We knew this day was coming. It’s almost finally here. Obama announced his intention to fill two of the three (out of 5) open seats on the National Labor Relations Board (the Supreme Court of judges for labor law issues). And without much surprise, he announced two lawyers who happen to represent labor unions – to go along with Wilma Liebman who he appointed Head of the Boardand who used to represent labor unions. One of the appointees, Craig Becker is the Associated General Counsel for both the SEIU and the AFL-CIO. The other is Mark Pearce, who is in private practice in New York and represents trade unions in labor and employment law issues.
Click here for a fullbio on these two appointees courtesy of Ross Runkle’s LawMemo Blog.
Now just 1 seat is left to fill, and by law that has to go a Republican. But by when must it be filled is a better question than who will get it. The Board has been operating as a 2 person Board for over a year – 1 Republican and 1 Democrat. Obama just announced he will fill it with 2 more people – both Democrats. Obviously the Board is the most left it can be at this moment. So there really isn’t any incentive for Obama to pick that last Republican. I expect to see many 3-1 decisions in favor of Unions for quite some time.
Vivek Kundra, Obama’s chief information officer – the person who coordinates federal computer systems across the entire administration – is under investigation by the FBI. Kundra was on leave during the investigation, but has since resumed to his White House position. Three people from Kundra’s office have been arrested.
One of the arrested, Yusuf Acar – who was promoted 3 times in the last year by Kundra– was charged with bilking taxpayers out of millions of dollars through a scam involving phony work orders and bogus employees. Acar and former co-worker Sushil Bansal are charged with doctoring work orders and filing time sheets for “ghost employees” in an elaborate conspiracy. Acar and his employees concealed their roles in outside companies in order to steer no-bid contracts to themselves and their friends, authorities said. Bansal owned one such company. At one point, Acar claimed he had netted $6 million from the scheme, court papers state. Acar is now in jail, without bond, until his trial.
Traditionally, the definition of an earmark (aka pork spending) has been any item included in a bill that is specifically designed to benefit a constituency or supporter of one of the bill’s authors or sponsors. President Obama promised that there would be no earmarks in the stimulus bill. But, it emerged from the Senate 500 pages longer and full of funding for pet projects to most satisfy every Democrat interest group and most every powerful Senator’s home district or big contributor.
When questioned, Obama responded by redefining the term earmark. He said “I describe earmarks as the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review.” So, if there was a pet project in the bill already as it was read and voted on by the Senate, then it is not an earmark because it was reviewed. It’s still identical to any other port project even though it’s been reviewed.
So far the stimulus bills has not yet stimulated the economy.
Remember when we learned of Obama’s promise to not have lobbyists in his administration? And remember when Obama started breaking his rule? Well, he’s still breaking it. Obama’s first executive order forbade appointees who have served as registered lobbyists to “participate in any particular matter on which [they] lobbied within the two years before the date of my appointment” or “participate in the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls.” His latest lobbyist appointments, Derek Douglas and Christine Varney are excluded from this executive order because their lobbying efforts were in 2006 – a few days before Obama’s 2-year self imposed cut off date.
An editorial from Missouri commented that with hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost in January alone, there is no such thing a job security, and since many of those jobs were union jobs, a union does not create job security and therefore EFCA does not create job security. Good logic. Likewise, the Missouri Legislature just introduced House Joint Resolution 31 that call for protecting the secret ballot in Missouri’s Constitution. The article opines, “If the unions really want to protect employees’ right to choose secret-ballot elections, then why spend millions of dollars on political contributions and slick TV commercials to get Congress to change the rules and allow card check?
In another post I comment about Biden and Obama’s messages to the AFL-CIOat that union’s annual meeting. But here, according to the DC Examiner, Obama’s video message reassuring the union that “we will pass the Employee Free Choice Act” was videotaped nearly two weeks ago and a lot has happened since then. Specifically, a growing number of Democrats in Congress are having second thoughts about card check – I cover this, too, in another post.
In polling conducted for the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace in January by McLaughlin & Associates, nearly three-quarters (74%) of union households were opposed to the card check provisions in the Employee Free Choice Act. An overwhelming 88% of union households believed that a worker’s vote should be kept private during a union organizing election, and 85% of union households believed that a secret ballot election is the best way to protect the individual rights of workers when they are deciding whether to join a union.
What do I see from all of this? More labor friendly legislation. Obama loves the pay to play game. He swindled American voters into thinking he was going to reform Washington. He promised ethics like we’ve never seen before. But now that he’s in power, he’s thrown all of that out the door and has appointed nearly 2 dozen lobbyists who have all championed his causes. With it being public knowledge that labor unions put him in the White House, soon it will be public knowledge that labor unions (like lobbyists, not ethics) will proliferate under labor-friendly bills like we’ve never seen before.
The Patriot Employer Act, which is an overt Act of protectionism and a big blow to outsourcing. According to an insightful article from India that only looked at the first requirement of the Act, “in a world as highly competitive as it currently is, any concerted effort to reverse the trend of outsourcing will not only impact the US corporations (for many of whom outsourcing is a way of being competitive in the global market) themselves but also impact a whole host of companies outside the boundaries on the US.” Likewise, an article from an European think tank chastises Obama’s support of the Patriot Employer Act in todays economy because today we need countries to trade with each other, not close their borders and become less productive.
For many years, I have seen first hand how union-filed prevailing wage complaints against non-union contractors cost them locally and state funded work, even if the charge doesn’t have merit or is settled for pennies on the dollar. Unfortunately, the filling of such charges is a one-way street. Non-union contractors, for some reason, don’t file charges against union contractors. Assuming non-union contractors continue to not file charges – whether for prevailing wage violations or unfair labor practice charges for harassment on job sites – only non-union companies will be blacklisted from performing some of the $188 billion worth of federal work currently earmarked in the stimulus package.
We’ll start off today’s EFCAUpdate with a video where Stern, President of the SEIU, says that his union has saved millions of dollars to unelectDemocrats who did not live up with their promise to vote in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act.
When will EFCA be introduced is anyone’s guess, although most agree it will be sometime in 2009. Obama and Biden think it will be on hold until the fall, and it looks like Obama’s pro-labor executive orderswere an overt act to pacify the unions for several months. In fact, Biden believes it will be done “This year. This year we hope. Our expectation is this year, this calendar year.” Thank you for your clarity, VP Biden. House Majority Leader Hoyer (D-MD) says House action won’t start until Spring or Summer. Senate Majority Reid (D-NV) said that that Senate won’t see it until the Summer. Here’s a video of Biden discussing EFCA.
Obamatapped New Hampshire Republican Senator Gregg to head the Department of Commerce, which meant his Senate seat needed filled. We’ve all learned about filling a Senate seat: Blago, anyone? So, it became a foregone conclusion that Gregg’s seat would be filled by a Democrat, since New Hampshire’s Governor is a Democrat. Filling Gregg’s seat with a Democrat would put the Dems at the supermajority number of 60 Senators where filibustering legislation (the Republican Senators’ defense to EFCA last time) would be impossible. Not so fast! Gregg made sure that his seat would be filled with a Republican before accepting the position with the Dept. of Commerce. So now, Bonnie Newman – someone who has never held elected office and does not have any official positions on any major issues, i.e. Employee Free Choice Act – will fill Gregg’s seat and presumably vote against EFCA. Remember, though, even with 59 Republican Senators, EFCA will likely pass since Arlen Spector (R-PA) voted in favor of it last time.
I laughed when I read that the AFL-CIO’s new video (narrated by the executive VP of the union) was intended to “cut through the deceptive campaign and give the facts about the Employee Free Choice Act.” The video has a cameo spot, too, from the executive director of the union-fronted organization American Rights at Work to “cut through the spin” of corporate America. This video is supposedly being featured at union meetings and around the country – why are they showing union members how “the system for forming unions is broken.” Seems like members of unions, who already went through the system be become unionized, wouldn’t necessarily think that the system was broken. Here’s the video:
On the anniversary of the last EFCAattempt, unions symbolically held a rally in Washington D.C. and supposedly brought with them 1.5 million signatures of people who supported the Employee Free Choice Act. Also present was Rep. George Miller (D-CA) who co-sponsored the last bill and said: “decisions aboutthe workplace belong to the worker.” Excuse me? What aboutthe owner? What aboutthe person who lives, breathes, and sleeps the business; the person who mortgaged his house to start the company; the person who risks to lose everything when the market dried up, a catastrophic injury occurs, malicious Internet press abouthis company surfaces? Since when should the workers be the ones to make the decisions about someone else’s company, Representative Miller?
Interestingly, 1 million signatures would represent 1/16 of the current total unionized workforce in America. Conversely, EFCA threatens the right to a secret ballot for 105 million Americans – well beyond the 69 million who voted in the last presidential election. If the unions could only drum up enough interest from 1 out of every 16 of their own members to sign a petition, I hardly think that EFCA is something that the public at large is interested in seeing passed in Congress. And I wonder how many of those signatures are from people who do not belong to unions. No one has (or likely will ever) challenge the purported number of signatures to make sure they are legitimate. In all, this is just a bunch of propaganda, an advertisement that will not be scrutinized, by 6% of the unionized workforce wanting us to believe that they represent the 105 million people currently working in America.
The AFL-CIO uses some “real life examples” of why employees need unions. One of them is Theresa Gares who says, “Once [her company] found out we were trying to organize a union, they started having meetings. They’re trying to talk people out of it, discourage them. This is what we’re fighting for: We’re fighting for fairness in the workplace, a voice in the workplace, things that we deserve.” Are you kidding me? Ms. Gares is the union’s marquee spokesperson and all she has to say is the company “started having meetings.” And this is the intimidation that unions claim is happening and why employees need EFCA?
LaborPains.org is always good for an entry here each week, and this week doesn’t let us down, either when highlighting who is against EFCA. Some of the more notable names include:
George McGovern, former senator from South Dakota and the 1972 Democratic presidential candidate
Rev. Al Sharton, American Baptist minister, political and civil rights/social justice activist, and radio talk show host
Richard Epstein, professor of Law at the University of Chicago who says, “There is simply no legitimate government interest in promoting unionization that justifies a clandestine organizing campaign which denies all speech rights to the union’ adversaries.”
Ariella Bernstein, former deputy director of public affairs at FMCS and a field examiner and supervisor at the NLRB who says, “I am a Democrat who has worked at both the National Labor Relations Board and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, two agencies that figure prominently in this legislation [Employee Free Choice Act].”
Fox Rothschild’s Employment blog out of Philadelphia set the record straight about the elimination of secret ballots when it said: “The reality is that once Unions are given the option of having the NLRB certify a union immediately upon presentation of at least a majority of union authorization cards signed by a specific unit of employees versus waiting some 40 days, whereby employees become educated during this period, and then having a secret ballot election, Unions ar going to avoid, at all cost, the election route. I mean, why do you think the Unions’ have placed so much money, time, and effort in seeing that the EFCA passes? is it because the EFCAcalls for mandatory injunctions? I think not. How about the mandatory contract arbitration? Yeah, could be, but without a certification, there can be no representative or contract for that matter. So, there is no “misinformation” being spread – just realty, which is that once a “card-check” certification is in place, the secret ballot election may die.”
This former “rank and file” employee enlightens people as to what it’s like to work a union job when he says: “As a young man I was forced to join a union when I was working in a job I dearly loved. Even with the secret ballot in place, the intimidation by the union and the sycophantsworking with them was tremendous. Almost immediately upon the union being voted in, the productivity of our work dropped precipitously. People I had known for years cut the pace of their work activities by 25 to 33%. I was told in no uncertain terms that I needed to slow down – that I worked too hard and too fast. After a year of this, I resigned my position without a job. I was ashamed of what was happening to a company I loved. The owners of this very large business in my home town gave up as well just a few years later and sold the business.” He went on to discuss the difference of productivity in right to work states, “I once met a gentleman here in Jacksonville that owned a unionized plan in the north and a non-unionized plant in the south and in his words the difference in productivity was start. He eventually moved all the work to the south and closed the other plant.”
Earlier this week, I mentioned that Obama signed Executive Orders that were aimed at undoing some of President Bush’s Orders regarding the the federal contractor and construction industries. Prior to signing the orders, Obama declared, “We cannot have a strong middle class without strong labor unions. We need to level the playing field for workers an dunions that represent their interests.” His signatures on the following Executive Orders are his initial steps at single handedly creating nationalized unionism throughout our country.
Bush’s Executive Order 13201 helped ensure that employees of federal contractors were informed of their right to resign or decertify a union under the U.S. Supreme Court case Communication Workers v.Beck holding that private sector employees may be compelled to pay certain union dues, but may not be compelled to pay any dues or fees earmarked for union politics, lobbying, an dother non-bargaining activities. I warned of Obama’s repeal of Beck rights in December, and unfortunately, it came true.
According to National Right to Work, “Obama included the revocation of Beck rights noticesin an executive order advertising, and essentially endorsing, the formation of unions under a theory (long discredited by academic research) that forcing employees into union collectives will somehow prevent ‘substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce.'” NRTW continues: “The executive order also purports to give the Sectretary of Labor[pro-union Hilda Solis] the authority to detemrine what will be required by the notice, the authority to investigate violations, to hold hearings, and the power to punish violators of all federal labor laws mentioned in the notice. In effect, the Secretary of Labor[who dodged answering questions about her stance on EFCA and other controversial issues when questioned by Congress] would become an additional judge, jury, and executioner of federal labor laws with respect to federal contractors. Most importantly, the Secretary [who is not a done deal yet because of her radical positions] would determine whether a contractor would be fired by the federal government (apparently where the contractor has not even been found to have violated any laws by the law enforcement body of jurisdiction.)” All of this would be a tremendous extension of the Secretary’s power, if not illegal, so it will be interesting to see what the final regulations look like.
Obama also had an Order denying federal contractors reimbursement for funds spent to “support or deter their employees’ exerciese of their right to form unions and engage in collective bargaining,” although it is unclear how much money contractors are now spending on anti-union measures or whether they are being reimbursed for it.
Looking forward, seven Republican members of the Louisiana congressional delegation asked Obama to reconsider his campaign pledge to repeal President Bush’s executive order barring federal contractors from signing project labor agreements. I image this request will fall on deaf ears, and I’ll let you know what happens about it in the future.
ALF-CIO alleges that bailout recipients AIG and Bank of America were involved in a conference call for lobbyists and corporations to discuss raising funds to defeat EFCA. From that, the union is alleging that bailout money was used to plot against Employee Free Choice.
American Rights at Work launched the below television commercial called “The Secret Big Business Doesn’t Want You to Know.”
The SEIU’s plan to shorten recover from this down economy is a shortened workweek and less productivity from employees. Accordingly, an employer who currently offers no paid vacation can offer 3 weeks of paid vacation, approximately a 6% reduction in work time. Employers can cut the standard work week from40 hours to 36 hours, a 10% reduction in work hours. These policies would “bring the US in line with the rest of the world.” Newsflash to the SEIU – we’re America, not the rest of the world. The rest of the world looks to us for leadership, protection, and guidance. Diluting our productivity and companies is not the right solution for a viable, stable economy.
Human Rights Watch, the union-described watchdogs of human rights and the freedom of association, claims that the US is deficient in protecting the freedom to form unions. Oddly, the HRW’s findings is comprised of the typical union slang: “unfair election procedures that are badly slanted toward employers; the lack of serious penalties for corporate misconduct, including firing workers; and the ability of companies to ignore workers’ choice to bargain collectively.”
In March 2008 MIT Sloan School of Management released the results of a comprehensive study about unionization. The study’s results concluded that few bargaining units make it from initial petition to a first contract; unfair labor practice charges reduce the chances of getting a contract; unfair labor practice charges reduce the changes of getting to an election; and even after a majority votes for a union, many units fail to get a contract. What text of the results is slanted with the typical pro-union rhetoric about “the need for EFCA to level the playing field.” What is not reported, though, is that under the current state of the law, only after an initial petition are companies allowed to openly campaign against unions. For example, a union will promise an employee a 3% wage increase if the employee signs an authorization card. With enough cards signed, a petition is filed. After the petition is filed, the employee hears that although the union promised him a 3% wage increase, the union does not have the power to do increase wages, and wages for all employees are subject to bargaining and could go up, stay the same, or go down. In other words, many of the promises given to employees to sign cards are later exposed as not true and employees then decide not to vote for the union. So, I am not surprised with the small number of bargaining units that make it from the initial petition to a first contract, and the removal of educating the employees about the lack of truth behind all of the union’s promises will be prohibited if EFCA passes.
Watch (well, really listen while watching SEIU photographs) Obama discuss his support for easing the ability to unionize and how business that oppose this notion “won’t get to far” with him.
I want to clear up a misunderstanding that was published in a mostly unbiased article in the Boston Globe about the Employee Free Choice Act. The article says that the National Labor Relations Act lacks any real penalties to punish violators for wrongly terminating union supporters during organizing campaigns beyond making companies rehire those employees and pay them back wages. This is not true. With egregious enough violations of labor laws, the National Labor Relations Board has the ability to not hold an election and to order both sides to immediately begin negotiating a contract. Unfortunately, the Globe’s article recited union propaganda about the weaknesses of the NLRA.
I couldn’t say it any better than this editorial from the Las Vegas Review Journal: “But in this economic climate, with each week producing a new empty parking lot with plywood on the windows, do the geniuses in Washington really mean to create a situation where business owners already struggling to stay afloat can without warning be handed their “last straw” — a stack of cards adorned with the message, “You’re now a union shop; here are our demands”?
The State of Michigan should support EFCA. With the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, Michigan would be just as attractive of state as a southern, right to work state would be to house a company. In 2007, 19.5% of Michigan workers belonged to unions. Conversely, the following are statistics in unionization for southern states: Alabama = 9.5%; Mississippi = 6.7%; Florida = 5.9%; Texas = 4.7%; Georgia = 4.4%; South Carolina = 4.1%.
Another editorial that took the words right out of my mouth: “If businesses are hurt, so are their workers; When businesses fail, workers lose their jobs. And when workers aren’t treated well, businesses do not thrive. The interests of workers and business owners are not in conflict – they coincide. But it is in the interest of union bosses to foment conflict – it leads to more unions being formed and greater revenue for their coffers; When workers are forced to declare their allegiance to a union in the open, they are far more subject to intimidation and coercion than when they make this decision in private. It is no coincidence that, when private-ballot elections are used, fewer workers vote in favor of union than when they are asked to publicly sign a card; Many heavily unionized industries in the Midwest have been declining for decades. Businesses in Florida and other Southern states, where unions have not been as strong, have been thriving during this time.”
Three out of four voters (74%) oppose the “The Employee Free Choice Act.” Union households also strongly oppose the Employee Free Choice Act, 74% oppose to only 20% support.
When given a more detailed description of the Employee Free Choice Act, nearly 9 out of 10 voters, 86%, feel the process should remain private and only 8% feel it should be public information. Again, even union workers feel strongly that the process should be kept private, as 88% said private and only 8% said public.
Four out of five voters, or 82%, favor having a federally supervised election as a means to “protect the individual rights of workers.” The voters clearly see this as a basic right, especially given that only 11% of voters feel the card check would be the best way to protect the individual rights of workers. Support increases to 85% among union households.
The majority (52% to 26%) of American voters believe that the Employee Free Choice Act is not good for job creation. Even among union households, the plurality (48%) believes that the Employee Free Choice Act will cost America jobs.
In the current economic climate, 52% of voters are particularly opposed to any measure that would risk jobs or job growth.
Further exemplifying the electorates’ distaste for the Employee Free Choice Act, 71% agreed that this legislation would be “unwise” and “risky.” In today’s economic climate, the electorate has little confidence in the federal government’s ability to make such major business decisions.
The National Right to Work Act was introduced last week in an effort to remove compulsory unionism. In other words, every state in America would be like the south – right to work states where employees have the choice to join a union or not. Here is a video of Senator DeMint (R-SC):
When speaking about a potential Card Check Compromise, Sen. DeMint said, Democrats could, “go out with a secret ballot and be magnanimous and withdraw it. Then some Republicans may breathe a sigh of relief and vote for arbitration,” which “could actually be worse in the way it slows decision making” because arbitration rulings (in Michigan) take on average 15 months to be rendered.
In another South Carolina entry today, an entrepreneur/legislator, State Rep. Eric M. Bedingfield wrote, “I recently introduced a constitutional amendment that guarantees the right of workers to a secret ballot in union-organizing election (H3305).
Lew Ebert, the President and CEO of North Carolina Chamber reminds us that “Congress replaced the card check system with secret-ballot elections in 1947 after workers were coerced, intimidated, and in many instances beaten up and forced to join labor organization against their will. Yet, 60 years later, we find Congress poised to deliver back to unions the same substandard system that exploited workers and proved grossly ineffective.” Thank you to the Carolinas for helping us fight the battle against forced unionization!
Another entreprenuer speaks about the damaging effects of EFCA. “Small businesses already are near the breaking point as they try to cope with the crippling credit crunch, skyrocketing healthcare costs, and paralyzing recession. Meanwhile, organized labor is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in political campaigns.”
Here’s another entrepreneur’s viewpoint of how EFCA will kill small businesses: “In fiscal year 2005, more than 20 percent of elections conducted by the NLRB involved bargaining units of 10 employees or fewer, while a full 70 percent involved bargaining units of 50 employees or fewer.” He recently asked a business owner with 24 employees what he would do if overnight he was told he became unionized, and the response was “shut down shortly thereafter.” This is a typical response. Unfortunately, the NLRB has the right and power to force a company to re-open, rehire all employees, pay them back wages, and continue operating as a unionized company for as long as the NLRB feels is appropriate. Companies cannot simply shut down and start another company as a non-union company.
Thanks to LaborPains.org for this information: American Rights at Work opined that “from 2000 to 2007, income for the median working-age household actually dropped $2,000 after inflation.” According to LaborPains.org, “This is nothing new. There are these events called recessions – ever heard of them. Besides this period, there was also medial income stagnation from 53-54, 57-58, 70-71, 73-77, 79-85, and 89-93. Notice that many of these years are the “good old days” of unions. . . The study finishes off with the usual: everyone wants to join a union but can’t because of intimidation according to (union-funded) research. Nothing new to read here.” Thanks for the detail, and for the sarcasm LaborPain.org!
The AFL-CIO headlines: “Union Membership Grows in 2008. When People Can Join Unions, They Do.” In fact, membership grew for the second straight year in a row. So, I ask, why do unions need EFCA? If unions win 60% of their elections, and their membership has grown the last two years, why is Obama, Democrat Congressmen, and Labor Unions all crying that our country needs to ease the ability for employees to unionize?
I’ll end today’s EFCA Update on a sour note. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the increase in unionized workers in 2007 and 2008 “demonstrates that workers see unions, and higher job standards, benefits, and protections they provide, as a key solution in this struggling economy.” I don’t see that. The economy (other than home sales) wasn’t necessarily struggling in 2007 and there weren’t the mass layoffs in 2007 or 2008 that there are now. The Bureau continues, “The uptick further points to the strengths of unionized workplaces – where labor and management work together as a team, they are able to tackle challenges and better withstand an economic downturn.” Really? Ever heard of the Big Three? What about Boeing’s strike that resulted in 10,000 employees being laid off? Or the 22,000 UAW represented employees that Caterpillar is laying off? The list continues, but my point has been made. My last bones to pick with the Bureau is its claim that “25 percent [of employers] even fire pro-union workers organizing campaigns.” Where does that stat come from? Oh wait, it’s not the BLS reporting that, it’s fancy writing from the labor-fronted American Rights at Work to sound like it’s the government reporting that!
Last week Obama created the Middle Class Task Force, which will be headed by Joe Biden, to raise the “living standards of middle class, working families in America.” Here is a video of VP Biden discussing his new baby and opening with “It’s good to see so many of my friends from organized labor. Welcome back to the White House.” He later said he’s confident that there would be no middle class if it weren’t for organized labor. He then references that the middle class are the men and women that teach our children (teachers), protect our neighborhoods (police/fire), build our homes (carpenters, plumbers, insulators, electrical workers), staff our hospitals (nurses), work on the line (manufacturing) – all the most heavily unionized industries. By naming just the heavily unionized industries, he leaves out the majority of the middle class. Biden says that the Task Force will look to “restore the balance of labor in the workplace through the Department of Labor, and restoring labor’s place with the Department of Labor.” On an aside, while Biden is speaking, the Dow went from down 79.97 to down 106.57 and the S&P 500 and NASDAQ both drop.
Change to Win, the 7 union organization (which includes the SEIU) praised the Task Force and said, “when workers vote for pro-worker candidates, workers win.” Likewise, Teamster leader James “don’t call me Jimmy” Hoffa said “it’s a new day for workers. We finally have a White House that is dedicated to working with us.” Later this week I will post about Obama’s Executive Orders that came about as a result of the Middle Class Task Force and hit the federal contract and construction industries hardest.
President Obama promised during his campaign that lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House.” But, according to Politico, “at least a dozen former lobbyists have found top jobs in Obama’s administration.” Most troubling for us is the White House political affairs director, Patrick Gaspard, who was a lobbyist for the SEIU.
Economist Paul Krugman wrote an open letter to President Obama explaining how the country needs the Employee Free Choice Act and unionization throughout America in order to get out of the recession we are currently in. Although Mr. Krugman is a Nobel-prize laureate in Economics and a professor at Princeton University, he is wrong on this one. First, Mr. Krugman is a columnist for the New York Times, and as I’ve said before, the New York Times supports EFCA. So, no biggie that Mr. Krugman does too. But, his errors go deeper than that.
The basis of Krugman’s argument is that the “U.S. economy needs to add more than a million jobs a year just to keep up with a growing population, and as of today, we’re continuing to lose jobs at a rate of half a million a month.” There’s no arguing with the number of jobs we’re losing, but I can’t find any support for the fact that we need to add a million jobs a year. Even if this is true, the rest of his theory is where he loses his argument.
Krugman looks at lessons from the FDR administration (like so many others are these days) during its successful attempt at navigating the U.S. through the Great Depression in the 1930’s, and noted that FDR was very bold on his job creation plans. Otherwise, according to Krugman, the economy turns to a vicious cycle: cutbacks on spending lead to a “shortfall in demand,” which leads to a fall in employment, and the spiral continues. What isn’t included in Krugman’s analysis is that the United States of America was in a depression or stagnant growth economy until World War II when factories were buildingmilitary equipment at record paces – a period in time called the Great Compression. Certainly Mr. Krugman isn’t opining that Obama continues to find wars to wage until we’re out of this recession.
Krugman then opines that the Great Compression was reversed starting in the 1970’s, “as American workers once again lost much of their bargaining power,” and “we can create another Great Compression by enhancing worker’s rights.”
In all, Krugman sees a direct correlation to labor unions rise in the 1930’s and decline beginning in the 1970’s and or economy. Sort of like, “as unionization goes, the economy goes.” Wrong.
The 1930’s is when the National Labor Relations Act was developed and at that time it provided much needed protections for workers. But since then, our country has civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination and harassment, we have OSHA laws that make workplaces safe, we have workers compensation laws for when employees get injured on the job, we have mandatory wage laws requiring a minimum wage and overtime after 40 hours for most employees, we have the availability of 401Ks which have solved the problem with drastically underfunded union pension plans, and the list goes on.
And I also disagree with Krugman’s implicit message that prior to 1970s the individual worker had a higher standard of living. Differences I come up with off the top of my head which lead me to conclude that today’s workers, and their families, have a better standard of living than they did between 1930s and 1970s is: almost every family has two cars; homes are bigger; amenities inside the homes regularly include computers, microwaves, gaming consoles (Nintendo, X-box, PlayStation), finished basements, a washing machine and dryer, cable TV, and homes built after 1970s include bathrooms inside the master bedroom. We have more restaurants to go to, more and healthier food options at the grocery store, better hospitals, prescription drugs, and medical technology, and a health club at every corner. Our life expectancy has also increased. All of these lifestyle improvements came about after the 1970s when unionization began to decline.
On the flip side, statistically, companies that go union do not have job growth at levels compared to their non-union competitors. The only reason the Big Three became the Big Three was because it was too costly/difficult to ship cars from oversees until the 1990s, and it wasn’t until then that foreign manufacturers started building plants in America. Until recently, having a “foreign car” meant a luxury. Now it means affordable quality. In essence, the Big Three were the only game in town and amounted for much of the job creation until the 1980s. But now where are they? Now that foreign, non-union car manufacturers build cars in the U.S. and it is cheap and easy to ship cars here from other countries, the Big Three are still flirting with bankruptcy despite record levels of bailout money from the federal government.
In closing, Mr. Krugman’s credentials are impeccable, but when it comes to linking this country’s prosperity on the backs of labor unions, his analysis defies belief.
A lot of the discussion throughout the country last week was whether the Employee Free Choice Act would be passed in Obama’s first 100 days and in what form will it pass.
Business leaders took great comfort when Obama told The Washington Post last week that he was wary of pressing for the union measure ahead of broader economic needs.
Despite Obama’s comment about putting EFCA on the backburner, a variety of administration and labor sources all indicated that there is no reason to believe that the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress aren’t proceeding along the expected track.
Rep. George Miller, chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives labor committee told Reuters in an interview as the 111th Congress got underway that “there are things that may be more urgent because of circumstances beyond our control. That doesn’t diminish the urgency I feel or the supporters of the Employee Free Choice Act feel…I am quite comfortable that EFCA is going to receive timely treatment.
Will EFCA be Modified to Ensure it Passes?
CNN Money reminds us that EFCA is about power, but a former AFL-CIO organizing director and former president and vice chairman of Bethlehem Steel and general counsel for the Labor Department during the Nixon and Ford administrations may have reached a compromise on what the legislation should look like.
Because many believe that EFCA would easily pass the House but falls a vote or two shy of certain passage in the Senate, a compromise, like retaining secret ballots but speeding up various time limits or altering other provisions in ways that would still aid unionization drives, is likely.
Other Articles Regarding EFCA
Is card check certification Obama’s Hiliary Care? In other words, President Clinton was seen to overreach in his first two years by pursuing initiatives such as Hilary Care, nationalized health care, and the voters severely punished the Democrats in the 1994 midterm elections by handing control of the Senate and House of Representatives to the Republicans for the first time since 1954.
Despite currently supporting EFCA, in 2007, the Obama nominee for Labor Secretary, Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA), protested that a secret ballot should be used by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to pick its new chairman. Likewise, in 1998, the AFL-CIO, UAW, and others told the NLRB that secret ballots were essential when workers decide whether to decertify a union saying, “Other mean of decision-making are not comparable to the privacy and indepedence of the voting booth,” and that secret ballots provide the best way to avoid “the result of group pressures and not individual decision.”
Mike Eastman, executive director of labor policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington says that EFCA has a better chance of being defeated rather than passed, since so many businesses are lobbying against it. Although refreshing to hear, Mr. Eastman is in the extreme minority of people with this belief.
The Montana Chamber of Commerce reminds us that the bill is ironically called the Employee Free Choice Act but is far from being pro-worker.
Remember the group Save Our Secret Ballot – the group of states that are trying to change their constitutions as a way around EFCA? That group is “fairly confident” that state constitutional amendments “would hold up” under federal court challenges says former South Dakota Attorney General Mark Meierhenry.
National Right to Work Foundation launced an online petition to Obama advising him that his election did not give him a mandate to impose draconian policies that will dramatically increase the power and money of the Big Labor Bosses and would like everyone who is against EFCA to sign a petition. The petition can be found here.
Small business owners typically think they won’t have to contend with union organizers in the workplace because it’s not worth the union’s time to mount a month-or year-long campaign to represent a handful of office workers. Wrong!
This is one of those articles that anger me. The Employee Free Choice Act would not have saved Circuit City. Circuit City did not put profits over people – it went bankrupt because it didn’t have any profits. And the spirit of the collective bargaining process does not bind workers and management together as partners. It pits them against each other and creates an “us v. them” mentality.
Jerry Warlow couldn’t have said it any better. “The union’s push for this bill is not driven by unfairness of a traditional secret ballot or widespread injustices. It is because union ranks are shrinking dramatically. The United Auto Workers at its peak had 1.5 million members. Today it has just more than 450,000. What is really important to today’s unions? Union dues.” After being around unions for years and negotiating many contracts against many different unions, Mr. Warlow hit the nail on the head.
Appropriate for Super Bowl week: Isn’t EFCA just a “hail mary” for unions to get back into the game?
Beginning today, Mondays are dedicated to miscellaneous topics/updates that do not necessarily warrant a full day to themselves, but nonetheless are newsworthy.
Obama named Wilma Liebman chair of the National Labor Relations Board, the head of the judicial body that governs over the National Labor Relations Act. Liebman began her career in 1974 as an NLRB staff attorney, then served on the legal staff of two labor unions (International Brotherhood of Teamsters and International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen). She has been a member of “the Board” since being appointed to it by Bill Clinton in 1997 and has consistently “used her seat to do Big Labor’s bidding and trample upon employee freedom.” She is hardly an impartial judge and likely the prototypical Obama appointment to the Board; unfortunately, Obama gets 3 more appointments.
Beginning today, Mondays are dedicated to miscellaneous topics/updates that do not necessarily warrant a full day to themselves, but nonetheless are newsworthy.
The Health Families Act requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide seven days of paid sick leave each year to employees working more than 30 hours per week.Employees working less than 30 hours would receive a pro-rated amount of paid sick leave.This leave could be used to care for either the employee or a relative of the employee. A doctor’s certificate is not required unless the employee is out for three or more consecutive days, and employers who violate this law may be sued in either federal or state court for lost wages and benefits, liquidated damages, costs, and attorneys fees.
Ohio had a similar proposal on its ballot until the eleventh hour when Governor Strickland – to the dismay of local labor unions – removed it through what appeared to be a public relations maneuver citing that it would make Ohio uncompetitive in attracting and retaining companies.For those of us who follow labor law, the removal was calculated because a federal version of this bill was already being developed.If enacted on a federal level, all states would be equally uncompetitive – or I guess competitive depending on which side of the issue you sit.
According to Peter Kirsanow, “Back when the Family and Medical Leave Act was being debated in Congress, more than 15 years ago, some claimed that FMLA was merely the first step toward government-mandated paid leaves. Liberals scoffed at the prediction.” They aren’t scoffing anymore.
Beginning today, Mondays are dedicated to miscellaneous topics/updates that do not necessarily warrant a full day to themselves, but nonetheless are newsworthy.
Representative Hilda Solis (D-CA) has not yet been approved by the Senate, and the Senate could not identify exactly when they will vote on whether to approve her as the next Secretary of the Department of Labor. Even if the committee approves Solis, her nomination could be blocked by a Republican filibuster because the Republicans are rightfully angry that she refuses to discuss her position on many of the controversial legislation that will likely be voted on in the near future, including the Employee Free Choice Act. At her confirmation hearing before the House of Representatives, she said she was not qualified to answer questions about those issues. According to Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming, it’s time she becomes qualified and gives answers to those questions.
Beginning today, Mondays are dedicated to miscellaneous topics/updates that do not necessarily warrant a full day to themselves, but nonetheless are newsworthy.
I read a lot of articles each week about labor, and although this one isn’t completely pertinent to this blog, it was amusing enough for me to want to share it with all of you. The Australian Online Newspaper of the Year ran an article about how people don’t know who Obama really is or where his ideological center (they said centre) of gravity rests, to the extent it rests anywhere, and went on to describe four fears they had of Obama. Here are two of them:
1. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. This is a legitimate fear. Obama throw around numbers like confetti. In the campaign, he said he would create one million jobs. After the election, he put out a plan he said would produce up to three million jobs. Then in a radio address on January 10, he said the number could reach 4.1 million and said 500,000 would be jobs in the alternative energy field, 200,000 in health care. Does he really believe he can achieve this? The fear is that he might believe it.
2. He’s another Jimmy Carter on foreign and national security policy. Carter had misplaced confidence in his ability to bend anyone, including dictators, to his view through persuasion. He was a talker, not a doer. A year after he met Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, Carter was shocked when Breshnev ordered an invasion of Afghanistan. His talks with North Korea led to a treaty on nuclear weapons that the North Koreans soon violated. Carter was surprised again. Obama’s willingness to meet dictators or other anti-American leaders has raised the Carter fear.
For what it’s worth, I thought you all might enjoy reading that. For the rest of the article, click here.
Beginning today, Mondays are dedicated to miscellaneous topics/updates that do not necessarily warrant a full day to themselves, but nonetheless are newsworthy.
The AFL-CIO sent a 16-page “to do list” to the new Obama Administration. Here are the highlights of the list:
1. Appoint a U.S. Trade Representative with “demonstrated commitment to addressing the destabilizing influences in trade policy and who is committed to ensuring trade policies provide broadly shared benefits for working people.”
2. Send the Federal Aviation Administration back to the bargaining table to negotiate a new union contract with the National Air Traffic Controllers Association.
3. Pass an economic stimulus bill and send dollars to homeowners facing foreclosure and to aid states, auto workers, and manufacturers.
4. Obama should use the “bully pulpit” of the presidency to campaign for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act.
5. Restore project labor agreements for federally funded construction.
6. Provide bargaining rights for Justice Department workers.
7. Suspend bargaining on all new trade and investment pacts, and review all past pacts as Obama promised during the election campaign.
8. Have the U.S. take the federations’ extensively documented trade case against China – which has the largest trade surplus with the U.S. – to the World Trade Organization.
9. Identify and nominate federal judges “who have a demonstrated commitment to equal rights,” including understanding the courts’ role in protecting those rights, including workers’ rights.
10. Appoint pro-worker members and chair of the NLRB and restore the Labor Department, its Wage and Hour Administration, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Mine Safety and Health and Safety Administration to their “historic roles” as “advocating for and protecting the interests of workers.”
11. Formalize the Clinton-era ban on wage-and-hour investigators sharing information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials. It would also require ICE to get a high-level OK before raiding work sites during union organizing drives.
The Ohio Labor Lawyers 