Stephen, J. Cabot blog

May 7, 2010

FREE SPEECH FOR UNIONS, NOT FOR CORPORATIONS

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 12:53 pm

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

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

The Obama administration was sorely disappointed when the U. S. Supreme Court, in its Citizens United decision, held that limits on campaign contributions by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. The administration specifically disagreed with the Court’s decision as it related to corporations, not as it related to unions. President Obama made his displeasure apparent during his State of the Union address, when he none-too-delicately criticized the Supreme Court.

Now, Democrats in Congress have introduced a bill that would restrict the free speech of corporations, while permitting unions to spend as much as they want for political issues and campaigns.

The proposed legislation would prohibit recipients of TARP funds as well as government contractors from spending money on political campaigns. Unions that have contracts with the government, however, would be free to spend as much as they want.

This is another blatant example of the Obama administration favoring unions over corporations, of shackling corporate America with one set of rules while unleashing unions to pursue their goals. A greatly circumscribed free market, which seems to be the focus of the Obama administration, will limit the country’s opportunities for economic growth and prosperity.

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 15, 2010

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PRO-UNION PUSH

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 4:32 pm

From the desk of Stephen Cabot

 

 

The Executive Order for Project Labor Agreements, which had been issued by President Obama, has gone into effect this week. The rule encourages federal agencies to require that any company that performs a construction project for the government should have a unionized workforce, if the construction project costs more than $25-million.

 

Since only 15% of construction workers are unionized, 85% of construction workers will now be ineligible for government projects that cost more than $25-million. As a result, either workers will demand that they be represented by unions, which will drive up labor costs; or, more likely, non-union workers will not have an opportunity to work on government construction projects. This will prove highly injurious to companies and workers alike.

 

Since the construction industry currently has one of the nation’s highest unemployment rates, at 27%, President Obama’s Order will only serve to drive up that figure.

 

In addition, the use of unionized companies will significantly reduce competitive bidding for projects, which will result in increased costs. That burden will add to the deficit and become an additional responsibility of tax payers.

 

Numerous studies have demonstrated that project labor agreements increase costs by up to 20% and invite significant cost overruns, just look at Boston’s Big Dig.

 

Workers should have the freedom to choose whether or not to join a union. The government’s action limits that freedom, propelling workers into the avaricious arms of organized labor while worsening the American economy.

April 9, 2010

THE NLRB POSES A THREAT TO CORPORATE AMERICA

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 5:26 pm

 THE NLRB POSES A THREAT TO CORPORATE AMERICA

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

 

It is no secret that a Democratic majority on the National Labor Relations Board would favor unions. If one of those is a former union lawyer who believes that the Employee Free Choice Act should become law, the putative impartiality of the NLRB could be abrogated with the stroke of a pen.

 

Craig Becker, who was appointed to the Board by President Obama during the spring recess of Congress (an action known as a presidential recess appointment), will decidedly and perhaps aggressively tilt the Board to an unfair and dangerous pro-union position.

 

Mr. Becker, who was a top lawyer for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and Democrat Mark Pearce, will give the Board a three-vote Democratic majority.  There had been just one Democrat and one Republican on the Board prior to the appointments of Becker and Pearce. The Board should have five members.

 

Many in Corporate America as well as students of labor relations and pro-management attorneys believe that the newly composed Board will act to affirm a pending petition that would require employers to bargain with unions that represent less than a majority number of any employer’s workers. In addition, it is also believed that the Board will vote to shorten the period of time from when an organizing petition is accepted by the Board and when a vote is held. While the Employee Free Choice Act may be doomed in Congress, the acts of the NLRB could now advance the mission of unions so that more and more workers become unionized and labor costs skyrocket. It is essential, therefore, that Corporate America invests in strategic action plans for union avoidance as well as plans to achieve decertification of unions already in place.

 

A dark cloud is hanging over Corporate America, and only if it implements a pro-active battle plan will the sun shine again on our traditional free enterprise system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

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.

 

 

 

 

Older Posts »