Stephen, J. Cabot blog

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The survey ratifies a belief that we have been espousing for some time that unions no longer represent the best interests of workers.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.

 

 

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.

November 13, 2009

TAX PAYERS BEWARE

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 6:30 pm

According to the Bureau of National Affairs, most unionized employees now work for the government.  While the overall number of unionized workers is just above 12% of the workforce, only 7.3% of those union members work in the private sector.

 

What is amazing is that more than 37% of all government employees belong to unions! That amounts to 8-million unionized government workers! The government has become the largest employer of unionized workers, and those unionized workers make sure that their voices ring loud and clear in the halls of congress as well as in the White House. After all, unions contributed more than $56-million to Democratic political campaigns in 2008.

 

While those government workers cannot go on strike for higher wages, increased benefits, or more paid vacation days; they can  and do have their officers lobby congress to achieve those results.

 

An example of union strategy has become apparent on the west coast where unions have been running television ads and supporting ballot initiatives  to raise taxes so that their members can receive higher wages. One need only stand on line at a local post office or motor vehicles office to experience union-protected inefficiencies and lack of initiative.

 

As a result of union demands, taxpayers will be footing the bill for increased taxes. And those taxes will  go to pay for unionized government workers increased salaries and benefit. As the government pays ever high wages, it will have no alternative but  to impose ever higher taxes to meet the demand. It is a classic vicious circle.

July 17, 2009

One Down, Four to Go: EFCA

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

This week, the U. S. Senate decided to eliminate card checks from its proposed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). Unions will not be able to represent employees simply by getting them to sign cards expressing a desire to be represented by a union. This victory was won by the concerted efforts of Corporate America and all those who believe in the democratic principle of secret ballot elections.

 

The bad news is that a revised EFCA bill will call for a rapid time frame for new elections. Union elections would have to take place within a five to ten day period after 30% of workers had signed cards indicating that they want to be represented by a union. Current campaigns often run more than a month and often up to two months.

 

In addition, the revised bill would require that union organizers be permitted on company property.

 

As if that were not bad enough, the revised bill would also prevent management from requiring that workers attend anti-union, pro-management educational sessions.

 

Finally, the bill would contain a demand that employers, who fail to reach agreement on a contract with a new union, submit to binding arbitration. This, in effect, means that government agents will impose an agreement on managment, one which may be one sided and financially unsound.

 

The new bill will be voted on in September, so it is essential that Corporate America continue its vigorous lobbying efforts. It is also essential that Corporate America learns to deal effectively and proactively with the negative provisions of the revised bill before unions come calling on its workers.

July 10, 2009

Environment Friendly Unions?

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 4:17 pm

 

Those who have negotiated with unions know they will often resort to bargaining tactics that, if used by management, would cause the unions to cry foul. They would go to union-friendly reporters, playing the lachrymose role of outraged victims, and plead for fairness.

 

Now, however, The New York Times, has reported that California Unions for Reliable Energy(CURE) have attempted to influence the awarding of contracts by playing both sides of an environmental issue.

 

When a large California solar power company, Ausra, sought approval to build a new power plant, CURE (an ironic acronym if there ever was one) demanded that a study be conducted to determine the effects of the power plant on the lives of the short-nosed kangaroo rat and the ferruginous hawk.

 

One might have admired CURE’s concern for those poor creatures; however, when Bright Source Energy, one of Ausra’s competitors, also filed plans for a solar facility that would be larger than Ausra’s, the union did not voice any concerns for the endangered desert tortoise, an animal that lives where the new plant would be built.

 

One may guess the reasons for such contradictory manifestations of concern. Asura, the Times reported, had rejected demands that it employ union workers to build its solar facility.  Bright Source, by contrast, agreed to hire “labor-friendly contractors.”

 

The Times went on to report that “…some developers contend they are being pressured to sign agreements pledging to use union labor. If they refuse, they say, they can count on the union group to demand costly  environmental studies and develop and deliver hostile testimony at public hearings.

            “If they commit at the outset to use union labor, they say, the environmental objections never materialize.”

 

With a pro-union congress and administration in Washington, one can expect more such condoned behavior.

June 26, 2009

Ejecting Union Spies from Corporate America

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 5:15 pm

For many years, unions had sent their organizers to the personnel offices of companies so that they could be hired to infiltrate workforces. Once they had joined the workforces, they proselytized in favor of union representation and often spoke of management as selfish ogres. Such people became known as “salts” and their words and deeds often led to a diminution in productivity and profitability for companies.

Now, two Republican Congressmen have introduced a bill, the Truth in Employment Act (H.R. 2808/S 1227), that is designed to amend the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) so that employers can legally discharge “salts,” who are nothing but undercover agents for unions seeking to unionize workers.

The proposed bill states: “Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requiring an employer to employ any person who seeks or has sought employment with the employer in furtherance of other employment or agency status.”

The bill is meant to obviate a Supreme Court ruling that “salts” could not be terminated from their employment.

The bill further notes that “salting has evolved into an aggressive form of harassment not contemplated when the National Labor Relations Act was enacted and [it] threatens the balance … of collective bargaining.”

It is absolutely necessary that the collective bargaining playing field be kept level and that there be a balance between workers and management. The Truth in Employment Act will go a long way to ensuring such an outcome.

June 12, 2009

Burning Union Money

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 5:22 pm

BURNING UNION MONEY

 

The Wall Street Journal and other publications have reported that the unions spent many millions of dollars to elect Barack Obama to the Presidency. In fact, the president of the Service Employees International Union, Andy Stern, stated: “We spent a fortune t o elect Barack Obama.” To that fortune can be added the many millions of dollars spent by the AFL-CIO. The unions apparently spent their members’ money not like drunken sailors, but like lobbyists on a mission.

 

Now Bloomberg News has reported that one of the AFL-CIO’s officials has circulated a report claiming that the union indulged in “creative accounting.” The union members would no doubt like an explanation of how their union went from a $45 million surplus to liabilities of more than $90 million. And the net assets of the SEIU went from $64 million to $34 million. Yet a few years back, Andy Stern vociferously declaimed that the AFL-CIO was spending too much on Washington politics and not enough on union organizing efforts. We can assume that both men finally came to an agreement after realizing that if they financed the election of a pro-union congress and president, they could spend a lot less money on organizing, especially if their indebted friends on Capitol Hill pass the Employee Free Choice Act.

 

When President Bush strengthened and dilated the union disclosure rules, the unions howled as if the hammer justice were about to smash their piggy banks. Now, however, Washington is overrun with union advocates, and they are listening to union concerns about the Bush Administration’s rules. If the unions aren’t asking for those rules to evaporate, then they certainly want them to be watered down.

Older Posts »