Corporate America should take notice that Oregon may be a bellwether of labor relations in the new year. While we wish all of our readers a happy and prosperous 2010, the future state of labor relations in President Obama’s America will become increasingly pro-union and anti-employers.

According to the Bureau of National Affairs, most unionized employees now work for the government.  While the overall number of unionized workers is just above 12% of the workforce, only 7.3% of those union members work in the private sector.

What is amazing is that more than 37% of all government employees belong to unions! That amounts to 8-million unionized government workers! The government has become the largest employer of unionized workers, and those unionized workers make sure that their voices ring loud and clear in the halls of congress as well as in the White House. After all, unions contributed more than $56-million to Democratic political campaigns in 2008.

While those government workers cannot go on strike for higher wages, increased benefits, or more paid vacation days; they can  and do have their officers lobby congress to achieve those results.

An example of union strategy has become apparent on the west coast where unions have been running television ads and supporting ballot initiatives  to raise taxes so that their members can receive higher wages. One need only stand on line at a local post office or motor vehicles office to experience union-protected inefficiencies and lack of initiative.

As a result of union demands, taxpayers will be footing the bill for increased taxes. And those taxes will  go to pay for unionized government workers increased salaries and benefit. As the government pays ever high wages, it will have no alternative but  to impose ever higher taxes to meet the demand. It is a classic vicious circle.

          Waterfronts, from New York to California, have a long history of union difficulties. And now, according to an editorial in The Wall Street Journal, the Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa (a former union organizer), is urging congress and the Obama administration to change federal law so that the Teamsters Union will be able to organize independent truckers who work in the Port of Los Angeles.

The mayor wants the federal law changed so that harbor trucking companies will be banned from contracting with independent drivers. Instead, he wants the Port to permit “employee drivers” to operate in the Port, because those drivers are eligible for membership in the Teamsters.

Federal law, however, does not now permit state and local authorities to make their own laws regarding ports, for that would defeat the purpose of having uniform regulations throughout the land. If the mayor’s proposal became law, truckers in one port would not be allowed into another port. The resulting chaos would ruin interstate commerce.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has found that the mayor’s intended change would violate the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, and so an injunction was issued. As a result, the mayor wants Washington to change the law.

Should that happen, the Teamsters would have incredible leverage to affect wages, benefits, and the price of shipped goods. No doubt, the result would be a huge spike in labor and consumer costs. In such an environment, if the Teamsters did not get what they want, they could call strikes and shut down one port after another.

This is another example of how the Democrats are working to increase the power of unions at the expense of everyone else.

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.

 IT WILL GET WORSE WHEN THE EFCA BECOMES LAW

In Grantie City, Illinois, an employee at AT&T filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The employee has claimed that the Communications Workers of America, Local 6300, that represents him made threatened legal action when he refused to go on strike.

The employee, David McBride, filed an unfair labor practices charge against the CWA because McBride and other union members refused to support a national strike. He is being represented by the National Right to Work Foundation.

If the Employee Free Choice Act becomes law, more and more employees will be subjected to union coercion not only when it comes to strikes, but also when it comes to organizing efforts. Corporate America must press for the defeat of the EFCA to ensure that American industries will be able to be competitive  with industries throughout the world.

By passing the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) and imposing card checks on Corporate America, the Democrats will – in effect – eliminate the free speech of workers. Since 1935, when the National Labor Relations Act was passed and signed into law, workers were assured that their opinions about unionization would be protected. During secret ballot elections in which employees could vote their preference about unionization, the opinions of workers would be kept private. Under the EFCA, however, private opinions will no longer be private. A worker’s colleagues and union organizers will readily know if that worker is in favor of unionization. Such a worker will no doubt be pressured and perhaps coerced into signing a card check authorizing union representation.

As two former Justice Department lawyers, David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, who served under President Reagan and President George H. W. Bush,  wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial: "Three of the Constitution's Framers -- James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay -- wrote the Federalist Papers supporting its ratification under the anonymous pen name Publius." If they had announced their identities, British authorities would have arrested them for sedition.

The authors further wrote: "When courts have upheld restrictions on anonymous speech, they have required that such provisions be narrowly tailored to serve an overriding governmental interest." There is, obviously, no government interest in denying the protection of anonymity to workers.

Imagine what would happen to American democracy if we all had to state our votes in public, and our private speech was curtailed. We would all become victims of coercive politics. Strong arm tactics would be the order (or disorder) of the day.

This is another reason why the Employee Free Choice Act should not become the law of the land.