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. 

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.

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.

Those who have negotiated with unions know they will often resort to bargaining tactics that, if used by management, would cause the unions to cry foul. They would go to union-friendly reporters, playing the lachrymose role of outraged victims, and plead for fairness.

Now, however, The New York Times, has reported that California Unions for Reliable Energy(CURE) have attempted to influence the awarding of contracts by playing both sides of an environmental issue.

When a large California solar power company, Ausra, sought approval to build a new power plant, CURE (an ironic acronym if there ever was one) demanded that a study be conducted to determine the effects of the power plant on the lives of the short-nosed kangaroo rat and the ferruginous hawk.

One might have admired CURE’s concern for those poor creatures; however, when Bright Source Energy, one of Ausra’s competitors, also filed plans for a solar facility that would be larger than Ausra’s, the union did not voice any concerns for the endangered desert tortoise, an animal that lives where the new plant would be built.

One may guess the reasons for such contradictory manifestations of concern. Asura, the Times reported, had rejected demands that it employ union workers to build its solar facility.  Bright Source, by contrast, agreed to hire “labor-friendly contractors.”

The Times went on to report that “…some developers contend they are being pressured to sign agreements pledging to use union labor. If they refuse, they say, they can count on the union group to demand costly  environmental studies and develop and deliver hostile testimony at public hearings.

            “If they commit at the outset to use union labor, they say, the environmental objections never materialize.”

With a pro-union congress and administration in Washington, one can expect more such condoned behavior.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

WARREN BUFFETT IS AGAINST CARD CHECKS

In a recent interview on CNBC, Warren Buffet categorically came out against card checks. He said that he is in favor of secret ballot elections, for it has been a traditional aspect of our American democracy.

Now, Berkshire Hathaway, Mr. Buffet’s multifaceted enterprise, owns many companies that are unionized. Though he claims that unions play an important role in Corporate America, a position with which I have serious disagreements, Mr. Buffet nevertheless understands the damage that would occur if the Employee Free Choice Act  (EFCA) becomes law.

Indeed, the EFCA would result in significantly increased labor costs, thus reducing corporate profitability, which would be reflected in the diminished value of the stocks of companies unionized under the undemocratic rules imposed by the EFCA.