Stephen, J. Cabot blog

September 11, 2009

Gallup Survey Finds Union Support Dropping

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 2:41 pm

GALLUP SURVEY FINDS UNION SUPPORT DROPPING

 

According to Gallup’s 2009 Work and Education Survey,  more than half of all U.S. citizens disapprove of the role of unions. The percentage of those who do approve of unions has dropped from 59% a year ago to 48% now, “an all time low,” according to Gallup which started asking if people approved of disapproved of unions in 1936. That year, 72% of citizens approved of unions and 20% disapproved.  The tables have dramatically turned against unions.

Gallup also noted that  the perception that unions hurt companies has risen form 39% in 2006 to 46% in 2009. In addition, more than half of all citizens now agree that unions hurt the entire U. S. economy. That’s a jump from 36% in 2006 to 51% in 2009.

Such a low opinion of unions should give Congress pause before voting to pass the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, which should be renamed the Freedom to Hurt America Act!

 

 

August 14, 2009

The Power of One

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — 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. 

 

July 31, 2009

EFCA’s Binding Arbitration: Down the Road to Ruin

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 3:58 pm

As we recently reported, the congress may remove card check from the Employee Free Choice Act, but it will still keep binding arbitration. With pro-union arbitrators making final decisions on union contracts, Corporate America will be facing one the most destructive challenges to collective bargaining.

If a company and union cannot come to an agreement, then a government appointed arbitrator will step in and make a decision for a first contract. In effect, someone who has little or no knowledge or experience about how a particular company is run will make a decision that will have far reaching financial consequences. This may have been exactly what organized labor wanted all along; in other words, card checks was a red herring, for binding arbitration will deliver precisely the results that unions want to obtain.

Binding arbitration may be used by a company and union to settle a specific individual dispute, but when it is used to determine an entire contract, the effects can be devastating. Salaries, wage and hour issues, medical insurance, length of paid vacations, seniority, could all be decided by a single arbitrator!

If Corporate America hopes to defeat the provision for binding arbitration in the Employee Free Choice Act, it must continue lobbying congress. If the unions succeed in making binding arbitration the focal point of the ACT, they will have set many companies on a fast-paced trip down a road to ruination.

July 2, 2009

Financial Woes of Pro-Union States

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 1:19 pm

The National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR), a proponent of right-to-work policies, recently released a report that the demands of unions have greatly added to the financial woes of New York, California, and New Jersey. The Cabot Institute for Labor Relations has also been studying this phenomenon, and it concurs with the findings of the NILRR.

The percentage of unionized workers in those three states ranges from 20% to 27%, while the number of unionized workers in the rest of the country is between 12% and 13%. In the three heavily unionized states, workers receive the largest hourly wages in the country, and public-service employees receive the most generous pensions. For example, a retired police officer in Westchester county receives $200,000 a year and another in Suffolk county, New York, receives $100,000 a year. When one multiplies those numbers by the number of public-service retirees, many of whom retire in their mid-forties, it’s easy to understand why those three states are in such deep financial trouble.

When one compares job growth in right-to-work states where non-union auto makers have set up manufacturing facilities with a state, such as Michigan, home to domestic auto makers, the numbers are indeed startling. It is obvious that right-to-work states are enjoying far more robust employment figures than pro-union states. And because right-to-work states offer greater non-union employment opportunities than the big industrial states, the former states are in far better financial shape than New York, New Jersey, Michigan, and California.

Washington law makers, unfortunately, are intent on making it easier for unions to organize workers, and the results will be higher labor costs, greater unemployment, and more states in financial trouble.