Stephen, J. Cabot blog

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 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.

 

 

 

November 6, 2009

UNIONS LOSE!

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 5:06 pm

One thing that Tuesday’s elections proved is that union money is not going to win elections this year. In 2008, the Service Employees International Union spent $60-million to help elect President Obama and Democratic candidates to both houses of congress. Altogether, organized labor gave Democratic candidates $400-million in 2008. That money may have been well spent then, but look at the outcome in 2009!

 

Governor John Corzine’s various and well-publicized relationships with unions hurt both him and the unions in New Jersey. In Virginia, Governor-elect Bob McDonnell won by large margin after vigorously campaigning against the Employee Free Choice Act. In both states, conservative Republicans triumphed over union supported candidates.

 

And now many Democrats, having analyzed the election results, are against the so-called “card check” provision of the Employee Free Choice Act. Unions have invested their members’ money with, what some would consider, Quixotic abandon. And what has been the return on that investment? The defeat of two pro-union candidates and the likely demise of “card checks.” Union members should demand refunds!

October 15, 2009

PACKING THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 5:01 pm

As we have reported numerous times, President Obama continues to work diligently to reform the composition of the National Labor Relations Board by nominating as many pro-labor advocates as the law allows. He has been supported by numerous unions, each of which has been lobbying not only for the addition of pro-union officials to the board, but also for the passage of pro-union legislation, such as the Employee Free Choice Act, which will make it easy for union organizers to sign up new members.

 

Now, one of America’s foremost business groups, The American Chamber of Commerce, has raised an important and well-reasoned objection to one particular nomination, that of union lawyer, Craig Becker.

 

The Chamber has made public a letter to senators that outlines why Mr. Becker should not be put on the Board.

“Mr. Becker has written prolifically about the National Labor Relations Act, the law he will be charged with interpreting and enforcing should he be confirmed. Many of the positions taken in his writings are well outside the mainstream and would disrupt years of established precedent and the delicate balance in current labor law.”

The Chamber also raised objections to the way Mr. Becker might restrict the free speech rights of employers, particularly during union organizing efforts. Conversely, the Chamber is concerned that Mr. Becker would extend the ability of union organizers to have increased access to workers during those same organizing efforts. While employers’ rights would be curtailed, the rights of union organizers would be greatly expanded.

Altogether, Corporate America will be driven to a position where it will be significantly more vulnerable to intensely aggressive union organizing tactics than at any time since the 1930s..

October 2, 2009

LABOR ECONOMISTS: UNIONIZATION WILL HURT ECONOMY

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 12:59 pm

The University of New Hampshire recently completed a survey of 925

labor economists  on behalf of the Center for Union Facts.  It should

come as no surprise to any historian of business and astute observers of Corporate America that unions have had an injurious effect on the overall economy as well as on specific industries (e.g.General Motors, the Port of New York, newspapers, etc.).

 

The surveyed labor economists then went to note that the proposed (and mis-named) Employee Free Choice Act, which would impose binding arbitration on contract disputes, would have a further negative effect on business. More than 2/3 of the surveyed economists believe that Congress should not pass the EFCA. In addition, more than half of the surveyed economists believe that President Obama’s job creation program would hurt the economy.

 

It is apparent that the government is on the wrong track; and the only reason that it is pursuing a pro-union game plan is that the AFL-CIO, SEIU, and other  unions have contributed millions of dollars to elect representatives who will do their bidding.

September 11, 2009

Gallup Survey Finds Union Support Dropping

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 2:41 pm

GALLUP SURVEY FINDS UNION SUPPORT DROPPING

 

According to Gallup’s 2009 Work and Education Survey,  more than half of all U.S. citizens disapprove of the role of unions. The percentage of those who do approve of unions has dropped from 59% a year ago to 48% now, “an all time low,” according to Gallup which started asking if people approved of disapproved of unions in 1936. That year, 72% of citizens approved of unions and 20% disapproved.  The tables have dramatically turned against unions.

Gallup also noted that  the perception that unions hurt companies has risen form 39% in 2006 to 46% in 2009. In addition, more than half of all citizens now agree that unions hurt the entire U. S. economy. That’s a jump from 36% in 2006 to 51% in 2009.

Such a low opinion of unions should give Congress pause before voting to pass the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, which should be renamed the Freedom to Hurt America Act!

 

 

September 3, 2009

Obama’s Pro-Union Strategy

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 12:43 pm

In addition to supporting the Employee Free Choice Act, President Obama has more than signaled his unwavering support for a pro-union agenda. It began when he not only tossed out a series of executive orders signed by President George W. Bush, but it was emphasized by his issuing new executive orders that favor organized labor. Those include creating union friendly agreements for federally funded construction projects and insisting that federal agencies post workers’ rights notices in all workplaces. Such notices inform workers of their right to strike, to file law suits, and to bring complaints to the National Labor Relations Board. In addition, one of the president’s executive orders bans any company that receives federal funds from using those funds to educate workers about the negative effects of unionization.

Earlier, we expressed our disappointment when President Obama nominated Wilma Liebman as chair of the National Labor Relations Board, for she has a record of favoring unions over management.

In keeping with the spirit of that appointment, the president plans to nominate two attorneys who also have a record of favoring unions over the interests of management. They are Randy Babbit to run the Federal Aviation Administration and Jordan Barab to go to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Mr. Babbit is expected to sign a pro-union agreement with the Air Traffic Controllers Association, which would make former President Reagan turn over in his grave. It was President Reagan, after all, who fired the controllers in the 1980s for going out on strike and endangering the lives of air travelers.

As if that were not sufficiently indicative of President Obama’s pro-union thrust, he has named Joe Szabo to head the Federal Railroad Administration. Mr. Szabo had been the legislative director of the United Transportation Union in Illinois.

We can expect many more such appointments in the coming months, and the overall effect will be to make America less competitive and productive in a global economy in which many other countries are not hampered by the excesses of  bureaucratic rules and regulations that are in conflict with free market economies.

 



August 7, 2009

The Ongoing Saga of Union Corruption

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 4:37 pm

 

The New York District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of America has had a sordid history. In 1990, federal officials attempted to remove mob influence within the union. In 1994, their efforts resulted in a consent decree that was followed by a court appointed corruption monitor. The New York Times has now reported that “federal authorities…announced new corruption charges on Wednesday against the union’s leader and nine other union officials and contractors. The charges include racketeering, bribery, fraud and perjury.”

A twenty-nine count indictment was issued, following a lengthy investigation by the FBI, the Department of Labor, and Manhattan prosecutors. It alleges that union officials accepted $1 million in bribes to permit contractors to pay below union scale benefits and hire non-union and illegal alien workers, and to forego payments to union benefit funds.

We were further reminded of union corruption this week when we learned of the death of Budd Schulberg, who wrote one of the greatest screenplays ever filmed about union corruption, On The Waterfront, starring Marlon Brando and Karl Malden, who also recently died.

With a pro-union administration in Washington and with the likely passage of the Employee Free Choice Act on the horizon, unions will again be in a position where they can take advantage of workers and corporations. It will be a lose-lose situation for everyone, except - of course - for the unions and their political enablers.

 

July 31, 2009

EFCA’s Binding Arbitration: Down the Road to Ruin

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 3:58 pm

As we recently reported, the congress may remove card check from the Employee Free Choice Act, but it will still keep binding arbitration. With pro-union arbitrators making final decisions on union contracts, Corporate America will be facing one the most destructive challenges to collective bargaining.

If a company and union cannot come to an agreement, then a government appointed arbitrator will step in and make a decision for a first contract. In effect, someone who has little or no knowledge or experience about how a particular company is run will make a decision that will have far reaching financial consequences. This may have been exactly what organized labor wanted all along; in other words, card checks was a red herring, for binding arbitration will deliver precisely the results that unions want to obtain.

Binding arbitration may be used by a company and union to settle a specific individual dispute, but when it is used to determine an entire contract, the effects can be devastating. Salaries, wage and hour issues, medical insurance, length of paid vacations, seniority, could all be decided by a single arbitrator!

If Corporate America hopes to defeat the provision for binding arbitration in the Employee Free Choice Act, it must continue lobbying congress. If the unions succeed in making binding arbitration the focal point of the ACT, they will have set many companies on a fast-paced trip down a road to ruination.

July 23, 2009

Better Free Than Unionized

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 6:49 pm

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.

Older Posts »