Since 1935, federal law has prohibited supervisors from joining unions, and since the NLRB affirmed that rule, unions have been vigorously lobbying to have it overturned or amended.
Organized labor has convinced its Democratic allies in Congress to pass the Re-Empowerment of Skilled and Professional Construction Tradeworkers act (H.R. 1644, S. 969) (a.k.a. RESPECT) as something that will help the average worker. In fact, the backers of RESPECT are no respecters of truth. Rather than helping workers, the Act will create expensive and restrictive work rules that will only serve to disadvantage American companies which must compete in a global economy.
The ACT would alter the definition of what is a supervisor and permit many employees who perform supervisory functions to join unions, thus significantly increasing labor costs for Corporate America.
In addition to driving up labor costs, RESPECT will dramatically increase union dues, thus giving organized labor more leverage when it comes to supporting political candidates.
If Congress does not want to see Corporate America operate at a competitive disadvantage, it will not pass RESPECT, which is no respecter of our free enterprise system.
While we would not take second place to anyone in our support of municipal police departments, we sometimes see behavior by police unions that could have a negative effect on public safety.
New York City, which has one of the finest and most celebrated police forces in the United States, would like to impose a new rule on its police officers. To wit: If a police officer shoots someone that officer must take a sobriety test. Such a rule seems sensible: it would not only protect police officers from unsupported accusations of unprovoked actions, but it will also provide a level of safety for all citizens.
Now the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association (PBA), which is the union for most police officers, has raised an objection. They do not think that police should be as responsible as others are required to be.
This is simply another example of a union putting its own self interest above that of the general public. Unfortunately, unalloyed self-interest has often been an historical pattern of organized labor.
First, General Motors workers, on the instructions of the United Auto Workers, went on strike. The union wanted some basic guarantees of job security, and they wanted $50-billion for its health care fund for retirees. They got some of the guarantees for job security and $30-billion for retiree health care benefits.
This week, Chrysler workers, also on the instructions of the UAW, went on strike, asking for the same things that their colleagues at GM wanted. The Chrysler strike involved fewer workers than the GM strike, and so the demands were for a smaller amount of money. The Chrysler strike ended in a mere six hours.
What’s going on?
Because the U.S. car makers are in deep trouble, they cannot afford long, drawn out strikes. And because workers know that their jobs may be hanging by a thread, they know that they cannot afford to be too adamant in their demands.
All they have to do is look at their Asian competitors which are operating non-union facilities in the U.S. and producing cars that cost less to manufacture than domestic models: workers can read the writing on the manufacturing walsl: if you don’t adjust your work environments to be like the Asian ones, you may not have a work environment.
Such is the future for much of U. S. manufacturing: if it does not adapt to a changing, non-union global economy, it will cease to exist.
When workers go on strike, management has the right to bring in temporary workers. If those workers are not local residents, they will need a place to live. There may not be sufficient space at local hotels and motels.
What then should management do?
Gunite Corporation in Rockford, Illinois wants to bring in 10 trailers to accommodate 96 temporary workers, if a strike if called at the end of its contract with the United Auto Workers. The union has already threatened to strike, if a new contract is not agreed upon.
As an essential tactic of its strategy, the UAW has appealed to the local Zoning Board to deny Gunite the right to house temporary workers.
The Zoning Board of Appeals listened to Gunite workers and their union and voted to deny Gunite the right to house its temporary workers. The issue now goes to the City Council where a two-thirds majority vote is required for Gunite to gain approval for the placement of trailers.
It is obvious that the workers at Gunite have some local political clout and that the union is hoping to use that leverage to prevent Gunite from hiring temporary workers, thus causing Gunite to give in to union demands.