About Me

Name: Stephen Cabot
Email: marketingpro@aol.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

UNION MEMBERS REVOLT

 

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.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ORGANIZED LABOR'S CIVIL WAR

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.  






Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SENATOR McCAIN TAKES A STAND

As we reported last week, President Obama continues to pack the NLRB with pro-union advocates. We cited the recent example of Craig Becker, a union lawyer, as well as numerous others. Now Senator John McCain has announced on the floor of the Senate that he will block Mr. Becker’s appointment to the NLRB.

 

Senator McCain has reiterated what we have claimed that Mr. Becker will support unions at the expense of Corporate America and will likely curtail its free speech.  Mr. Becker’s articles indicate that he would restrict the rights of employers to present pro-management arguments to their employees during union organizing drives. As an associate general counsel for the Service Employees Union, one of the most aggressive unions in the country, Mr. Becker has been a dedicated advocate of the union’s agenda.

 

In a 1993 Minnesota Law Review article, Mr. Becker argued that "employers should be stripped of any legally cognizable interest in their employees' election of representatives. Employers should have no right to raise questions concerning voter eligibility or campaign conduct. 

"Because employers lack the formal status either of candidates vying to represent employees or of voters, they should not be entitled to charge that unions disobeyed the rules governing voter eligibility or campaign conduct.”

 

Such arguments obviously favor unions over corporations; yet, the NLRB should be an unbiased, objective body that rules on existing laws and regulations.  

We agree with the point of view expressed in a letter that Jay Timmons, Executive Vice President of the National Association of Manufacturers, sent to Senator Tom Harkin. To wit: "Mr. Becker has espoused extreme positions far outside mainstream thought on how our nation's labor laws should be interpreted."

It is imperative that the senate votes to maintain the integrity of the NLRB by maintaining a level playing field for both management and workers. We believe that is what Senator McCain is attempting to accomplish, and we applaud his effort.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

LABOR ECONOMISTS: UNIONIZATION WILL HURT ECONOMY

The University of New Hampshire recently completed a survey of 925 labor

economists  on behalf of the Center for Union Facts.  It should come as no surprise to any historian of business and astute observers of Corporate America that unions have had an injurious effect on the overall economy as well as on specific industries (e.g., General Motors, the Port of New York, newspapers, etc.).

 

The surveyed labor economists then went to note that the proposed (and mis-named) Employee Free Choice Act, which would impose binding arbitration on contract disputes, would have a further negative effect on business. More than 2/3 of the surveyed economists believe that Congress should not pass the EFCA. In addition, more than half of the surveyed economists believe that President Obama’s job creation program would hurt the economy.

 

It is apparent that the government is on the wrong track; and the only reason that it is pursuing a pro-union game plan is that the AFL-CIO, SEIU, and other  unions have contributed millions of dollars to elect representatives who will do their bidding.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

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.

 

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bad News for Corporate America

Have you heard of Craig Becker? He is a recently named appointment of President Obama to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). While awaiting senate confirmation to take his new position, Mr. Becker is serving as Associate General Counsel for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which is run by one of the most aggressive union leaders in North America, Andy Stern.
 
Mr. Becker, like most members of organized labor, is not an advocate of secret ballot elections. While Corporate America has been gritting its teeth awaiting the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), it may have even more to worry about. Craig Becker wrote that employers should be not be permitted to attend NLRB elections and should not be permitted to challenge election results. An editorial in the Wall Street Journal reported that Mr. Craig wrote that “Employers should also be barred from ‘placing observers at the polls to challenge ballots.’ ”
 
The editorial continued: “Mr. Becker advocated a new ‘body of campaign rules’ that would severely limit the ability of employers to argue against unionization. He argued that any meeting a company holds that involves a ‘captive audience’ ought to be grounds for overturning an election. If a company wants to distribute leaflets that oppose the union, for example, Mr. Becker said it must allow union access to its private property to do the same.”
 

With its majority in both houses of Congress, the Democrats will no doubt confirm Mr. Becker as a member of the NLRB. No one likes to play cards with a dealer using a stacked deck; and under the Obama selected NLRB, the deck will be decidedly stacked against Corporate America. And that’s bad for economy, bad for America, and bad news for democratic traditions.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

OBAMA'S PRO-LABOR ADMINISTRATION

OBAMA’S PRO-LABOR ADMINISTRATION

 

In addition to Hilda Solis, Secretary of Labor, who comes from a strongly pro-union family, the Obama administration is full of many pro-labor advocates who will do what is necessary to consummate the successful passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. The list of pro-labor members of the current administration includes the following:

Parrick Gaspard, a political director in the White House, had been executive VP for legislation for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Ronald W. Bloom, who had been an assistant to the president of the United Steelworkers of America, is a member of the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry.

J. Randolph Babbitt, who had been president of the Air Line Pilots Association, is now an FAA Administrator.

T. Michael Kerr, an Assistant Labor Secretary, has worked for AFSCME and the SEIU.

Wilma Liebman, who will serve as chair of the NLRB, had previously served as counsel to the Bricklayers and Teamsters Unions.

Joseph C. Szabo, Federal Railroad Administrator, had been the Illinois legislative director of the United Transportation Union.

Helen Kanovsky, general counsel at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, had previously worked for the AFL-CIO.

The list goes on and on, and it is apparent that the Obama Administration will be profoundly pro-labor. It is, therefore, essential that Corporate America develop effective and innovative techniques for dealing effectively with aggressive new union organizing and bargaining policies.

I have recently written an article entitled "How Corporate America Can Deal with the Proposed Employee Free Choice Act," which appears on the website of Industry Week magazine and can be found at http://www.industryweek.com/articles/viewpoint_--_how_corporate_america_can_deal_with_the_proposed_employee_free_choice_act_18884.aspx

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

OBAMA'S PRO-LABOR ADMINISTRATION

OBAMA’S PRO-LABOR ADMINISTRATION

 

In addition to Hilda Solis, Secretary of Labor, who comes from a strongly pro-union family, the Obama administration is full of many pro-labor advocates who will do what is necessary to consummate the successful passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. The list of pro-labor members of the current administration includes the following:

Parrick Gaspard, a political director in the White House, had been executive VP for legislation for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Ronald W. Bloom, who had been an assistant to the president of the United Steelworkers of America, is a member of the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry.

J. Randolph Babbitt, who had been president of the Air Line Pilots Association, is now an FAA Administrator.

T. Michael Kerr, an Assistant Labor Secretary, has worked for AFSCME and the SEIU.

Wilma Liebman, who will serve as chair of the NLRB, had previously served as counsel to the Bricklayers and Teamsters Unions.

Joseph C. Szabo, Federal Railroad Administrator, had been the Illinois legislative director of the United Transportation Union.

Helen Kanovsky, general counsel at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, had previously worked for the AFL-CIO.

The list goes on and on, and it is apparent that the Obama Administration will be profoundly pro-labor. It is, therefore, essential that Corporate America develop effective and innovative techniques for dealing effectively with aggressive new union organizing and bargaining policies.

I have recently written an article entitled "How Corporate America Can Deal with the Proposed Employee Free Choice Act," which appears on the website of Industry Week magazine and can be found at http://www.industryweek.com/articles/viewpoint_--_how_corporate_america_can_deal_with_the_proposed_employee_free_choice_act_18884.aspx

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »