Stephen, J. Cabot blog

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 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 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 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.

 

 

 

December 18, 2009

UNION MEMBERS REVOLT

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 4:19 pm

 

Municipal employees in Portland Maine have decided to show their unhappiness with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Many local union members (Local 1373) feel that they pay expensive dues and are not receiving sufficient job protections. More than ninety of their members were laid off from their city jobs.

 

Now 450 members of the union have received ballots, giving them the opportunity to decertify the union.  The local AFSCME sends the national office $130,000 a year, and feels that it’s not getting its money’s worth.

 

Local leaders had filed a petition in October with 200 signatures that asked for decertification ballots. As a result, those leaders were suspended from their leadership positions, and the Local’s assets were seized. In addition, the National office has been running local ads critical of the Local.

 

As we reported last week in our report about SEIU, a union that is in a war with a break-away union, this is another example of intense dissension within the ranks of organized labor. As unions become increasingly more superfluous, their internecine battles increase in ferocity. Organized labor, unable to connect with workers, are fighting with each other for the ever diminishing number of workers who still find what is chimerical value in being union members.

December 11, 2009

ORGANIZED LABOR’S CIVIL WAR

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

One of the most aggressive unions in the country, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) will now face a challenge to its dominant role representing healthcare workers in California. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has called for an election to determine if SEIU or the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW) will represent 2,300 Kaiser healthcare workers in California.

 

The decision of the NLRB came as a blow to SEIU in its ongoing battle with the breakaway healthcare union, NUHW. SEIU had hoped to stop NUHW’s ongoing march to win the allegiance of thousands of healthcare workers in a wide array of states. As part of its PR war, the two sides have exchanged charges of various acts of wrong doing, including financial mismanagement. Perhaps the most hilarious charge leveled by the unions is union-busting. It’s usually the paladins of Corporate America who are accused of being union busters. If the labor movement has ever evidenced its true agenda, the bitter battle between these two unions indicates that power and money are as important to unions as they are to other institutions.

Determined to preserve its power, the SEIU says it will appeal the NLRB decision. If, however, the SEIU appeal fails, balloting is expected to take place in January.

The fight between SEIU and NUHW amounts to a civil war within the labor movement. The unintended victor will be Corporate America, and the millions of workers who will regard unionization with a richly deserved sense of skepticism, if not disgust.  



December 4, 2009

ANOTHER BLOW TO DEMOCRACY

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 5:20 pm

According to a recent editorial in The Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration has delivered a body blow to Corporate America, specifically the airline and railway industries, which do not need any further impediments to their respective economic woes.

Both of those industries have their labor relations policies governed by The National Mediation Board (NMB), and the Board has maintained a consistent policy for the last seventy-five years.  

Now, however, under a proposed new rule, the board plans to tilt the playing field in favor of organized labor. To wit: In order to obtain certification, a union will no longer need to win the approval of a majority of workers. Rather than obtain a majority of workers, a union will only have to win a majority of workers who choose to vote in a union election. That works well for unions, because only a minority of workers usually votes. Getting a majority of that minority to vote for a union will be easy. Imagine, if only 100 workers out of a total workforce of 1,000 agree to vote: the union would need only 51 votes to unionize 1,000 workers! The winning team will always be the union.

This dramatic change has been the result of President Obama appointing the former president of a pilots’ union and the former president of the Association of Flight Attendants to the NMB. It is comparable to a single football team using its own players as the sole referees in all of its games. Would such a team ever lose a game?

This change will invite numerous strikes, which will cripple the nation’s transportation system. We are now light years away from the time when President Reagan fired air traffic controllers, members of The Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) for going on strike. Their strike was against the national interest. President Reagan’s actions led to the demise of PATCO and to a robust airline industry that benefitted all travellers. It was a milestone in the history of labor relations, a milestone that will not  - unfortunately –  be repeated anytime soon.

 

 

November 20, 2009

THE UNION AS CULT

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 5:44 pm

 

While the New York Times is generally thought of as being union friendly in its reporting, it recently reported on a union situation so egregious that the Times could not avoid it.

 

According to a report by Steven Greenhouse, the hotel and restaurant workers’ union, Unite Here, pressures it organizers to reveal the most embarrassing and distressing personal information to their superiors. Such information may include stories of childhood or spousal abuse, family members who were alcoholic or drug addicted, sexual abuse, phobias, etc.

 

Once that information is obtained by the union, it is then used as leverage against the organizers who had revealed that information.

 

According the Times article, “…several Unite Here organizers described high-pressure meetings where they were brought to tears as supervisors pushed them, sometimes in front of a dozen colleagues, to divulge personal information in what several organizers said was an effort to beak their will and ensure obedience.”

 

Such tactics smack of those used by cults to control members. And those tactics are nothing short of being highly manipulative and cynical.

 

If this is what organized labor has devolved to, then Corporate America must be on heightened alert to the efforts of organizers who have been turned into aggressive automatons whose sole purpose is to capture the hearts and minds of workers who will follow orders and pay their dues, no questions asked.

Older Posts »