unionization « Stephen, J. Cabot blog

September 3, 2009

Obama’s Pro-Union Strategy

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.

Comments (0)

August 28, 2009

Toyota’s One Unionized Factory to Close

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: Add new tag, auto, cabot institute, cabot institute for labor relations, california, new york times, organized labor, right to work, stephen cabot, stephen j cabot, Toyota, UAW, union organizers, unionization, unions. unionization, workers — Stephen J. Cabot @ 3:50 pm

If there was ever any doubt that unions are injurious to workers and management, one need only look at what will happen to Toyota’s one unionized factory in Fremont, California, where the company makes the popular Corolla.

Toyota’s management voted yesterday to close its Fremont facility, which employees 4,700 workers. Atsushi Nimi, Toyota’s VP for North America, reported that “it would not be economically viable” to keep the factory operating. In other words, during the current economic slump, which has had a devastating effect on the auto industry, Toyota finds it far more profitable to operate its numerous non-union facilities in Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Texas, and West Virginia, where the UAW has not been able to organize pro-management employees.

Toyota will import Corollas manufactured in Canada and Japan. Economists believe that the closing of the Fremont facility will ultimately cost 40,000 jobs in the state.

Gary N. Chaison, a professor at Clark University, where he teaches labor relations, stated that factory’s unionized status probably sealed its fate, according to a report in The New York Times.

Once again, unions are proving to be a major obstacle to our economic recovery, especially for manufacturers who operate in heavily unionized states.

Comments (0)

August 14, 2009

The Power of One

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: Add new tag, cabot institute for labor relations, corporate America, labor department, National Labor Relations Board, organized labor, President Obama, pro-union, stephen cabot, stephen j cabot, union organizers, unionization, unions, washington, workers, workforce — Stephen J. Cabot @ 4:57 pm

Management and workers have long known that high levels of productivity are the result of good relations and of all parties working together to achieve positive goals. That, however, is not the underlying message of Executive Order 13496, which President Obama signed. Here is a sentence from that order: “The attainment of industrial peace is most easily achieved and workers’ productivity is enhanced when workers are well informed of their rights under the Federal labor laws, including the National Labor Relations Act.”

The Order is aimed at those who do business with the government, and it – in effect – guarantees that workers will know about all of their options when it comes to strikes, walkouts, and slow downs. The government has said that the order will provide labor peace. If that sounds unbelievable, it is. The government has handed organized labor another weapon to use against Corporate America.

How will informing workers of union tactics for securing their demands increase productivity? If it does anything, it will put Corporate America at a disadvantage when hiring workers for federal jobs. Not only will contractors have to abide with the Order, but so will their sub-contractors. Each will have to post all the information for their workers; and if it is not posted, delinquent contractors and sub-contractors will be barred from doing business with the government and be liable for various sanctions.

Actions taken against companies will be at the discretion of the Secretary of Labor, who is responsible for the enforcement of the Order. While the Secretary may exempt certain companies, the Secretary can also cancel contracts and prohibit future contracts with the government.

The Executive Order and the power invested in the office of Secretary of Labor is further evidence that the Obama administration is not only on the side of unions, but it is actively advancing union interests to the detriment of Corporate America.

Comments (0)

July 23, 2009

Better Free Than Unionized

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: employee free choice act, management, stephen j cabot, union organizers, unionization, unions — 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.

Comments (0)

July 17, 2009

One Down, Four to Go: EFCA

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: Add new tag, cabot institute for labor relations, corporate America, employee free choice act, Employee Free Choice Act, labor relations, stephen cabot, union organizers, unionization, unions — 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.

Comments (0)

June 26, 2009

Ejecting Union Spies from Corporate America

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: cabot institute, congress, labor relations, management, salts, stephen cabot, supreme court, union organizers, unionization, unions, workers, workforce — 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.

Comments (0)

June 12, 2009

Burning Union Money

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: afl-cio, cabot institute, employee free choice act, labor relations, organized labor, stephen cabot, sussman, unionization, unions — 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.

Comments (0)

May 8, 2009

George McGovern Blasts The Employee Free Choice Act – Again!

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: cabot institute, corporate America, democracy, employee free choice act, freedom, labor relations, stephen cabot, unionization, unions — Stephen J. Cabot @ 1:13 pm

GEORGE MCGOVERN BLASTS

THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT – AGAIN!

George McGovern, former senator and presidential candidate known for his liberal viewpoints, has once again blasted the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) for its proposed debasement of democratic practices. His criticism appears on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal.

He was particularly irked by the fact that if employers and unions cannot reach agreements then the government will step in and impose, in each case, binding arbitration.

Under the National Labor Relations Act, which has been in place since 1935, employers are free to reject union demands, and unions can strike if they are dissatisfied with employer proposals. If, however, the EFCA becomes law, then government bureaucrats with little understanding of the unique subtleties of various positions will impose their own solutions. Such a process is hardly in keeping with the principles of collective bargaining.

Former Senator McGovern wrote: “A federally appointed arbitrator cannot be expected to understand the nuances specific to each business dispute, the competitive market position of the business, or the plethora of other factors unique to each case…. Compulsory arbitration is, in one sense, government dictating to employees what they will win or lose in the deal with no opportunity to approve the agreement.”

Such an outcome would be disastrous for Corporate America. Even George Meany, while head of the AFL-CIO, stated that “mandatory arbitration is an abrogation of freedom.”

Should Congress pass the EFCA (which seems more likely now that Senator Specter has switched parties) and should President Obama sign the bill into law, then America will be taking a major step away from the free market principles which have been the basis for the country’s remarkable record of commercial achievements, industrial innovations, and the creation of one of the most affluent societies in the history of the world.

Comments (0)

« Newer Posts