Stephen, J. Cabot blog

April 29, 2010

DEMS DO UNION BIDDING

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 5:21 pm

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

United Parcel Service is waging a full-strength campaign to get the U S Congress to make sure that FedEx will be subject to the same onerous union rules as itself.
According to an article in The Wall Street Journal, “House Transportation Chairman James Oberstar (D. Big Labor) last year slipped 230 words into a spending bill that would make it easier for the Teamsters to unionize FedEx. This ambush was included at the urging of UPS, which has been saddled with the Teamsters for decades and wants FedEx to feel its pain.”
While UPS operates under the rules of the National Labor Relations Act, which makes the company vulnerable to strikes (e.g. a 15 day strike in1997), FedEx operates under the rules of the Railway Labor Act, which discourages strikes so that there will not be any “interruptions to commerce”

FedEx delivers most of its time-sensitive packages via air, and its customers choose its services because they expected rapid uninterrupted deliveries. UPS, by other means, delivers most of its packages by truck and customers understand that delivery may take a few days.

Having failed to have itself re-classified under the Railway Labor Act, UPS would now like to have FedEx made subject to the National Labor Relations Act, which would open the doors to Teamster organizers. And that’s a potentially large dues paying number of workers for the Union: there are 125,000 FedEx workers.

Imagine, for a moment, if FedEx were to be unionized and then experience slow downs or walk outs by Teamster-organized workers. Its business model would be utterly destroyed. And so UPS is intent on lobbying Congress to make FedEx subject to National Railway Act, thus opening the door to union organizers.

Congress should ignore the lobbying of UPS and adhere to the principles of a free market economy, and UPS should work to decertify its union rather than impose restrictions on its competition. The American economy works best when companies are free to engage in unhindered competition. The answer is not to shackle one’s competition; rather, the answer is to throw off one’s own shackles and engage in a free, open, and vibrant economy.

April 22, 2010

THE TEACHERS’ UNION, RUBBER ROOMS, & $40-MILLION

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 3:32 pm

This article was originally publised on StephenCabotBlog.com http://www.stephencabotblog.com/

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

It came as no surprise to many that the teachers’ union in New York City had successfully placed a road block in the way of teachers getting fired for incompetence as well as for criminal offenses, such as the sexual abuse of children. Rather than being fired, teachers accused of wrongdoing have been placed in one of New York City’s eight Rubber Rooms (named after the padded cells in mental institutions), where they await their cases being adjudicated. They might wait months, a few years, or as long as ten years, while receiving full pay and all their benefits. As if still working as teachers, they typically clock in at 8:15 and out at 3:15; and, of course, they receive fully paid summer vacations. Some sidelined teachers have allegedly run small Internet businesses while in the Rubber Rooms. This union-based limbo cost New York City $40-million last year!

 

Now, Mayor Bloomberg, in his third term as mayor, has decided to put an end to such a ridiculous Kafkaesque situation. It won’t end over night however. Rubber Room attendees will not face imminent termination.  That means that more than 600 teachers will continue to draw salaries, get their summer vacations, and watch their pension benefits accumulate, while boards of education look for ways to lay off good teachers and refuse to hire new ones, all because of budget shortfalls.

 

Under new rules that go into effect in September and agreed to by the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), new teachers accused of wrong doing will not be sent to the Rubber Rooms. Instead, they will be assigned to performing clerical duties outside of schools. If their cases are considered minor, they will perform non-teaching duties in their schools.  Those accused of sexual abuse or financial wrongdoing could be suspended with pay. The most serious charges could result in suspensions without pay, and one can only wonder why sexual abuse would not automatically be considered a serious transgression.

 

This charade of pedagogic justice proves how injurious unions can be. It is no wonder that the majority of American have a low opinion of unions.

April 1, 2010

WOULD THE PRISONERS GUARD THEMSELVES

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 6:50 pm

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

 

When referring to illogical situations, it has often been said that the prisoners are running the prisons, the inmates are running the asylums, the foxes are guarding the hen houses.

 

Such a situation was successfully avoided at a prison in Chester County, Pennsylvania.

The Teamsters Union, ever on the look out for possible new members, had attempted to organize the Chester County Prison correction officers. The officers, ever vigilant of their responsibilities, voted 155 to 35 against forming the Chester County Corrections Officers Independent Union, which – had it succeeded – would have been allied with the Teamsters.

One can only imagine what would have occurred in the prison, if –at some future time – unionized corrections officers would have be unable to reach an  agreement with the warden and the county. Would the officers have felt obliged to go out on strike? Would certain prisoners be given the responsibility of guarding their fellow prisoners?

The fact that the corrections officers believe that they can negotiate on their own, without the normal threats that unions often bring to the bargaining table, says much about their apprehension of realism and their sense of responsibility.  They are to be commended for putting professional responsibilities ahead of personal interests.

The adversarial relationships that so often characterize the bargaining between management and workers have proven to be counterproductive and should be tossed onto the ash heap of labor relations history. It has proven utterly injurious to the economic health of the country. 


March 26, 2010

PRESIDENT OBAMA PLAYS THREE CARD MONTE WITH THE NLRB

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 4:04 pm

From the desk of Stephen Cabot

 

The National Labor Relations Board needs a quorum of three.  If President Obama hopes to enact his pro-union agenda, he will need to have another pro-union advocate on the NLRB. He won’t say who is the pro-union advocate; he won’t even say that there is a pro-union advocate.

 

But as the names are flipped from hand to hand, one name keeps turning up. And if you guessed Craig Becker, you would be right.

 

According to The Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com) “In a 1993 Minnesota Law Review article [Becker] said that the ‘core defect in union election law…is the employer’s status as a party to labor representation proceedings’ and that ‘employers should be stripped of any legally cognizable interest in their employees’ election of representatives.’”

 

If an NLRB member believes that employers should not be permitted to educate their employees about he disadvantages of unionization, he can hardly be considered a fair minded adjudicator of labor issues.

 

Yet, according to Senator Tom Harkin, President Obama will appoint Craig Becker to the NLRB during the Easter recess. It’s called a recess appointment, and it’s an end run around the Senate.  No votes are required.

 

With his pro-union advocates on the NLRB, President Obama will have won his three card Monte game, for no matter which member Corporate America appeals to, the results will always favor the union.

 

March 19, 2010

MORE AIRLINES TO UNIONIZE, LABOR COSTS TO ERASE PROFITS

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 2:55 pm

FROM THE DESK OF STEPHEN CABOT

 

According to a recent report by Market Watch, we can expect more airline employees to join unions, driving up labor costs and the cost of flying. While traveling by air has been somewhat unpleasant over the last few years, one can now expect it to become more expensive, not only for tickets, but also for basic amenities.

A new organizing rule is to blame for what’s about to happen. Under the new rule, the agency that referees labor relations for airlines and its employees would permit workers to join a union if a majority of those workers votes for unionization. In the past, those who did not vote had their absent ballots counted as no votes; now, those absent ballots will count as yes votes! It will likely mean that airlines will have tens of thousands of newly unionized employees. Increased wages and benefits would leave airlines no alternative but to increase the fees that are charged to flyers.

There are currently 75 union contracts being negotiated in the airline industry. And each of those negotiating airlines will now face a major threat to its profitability. The Association of Flight Attendants, for one, has already made it known that it will attempt to organize 20,000 attendants at Delta Air Lines, and that’s just the beginning of a devastating industry trend. The management of American and United Airlines are currently negotiating multiple open contracts, and under the new rule, profits at both carriers could be wiped out.  

The new rule is a direct result of a pro-union policy emanating out of the White House and promoted by union officials who frequently meet behind closed doors with President Obama. The rule is not only injurious to the airline industry; it is also injurious to the entire national economy.

 

 

.

March 12, 2010

UNIONS INVESTING MILLIONS TO ELECT PRO-UNION LEGISLATORS

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

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

 

It’s no secret that unions are extremely unhappy with many Democratic legislators who have failed to support the proposed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) as well as other pro-union measures. Now those unions are supporting a host of Democratic candidates who have promised, that if elected, they will support the EFCA.

 

One need only look at the primary battle facing Blanche Lincoln for the Democratic senatorial nomination in Arkansas. Four unions have pledged $4 million to defeat Senator Lincoln in the primary and to elect Lt. Governor Bill Halter.

 

In addition, the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) will endorse pro-union Democratic candidates in Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky.

 

While President Obama decried the recent Supreme Court decision permitting corporations to invest in political candidates, he did not complain about unions doing the same thing. And now that the Supreme Court has opened the door to increased spending, unions are going to invest millions of dollars to make sure that their chosen candidates get elected.

 

While many in Corporate America breathed a sigh of relief that the EFCA was dead, it could come back to life if new union-backed candidates are elected to the US Senate.

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.

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.

 

 

Older Posts »