company officials say that the wage increases may result in a loss of jobs, the delay or cancellation of a new factory, and a diminution of tax revenues for the city and state.

The demand for increased wages has come from the Plumbers and Steamfitters leadership in Washington. D.C.

It is time for unions to contribute to the goals of a full economic recovery and not be a roadblock to national prosperity.

The economic difficulties facing Detroit auto makers have been to some extent generated by the United Auto Workers. The 240,000 auto workers employed by GM, Ford, and Chrysler have received salaries and benefits that are among the highest of any unionized workers in the United States.

While the auto companies need as much help as they can get in order to survive, the UAW has drawn a line in the sand, stating that it will resist "further concessions." The unionized auto workers who have receive high salaries, generous benefit packages, and extraordinary pensions should agree to concessions not only to help save the companies that have provided them with comfortable middle class lives, but also to help assure the economic well being of the United States, which would suffer if the big three auto companies went into bankruptcy.

For many years, while winning ever higher wages and benefits for its members, the auto workers' unions have done very little to help cut costs and increase productivity. Their formula has been a road map leading to disaster.

While the Democratic party is working with union leaders to strengthen the power of organized labor, party leaders should look at how strong unions have brought the US auto industry to the brink of destruction. They may want to re-write their agenda before the country sinks deeper into recession.

Employees of the huge chicken company, Tyson, voted to reject representation by the United Food and Commercial Workers union. More than two-thirds of the 800-plus hourly production and maintenance workers decided that union representation would not be in their best interest. Organizers have been trying to unionize Tyson's workers since 1971, when representation by the Amalgamated Meat Cutters was rejected by 78% of the workforce.

Workers have continually rejected offers of union representation because Tyson treats its workers with dignity and pays them a fair and reasonable wage.

It is such events that have driven organized labor to insist that Congress pass the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which we believe should be called the Forced Choice Act. Under the EFCA, organizers will have an opportunity to coerce and intimidate non-union workers, such as those at Tyson, who want to remain union free. It’s important to note that the workers chose to remain non-union in a free and secret-ballot election, which is a hallmark of our democratic society.

One can only wonder what the fate of Tyson and its workers will be when the EFCA becomes law and union organizers personally pigeon hole workers into signing card checks stating that they want to be represented by a union.

Unions want the Democrats to pass into law the Employee Free Choice Act because union membership has been declining for years. Union leaders believe that the EFCA will guarantee them more union members, more union dues, and greater political clout.

Workers, however, have long recognized that many unions operate for their own self-interest, letting their leaders live like potentates in splendid homes with every amenity known to civilization. In addition, workers realize that unions have become political entities for which Democratic political victories are more important than the welfare of union members.

The time for labor unions is passing. The existence of such entities will soon be an anachronism. Yet, the EFCA, which will surely become law after President Obama takes office, will undoubtedly increase union membership and have a negative affect on Corporate America’s profitability. While unions fight for their survival, believing that the EFCA will breathe new life into their movement, it is essential that Corporate America learn how to further educate its workers to the obvious disadvantage of being unionized.

Though organized labor is a dying institution, one must treat it with the same kind of respect and caution one would call upon when facing a wounded lion. The union movement is not yet dead, and Corporate America must protect itself from its attacks.

If Barack Obama becomes the next president of the United States, the relationship between management and labor will significantly change to the disadvantage of Corporate America.

As we have been writing for quite some time, a Democratic president will mean the passage of The Employee Free Choice Act, which will eliminate secret ballot elections for workers. It will be replaced by card checks. Using card checks, organized labor will be able to coerce and intimidate workers into signing cards affirming that they want to join a union. When a majority of such cards have been signed, a company’s workforce will have been unionized without management having had an opportunity to present its case to workers.

Another ingredient of The Employee Free Choice Act is mandatory arbitration. Mr. Obama supports a provision that if collective bargaining does not result in a decision within 120 days, then the case goes to binding arbitration, the result of which will remain in force for two years. One can imagine unions taking more than 120 days to negotiate a contract just so that binding arbitration will do what they could not do during collective bargaining.

In addition, Mr. Obama supports the revocation of the NLRB’s Kentucky River decision. Unions also support its revocation, so that more and more people can be classified as workers and fewer can be classified as managers. The result will be a significantly increased number of potential union members.

Mr. Obama also supports legislation outlawing the use of replacement workers for those who go out on strike. If companies cannot hire replacement workers, they will be at the mercy of strikers, who can bring economic ruin to companies that don’t bend to union demands.

If Corporate America is to counter the anti-management policies of a President Obama, it must undertake a vigorous program to educate workers to the benefits of remaining union free. America is at a cross roads, and corporations must make sure that they undertake the proper course of action to maintian high levels of productivity and profitability.

As organized labor looks forward to Democratic majorities in both houses of congress and a Democratic president, it is preparing to pop champagne corks, for it knows that the Employee Free Choice Act (a.k.a. card checks) will be signed into law. Business owners, however, are justifiably upset about being aggressively targeted by unions. They have taken to referring to the Act as the Forced Choice Act, for workers will be intimidated and harassed into joining unions by aggressive union organizers. As the Hartford Courant reported: “the card-check procedure almost always results in a union victory because the union controls the entire process."

When the National Labor Relations Act was signed into law 73-years ago, secret ballot elections were a principal component of the legislation. Both labor and management did not want to be intimidated by advocates for a single point of view. However, as union membership has fallen in recent years, unions have wanted to tilt the playing field so that more workers will join unions.

It doesn’t matter to union leaders that the Employee Free Choice Act is a decidedly undemocratic venture. Even the liberal former Senator George McGovern is in favor of secret ballot elections and against the Act. He rightly believes that doing away with secret ballot elections will destroy a valuable and essential feature of our democracy. He stated that it is wrong for politicians to “deny millions of employees the right to a private vote.” And more than 75 percent of Americans also think that secret ballots are the most democratic method of choosing a union.

It is obvious that the majority of Democratic politicians, however, are prepared to do the bidding of organized labor, especially since labor is spending more than $50-million to elect Democrats to the Senate, the House, and the Presidency.

The United States should look to Great Britain for what should be done. Britain passed the 1980 Employment Act that instituted secret ballot elections, after public voice-votes had led to acts of physical intimidation and harassment.

America is facing a dangerous challenge to one of its most respected traditions, and it is essential that Corporate America organize to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act. If not, we shall all have to live with the Forced Choice Act.




.

While many people in various walks of life claim they have paid their dues, union members go on paying their dues for the entirety of their working lives. And, quite often, those union dues are used to pursue political agendas, which workers may not support.

As a result, there is a ballot initiative in Colorado known as Amendment 49, that would prohibit state and municipal governments from taking money from government workers' paychecks and using that money for lobbying or electioneering.

The defeat of the Amendment has been vigorously supported by Democratic Governor Bill Ritter who is an ardent supporter of unions. And, of course, the unions are campaigning to defeat the Amendment as well.

Surprisingly, the majority of the state’s newspapers, including the liberal Denver Post, support Amendment 49.

Those who support the Amendment agree that no citizen should have income confiscated to pay for laws and regulations that they may not support. To force U. S. citizens to hand over hard-earned cash for purposes that they do not wish to support smacks of totalitarianism.

As the allure and value of unionization fades for millions of workers, unions are attempting to do whatever they can to increase their membership rolls; to that end, they are tapping their members’ salaries to help elect federal officials who will support The Employee Free Choice Act and its mechanism of card checks. Unions hope that such efforts will augment their power and wealth – regardless of the political and economic interests of their members.

As we have reported for a number of months, the Democrats are eager to pass the Employee Free Choice Act and have a new Democratic president sign it into law. We were, therefore, surprised to learn that a number of Democratic members of the House of Representatives have urged the Mexican government to utilize secret ballot elections in union organizing campaigns. Their reason for endorsing secret ballot elections is that such elections prevent the intimidation of workers.

And we agree with that.

Yet, those same Democratic representatives want to do away with secret ballot elections for U.S. workers, so that unions can organize ever larger numbers of workers. And the use of card checks will, no doubt, be accompanied by a certain amount of intimidation.

Why do congressional representatives prefer check cards in the U.S. and secret ballot elections in Mexico?

The reason is apparent: unions are spending millions of dollars to ensure that Democrats control both houses of congress as well as the White House. In other words, where there are unions, there are money and votes for the Democrats. And since there are no U.S. elections in Mexico, the House representatives have no interest in generating greater union membership south of the border.

So much for the principled consistency.

Last week, we reported that a union representing faculty members in colleges and universities in Pennsylvania had objected to a new state law that bans smoking on campuses throughout the state. It seemed odd, to the say the least, that a union would object to a law that protects students and faculty from the health hazards of tar of nicotine in their lungs.

Now another union has added its voice to an already ridiculous situation. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees has issued an echo of the earlier objection. It objects to the law because no collective bargaining preceded the enactment of the smoking ban.

Of course, the universities and colleges are rightly adhering to a state law, because the law in fact supersedes the union contract. Union leaders, however, perversely believe that there should have been collective bargaining before the state passed the smoking ban. In this case, of course, the law enacted by legislators is to the benefit of more than 100,000 students and 12,000 faculty members.

When unions object to a law that benefits its members simply because the law had bypassed collective bargaining indicates that unions would rather maintain their power than protect the health of individuals.

Over the years, we have often reported on the absurdity of many union complaints, but when a union of teachers objects to a ruling that would protect their health, one knows that the union movement has invaded and occupied the surrealistic world of Alice in Wonderland.

The Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties has stated that it will file an unfair labor practices complaint because there is a ban on smoking at state colleges and universities.

Smoking!
Cancer!
Who could possibly be in favor of the right to contract a deadly disease?

The union represents 6,000 faculty members at 14 state universities in Pennsylvania. Of those 6,000 faculty members, there are numerous athletic coaches. Could they possibly be in favor of young athletes darkening their lungs with tar and nicotine, diminishing their endurance by curtailing the capacity of young lungs to inhale sufficient quantities of oxygen?

One can only imagine a judge’s reaction to the filing of the union’s complaint.

And the labor movement, having grown increasingly superfluous, has simply confirmed its lack of purpose amongst working-class Americans.

Some union leaders are saying that they like secret ballot elections and that it's only anti-union elements who claim that they don't.

To prove that unions love secret ballot elections, for example, a union leader in Maine claims that unions have regular secret ballot elections to elect union leaders. The Employee Free Choice Act, however, is not about electing union leaders; it is about unionizing workers after they have signed card checks.

Union leaders and their supporters in Congress want to do away with secret ballot elections as part of organizing campaigns, so that unions can be more successful in organizing workers than they have been in the past decade.

Some union leaders are simply using a clever rhetorical tactic designed to dispel concerns about doing away with a democratic tradition, namely secret ballot elections. It’s as if those union leaders are saying "don’t worry; we like elections. Just look at how we choose our own leaders."

Any sensible person, however, knows that there is a vast difference between union leadership elections and organizing elections. And there is a vast difference between democratically held secret ballot elections and card checks which may subject workers to coercive tactics.

Corporate America and those who uphold our democratic traditions will not be fooled by such rhetorical bait and switch tactics.

We had previously written about the RICO suits filed by Wackenhut Corporation and Smithfield Foods against unions that resorted to tactics that hurt those companies' bottom lines and injured the interests of their investors and employees.

It's no wonder that UNITE HERE was ordered to pay $17-million by a court after it was found guilty of "fraud, malice, and oppression." The award came as a result of a UNITE HERE noxious campaign against those in the medical field. Similarly, the Service Employees International Union got its comrades in arms to flood hospital emergency rooms in order to get hospitals to capitulate to union demands.

Such tactics are entirely egregious and dangerously damaging to the fabric of American society. It’s time for Corporate America to learn a lesson from Wackenhut and Smithfield Foods and fight back. If not, organized labor will be on a relentless march to achieving a string of destructive victories. And with a Democratic administration promising to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, Corporate America will be the big bull's-eye in organized labor’s crosshairs. The time to act is now!