Stephen, J. Cabot blog

March 5, 2010

ONCE AGAIN A UNION HURTS WORKERS & CORPORATE AMERICA

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 4:31 pm

In DeWitt, New York, Magna’s Power Train division decided that the installation of surveillance cameras was an appropriate undertaking. Keeping tabs on workers’ productivity is a responsibility of management. Not according to the  UAW. It said that the cameras should not have been installed without first consulting with the union. This is one of numerous union generated complaints against Magna.

 

Because of the barrage of union complaints and because workers repeatedly rejected contract changes, Magna has decided that it will close one of its divisions. Work from Magna’s New Process Gear plant has now been transferred to other Magna facilities and to a factory in Mexico. That means that 112 workers will lose their jobs.

 

This is just another example of why the majority of Americans regard unions as an obstacle to their economic well being. As companies, such as Magna, close plants and send manufacturing to foreign lands, workers will suffer, Corporate America will suffer, and America’s role as an economic powerhouse will diminish while the economies of other countries, such as China and India, continue to grow. It’s a sad commentary on the state of management labor relations in our time.

 

 

 

 

February 26, 2010

PEW RESEARCH: UNIONS’ FAVORABILITY RATINGS DROP

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 4:15 pm

According to The Pew Research Center for People and the Press, the public has an increasingly unfavorable opinion of unions. A mere 41% of the general public has a favorable opinion of unions, while 42% expressed an unfavorable opinion of unions. Such figures contrast dramatically with those ascertained  in January 2007 when 58% of the public had a favorable opinion of unions, while only 31% had an unfavorable opinion.

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press conducted its survey from February 3 to 9 and queried 1,383 adults via cell phones and landlines. According to the survey, “61% agreed with the statement ‘labor unions are necessary to protect the working person,’ down from 68% in 2007 and 74% in 2003. In the same survey, six-in-ten (61%) agreed that ‘labor unions have too much power,’ up from 52% in 1999.

The survey ratifies a belief that we have been espousing for some time that unions no longer represent the best interests of workers. The public realizes that if America is to maintain its position as a world economic leader it must support innovation, entrepreneurship, and capital investment in the future. Unions are often an obstacle to all three.

No matter how much support unions give to President Obama and how much he does their bidding, the public believes that the era of the union as the best representative of workers is rapidly fading and will soon become utterly superfluous.

 

 

February 19, 2010

PLAY BALL!

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 5:50 pm

 

With the start of the  baseball season just around the corner, players and owners have much to consider. To wit: stadium attendance has dropped by more than 6%, and the collective bargaining agreement of the baseball franchises expires just after the 2011 season. Thus far, there has been scant news about disputes between management and players; however, that is not necessarily an indication that numerous dissatisfactions aren’t brewing.

According to an article in New York Newsday, Bud Selig stated: “I’ve been thinking about it [the collective bargaining agreement] a lot. (Major League Baseball executive vice president of labor relations and human resources) Rob Manfred and I have a lot of conversations about it. Rarely do I have it off my mind. We’ve had 14 straight seasons of uninterrupted action, though, featuring two CBAs negotiated peacefully. The first one, in 2002, went down to the final minutes. The more recent one, in 2006, reached agreement months before the deadline. That history must count for something, to both sides, as do the relatively positive relationships that have been constructed.”

While the Obama administration is attempting to push forward its pro-union agenda, baseball fans, disturbed by past labor conflicts, are generally hopeful that there will be no strike to disrupt the call of “Play Ball.” And not only the fans, but also the owners and players are hopeful that labor peace can be maintained.

In fact, professional baseball may offer an example of how labor and management can cooperate for the overall good of the economy. Corporate America and organized labor both have a vital stake in increased productivity, profitability, and cooperation. And that can be achieved by putting aside petty differences and working together to bring about shared goals. The adversarial culture, which often permeates all aspects of labor relations, is an obstacle that both sides should work to eliminate, regardless of who in Washington is pushing a pro-union agenda.

February 12, 2010

WILL DOC BURNSTEIN’S ICE CREAM MELT?

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 4:40 pm

In the town of Santa Maria in California, there is a popular ice cream shop: Doc Burnstein’s  Ice Cream Lab. Doc’s is not General Motors nor is it Ford. It is not Pepsi nor is it Coca Cola. It is a small establishment run by its founder, Greg Steinberger.

It seems that the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local 150 is not pleased with Doc’s. On the other hand, the carpenters’ union is not popular with the local Tri-Counties Building and Construction Trades Council, nor is it popular with the AFL-CIO. It has disassociated itself from both groups.

Member of the carpenters’ union have been protesting outside Doc’s Ice Cream Lab since October 2009, because they believe that the ice cream shop used non-union workers to expand the size of the store.

According to the Santa Maria Times:  “People hired by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters Local 150 of Camarillo have been holding a banner outside Doc Burnstein’s Ice Cream Lab on the belief the Arroyo Grande business hired a nonunion contractor to build out its space in the Santa Maria Town Center, a job the union wanted. However, Doc Burnstein’s is not paying for the drywall work; it is paid for by the mall. Steinberger said the National Labor Relations Board, which oversees union activities, believes the protest in Arroyo Grande violates the National Labor Relations Act by being [sic] actions against a third party. He filed charges against the union with the NLRB, but those charges are awaiting final review by the board.”

This is just another example of a union victimizing a small business. It is no wonder why the vast majority of Americans believe that unions are an obstacle to the success of the country and its entrepreneurs who create small businesses and provide employment to millions of workers.

February 5, 2010

HIGHER TAXES BENEFIT UNIONS

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 2:28 pm

According to a recent editorial in The Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com), while union membership amongst private industry workers is declining, union membership for government employees is dramatically increasing.  While 7.2% of private industry workers belong to unions, more than 37% of government workers belong to unions.

Since government has become the primary employer of unionized workers, it is understandable why Andy Stern, head of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO, are such frequent visitors to the White House. And since the Democrats reliably do the bidding of unions, it also explains why unions earmark tens of millions of dollars to elect Democrats to Congress.

It also explains why unions want higher taxes, for higher taxes mean additional revenue to pay unionized government workers’ salaries. And ever increasing salaries mean greater amounts of money available for union dues. In other words, millions of American workers, who do not belong to unions, will be paying for ever higher, ever increasing union wages for government workers!

Should the demands of government workers not be met, they can always bite the hands that feed them by going on strike. Striking public service workers was once outlawed; but self-destructive Democrats will never put road blocks on the highway that leads to union goals. So if the workers don’t get what they want, one could witness government grinding to a halt. So much for the welfare of the tax-paying public!

January 29, 2010

STICKS & STONES CAN BREAK YOUR BONES, BUT CARELESS EPITHETS ARE SELF-DEFEATING

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen Cabot @ 2:00 pm

 

In politics, there is a great deal of name calling, disparagement of one’s opponents, and assorted calumnies spread through rumor mills. There is also a maxim that “it is easier to attract flies with honey than with vinegar.”

 

Attempting to defame one’s political enemies is a sure sign of desperation that will have a contrary effect to one’s intentions. Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is his latest broadside has accused Senators Joe Leiberman and Ben Nelson of being “terrorists” for their opposition to the bill that would create “card checks” under the union-endorsed Employee Free Choice Act.

 

From Osama bin Laden to the Christmas Day bomber, America has been targeted by one terrorist after another. To place Senators Lieberman and Nelson in that same criminal category as those who are motivated to kill Americans is not merely absurd, but it is a form of defamation that will generate considerable skepticism about Andy Stern’s values and methods of cogitation.

 

If one’ mission as head of a union is to convince as many Americans as possible that  union membership is desirable outcome for all, Andy Stern has a peculiar tactic for convincing them of his project. How many pro-union entomological subjects has he attracted by spritzing vinegar on the reputations of others? No wonder why most Americans perceive unions as creating obstacles to national prosperity.

 

 

January 22, 2010

AN OVERLOOKED ELEMENT IN THE GREAT MASS UPSET

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen Cabot @ 1:41 pm

 

According to various polls, most Americans believe that unions have often been an obstacle, standing in the way of American companies being able to compete with foreign-based and non-union companies. One need only look at the sorry state of GM.

 

In addition, Americans have not voiced approval for President Obama’s pro-union activities, such as attempting to staff the NLRB with pro-union advocates and cozying up to the leaders of the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO. Leaders of both unions have been frequent visitors to the White House.

 

Though many commentators noted Senate candidate Martha Coakley’s gaff about the Boston Red Sox, there was also another element responsible for her loss to Senator Scott Brown.  Seemingly unaware of public sentiment about unions, Ms. Coakley announced during her campaign that she supported the Teamsters’ efforts to organize the workers of FedEx. She stated that she supported the Express Carrier Employee Protection Act.  “As someone deeply committed to ensuring a level playing field for our workforce, I am pleased to support this legislation that will end FedEx’s unfair ability to deny workers’ rights,” stated Ms. Coakley. She didn’t, of course, state that consumers are pleased with the services that they get from FedEx. Furthermore, she did not state that many FedEx drivers prefer the opportunity to own their own routes, be their own bosses, buy additional routes, and enjoy the opportunity of earning as much money as their ambitions and energies permit. By accepting union support and not balancing that with the sentiments of the electorate, she self-destructively hammered another nail into her own political coffin.

 

Driving around during the campaign in his pick-up truck, Scott Brown seemed to voters as independent and as free of union influence as FedEx drivers. It’s just another reason why Massachusetts voters went to the polls to express their own independence. Being a union stooge is no way to run for political office.

January 15, 2010

RESPECT FOR WHOM?

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 4:56 pm

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.

 

 

 

January 8, 2010

GUILT BY ASSOCIATION?

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act,stephen cabot — Tags: , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 1:01 pm

 

People are often judged by the company they keep. That is why probation officers direct ex-convicts not to associate with other criminals.

 

Should Corporate America judge President Obama by the company that he keeps?

 

Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and Anna Burger, Secretary-Treasurer, have visited the White House 60 times. Ms. Burger also serves on the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board. There have also been numerous visits by other union leaders, such as Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO and Lou Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers.

Big labor had ensured such entrée by the amount of money it spent on the 2008 election: approximately $450 million; of that sum, $85 million was spent by SEIU.

What do these cozy relationships portend for Corporate America? To begin, there will be the Employee Free Choice Act, which will be introduced this year. Card checks and government administered binding arbitration will not be the only bad news for corporations. Unions would also like Congress to pass a tax-payer funded union pension bailout. Unions want President Bush’s union reporting requirements about union finances watered down, so that unions would no longer have to reveal how they spend their political dollars. Unions also want more stimulus money to be devoted to preserving unionized government jobs as well as preferential treatment for union contractors. And finally, unions want to make sure that the National Labor Relations Board is staffed by pro-union advocates.

Mothers throughout America warn their impressionable children that they will be judged by who their friends are. Corporate America needs no such warning: the writing is on the walls of union halls and the White House.

December 30, 2009

AN OMINOUS ATTEMPT TO GAG CORPORATE AMERICA

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Stephen J. Cabot @ 1:44 pm

While we all know that the proposed Employee Free Choice Act will mandate restrictions on the free speech of employers, the state of Oregon has leapt into the vanguard by passing a new law that eliminates an employer’s right to discuss unionization with employees.

Imagine having union organizers working day and night to get workers to sign card checks while employers are prohibited from offering counter arguments. It is the kind of law that one would expect to be enacted by a totalitarian dictatorship, not by the oldest, uninterrupted democracy in the world.

Now, corporations in Oregon have brought a law suit in federal court claiming that employers have the right to present its views of unionization to employees. They rightly claim that the new law is unconstitutional, a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. In addition, it is a violation of provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. They are asking for a preliminary injunction to prevent the law from taking effect.

Corporate America should take notice that Oregon may be a bellwether of labor relations in the new year. While we wish all of our readers a happy and prosperous 2010, the future state of labor relations in President Obama’s America will become increasingly pro-union and anti-employers.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »