Employee Free Choice Act Blog

Just Published: Employee Free Choice Act White Paper on How To Win 5-Day Elections

2009-07-21T09:42:00.000-05:00

We just published a new White Paper called: How to Win (and Prevent) a 5-Day Election: Strategies for Success in a Changed Labor Law Environment

You can read about it and download your own FREE copy of this 15-page report by clicking here.

Breaking News: EFCA Compromise Announced - 5 Day Elections and Organizer Access

2009-07-17T07:45:00.002-05:00

This morning's New York Times is reporting that key US Senators have reached a compromise with labor unions that will have the 60 votes needed to pass. Read the details here. They anticipate a vote in September. Stay tuned - we will let you know as things develop.

Hayes Nominated - Emloyee Free Choice Act Next?

2009-07-12T09:04:00.004-05:00

This week President Obama announced that Brian Hayes is his Republican nominee to fill the last remaining open seat on the National Labor Relations Board. Historically the Board appointments get voted on as a "package deal" to make sure the balance is always 3 members in the President's party and 2 from the other party, so Mr. Hayes is the last remaining piece in the puzzle to get a full, five-member panel for the first time in a couple of years.

Look for the Senate to take quick action to confirm the three appointments. More important, look for the Board under Wilma Liebman's leadership to start taking some bold moves to undo what she sees as years of improper decisions and inaction by her agency.

Finally, take a look at my recent post on why unions don't need 60 votes in the Senate when they've got 3 votes on the NLRB who can essentially pass EFCA on their own.

Employee Free Choice Act - Interesting Exchange at LRIONLINE.COM

2009-06-10T17:18:00.004-05:00

Do employers really support the Employee Free Choice Act? That's a question I asked over at our other blog. One reader questioned my argument (using some analogy about men recommending birth control pills...) As opposed to trying to explain it all here, just take a look at the comments on my post about employers supporting the Employee Free Choice Act (look especially for my recent study that concludes there should be a gag order against Pittsburgh Penguins fans for their virulent anti-Red Wings campaigns).

AFL-CIO Trumpets New Study

2009-05-28T09:38:00.004-05:00

The AFL-CIO's Seth Micheals has breaking news in his blog today. It trumpets a new study which concludes that workers "won't face coercion if they sign up for a union."

Memo to Seth: Coercion of employees when they sign up for a union isn't the problem. That sorta happens when they don't.

The study then goes on to compare the process of organizing public sector (government) workers in four states that allow card-check vs. the private sector process currently on trial by organized labor. Such a study is blatantly and inherently flawed as such a comparison is like comparing checkers to chess. The reasons for these differences are many, however I'll just offer one big one.

In the private sector, the costs of your employees being represented by a union are significant and threatening. Contrary to what union organizers are selling, they have little or nothing to do with employee pay and benefits. These costs include extensive litigation costs, loss of flexibility and productivity, the reduced value of your business or stock price (studies put that cost at -21%), as well as the loss of some customers who may prefer to do business with a union-free establishment. These costs are all borne by the employer, and as such can often have a fatal effect on an employer, and of course as a result, the employees.

In the public sector, these costs still exist, but they are simply passed on to those who pay the bills. That would be you, me, and all of the other taxpayers. Speaking from someone who resides in one of the states mentioned in the study, I can well attest to the tax burden already placed on these residents

If the AFL-CIO or anybody else can come up with a compromise measure that allows for these costs to be passed off on the taxpayer in the private sector as they are in the public sector, you just may have found yourself a strong ally in the Chamber of Commerce and you'll have yourself your bail-out bill

And if you happen to be a New Jersey Legislator happening upon this blog, please note that such a proposal is offered in JEST and is not meant to be taken seriously!

Roar of Miscreants

2009-05-27T12:30:00.003-05:00

Just read a post by John Wojcik at People's Weekly World that highlights another of the key reasons that the current labor movement is repugnant to me. Most of the article is a standard diatribe from the Pro-Employee Free Choice Act crowd. However, John writes at the end of his post:

The labor movement, for the last three or more years, has marched, picketed, sat in, demonstrated, petitioned and engaged in major strikes from one end of the country to the other. It mobilized for the 2006 and 2008 elections on all levels, reshaped the face of Capitol Hill, changed the Congress, changed the Senate and was critical in the election of perhaps the most pro-labor administration in U.S. history.

Because of this militancy we are on the verge of seeing serious, major labor law reform in this country.

Consider the fact that "unionized" Americans account for about 12% of the population. Remember that many of those who work in unionized companies did NOT want to be in a union - but have no choice, especially in non-Right To Work states and government monopoly jobs. So, drill this down, and we could conservatively say that 1/3 of those employees did not want a union, and stand opposed to the political & policy aims of Big Labor. Then, account for the fact that a good percentage of those who are left are not activists, and their only "contribution" to the Big Labor agenda is their dues dollars.

Boil it all down, and we are seeing major sea change in labor law (and other issues such as health care & immigration) that are OPPOSED to what the majority of Americans want, but are being forced through because of the funneling of lots of money (union dues) in the hands of a few Labor Leaders (& those followers that they can rally), comprising probably less than 1% of the American population! The agenda of course, is to make it easier to collect more dues in order to sustain the political power, and lifestyle it then protects. The "life of the American worker" is so low on the radar of Big Labor leaders (despite the rhetoric) that it is sickening.

That is NOT the way a republic (or even a democracy for that matter) should work!

Caveat: I know that this is not the only reason the current administration controls the reins of power. However, this beast is growing, and if not stymied, it will continue to bloat and engage in activity ruinous to our economy.

Sorry - just had to rant today...

False Security Of EFCA Opponents

2009-05-19T11:25:00.004-05:00

I'm deeply concerned. I cannot give Big Labor credit for the meanderings that have led to this juncture, but I believe opponents of the mis-named Employee Free Choice Act have stumbled into a trap. If we (all American businesses) are not careful, the jaws of the trap will soon clamp tight around our necks.

It seems business interests have done a pretty good job of throwing a wrench in the works of the Big Labor lobby pushing for the EFCA. Many prominent Democrats have been pressured into backing away from the current version of act. The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, formed by more than 500 business and conservative organizations, coordinated the effort to fight the card check bill, spending at least $10 million. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce on its own earmarked $20 million in 2008 & 2009 to defeat the bill, and spent $35 million in the last election cycle to help business-friendly lawmakers into power.

The unions themselves even seem to be at each others throats over the issue, with the head of one union complaining that Andy Stern and the SEIU began to discuss compromise before other unions were consulted.

One of the biggest shortfalls of the campaign, though, has been to allow the proponents to set the rhetoric for the debate. The unions have "won the high ground" by creating the impression that they are somehow at a disadvantage when it comes to organizing outcomes. They mis-used phony statistics and ignored actual data from the National Labor Relations Board to paint a picture to the American public that the debate was about equality of opportunity and a "setting right" of something that was broken. The opponents took the bait (yes - I DO give Big Labor and their consultants credit for setting this up - the liberal camp has been far superior to the conservative in using language to frame debate for quite some time!) and began to argue about the undemocratic nature of "card check" without ever refuting that there was a problem in the first place!

The truth is that unions last year won about 2/3's of elections held, and most elections were held within about 38 days. Earlier claims that employees speaking on behalf of unions were fired in 25% of organizing campaigns are an outright lie. Problem? There is no problem for unions, other than the fact that Americans increasingly don't want them and thus don't vote for them!

Back to the the trap. Businesses have been focused on defeating legislation, and it is a necessary and valient effort. However, in the end, they will lose this battle. The deck is simply stacked too far in the favor of Big Labor proponents. The administration is rife with union-friendly personnel at every level - from administrators and bureacrats right up to the elected representatives, including the president. All Big Labor has to do is come up with a "compromise" that seems not to effect the voting process (as it is suggested will be the case with mail-in ballots), that shortens the election cycle and retains some aspect of forced arbitration, and they will say, "no this doesn't level the playing field, but we'll make due with this." Democrats to were backed to the wall by business leaders in their states will then say, "Hey, American is about fair, and this is a fair compromise to level the field. We kept the secret ballot. Are you trying to be greedy?!"

Trap snaps shut. Unions will now have more freedom, including possibly equal access to the workplace to campaign, and stiffer penalties enforced against employers but not unions. Rules are still stacked against business like they are now (unions can "offer" more benefits, businesses can't), and now they have both hands tied behind their backs.

Again - I applaud the efforts of business to oppose the legislation. But, they had better brace for the storm. The ground will shift under them. They had better be about the business now of making themselves impervious to union organizing from the inside, so they can weather that storm.

Employee Free Choice Act: When Should I Start Talking to my Employees?

2009-05-14T16:46:00.000-05:00

This week we posted a blog item on an interesting study about the Employee Free Choice Act. In it a solid majority of employers (nearly 60%) say they think some form of EFCA will pass this year. This note is to them. The other 40% of company leaders in that survey are smoking crack ... a compromise bill is being negotiated as we speak and will become law this summer.

I've been doing a series of strategy calls with companies around the country over the last month. These calls are a blast (if you're interested in doing a Free Choice Act strategy call for your company you can learn more here - until EFCA passes I'm doing them for free). The companies we've talked to range from large, multi-facility organizations who are already doing a lot of the right things to companies that are just learning that EFCA is coming. For the bigger companies we are able to really roll up our sleeves and work on advanced communications strategy. We work on a basic game plan for the smaller companies. But one question comes up in every call, no matter how big and sophisticated the employer: When should I start talking to my employees about EFCA?

It's a great question. Most companies are reluctant to bring up EFCA for a variety of reasons. First, many say they think it might give disgruntled employees an idea they hadn't thought of yet (note: this is a terrible reason to avoid the subject - in fact, it is a better reason to be talking about it NOW). Some are afraid to bring it up because they don't want to violate election laws (this is an easy one to avoid - if you remember one simple rule that I talk about during the strategy calls).

But the best reason I've heard is the "crying wolf" problem. Since EFCA is a moving target, there is a fear that talking about it now might make an employer look alarmist (especially if you get specific about things like card-check and mandatory arbitration that are unlikely to make it into this year's version of the legislation). This is especially true if you go back a few months later and talk about a different bill. One sophisticated employer I worked with a couple of weeks ago had this exact fear, and I think it's legitimate. However, I do not agree that silence about EFCA is the "cure" for this problem. Instead, I recommend a "middle way" approach.

There is a tendency for employers (and consultants) to get caught up in the outrageous provisions of the proposed version of EFCA, like abandoning the secret ballot in virtually all cases and imposing "fast-track" contracts through mandatory arbitration. Focusing on the problems of EFCA diverts attention from what is really important: employees only choose to sign union cards when they believe (or are tricked into believing) that the union card will somehow improve their lives. The direct relationship between management and employees is what is blown up by unionization. This relationship is the key leverage point in any discussion about unions, no matter what version of EFCA eventually gets signed into law.

Since it is the direct relationship that is at risk, that is what should be the focus of communications now. The good news is that this discussion really doesn't have to mention unions at all if an employer doesn't feel comfortable bringing up the subject. The key point to communicate is the importance of this direct relationship, the competitive advantages of companies who maintain a direct relationship and, most important, how employees can take advantage of this direct relationship in their daily work life. There are many ways to illustrate and emphasize the benefits of a direct relationship, and right now this should be your main focus.

Some companies are more vulnerable to union organizing and are targets right now. For these companies it probably makes sense to talk about unions today, and perhaps to go into specifics about how EFCA proposes to change the way unions organize companies in the US. But for many companies, union organizing isn't an imminent threat. I get that these companies might be a little reluctant to "join the battle" by talking to employees today about EFCA. In fact, that is why the first thing I cover in our strategy calls is going through a quick 3-part quiz to establish what a company should be saying right now.

But a lower level of union vulnerability is not a valid excuse to not communicate. Instead you should develop and communicate a message that emphasizes what is good about your current work environment, and the benefits employees receive by working directly with their manager.

Most employees, when approached to sign a union card, don't see any cost. Union organizers are trained to make the card-signing process seem like a "no-lose" proposition. When you communicate the advantages of a direct relationship and emphasize the positive aspects of your company you are also showing employees there is a tangible cost to signing a union card. This direct relationship is the one thing employees lose for sure whenever they sign a union card - it says so right on the card.

Your job right now is to make sure you are building up the case that giving up a direct relationship is costly. If you do this job well your company will be immune to organizing activity. Not because of some psychological trick (we'll leave that to the union organizers) but because your employees will clearly understand that they enjoy their work because of their relationship with management. When asked to sign something to give up that relationship the organizer will be told, "no thanks, I like my job the way it is." No matter what version of EFCA passes, if this is the answer from a majority of your employees you win.

When should you start talking with your employees? Today. At some point we will know the exact provisions of EFCA and that will be when a company can speak intelligently about them. In the meantime talk about what is really the most important: your relationship with your employees.

Do You Really Know?

2009-05-13T11:05:00.000-05:00

This is a very interesting article, based on recent survey of American businesses. The study indicated that 85% of companies are concerned about the impact of the Employee Free Choice Act, and 89% believe EFCA will increase their vulnerability to unions. However, very few are actually doing anything to prepare, even though a full 60% believe that some form of EFCA will pass (I personally think the other 40% have their heads in the ground - see our last several posts for validity for my hypothesis).

All would agree that the best defense against union encroachment is an environment in which employees feel that they are appreciated, where their feedback counts, where they feel connected to the growth of the company - what is termed a "positive employee environment." According to the survey, 70% of companies surveyed believe this exists among their employees, but only 35% have ACTUALLY ASKED their employees through proper surveys.

We had a phone consultation last week with the HR manager of a fairly large company having over 20 locations spread across a single state. Even though her company is a "family-run" enterprise, she is fearful of her company's susceptibility to union organizing. Her industry is one which has historically not been a target of Big Labor, but has recently been drawn into the crosshairs. Thus, she feels her workforce is naive to the threat, and vulnerable due to the proximity of company locations to other high-profile organizing campaigns recently, and the fact that many spouses and other family and friends are involved in these campaigns.

When we discussed what she knew of the employees current feelings about their work environment, she had concerns, yet had only anecdotal examples to verify those concerns or dispel them. When we asked if they had surveyed their employees recently, she responded that upper management "doesn't put much stock in surveys," and they hadn't done one for several years.

This is a common response. If it is not understood how to properly use surveys, they can indeed be "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Here are a few tips to consider.

1. A survey can uncover opportunities for improving the "positive employee climate" of the company.

2. A survey can mark a point in time from which to springboard into ongoing discussion between management and employees. "Remember when we found out X, so we changed our way of doing Y to make this better...? This reinforces the value of a direct relationship between management and employees, and continues to provide pivot points for ongoing conversation.

3. A survey can provide a valuable legal defense if an organizing campaign ever occurs. It is an Unfair Labor Practice to implement "new" changes to try to reinforce a positive employee environment once an organizing campaign begins, BUT if those changes can be linked to the ongoing efforts of the company to implement changes unearthed by a survey that occured prior to the campaign, it is a valid strategy and not considered a ULP.

4. Lastly, segmentation of survey data is a key. It is important to remember that a certain percentage of your employee population will be loyal no matter what, and another percentage will find something to gripe about no matter what. However, the group that makes all the difference are the ones in the middle - the percentage than can be moved up the chain towards the management side. It is important to identify the issues that are important TO THEM - that is the place to plant the fulcrum from which to lever effective change.

Companies that take the proactive step to implement a properly constructed survey process (including questions that reveal third-party intervention factors) will be miles ahead in preparing a proper defense against union encroachment, and their company will benefit from the fruit of the process in more ways than simple union avoidance! It is simple, can be done online or via paper (or both), and is well worth the effort. If you need more information - we can help.

SEIU Imbedded

2009-05-12T10:36:00.003-05:00

If you have any questions about how "pay to play" works at the federal level, this short video should answer them! Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, brags that

SEIU is on the field, it's in the whitehouse, it's in the administration...SEIU members and staff are now all throughout the White House.

Any questions?

300 NLRB Decisions Voided!

2009-05-01T14:27:00.004-05:00

I hate to sound like Rush Limbaugh and say "I Told You So," but we did! The debate over the Employee Free Choice Act is only a small tip of the iceberg of the radical new environment American companies will face. There are so many additional ways that the Obama administration and Big Labor (working together, obviously) are changing the landscape.

Witness this week alone:

* An appeals court just nullified 300 NLRB decisions made last year

* Obama appointed two attorneys to the NLRB who have been in bed with Big Labor for decades, one of whom is on record via law review articles in favor of drastic changes to labor law in favor of unions.

* Obama gave the UAW (vs. the private investors) majority control of Chrysler, which will also present an interesting conflict of interest twist.

It ain't pretty folks! Big Labor is building up a huge head of steam - and they are planning to role right over American Enterprise. Pick up the fight now, or forever hold your peace!

Specter Turning Democrat

2009-04-28T11:19:00.002-05:00

Arlen Specter is expected to announce that he is switching parties according to the Washington Post. Not exactly clear what this means for EFCA (he has already suggested numerous compromises that he supports, but has said he will vote against cloture and against the bill). It does give Democrats a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate once Franken is sworn in. Stay posted.

Newt Chimes In on EFCA

2009-04-28T11:18:00.002-05:00

Newt Gingrich recently added his two cents to the Employee Free Choice Act debate, and highlighted the issue we've been warning of as the more insidious: mandatory arbitration. He has this to say:

In the history of this country, government has never proved its capacity or capability to exceed the performance and productivity of those engaged in private enterprise. Why, then, should we trust government to know enough about the nuances and market forces at play in a particular industry to set wages and benefits for workers?

Not to mention the fact that negotiations over these issues are detailed, and typically have never been completed within the EFCA-mandated time frame. On that point, we have had NO RESPONSE at all to our $10,000 reward offer for any government arbitrator who can show they have negotiated a first contract within 90 days, ever.

Blanche Lincoln - Opposed to EFCA, Willing to Compromise?

2009-04-07T11:39:00.002-05:00

Blanche Lincoln announced yesterday that she will oppose EFCA in its current form - this announcement is a huge blow to unions if they were hoping to get card check this year. She did make clear that she could not support EFCA "in the form it is in now" clearly telegraphing that she might consider compromise legislation later. An AFL-CIO official quoted in the same article read her annoumcement exactly the same way.

This announcement is probably more critical than the Specter announcement a couple of weeks ago. Unions need every Democratic Senator going their way if they have any hope of the full enchilada, and I suspect that at least a couple of other Democrats will make similar announcements now that they have cover to do so.

What does this mean? Unions are going after targeted Congressional districts and key Senators during the upcoming recess and are cointinuing to press on EFCA. But at some point they have to decide what they are willing to accept. I think within the next month or so we'll see Franken seated from Minnesota and then some compromise proposal for quick elections, equal access, baseball arbitration and increased penalties. More important, I think there are at least 60 votes for that as we sit here today. Stay tuned...

Employee Free Choice Act: Reading Tea Leaves on EFCA – Or “It’s The Petitions, Stupid”

2009-04-06T00:51:00.005-05:00

In the couple of weeks since Arlen Specter’s blockbuster announcement that he would vote against cloture and (maybe) vote against EFCA, quite a few pundits have claimed the so-called “Free Choice” Act is dead for the near future. I’ve already argued that news of EFCA’s death is greatly exaggerated, but I’d like to point out a couple of observable facts that I think are worth considering as we handicap the future of EFCA.

It’s been interesting to observe how unions have responded to Specter’s announcement. Most interesting to me was that there wasn’t much of a response to the initial story at all. That could have been posturing, but to the extent they reacted at all unions mainly focused on the large amount of wiggle room Specter gave himself in his floor speech. Specter later had to clarify that he would never support a version of EFCA that included card-check because many union sources claimed that he would based on his speech and some of the interviews immediately afterward.
Actions speak louder than words, and last week unions took the bold action of launching an ad campaign going up on the side of buildings around Washington D.C. (the one I saw was over the Sierra Club headquarters, but there are many others).

These building-sized banners feature huge pictures of union members discussing why they support the “Free Choice” Act. These banners are intended to turn up the heat on Congressmen and Senators who might think that Specter’s announcement could let them off the hook on EFCA. Looking at union actions, for the moment at least, it appears that unions believe that EFCA is still a possibility and they remain very much engaged in lobbying for their Act.

But there is another, even more interesting behavior to observe: NLRB petition activity is at an all-time low in the first quarter of 2009. Take a look at this:

It may be a little hard to read the numbers, but these are the important ones: In the five years prior to 2009, on average there were 738 RC petitions filed in the first quarter (there were 964 total petitions filed on average during the same period). This year unions filed only 483 RC petitions in the first quarter – a massive 35% decline.

What could explain this incredible drop in RC petition activity. A number of possibilities come to mind. First, this was a historical election year and it is certainly plausible that unions and their organizers were pre-occupied in January with inauguration-related activities. But one would expect for petitions to pick up in February and March if that were the case.

Another explanation could be weather. This was a pretty tough winter, and that could have reduced petition activity (the first quarter is generally lighter in volume than other quarters). But this winter was not dramatically worse than similar first quarters over the last 5 years. Weather can’t possibly account for the 35% slide.

The economy has seen its worse decline since World War II, so that could have some bearing on the situation. But typically the worse the economic situation the better it is for unions. If anything one would expect the rapid slide (including the decline in 401(k) plans and massive unemployment) would create historical opportunities for unions to organize. But that’s not happened.

The most likely scenario – and the one I think is at play – is that union organizers are waiting for the law to change. We just spoke last week to an organizer recently laid off from a major union. He said that his union was sitting on cards while they wait for Congress to act. His union (which I won’t name to protect him – suffice it to say that it is one of the biggest there is) is that confident that the law is going to change, and sooner rather than later. That union, by the way, is probably in a pretty good position to know – it wrote a lot of the big checks in the last few elections.

I believe this strategy, if it is in fact being employed, is idiotic. And that’s what scares me the most. From where I sit I would guess the best-case scenario for 2009 is some kind of compromise legislation that includes quick elections and then whatever else unions can get (Specter mentioned baseball arbitration and equal access as possible reforms he would consider).

But if quickie elections are the compromise why would you sit on cards? The marginal advantage of a 21-day election over a 30-day election is certainly not worth sitting around for months letting authorization cards get stale. It just makes no sense. It is professional suicide to give up a year’s worth of elections (during probably the best historical time to organize workers since the Wagner Act was originally passed) betting on the possibility of legislative change. That is unless you know something about what is going to happen quickly, something that makes those cards valuable in and of themselves.

That is what bothers me. The only logical reason unions would basically quit filing petitions is if they think they’re getting card check in some form in the next year or so. That is the only plausible explanation. Of course unions could be wrong about the prospects of the legislation, and they may start filing a bunch of petitions now that Specter’s position is clear. But as of now, that doesn’t appear to be the case.

I’m not saying the fix is in. But I am saying that you should observe the behavior of unions – especially the behavior of union organizers – over the next few weeks to get a handle on what the unions believe is going to happen on EFCA this year. Might be a good time to pick up my EFCA Cheatsheet and brush up on EFCA planning - you know, just in case.

From the "Stunning Admissions" Department

2009-03-31T07:34:00.015-05:00

Much has been made regarding a recent Wall street Journal article in which a simple sentence was literally cut in half in an attempt to create a major "A-HAA" moment, with the Journal supposedly admitting that card-check did not eliminate the secret-ballot after all.

After watching the pro-union blogosphere seize this moment, I was hoping against hope that they would report on this stunning admission, taking directly from a union sponsored blog, which finally offered up the truth, albeit wrapped in a blanket of deceit. Instead of offering a few carefully selected words, here's the whole paragraph:

"Under the Employee Free Choice Act any union who receives majority support of those workers seeking to be represented by that particular union, will still have the right to file an election with the NLRB to conduct a secret ballot election if it so chooses. However I would agree this would be unlikely if a union does receive a majority support for a number of reasons."

It goes on to offer;
...why would any union take a chance conducting an election with the possibility of losing such an election..."
I won't hold my breath waiting to see this quote on Keith or Rachel's show.

Why George (and Unions) Can't Read

2009-03-27T07:28:00.004-05:00

In case you missed it, this week unions made the comical move (led by Representative George Miller who put this idiotic claim up on his House Committee website) of taking a phrase out of a Wall Street Journal article out of context and then claiming (in exact opposition to the sentence they quoted out of context) that the Wall Street Journal said that EFCA didn't effectively eliminate the secret ballot election. Read the Wall Street Journal's response - it's pretty good.

Miller and the usual suspects (American Rights At Work, the SEIU, AFL-CIO, etc.) went after this sentence: "The bill doesn't remove the secret-ballot option from the National Labor Relations Act but in practice makes it a dead letter" and then left out the "but in practice makes it a dead letter" half of the sentence (kind of an important part of the sentence). I know that union leaders think they're a lot smarter than the rest of us (especially their own members), but give me a break.

Yet if Miller and the unions can't read a simple declarative sentence like the one from the WSJ editorial I guess it's no surprise that they can't read the text of the actual Resolution, which clearly states that EFCA eliminates the secret ballot election in any case where a union shows it has majority support - which today, and certainly after EFCA, is virtually (if not exactly) 100% of the cases.

Specter Opposes EFCA - Why Now Would be a Bad Time to Relax

2009-03-24T14:18:00.003-05:00

Arlen Specter announced today that he would vote against cloture and - sort of goes without saying - is opposed to the Employee Free Choice Act. Even though I am home fighting the flu I can still hear the cheers from here. You can watch his speech here.

Specter says it is the most heavily lobbied issue he can recall in his Senate career. He also mentions his law review article (we've written about that before here - now would be a very good time to read it if you haven't already, and if you have read it before now would be a good time to read it again).

Specter states in his speech that he supports the idea of arbitration of contracts with "baseball arbitration" - i.e. limiting the arbitrator to awarding either one or another final offer. Specter refers to his law review article a couple of times and suggests that instead of EFCA he supports other amendments to the NLRA. So hold onto your hats - this thing is far from over.

Specter The Tipping Point on EFCA?

2009-03-19T15:32:00.004-05:00

Another confirmation of Specter's willingness to move along with the Dems on the Employee Free Choice Act. Even though several Democrat Senators have been making noise like they may shy away from the card check bill, when it comes down to fish or cut bait, politics will rule, the Dems will most likely toe the line, and Specter should be enough to send it over the edge.

Come on 2010!

(meanwhile - brace yourselves...)

Another SEIU Tweet - CNA-NNOC and SEIU Announce National Agreement to Organize Health Care Workers

2009-03-19T08:21:00.003-05:00

A huge story in healthcare (once again tipped by Twitter). SEIU and CNA-NNOC (or whatever they're called today) have announced an organizing partnership. Here's the Tweet:

SEIU_AndySternSEIU and CNA-NNOC nurse union make agreement to organize health care workers nationally. Solid organizing partnership and great opportunity

If you haven't been following this story, these two unions have been in a fight - no, a REAL fight complete with riots - for the last couple of years. Both are great at organizing and the infighting between the two has probably been one of the best arguments against both unions since the battle began. Very important development for health Care employers.

Double the Social Security Mess?!

2009-03-18T09:53:00.003-05:00

Unbelievable! At a time when any discussion about the government-run retirement system (Social Security) centers around the failure of the government to handle the money properly, the SEIU (Service Employees Union International) wants the government to take over the private pension system! What is it about history that liberals, and Big Labor, can't read? We already have an administration hanging huge milestones of excessive government overspending, never before matched in history, around the necks of our children and grandchildren.

The administration is now trying to tell American businesses how they can or can't pay their employees. Via the Employee Free Choice Act, they want to take over writing the labor agreements for every business in America, from large to small. And now we're being asked to give the government our pension monies?

American businesses have to be running scared. They are dead center in the sights of the most anti-business, anti-capitalism administration I have seen, outside of the confines of pure communism. The administration was partly brought to the table by Big Labor, and seems to be doing everything it can to allow Big Labor to rule the playground of American enterprise. The Big Labor - Socialist Administration is a match made in ...

Are You On Twitter? One More Reason You Should Be

2009-03-16T21:43:00.004-05:00

Social networking sites are being used more and more for organizing activity. If you aren't at least following what is going on on these web 2.0 spaces (Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, LinkedIn, etc.) you are missing a lot. One person you might want to follow? Andy Stern, who had this little "tweet" this morning...

SEIU AndyStern In Atlantic City to form new Gaming Council to organize casino dealers and security officers and help UAW get contracts for 5000 workers

By the way, while you are thinking about people to follow on Twitter you might as well follow us on Twitter too.

Employee Free Choice Act - Looking Ahead to 2010

2009-03-14T06:04:00.005-05:00

This week the EFCA discussion is focusing primarily on whether there is enough support to pass it uncompromised in the 111th Congress. There are fewer co-sponsors this time and some of the key Democratic votes are a little squishy at this (admittedly very early) point in the game.

There are two schools of thought about how this might play out. One is that a compromise version will get voted on soon (one was quietly introduced in the House this week). The other scenario, and the one that I think is more likely, is that unions will want to count noses (and perhaps even force a filibuster) on the full monty before allowing any compromise at all.

The idea behind the latter strategy is this: Unions have spent a hell of a lot of money to buy this piece of legislation and they are looking for a return on that investment. They are also tired of getting left at the altar by their "friends" in Congress. So force a vote on cloture first - putting maximum pressure on moderates on both sides of the aisle - with a clear message that a vote against cloture is a vote for a major primary opponent in your next election. If Republicans filibuster it, so much the better (makes them look obstructionist, not to mention it's kind of tough to say you are protecting the right to vote by preventing a vote on a bill...). Then, if EFCA doesn't have the 60 votes it needs, they get some compromise version of it passed now and then roll up their sleeves for 2010 (if you are wondering which states will see a huge uptick in organizing after it passes just read on...).

What about 2010? Here are the vitals:

36 seats will be up for election, 19 Republican and 17 Democrat. The consensus tossups races are all Republican:

Mel Martinez (FL)

Jim Bunning (KY)

Kit Bond (MO)

Judd Gregg (NH)

George Voinovich (OH)

Specter (PA) is a key vote for unions on EFCA and he is probably in trouble no matter what he does. Specter - who will be 80 in 2010 - will be seeking his sixth term. He was diagnosed with cancer in 2005 and again in 2008 and barely beat Pat Toomey in the 2004 primary (Toomey is probably going to run again in 2010).

So these states will be where all the action is in 2010 (and probably hotbeds for organizing activity in the meantime - you know, growing the grass roots...). We'll obviously be keeping you posted. We'll be posting a status report on the bills in the sidebar of the blog.

Bold Union Strategy

2009-03-13T15:08:00.003-05:00

This article out of Washington State points to two strategies working against American businesses and workers. Interestingly, the focus of this article is actually on the less alarming of the two.

Apparently, a veteran official of the Washington State Labor Council wrote a memo outlining possible strategies to pursue this week in hopes of getting a vote on a new piece of union-friendly legislation. The email was sent to a number of labor leaders, and copied to four lawmakers. One of the strategies equated to a threat to withhold future campaign funding for members of the congress that went against Big Labors wishes. It is possibly a violation of regulations that state that

lobbyists cannot exercise "any undue influence, extortion or unlawful retaliation on any legislator by reason of the legislator's position with respect to or vote upon any pending or proposed legislation.”

All of the above is typical union tactics, just your average pay-to-play at work. The more sinister component that is almost overlooked by the article is the nature of the bill being proposed. The bill is called the “Worker Privacy Act,” (Senate Bill 5446, and House Bill 1528), and the bill

would prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to attend a meeting, or listen to, respond to, or participate in any communication relating to political, labor or religious matters. This would include talks about unions and charitable giving.

Whoa! Another blatant attempt to curtail free speech rights, couched in the politically correct jargon of “Worker Privacy.” And, another sly move by Big Labor to tighten the noose on American businesses, taking the fight to the state level in case the Employee Free Choice Act flounders on the national stage, or is compromised to lose some of it’s teeth.

The major ingredient to management winning a union election (beyond positive employee relations practices) is the ability to communicate the benefits of a direct relationship between an employee and his employer, and to provide truthful information about union operations and the collective bargaining process (as opposed to the union organizer’s promises). Although meetings are not the only way to communicate, it is perhaps the strongest tool in the tool box, because management can control the timing, gauge the feedback, and insure all employees participate. There is no way to force an employee to read a flyer or a web site.

I expect to see similar legislation popping up in state congresses all over the country. American businesses better be prepared to take the fight to the state level. Secondly, they should take a proactive stance in how they communicate to their employees about union-related issues. It is no longer a valid strategy to ignore union issues until organizing activity is detected. I heartily recommend starting now to create other communication vehicles that employees want to access, such as company newsletters, white papers or booklets, or employee-centric web sites. If you need help developing the content, or even the vehicle, feel free to contact us – we’ve been doing this for over 25 years.

Dose of Reality?

2009-03-12T15:02:00.002-05:00

Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas seems to be connecting the dots in the brouhaha over the Employee Free Choice Act, along with a few others. Let's follow Senator Lincolns plausible stream of thought: the largest employer in Arkansas is...WalMart. Analysts at Citigroup in New York downgraded their WalMart recommendation to a hold instead of a buy because...passage of the EFCA could force increased labor costs and limit expansion. I want to be seen on the side of the Employee Free Choice Act because...I'm for loss of jobs for my constituency???

Although Lincoln was in favor of the EFCA in the 2007 debate, she is now hedging her bets.

“Right now, my number one priority is strengthening our state’s economy and putting 90,000 jobless Arkansans back to work,” Lincoln said in a statement.

Even if reason doesn't seem to prevail, if opponents of this horrible legislation can focus the energies of some of the larger business interests at other Democratic Senators, the bill may yet be defeated, at least in it's most egregious form.

EFCA Debate Cranks Up In Congress

2009-03-12T10:49:00.003-05:00

I won't say much about this - watch for yourself. Big Labor is pushing hard trying to get their paid-for Senators to carry their water, but I don't know if they have big enough yokes to carry that much water up the size of the hill they may be facing! America is finally starting to take notice, and I think this is one reason the Employee Free Choice Act was introduced this week - to beat the working people to the punch before they know what hit them.

18 Democratic Senators Fail to Co-Sponsor EFCA

2009-03-10T18:10:00.003-05:00

Here are some Senators you need to be talking to if you want to stop EFCA. There are 40 cosponsors on S.560, the Employee Free Choice Act, which was introduced today. No cosponsors are Republicans. The 18 D’s who are not cosponsors are:

Baucus
Bayh
Bennet
Bingaman
Conrad
Dorgan
Feinstein
Hagan
Kohl
Landrieu
Lincoln
McCaskill
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Tester
Udall (CO)
Warner
Webb

Hat tip to Worker Freedom.

Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 Introduced

2009-03-10T12:54:00.002-05:00

The Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 was introduced in the House and Senate today. Let the games begin. If your company has not communicated to managers, employees and stakeholders about the Employee Free Choice Act and its devastating impact on American businesses (not to mention American workers...) you might want to get started on that. Tomorrow would be a good day.

Unions and the Future (or Not)

2009-03-03T09:37:00.003-06:00

Seth Godin, one of my favorite bloggers in the sphere of marketing and business, posted a great commentary on another typical detriment of unions - their propensity to hang on to the status quo when the world about them is changing. He highlights all of the energy and money squandered on union lobbying, when most of the lobbying efforts are actually fighting against the direction in which the world of global business is heading. What Seth doesn't point out as clearly as he could have is that often this direction is driven by the momentum of the will of the customers these businesses serve. Just another glimpse into the failure of unions to be relevant today.

Employee Free Choice Act - Introduced March 9th?

2009-03-03T07:11:00.004-06:00

EFCA Now (a blog sponsored by the Security, Police and Fire Professionals Association) is reporting that the EFCA will be introduced by Representative George Miller and Senator Ted Kennedy next Monday, March 9th. They say the reasons for the "early" introduction are to pre-empt business lobbying and because they believe they have 60 votes in the Senate. We'll see.

Interestingly, they are saying it will be introduced in the House first (lately speculation has been it would be introduced in the Senate first due to some waffling by moderate Democrats in the House).

Hilda Solis: Will She Tackle Union Corruption?

2009-02-28T01:00:00.002-06:00

Hilda Solis was confirmed as Secretary of Labor this week. After a bumpy confirmation process in which her nomination was held up by questions about her role as a lobbyist for the Free Choice Act while also serving in Congress, she was approved overwhelmingly by the Senate.
Unions are happy with Solis, who served on the Board of American Rights at Work, a non-profit, union-funded lobbying organization whose purpose is to garner for the Free Choice Act. Businesses are wary for the same reason. I’m sure she is anxious to get to work. She has big shoes to fill.

The Department of Labor under Elaine Chao did an excellent job, especially on the union democracy and transparency front. Among the highlights:

More than 1,000 convictions and over $100 million in restitution for union members whose hard-earned dues payments were misappropriated by union officials.
A complete overhaul of the LM-2 reporting requirements to make the information more useful to union members (I testified twice in Congress about these reforms and can tell you first-hand they did a very thorough and professional job with the regulations).
They put LM-2 forms (along with many other DOL documents) up on the website so that union members can quickly, easily and cheaply (like for free) review the financial health of their union.
They added reporting for union trust funds for the first time since the LMRDA was passed in 1959. These funds are vitally important to members and, unfortunately, are often targeted by corrupt union officials.

Unions, of course, didn’t like these changes at all. They tried to gut the funding of the Office of Labor Management Standards (basically the SEC for unions). After all, they know that the rules don't matter if there is nobody there to enforce them. They railed against the financial reporting changes, claiming that it would cost unions "more than $1 billion" to comply with the new requirements. The AFL-CIO said it would spend $1 million to comply with the new rules (actual cost: $54,150).

Unions have billions in assets. Most of their members have no choice about whether to pay these funds or not – they are forced to do so under “union security” agreements (which are illegal in Right to Work states). Unions have a fiduciary duty to spend these funds wisely and for the purpose of representing members. They are required to report how these funds are spent each year.

But a substantial number of unions fail or refuse to comply with these requirements. And the OLMS – already wildly understaffed and underfunded – is likely to receive even less support under Solis. When pressed about funding for OLMS during her confirmation process, Ms. Solis was non-committal. And that’s a shame.

Union democracy and transparency is not “anti-union” as many unions claim. On the contrary, it is vital to the continued viability of the labor movement. When corrupt union leaders – even though it is a small number of bad apples – get away with stealing from union members it destroys trust in the movement.

Unions have a real PR problem. Many working people think about organized crime when they think of unions. The Teamsters remain under federal trusteeship because of their ties with organized crime. Openness and democratic process is not really high on their priority list (after all, they are trying to get rid of the right to vote in organizing drives with the card-check bill).

Whatever actions unions can take to reassure members that their dues money is well-spent can only increase confidence. But unions don’t see it that way. They treat their financial disclosures like it is a huge, unnecessary burden and a burden that they would like lifted. Unfortunately it appears that they have a sympathetic ear with the new Secretary of Labor. I sincerely hope that is not the case.

Who Is On What Side? EFCA Editorials

2009-02-23T15:29:00.000-06:00

Our friends over at Union Facts have compiled a nice list of newspaper editorials for and against the Employee Free Choice Act. If you need a reminder of what those who are paid to scrutinize and think through the issues are concluding about the misnamed bill, head on over and check it out. You might want to bookmark it for future reference.

EFCA, Stimulus Bamboozle, and India

2009-02-20T14:46:00.003-06:00

Reason had a great post today, spinning off of the movie Slumdog Millionaire (no - I haven't seen it yet - but it's now on my high priority list). The movie is about an Indian orphan who wins the jackpot on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire. The author provides a bit of Indian history lesson, and teaches us quite a lesson as well:

For decades would-be entrepreneurs [in India] staggered under the weight of corruption and bureaucracy. Want to import a computer for your business? You'd have to get permission from a bureaucrat. Want to sell food from a small cart? You'd need all kinds of licenses.

But in the 1990s, India emerged as a high-tech powerhouse. What changed?

"In the 1990s India started liberalizing its economy," says Dalmia, "and it did three things: cut taxes, liberalized trade, and deregulated business." Although they failed to cut the kind of red tape that entangled Slumdog's orphans, the reforms did make it easier for more Indians to start businesses and hire employees.

And what is America doing?

Since the early 1990s, India has cut its poverty rate in half. About 300 million Indians-equivalent to the population of the entire United States-escaped the hunger and deprivation of extreme poverty thanks to pro-market reforms that increased economic activity.

Yet here in America we're turning away from market reform. Says Dalmia, "It's just this great conundrum that at the same time that deregulation and markets have produced such dramatic results in India, they are falling into suspicion in America."

Read the post, see the movie, get a clue. Here is what we DO NOT need:

1) The government handing out dollars to help "failing" businesses, and then dictating how those businesses will operate
2) Employee Free Choice Act encumbering American businesses with yet another layer of bureaucracy, AND allowing the government to write their labor agreements for them (read the law if you think it ain't so!)

EFCA Misguided Mini-Messages

2009-02-20T12:22:00.000-06:00

Big Labor has no lack of imagination. These buttons (see more here) are part of their PR strategy to attempt to win Americans over to the idea that giving unions free reign among American businesses is a positive economic move, on both a micro- and macro-scale. Unfortunately, the messaging is riddled with myth and falsehood.

Check out these dandies.

Employees already have the freedom to decide, via the most protected mechanism available - a private secret ballot. They can receive no recriminations from employers or unions because neither side needs to know the outcome of their final choice.

The answer to a financial depression & the rebuilding of our economy? Just bog American businesses down with non-competitive global wage scales, restrictive work rules, and additional bureaucracy, and see how long it takes us to slog through the current financial quagmire.

Thriving industry provides jobs. Thriving industry creates the incentive for competitors to enter the market place, creating more jobs, and fostering a "sellers market" for talent. With everything that the Obama administration is doing to shackle our industries (yes - all of the "bailout" money going to banks, financial institutions, auto companies, etc, WILL come with unnecessary and burdensome bureaucratic restrictions attached), what we don't need is the additional anchor of union impediment hanging around the necks of our businesses.

Conflict of Interests Doesn't Phase New Administration

2009-02-20T11:44:00.003-06:00

Our friends at Americans for Job Security sent out a bulletin last month, describing the lobbying group American Rights at Work. Quoting the summary of the bulletin:

American Rights at Work (ARAW) is a non-profit organization formed in 2003 to act as a think tank and grassroots lobbying organization for organized labor. The chair of the organization’s board is Hon. David Bonior; others on the board include Senator John Edwards and Secretary of Labor Designate Congresswoman Hilda Solis.

American Rights at Work receives funding from unions affiliated with both the AFL-CIO and the Change to Win coalition. Since November American Rights at Work has led labor’s public campaign for the Employee Free Choice Act.

Although these are obviously not strange bedfellows, it again flies in the face of Obama's campaign promise to weed out obvious lobby influence in his administration. Hey - it's who's paying the bills! (to keep them in power, anyway).

ARAW has ponied up some big money ($3 million pledged) in their campaign to promote the EFCA, by confusing the issues. Their intent is to divert the discussion from card check and mandatory arbitration to job security, employment benefits, and the economy.

Big Labor Tactics - Watch It Play Out on EFCA

2009-02-19T11:51:00.003-06:00

This email from Anna Burger of the Service Employees Union International is indicative of the strategy that will be used as the congressional fight over the Employee Free Choice Act heats up. There will be a campaign to bombard those "moderate" senators (like Spector, Snow, and Collins) with plenty of pressure to cave in and align with the Democrat/Labor front. As is evident from the vote on Obama's "financial incentive" package, these three are likely to succumb to such pressure.

I'm sure Big Labor is salivating, now that they've identified those Republicans willing to throw their hat in the liberal ring.

Unions Threaten Banks

2009-02-13T14:00:00.004-06:00

I am constantly amazed but never surprised by the double-speak and double-standards of Big Labor. An article in the WSJ today is a case in point. Anna Burger, of the Change To Win labor federation, wrote that financial services firms and their trade group should "immediately cease all lobbying and advocacy" against "card check" [the Employee Free Choice Act]. The letter was directed to the head of the Financial Services Roundtable, a banking and financial industry lobby, with copies sent to Congressmen who are overseeing the bank bailout.

Burger's supposed reasoning is that the government typically restricts the use of federal funds to directly lobby Congress. She is attempting to extent this concept to any organization that secures funding from the government, which in the case of banks includes recent capital injections used to bolster their balance sheets.

As usual, she is talking out of both sides of her mouth. Unions receive plenty of government money for the running of job training and other programs. As the WSJ article points out, many employees of companies that have received bailout cash (auto industry for example) use some of their wages to pay union dues, which are then used to heavily influence political affairs (how about $450 million during the last election cycle).

Once again - Big Labor wants to selectively use the rules of the land in their favor, without having to obey them themselves.

Card-Check Not a Cure, Just Another Symptom

2009-02-06T11:00:00.002-06:00

When todays employers attempt to highlight the many reasons why union representation is not in the best interest of their employees, they often point to the many laws on the books to protect them. Minimum wage, Health and Safety, EEOC, Family Leave and many others are now laws that employees can count on in providing fairness in the workplace. They'll point out that before these laws were passed, unions often provided these services, and as such, perhaps justified their existence.

But no more.

What gets left out of the conversation is that these very laws are on the books today as a result of the very intense pressure and lobbying efforts from yesterdays labor unions. Unions that once took their charge as a voice for all working Americans, not just union members, seriously. They believed that raising the standards of all Americans would also lift up their members. A rising tide as it were. They spent millions of their members money to help make these important changes to our work culture. And they made a difference.

Labor is now spending many more millions of dollars in an attempt to pass The Card-Check bill, hyping it as a cure-all to what ails them. However, I think this bill provides an excellent opportunity for employers to point to as a perfect example of what's really important to organized labor today. EFCA is a symptom of the disease, and hardly the cure for it. In stark contrast to all of those other bills above, this legislation lifts up not one worker. It doesn't address any issue of concern to everyday, working Americans. It's sole attempt is to help bail-out unions. And it does so at the expense of those very workers who they're charged with speaking for. Unlike all of the other legislation that gave workers new rights, today's modern version of unions are spending millions to take them away from your workers.

Lost in all of this is the missed opportunity that labor has to redefine itself as relevant to workers. Their failure to enter the discussion on more important issues like Universal Health Care, our national trade policies, and other important topics ripe for discussion should be used as an example when talking to your employees about what is really important to organized labor today.

Bail Out Honesty

2009-02-06T09:00:00.001-06:00

Compelling read from a small business owner to the president of General Motors. I share his views, and it's a shame our viewpoint is falling on deaf ears in Washington.

What American businesses better wake up to is this: the Big Labor/Dem coalition wants nothing less than a complete take-over of American businesses, via either strings attached to so-called bail-outs, or via unionization, leading to federally written 2-year employment contracts. American businesses have only one real strategy of defense: treat your employees in such a way that they do not feel the need for third-party representation, and make available the information they will need to face down union organizers when they come knocking.

It is no joke. If you are an American business owner, you don't have many options left.

Employee Free Choice Act - Gould Says Mandatory Arbitration Unconstitutional

2009-02-06T07:52:00.002-06:00

In yesterday's Congress Daily former NLRB Chairman (and current labor scholar from Stanford Law School) William Gould had this to say about the mandatory arbitration provisions of the EFCA:

Gould said the arbitration provision could hit legal roadblocks. "The law as presently written would probably be unconstitutional because there are no criteria under the law for the arbitrator to follow," Gould said.

Gould is certainly not the only legal scholar to note this problem (he later cites the H.K. Porter Supreme Court decision) but he is the highest profile pro-labor person I've seen discuss it. The arbitration provision is the truly poison pill of the proposed legislation. And while I hope that in the end Gould is correct and that such a provision would be ruled unconstitutional, my preference is that we don't have to find out.

A Pro-Unionist Argues to Give Up Card Check

2009-02-05T09:00:00.001-06:00

As we have been saying for a while now, it is highly likely that the Democrat-Union coalition will retreat on the card-check component of the Employee Free Choice Act in exchange for the more damaging provisions of forced arbitration and harsh penalties.

In a lengthy article that includes an actual case-study (if all the facts are to be believed), the author makes a compelling argument for Big Labor to give up on the card-check provision of the EFCA in order to keep the to more choice components, and discusses shortened elections as an alternative.

I just took a call today from an older, disabled gentleman who works part time as one of those guys who brings the shopping carts in from the parking lot at a grocery store. Somehow he stumbled upon our web site, and called me to ask, "What can I do to help stop the EFCA?" He said he knew that if his store were unionized, his job would probably be cut, and he is probably right. I had to tell him that there was nothing he could do to prevent the bill from passing - if you look at the actions of the Obama administration, it is a foregone conclusion that some version of an EFCA-type bill will be foisted upon us. What I did tell him was to have his company visit our web site. The only way to avoid working under a federally written contract, and paying extreme penalties for "unfair labor practices," is to first, prevent a union from gaining a foothold in your company, and second, understand the laws so as to avoid actions that could trigger penalties.

American businesses better learn these lessons fast. Unions will be coming, and they will have new ammunition in their arsenal! Referring back to the article I referenced at the beginning of this post, if union organizers could say to the employees, "sign this card, and we'll have a new contract within 4 months," defenses may falter, especially if those businesses are not handling their employee relations efforts properly or effectively.

Want to Start A Union?

2009-02-04T12:59:00.003-06:00

Here are 10 tips on how to start a union. Two of these steps make me cringe when I read them, because they are indicative of the clash between the idealism and naivete of the author. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for passionate idealists. But expending such passionate energy on quests in which the end result strays so far from the intended ideal is such a sad squandering of energy.

Step 6 says to "make it your union." If only. In the past 2 months I have been involved in interviewing 4 different former union organizers. They were all passionate individuals who threw themselves into what they felt was a worthy cause. They were all broadsided by the reality of just "who" they were working for. Unions exist to feed themselves - to collect dues and expand their internal and political power bases. They do not exist for the benefit of the workers. They do as little as possible on behalf of workers to keep those workers believing that the union has their interests in mind, so they can continue to collect dues.

Which leads me to the second point, Step 8, "education." Why is it less than 8% of the American private work force is unionized? It is mostly due to the fact that unions have not been in the business of serving their members for decades, and most Americans know it. When an organizing drive begins, the most effective means of defeating it is to simply communicate the facts about unions - how they spend their money, how effectively they do their job (handling grievances, negotiating contracts, etc.), and how well they deliver on the promises made during organizing campaigns. Revealing the facts and dispelling the myths are about the most effective anti-union strategies there are.

Yes - there are companies who do not do a good job of managing their work force. When faced with an organizing drive, they may react and lash out, even perpetrate acts of intimidation. Typically, they get the union they deserve. There are also occasions where good companies are dealt a tough hand, due to a host of possible issues (local union density, the interest of a particular union for assaulting a particular company, non-English speaking workforces, unscrupulous practices by union organizers). Of those companies that don't do a very good job of exposing the truth about unions during a campaign, about half lose the battle. When companies employ solid communication programs, they win around 90% of the time. The truth works wonders, when well communicated!

Every worker would do well to heed Step One of the authors advice: "be the best worker at your workplace." It will pay off! You'll get far better value out of this one simple thought than any union will ever be able to achieve on your behalf.

End Run Around Employees

2009-01-30T12:47:00.003-06:00

Here's another example of union tactics that indicates once again the real objective of union organizing campaigns. Big Labor cares very little about employee issues, and simply wants to collect dues from as many members as possible. The tactic on display in this video has become more common in recent years, especially favored by SEIU and the CNA-NNOC (the culprit in this video).

Basically, the union will negotiate directly with the company to create an environment where the employees are forced into a union without a say in the matter, and included in the deal is a gag order prohibiting company management from discussing the deal with the employees! I'm amazed that employers will go along with the gambit, but I guess the threat of corporate campaigns and other business-crippling maneuvers is compelling enough to break the backbones of some of them.

Kudos to the nurses (and employees in similar situations elsewhere) who will stand up and take action against such egregious ploys!

UNITE-HERE No Longer United?

2009-01-30T05:30:00.001-06:00

On the heels of the internal tension over at SEIU comes another labor civil war. In 2004, the UNITE and HERE unions merged. As the saying goes in labor circles, UNITE had money but no members and HERE had members but no money. Both unions had strong-willed leaders – UNITE’s Bruce Raynor and HERE’s John Wilhelm and there were questions from day one on how the two would get along.

Well, we finally have our answer: not very well. In what can only be described as a stunning 16-page lawsuit, Raynor is now officially suing Wilhelm over an attempt by Wilhelm to take over the combined union. According to Raynor’s suit, when UNITE-HERE was formed, the constitution specifically provided that all major decisions would be made by a committee of two: Raynor and Wilhelm. The Constitution envisioned them as co-equals, but if there were any disagreements Raynor was supposed to have the last word. This makes sense in a way since having money is arguably even more important than having lots of members and UNITE is flush with money because of its affiliation with Amalgamated Bank.

In any event, things soured over the last few years and Wilhelm came ready to launch a coup at the union’s December meeting. The union had a governing board, but it sounds like it was more for show than anything else. This didn’t stop Wilhelm from trying to pass a series of resolutions that would have given him much more authority in the union. Raynor objected, saying that the UNITE-HERE constitution forbids the board from taking actions like this and that all decisions had to come from him and Wilhelm, with Raynor having the final veto. The measures passed the board, but now Raynor is asking for judicial relief to stop Wilhelm.

Where does this leave everyone? A few points. First and foremost – we might start talking about UNITE-HERE in the past tense. While labor leaders are known to have spats all the time, it is very rare for individual lawsuits to be filed like this. Raynor obviously felt that Wilhelm was trying to launch a hostile takeover and that he (Raynor) had no other options left. How this lawsuit resolves itself remains to be seen, but it could very well be impossible for things to “return to normal” for UNITE-HERE now.

Second, assuming that Raynor’s version of events is true, it’s yet another stunning example of the hypocrisy of labor leaders. We hear all the time about corporate governance and the need for business leaders to run their companies in a socially responsible way, etc. Organized labor would be going crazy if some corporate executive they didn’t like decided to start doing things that the company explicitly forbids in their governing documents. You don’t like the UNITE-HERE constitution anymore? What’s the solution? Just violate it! Make up your own rules!

The full story on the UNITE-HERE drama can be found here.

Employee Free Choice Act - BLS Number Prove Unions Don't Need Bailout

2009-01-29T08:11:00.003-06:00

The main argument unions make to support the Employee Free Choice Act is that the current system makes it nearly impossible for unions to organize new members. The latest BLS numbers were released yesterday and they prove, once again, that unions are doing just fine without a "bailout" from the EFCA.

Unions added nearly a half-million members last year (in a year when the economy got killed and millions lost jobs). Union membership has increased in each of the last 3 years. Unions are winning NLRB elections at about the same rate they did in the 1970s when their membership levels were near their peak - some of the most outspoken supporters of EFCA like the SEIU winning nearly 3 out of 4 of their elections.

The bottom line: Unions don't need the employee free choice act. The main arguments in favor of EFCA are not borne out by the facts - employer intimidation during campaigns has not prevented unions from organizing new members. To the contrary, unions are doing a great job of it. While unions don't need it, they do want the employee free choice act - it's a bailout, pure and simple.

The Bell Has Rung

2009-01-27T10:02:00.004-06:00

The fight is now in full swing, and is sure to get very nasty, very partisan, and unfortunately very badly for American businesses. Conservatives have landed a nice jab to the mid section by slowing down the confirmation of Solis as Labor Secretary, tying their hesitancy to her lack of definitive answers during confirmation hearings, especially regarding her position on the Employee Free Choice Act. Let's see how long business-friendly congressmen can hold on to their resolve.

Employee Free Choice Act - Good for the Economy?

2009-01-27T07:53:00.005-06:00

Yesterday American Rights at Work issued a new "research report" arguing that the economy needs the Employee Free Choice Act now more than ever. This report is basically a repeat of all the usual suspects who make the same basic arguments in favor of EFCA:

Unions increase wages and benefits of their members as compared to non-union workers.
"Living wages" will redistribute wealth and improve the economy; and
The current system makes it very difficult for working people to join unions.

These arguments are all false. The research on the "union benefit" is laughable. Even this report notes that when you start to account for things like experience and skills the so-called wage benefit of being in a union shrinks to around 15%. And I have yet to see one of these studies that accounts for probably the most important factor which is geography.

Case in point: the article uses the fact that primarily non-union hospitality workers in Reno are paid less than unionized workers in Las Vegas as proof that the union benefit is real. But that is exactly the point. The cost of living (and headache factor) of living in Vegas, coupled with the competition for talented people there, is what makes the wages higher - even at the non-union properties in Vegas. When you add in the costs of belonging to a union this differential shrinks even further. Even the BLS data (which doesn't account for geography at all) shows that in some jobs non-union workers make more than unionized ones. I don't think that is accurate either (for the same reasons) but it proves that you can't believe any of these statistics that unions and their supporters throw out as fact.

The second argument for a massive wealth redistribution is the most dangerous. While I agree as much as anyone that CEOs who are paid huge wages while navigating their companies into the rocks is stupid, the market works if you give it time. And again unions don't make this go away. The Detroit 3 is the best recent example but there are many others. These companies need to go out of business for their stupid actions. They will be replaced by better, smarter competitors. And even if you grant that paying above-market rates for talent is good for the economy in the short run (which is silly, because as best I can tell CEOs consume at least as well as working people) it doesn't work. Socialism failed. Again, look at Detroit - if you pay uncompetitive wages and benefits (oh, and make crappy cars nobody wants to buy) you lose.

You can get away with paying monopoly rents for labor for a short period of time, especially if you make it impossible for others to compete against those "favored" companies, but in the end the house of cards falls under its own weight. Meanwhile everyone else who does not receive the benefits of these monopoly rents suffers by having to buy over-inflated products. It is no different than the overpaid CEOs. And the best study on the subject estimates that the cost of unions on the overall economy has been trillions of dollars.

The current system, despite its flaws, will work if you let it. Bailing out companies that screwed up (and I include the financial services industry along with the automakers) is the worst thing you can do.

Oh, and about the current system being unfair to unions? Well, it was working in the 1970s when union density was near its peak. Unions are winning elections under that same system at the same rate today, even with all the "virulent, unionbusting" behavior of employers. In the end unions are just looking for another bailout for themselves. And by the way, this "good for the economy" stuff is how unions will try to tack the EFCA onto the trillion-dollar "middle class bailout" package now winding its way through Congress. Watch for it. And if you haven't already, start preparing your company for the employee free choice act.

Employee Free Choice Haunts SEIU

2009-01-23T14:59:00.005-06:00

Taking a cue from the American public, United Healthcare Workers-West are using the loss of freedom of choice as ammunition in the heated battle over control of their destiny (see last post). This ad being run in the Washington Post says it nicely!

SEIU VS UHW-West

2009-01-23T11:38:00.003-06:00

The SEIU has a reputation for demanding strict loyalty to their agenda and leadership, which is centered around building membership at any expense. This has created several strategies that diminish the very reason unions are supposed to exist, which is for the protection and benefit of it's members. For this, the United Healthcare Workers West has been confronting SEIU leadership.

Here is some great video created by UHW West who discovered an office set up and ready to take over their local, even prior to a vote, indicating that under typical top-down, Stern-driven leadership demands, the vote by the Executive Board was a foregone conclusion.

Online Organizing

2009-01-17T09:08:00.003-06:00

A really interesting article in The Nation about the promise - and perils - of online organizing. Among the most interesting things it discusses is how the web 2.0 world is actually a threat to unions in the traditional sense of the word.

The "distributed" nature of the web can destroy hierarchical structures (just as it has in the business world). Where a group of workers can self-organize around a problem, why do they need to fund and deal with the politics of a super-structure with its own agenda? They don't. The article talks about a couple of recent examples, including the organizing of a casino in canada and the truck driver protest on gas prices over the summer.

The news isn't all rosy for employers, however. In fact, in some ways the current structure has an advantage over the web 2.0 world in that you know where your potential problems are likely to arise. You can pay attention to what unions are doing and respond in the web 1.0 world. In a web 2.0 world where networks can quickly form around an almost limitless variety of issues it is hard to know where to look and by the time you notice a change it is too late.

That is why we strongly believe that clients who aren't actively monitoring their internet environment are just asking for trouble. This is not just setting up google alerts on your company name. Instead you must create a very thoughtful map of your entire environment - including chatter on the "invisible web" - followed by close monitoring of that environment for changes. You also have to be a participant in this environment - web 2.0 is truly a "pay to play" environment.

Watch Your Back! EFCA Could Come in a Variety of Clothing.

2009-01-16T13:42:00.004-06:00

In an article in the Washington Post, Obama hinted at other strategies open to Big Labor for getting the Employee Free Choice Act foisted upon the American workforce. According to the article:

"The president-elect also gave his support for legislation that would make it easier for workers to unionize, but he said there may be other ways to achieve the same goal without angering businesses. And while many Democrats on Capitol Hill are eager to see a quick vote on that bill, he indicated no desire to rush into the contentious issue.

'If we're losing half a million jobs a month, then there are no jobs to unionize, so my focus first is on those key economic priority items I just mentioned,' he said. 'Let's see what the legislative docket looks like.'"

As we mentioned earlier, the Senate as already included language in one of their first bills (S.2) that addresses "making it easier for employees to unionize" (my paraphrase).

As our friends at HRPolicy amplified,

"Strong opposition to card checks has been made very clear, and that is the public's perception of where the concerns lie. It is doubtful that there is an equal awareness of the concerns about the compulsory arbitration provisions, as well as the potential for a 'quickie election' that would deprive employees of the ability to hear all sides of the unionization question. In the months ahead, as the issue continues to evolve, the business community will need to amplify its concern that the bill is not just a 'card check bill.'"

Amen! There are many options open to Congress to placate their Big Labor funders - including sacrificing the card check provision in order keep the mandatory arbitration, or moving for shortened elections, or, as this EFCA proponent suggested, even modifying the card check provision to include the placement of a check box on the authorization cards giving the employees the right to select either a secret ballot election or direct representation authorization (yet still to be completed in public, thus the intimidation factor remains). As the Senate has already demonstrated, they are willing to include language in other bills designed to accomplish the same thing as the EFCA.

We will have to keep a sharp eye out!

EFCA to Nationialize US Businesses?

2009-01-09T13:53:00.002-06:00

We will probably be linking to many of Richard Epstein's articles in the coming weeks and months. His latest article from chiefexecutive.com creates another compelling reason to fight the Employee Free Choice Act with all available weapons and energies. Speaking of the mandatory arbitration provision in the bill, he says,

"EFCA could lead to the partial nationalization of all unionized firms. The immediate job for CEO's is to play tough defense to prevent the passage of a statute that promises to lay siege to every firm in the U.S. They dare not be caught napping" (italics added).

I will admit openly that my next comments are self-serving, however they are no less true. While Epstein (and others like him) are sounding the alarm and providing the reasons that the mis-named bill should be fought tooth and nail, he (& they) are leaving out one HUGE component of any full strategic response to this crisis: preparing to carry on the fight when & if the bill becomes law.

There are two elements to the prepardness component of such a strategy. The first is to insure a positive employee relations environment within the company. The benefits speak for themselves: employees that feel that management listens and responds to them do not believe they need someone to speak on their behalf (a union). Treat people well, give them voice, respond to feedback, measure attitudinal changes over time - in other words, implement HR best practices.

The second element is less recognized and discussed for the very reason that unions are so eager to secure passage of the EFCA: union ranks have steadily declined for decades and unionized companies make up less than 8% of the private sector. Most CEOs would prefer to just "let the sleeping dog lay" and not bring the discussion about what unions are and what they do into the workplace. Given the nature of current law, this strategy gives most companies about a 50/50 chance, in that they still have time to communicate such information within a typical NLRB election time-frame (average of 56 days) if a union files a petition for an election.

However, the EFCA will challenge the wisdom of this mode of thinking. Having no election period, or even a shortened election period, means that management will have very little time to overcome the misinformation campaign that unions use to secure signatures on authorization cards. Such campaigns typically start well before management ever becomes aware that an organizing drive is underway. Even with the average 56 days left to management currently to provide counterpoint, unions still win over half of all such campaigns.

This statistic changes for those companies that utilize proven tools and strategies for communicating the truth about unions. Most companies (like ours) that provide such tools and services can boast of a management-side win rate for their clients that hovers in the 90% range!

Here's the point. The second element I'm referring to is to implement a communication strategy about unions - to start the discussion with new-hires, and leave it up and running at all times. Provide videos, web sites, and other methods of correspondence and communication where employees can hear the business-side perspective on unions before the unions ever come knocking.

Just like most good parents say to their kids, "You're gonna hear about sex (or drugs, or whatever) from someone, so I'd rather you hear it from me first." Those parents who do everything they can to be transparent, engaged, and supportive of their children typically rear children who will listen to them, or at least back-check with them before taking at face value the input from others. If you work diligently to maintain a positive employee relations environment, your employees will likely do the same with you.

How can it be disputed that those companies that take this approach will find themselves less likely in the crosshairs of the unions. Unions are not stupid - they will go after the low-hanging fruit: those companies that are the least prepared (and that treat their employees with the least respect). They do not care where their membership (and dues money) comes from , they just want more!

Take Epstein's advice - contact your legislators, advise your employees to contact their legislators, and fight the bill. But take our advice please - and prepare yourself!

EFCA Throw-Away: Part III

2009-01-08T15:49:00.000-06:00

On the surface, "mandatory arbitration" may not sound like such a bad thing. The simple definition of arbitration means that if two parties can't agree on something, a disinterested third party is brought in to mediate the dispute. Under current law, and as is typical with contract law in general, both parties still must agree to the final arbitrated settlement, even if agreement comes as an advance stipulation of the arbitration process and the settlement.

This is fine under current law for two reasons: first, it is understood that the parties have no obligation to agree, only to negotiate in good faith, and if they've come as far as submitting to arbitration, they typically are negotiating in good faith and allowing for concessions to each other. Secondly, the members (employees) who have to live under the terms of the contract get a final chance to accept or reject the contract via vote.

Under the mandatory arbitration provisions of the Employee Free Choice Act, both of these elements disappear. If the union knows in advance that a contract will be awarded no matter the nature of negotiations, it is in their interest to set the bar so high that management would never agree, so that an arbitrator's conclusion of middle ground is as far in the union's direction as possible (thus - no "good faith" negotiating on the union's part). Secondly, the members/employees are NOT given the opportunity to vote down the contract, and, knowing that the union negotiator can't be held responsible either way, the unions have nothing to lose (the union will still collect their dues - no matter the outcome of the contract or the satisfaction of the membership with the contract). The employees lose both the fact that their representative will represent them in good faith, and that they will be stuck with the contract, written by someone who knows nothing about their business (ie. the federal arbitrator).

This article does a nice job of pointing to some of the exact language in the bill regarding the arbitration provisions.

Another Attempt

2009-01-08T11:06:00.002-06:00

Here's a list of the first 10 senate bills of the new Congress. For greater scrutiny of S. 2, click here to review a PDF, and notice point 6. Sounds like the Employee Free Choice Act to me!

Thanks to Brian Johnson at the Alliance for Worker Freedom (www.workerfreedom.org) for the tip, and the PDF.

Employee Free Choice Act Debate: Money Talks

2009-01-08T10:37:00.003-06:00

If you have been following the conversation about how soon the EFCA will become a priority, don't hold your breath thinking reason will prevail. Dollars trump reason almost every time (in politics at least)! The SEIU has committed $85 million more to see this surface at the top of the heap of legislative priorities.

You may hear of some democrats making noise at the moment, attempting to find some middle ground on EFCA, but when it comes down to accountability to the money that put them in office, or can remove them, they will typically cave to the pressure and find a way to tell their constituencies it was in their best interest. One way these senators may attempt to walk the tightrope is to push for compromises to the bill. As I discussed yesterday, whether this compromise is shortened elections, or dropping the election issue altogether while retaining the forced arbitration provisions, it will still be a Big Labor coup.

The specter of Spector

2009-01-08T10:33:00.007-06:00

With Senate dems closing in on number 59, It seems ever increasingly certain that as time draws toward official debate and eventual vote on card-check, the final version may be in the hands of PA Senator Arlen Spector. Considering that Spector was the lone R to vote for cloture on the last go-round, this is causing much angst.

However, there is much to consider, and the heavens seem to be aligning in such fashion that says this will be anything but easy for either side when it comes to Arlen Spector. Consider this:

Arlen Spector is up for re-election in 2010, and he has a problem with the republican electorate in Pennsylvania. As Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, explained last week in a newspaper column,

"Specter's biggest problem...may be that thousands of southeastern Pennsylvania Republicans who voted for him in 2004 can't vote for him in the (2010) primary. Why? Because they're no longer Republicans."

It's not often that I reprint much of what Santorum has to say, but in this case, he's correct. You see, in Pennsylvania, the GOP runs a "closed" primary, which means that only registered Republicans can vote. Ironically,

the Obama revolution may have had the unintended effect of giving the Republicans a stranglehold on this seat as the more moderate republicans have defected. If Spector doesn't immediately align himself more with the remaining republican base in Pennsylvania, as he seems to be already doing, he may not see election day as its candidate. GOP party bosses in PA are conservative and aggressive. They won't hesitate to challenge Spector at the primary level, regardless of his seniority. That bodes well for EFCA detractors.

Spector, like most of our legislators, responds to heat and not light. The final version of EFCA (and I think everyone agrees that there will be some form of this voted into law) will certainly depend on everyone's input into the process, from employers and their lobbying efforts, though to America's work force, who stands to lose the freedom of the secret ballot.

Speak now, and speak to your employees...or forever hold your peace.

EFCA Throw-Away: Part II

2009-01-07T14:13:00.002-06:00

For years we have bemoaned the fact that only a small percentage of clients call us when we can do the most good for them, which is BEFORE they have a challenging employee relations issue. Unfortunately, most call us after the house is on fire, and are then only interested in fire extinguishers. Once we've helped put out the fire (defeated a union organizing drive), only then do they usually become more responsive to determining what caused the fire in the first place, taking actions to correct those causes, and measuring their effectiveness in making those corrections permanent.

As Kirsanow points out, Big Labor has almost as much to gain from giving up the idea of no secret ballot in exchange for a shortened election campaign period (especially if they hang onto the arbitration provisions of the law).

Unions have typically been talking to the employees of a targeted company long before their activity is ever discovered, or a petition is filed. It is already a tough road for management to tell it's side of the story AND to reveal the truth and credibility of union claims within the typical 40 or so days of an election campaign. If this period is shortened substantially - say to 14 days (or even less) - this becomes an even more imposing hurdle.

Once again - another strong reason (in addition to hanging on to mandatory arbitration - see last post) that unions would easily throw in the towel on the 50% + 1 provision of the current Employee Free Choice Act in exchange for something less such as shortened election periods.

If this happens, the good news (for us) is that we may get to do our favorite type of work - helping companies become better places to work, enabling them to hold onto their best talent and attract good new talent, and creating ways for them to measure their growth in these areas. The bad news for many companies is that there won't be enough of us (or our competitors) to go around before unions get a chance to ravage American businesses.

This is why I say again - those who are willing to sit on the sidelines and wait to see what happens to EFCA are taking a purely defensive posture, and are likely to be ripe targets. Those who choose to be proactive and take steps now to bolster their employee relations efforts, especially when a tough economic climate heightens tensions, will reap a payoff in spades!

The EFCA Throw-Away

2009-01-07T08:41:00.003-06:00

The more we have studied the prospects of American business under some form of Employee Free Choice Act, the more we are becoming convinced that the furor over the elimination of the secret ballot could very much turn into (or already has turned into) a smoke screen for the most damaging element of the legislation: mandatory arbitration.

Not too many folks are talking about it yet - it's a bit harder for "Joe Sixpack" to grasp the nature of what happens behind closed doors in contract negotiations. What federal mediators and arbitrators are and do is less understood than the simple act of voting (or not getting the chance to vote).

Peter Kirsanow hits the nail on the head with his editorial in National Review. It would be a very viable strategy for Big Labor to fan the flames of the "card check/secret ballot" debate, ratcheting up the angst of red-blooded Americans over a process they understand and assume to be part of their rights living in a democracy, only to give back the issue in exchange for the mandatory arbitration provisions of the bill.

Since it's football playoff season, let me ask you a question. What would happen if one of the dominant teams were restricted to only running plays, while all other teams could both run and pass? What would be their chances, against even mediocre teams?

Did you see the 22-inch stack of work rules imposed on Detroits auto manufactures by the UAW? Not hard to understand why they are so easily out manuevered by the foreign manufacturers, and have been for years.

Look for much more from us on this topic in coming weeks and months. It is a complex issue, and we want to explore all of the nuances so it can be fully understood, and hopefully defeated.

Tough Year Ahead for Organized Labor Contracts?

2009-01-05T20:42:00.001-06:00

One common misconception with labor unions is that unions themselves are responsible for higher wages, better health care, more fruitful pensions, etc. The is that while unions can agitate for such things, it’s ultimately up to the company to provide these types of things. We are reminded of this basic truth when we read a Wall Street Journal story today that paints a very grim picture of contract negotiations with major employers in the upcoming year. The bottom line is that right now is quite possibly the worst time to negotiate with a company. The end result is that a lot of these contract negotiations are probably going to go poorly for organized labor. Companies are simply not going to be able to afford to give more and more in tough economic times. This is doubly bad for labor unions because their entire foundation is premised upon the idea that they can do a better job of securing higher wages and benefits than individual employees can. Watching the heavily unionized car industry go down in a ball of flames followed by lackluster contract negotiations at other major unionized employers is not the type of representation that unions want to show to prospective members. It might lead many employees to – reasonably – wonder, “Why should I sign up for a union in the first place?”

A Businessman Supports EFCA....Sort Of

2009-01-05T20:32:00.002-06:00

The blog over at the AFL-CIO has an interesting posting from a few days ago. One big problem with EFCA is that despite being told by labor organizers that the legislation is great for business, no major business leaders have come out in favor of EFCA. Enter Joe Diecedue. Mr. Diecedue wrote an op-ed in the Arkansas Democratic Gazette recently, strongly in favor of EFCA. The AFL-CIO describes Mr. Diecedue as a businessman in favor of EFCA, since he is a general agent with the American Income Life Insurance Company.

What the AFL-CIO conveniently forgets to mention is that the American Income Life Insurance Company is well-known for providing insurance services to union members. Check out this description of the company:

“American Income is the only 100% wall-to-wall union insurance company providing supplemental benefits to union members and their families. Every person who works for American Income is a member of local OPEIU 277. Our full commitment is to the Labor Movement. What's good for labor is good for us. We stand behind our commitment by supporting labor and labor related causes and candidates.

Over the last 50 years, AIL has developed a highly advanced niche marketing system that is privileged to serve North America's Labor Union marketplace. Unique to American business AIL has a labor advisory board comprised of some of the most influential international union leaders. These esteemed individuals advise AIL on how to best meet the needs of the working men and women of North America.
Headquartered in Texas, American Income Life is licensed in 50 states, the District of Columbia, Canada, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and New Zealand with plans to expand to other markets. “

It doesn’t take Warren Buffett to figure out that passage of EFCA and the resulting increase in union membership will probably be good for Mr. Diecedue’s business. But at the very least Mr. Diecedue and the AFL-CIO should be a little more forthcoming about why Mr. Diecedue is so in favor of EFCA. For better or worse, he has a vested interest in seeing the legislation pass.

Do As I Say...

2009-01-05T09:16:00.000-06:00

It is always fascinating to watch how unions treat their employees! We see Unfair Labor Practice charges almost weekly against a union, as in this example:

It is also interesting that union employees must file a petition and undergo the standard NLRB process to be able to join a union (as in this recent example). You would think that all union Locals would operate with neutrality agreements automatically in effect, or even offer at the time of employment an opportunity to sign an authorization card. Instead, in typical hypocritical fashion, unions will fight with all they have to defeat Right-To-Work laws, and yet not make it any easier for their own employees to organize.

Giving Secret Ballots a SOS

2009-01-03T09:44:00.002-06:00

While a lot of third-party groups are cropping up on both sides of the EFCA debate, one that is worth watching is the new organization SOS Ballots. The group is headed by former Oklahoma Congressman Ernest Istook and went live right before New Years. Basically, SOS Ballots (Save Our Secret Ballots) is trying to promote state-by-state constitutional amendments that would mandate secret ballot elections on labor issues. The proposed constitutional amendment would read:

"The right of individuals to vote by secret ballot is fundamental. Where state or federal law requires elections for public office or public votes on initiatives or referenda, or designations or authorizations of employee representation, the right of individuals to vote by secret ballot shall be guaranteed."

There are some tricky legal issues with such an idea, most notably whether the NLRA would pre-empt any state level constitutional amendments. But, the work of SOS Ballots and Mr. Istook is worth watching as it could become one way that right to work states try to combat the toxic effects of EFCA. Stay Tuned.

Obama Advisor Admits EFCA is a Divisive Issue

2009-01-02T10:52:00.003-06:00

CNBC recently interviewed Obama advisor and Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm, about the Obama teams efforts on economic stimulus plans. When pitched a question about whether she sees the Employee Free Choice Act as part of a stimulus program, she ducked any commitment to what her advice to Obama would be, but did infer that it might be hard to push such a "divisive" piece of legislation forward.

I would say so! Although she is referencing simply the political division in her comments (ie., how Congress divides on the issue), she would be more honest to take into account the wishes of the American workforce. As has been indicated in various polls recently, most Americans, including those already working in a unionized company, do NOT believe that the secret ballot should be eliminated in the union organizing process.

Go here to view the video - and forward to about 10:30 to hear her comments specifically on the EFCA.

The NYT on EFCA

2008-12-29T19:26:00.003-06:00

Sorry for the alphabet soup in the title of this post! Anyway, the New York Times wrote an editorial yesterday, fully supporting EFCA and urging the new labor secretary (in all probability), Hilda Solis, to push for the legislation.

What's amazing though is just how thin the Times arguement was in favor of EFCA. The Times takes the position that any increase in unionization would be great for America, thus, we should support EFCA right away. But this really misses the larger point of what has irked EFCA's opponents -- namely that the elimination of the secret ballot coupled with neutrality agreements and interest arbitration is a radical and unfair departure from what is traditional labor relations in the United States. The Times makes no defense of the card check method, neutrality, or interest arbitration -- it almost seems as if organized labor decided to pass a law making it mandatory tomorrow that everyone joined a union -- no matter what -- that the Times would be in favor of it! It's clear that the Times is simply advocating an end and not at all worried about the means -- even when the means would be outraegous.

Furthermore, in their other advice to Solis, the Times stays silent on whether or not the incoming labor secretary should continue to require detailed financial information on LM-2 forms. Those of us that follow labor relations are well aware that scaling back the recent LM-2 changes is high on labor's priority list -- perhaps second only to EFCA. Of course, the real losers would be rank and file members who would lack information about how their dues are being spent. Newspapers are supposed to be all in favor of accountability, open records, etc. Well, at least good newspapers anyway. Perhaps the Times position on that issue will show if they are really looking out for the little guy or just trying to protect their union boss friends.

Al Sharpton Against Card Check!

2008-12-21T03:24:00.002-06:00

Well, this blog can't quite remember the last time that we agreed with Al Sharpton about much, but hey what's the old phrase -- politics makes strange bedfellows? It turns out that Sharpton is very much opposed to card check and explains why in his weekly radio show -- here is a youtube capture of the audio file.

While we know that Sharpton says lots of, well, outlandish things, he does make excellent points regarding card check. Check it out for yourself.

Hilda Who?

2008-12-21T03:12:00.002-06:00

That was the question that several friends of this blog asked when President-Elect Obama officially nominated his Secretary of Labor this past week. The position went to Rep. Hilda Solis, a Democratic Congresswoman from California. On it's face, the nomination probably isn't a bad choice for organized labor -- Solis has a voting record that is pretty much in-line with what organized labor wants and she will probably continue to press for union-friendly policies at her new job.

But is organized labor really happy with this selection? Yes, in their press releases they are going to praise her, but deep down there is a suspicion that this can not be the person that the unions truly wanted for the job. Let's briefly review --- organized labor spent hundreds of millions of dollars electing a Democratic congress and President. No special interest group did more to elect Democrats. There is a major piece of legislation that could come for a vote in the first 100 days and is going to need as many vocal advocates as it can get because the bill is a complete piece of junk. And considering all of that, the best the Obama team could do was nominate a no-name Congresswoman from California who is not well-known in labor circles?

The Wall Street Journal has some interesting quotes from management side types, both of whom squarely hit it on the head. Peter Kirsanow, a former NLRB member, reaction was that, "She's clearly not as well-known and doesn't have a track record... Cabinet picks need to have a certain amount of stature so they're not buffeted by various interests" and Randy Johnson from the Chamber said, "Because she hasn't taken a hard stance on labor issues, perhaps she'll have more of an open door." I think both of those comments are correct and the fact that a real, hard-core, well-known friend of labor was not selected for this important job has to be disappointing for organized labor, even if they are all smiles on the surface.

EFCA -- Week In Review

2008-12-21T02:58:00.002-06:00

It's been quite the week for EFCA-related news, showing that the bill is going to be a major issue in the next Congress.

First, mid-week, Sen. Blanche Lincoln scaled back her support for the bill. She said in an interview that the bill was "not necessary" at this time, news which certainly left union heads both depressed and furious. Lincoln did leave herself some wiggling room, so if the bill looks like it will be a slamdunk, then she can hop back on the band wagon. BUT, her comments were obviously welcomed news for the anti-efca side of the debate.

Why did Lincoln (sort-of) come out against the bill? While we hope that the merits of the legislation played into her decision in some way, it's clear that politics played a major role. Tim Griffin, a possible Republican challenger, is planning on doing what we have urged many other Republicans to do in the past -- that is, make card check an issue. Lincoln is smart and knows that the bill is a huge political loser in the state of Arkansas, so taking a more nuanced position on it might help her save her Senate seat.

One has to wonder if maybe more conservative Democrats aren't going to follow her lead. The key probably is if a.) they have a credible challenger and b.) that challenger is willing to use card check as a political weapon. It will be very interesting to see what happens in the coming weeks.

For an excellent blog posting on the state of EFCA and political games being played, see Marc Ambinder over at the Atlantic's Blog. Marc is 100 percent right -- the stakes could not be higher for organized labor. If they fail, there will be blood on the streets (or the floor of the Senate). One alternative Marc mentions is maybe waiting til 2010, but we doubt that will happen. This bill is a monster and it's hard to fathom that the Democrats will really want to wait until right before a midterm election to try to pass it.

Employee Free Choice Act - Bailouts and Pay to Play

2008-12-16T22:51:00.004-06:00

The timing couldn’t be worse.

As unions prepare for the upcoming epic battle over the so-called “Free Choice” Act, they were dealt a couple of embarrassing public setbacks last week. The Detroit 3-UAW bailout and the “pay to play” scandal in Illinois create a lot of questions about union claims of fighting for the little guy at a time when they really need that narrative to resonate with voters and their supporters in Congress. What impact, if any, will these have on the push for the Free Choice Act in the next few months? My thoughts are below.

Senate Republicans led a rejection of the proposed bailout for the Detroit 3. In the process the CEOs of the Detroit 3 and Ron Gettelfinger of the UAW were grilled for hours by members of both chambers of the Congress. This was a “do-over” from the hearing held before the Thanksgiving holiday (this time the CEOs drove – I don’t think anyone asked whether Gettelfinger flew or not…). And it was great theater.

First, the UAW played this thing about as well as it could be played. They made two non-concession concessions on the eve of the Senate hearings (getting rid of job banks – FINALLY – and allowing 3 companies about to declare bankruptcy to put off their VEBA payments for a year). Almost everybody gave them a pass and went after the CEOs. Masterful PR move.

But the UAW wasn’t ready for Senator Corker from Tennessee. You probably heard about Corker’s grilling of Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli (rightfully so – the whole “looking to get married” discussion was made for TV, but the “I spoke with one of your Cerebrus Board members yesterday” was devastating in my opinion). Senator Corker’s questioning of Gettelfinger look it up on YouTube – it was classic.

In the end Senate Republicans were able to stop the auto company bailout. Now it looks like Bush will go ahead and bail them out at least long enough for Obama to get into office, but the UAW got a fair amount of mud on its face during the hearings. The latest public opinion polls I’ve seen put significant blame on the UAW for the current crisis. Not exactly the kind of publicity you are looking for when you head out to target non-union companies with a stack of authorization cards in hand.

Speaking of bad publicity, the SEIU allegedly played middleman in the Blagojevich “pay to play” scandal. While the union claims that it is all a big misunderstanding, it is clear at this point that a high level SEIU official (reports claim it was Illinois SEIU officer Tom Balanoff) at least had the ethical bad sense to shuttle messages regarding the pay to play scheme between representatives of Blagojevich, the SEIU and perhaps the Obama transition team.

This is just the latest in a series of questionable ethics decisions by SEIU leaders across the country, including several high-profile embezzlement cases. Most recently the union is accused of misusing a non-profit organization that over the course of the last two years spent exactly none of its revenue on its stated purpose, housing for the poor. And speaking of pay to play, Blagojevich has an Executive Order sitting on his desk even today that would hand another 1,200 dues-paying members over to the coalition that he wanted desperately to hire him and his wife.

What impact will these events have on the Free Choice Act debate? Probably not much. It won’t surprise me if unions push for an up or down vote on the 2007 version of EFCA in the first couple of months of the new administration, whether Obama wants them to or not. The idea would be to get a crystal clear view of which side everyone is on. If the bill fails to get past the Senate unions will then start twisting arms of moderate Democrats and Republicans about a compromise version.

Union corruption is nothing new. But these stories don’t exactly make unions look like the positive agents of economic change that they’d like to pretend they are. Nevertheless, if unions get their fondest wish – card-check and mandatory arbitration – they are going to have a lot of work to do to prove to prospective members that they are worthy of trust. The good news for organizers is that with the rules re-written to make it nearly impossible to turn them away, it may not matter how bad their reputations get. They’ll just make employees the proverbial “offer they can’t refuse” and then let the arbitrators sort things out.

Great system if you have the means (like about $450 million in political contributions) ... pay to play indeed.

Follow The Money

2008-12-15T13:07:00.003-06:00

Probably the best that has happened for the opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act are the two "scandals" now on the front pages: the UAW Bailout (the bailout of the Big 3 automakers), and the Blagojevich revelations. In both cases, Big Labor is a key player. You can follow the money as it is sucked from the pockets of Big Three employees via dues (and hamstringing the Big Three automakers in the process), and spent on crooked politics (the now-infamous "Chicago Way") and politicians like Blagojevich. As much as the SEIU would like to paint themselves as having no role in the political scandal, it doesn't take much effort to follow the money, as this short video indicates.

Small & Mid-Sized Retailers At Risk

2008-12-04T09:08:00.003-06:00

Our good friends at Fisher & Phillips posted a concise article outlining why retailers who haven't had to be too concerned with union encroachment will be highly susceptible under the Employee Free Choice Act. Three key reasons for this are: 1) this sector is mostly non-unionized, so is an attractive target, 2) exempt managers are often not present at the locations (to spot potential card-signing activity), and 3) employees are often more interested in short-term (more pay) than long-term (job security via fiscal health of the company) due to their transient nature.

A little communication can go a long way! Having a standardized tool greatly aids this process. This was a key factor in the development of the EFCA Tool Kit.

Retailers - take warning!

Teenage Targets for Unions

2008-12-03T11:56:00.002-06:00

Not many teens have enough resolve to fight as this 16-year-old did when told, "pay union dues or lose your job."

Similar pressure has been used to get teens to sign authorization cards, even in our current environment. This will only get worse when EFCA passes. The most vulnerable groups to get cards signed are those least likely to understand the significance of a signature no a card - including teens and those with language barriers (Hispanics, Asian, etc).

Any Given Moment

2008-11-29T19:28:00.004-06:00

Let's take a breath from the normal talk of Employee Free Choice Act legislation today in favor of a little family therapy, shall we? I have a question for readers of this blog to ponder this holiday weekend that I'd like for you to give some serious thought to. Think of a person with whom you have your deepest relationship with. For many of us, it's our spouse or significant other. Perhaps it's your child. Maybe a beloved pet. It could be any relationship really. But think of the one most important and most precious to you. Got it? Good! Now for the question;

If given the opportunity to exercise your right to end that relationship, would you?

For virtually all of us, that answer is NO WAY. Now, let's throw an intangible into the mix. Let's call it “the given moment.” The given moment is any moment in time... no matter how brief, that we would answer that question differently, perhaps based on some short-lived emotion that might cloud our rational thought. We all have given moments. Perhaps opening the wifes credit card statement will bring one on, or a long conversation with the Principal at school. Did the dog leave a present on your new carpet? There's a moment! Sometimes even your own “overindulgence” with some friends or while watching your favorite team lose again will bring one on. As an avid Eagles fan, I'm all too familiar with that one. Whatever the reason, I think we are all grateful that we cannot be held to decisions we may make at “any given moment.”

Therapy time's over. Back to reality. You see, perhaps the biggest travesty surrounding the Employee Free Choice Act is that it will unleash an army of people who will be motivated, in fact rewarded to capture your employees “at any given moment” in an effort to put themselves between you and them. Payroll screw up some paychecks? There goes a few votes! Rumor of a layoff? Votes! Couldn't give that personal day? This will show you! Drinks after work? Guess who is buying! It all counts! Your employees feeling no need for a union 99% of the time isn't good enough under EFCA.

You see, in this country we vote for damn near everything by secret ballot. For me, more important than that, and perhaps lost in this legislation is the fact that we vote not in a moment in time, but at a time certain. Could any legislator survive if we could vote on April 15th? Our most important decisions must be made with careful consideration of all of the facts, and at a time and place that offers the most potential for a sober and just decision.

Of course, those employers who want to minimize this potential can no longer fear that broaching the subject will bring it to fruition. In fact, ignoring it is likely to. Under EFCA, forewarned is forearmed!

Liberals For Democratic Process

2008-11-26T14:57:00.002-06:00

Yes - there are some liberals/union proponents who get it - who understand that anytime you erode another piece of individual liberty or right (such as right to privacy under a secret ballot process), it doesn't matter what the sought outcome is, the means should not be employed!

Excuse me while I quote Will Bunch at length speaking about the Employee Free Choice Act:

"...but I believe that a democratic process should be the goal in any decision process like this, and the gold standard for democracy has always been the secret ballot. God knows that in our broader political system, there are all sorts of problems with American elections, from too much big-money influence to issues with voting machines, and the solution was always to try and make the election system better -- not to scrap it for something else. Without the secret ballot, everybody -- both the employer and the union organizers -- knows where employee stands, and strips them of basic right to privacy."

Thanks, Will, for being an honest, thinking liberal.

Get A Larger Perspective

2008-11-24T11:32:00.004-06:00

It often helps to couch specific actions within a broader picture of all related outcomes, rather than just the "problem" an action is attempting to address (see Henry Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson"). For those of you who would like to dig just a bit deeper, I highly suggest reading this article about the real price of any and all "bailout" moves made by Congress (and more importantly, the Federal Researve). This cartoon is taken from the article.

Noise About the Employee Free Choice Act Building

2008-11-24T11:25:00.003-06:00

It appears there is finally a lively discussion about the EFCA happening. Better late than never! Talk show hosts, and even mainstream media, are beginning to grapple with the issue.

The main thing to remember at this point is that there is still time to make enough noise to force the best compromise possible for the bill as it makes it's way through the Obama administration early next year.

Here is a recent commercial. Mainstream media apparently didn't want to give this much airplay, so do what you can to help spread it around!

Free Choice- Canadian Style

2008-11-20T16:22:00.010-06:00

Consider if you will the following statement:

“One of the greatest successes of the right-wing neo-conservative agenda, has been its success in weakening trade unionism- especially in the private sector.
Our structural base in the private-sector economy has been cut in half, during the last, hard quarter century. We've recognized for years that unions must turn around the decline in union membership. We've got to level out the playing field. Employers are crushing so many union drives with intimidation, threats, and firings. We need to focus our lobbying efforts on getting governments to reform [labor] law. That's not what they have right now. Given employer threats, they think the choice is between having a union, and having a job."

Any student or casual observer of labor relations in this country will not be shocked at a quote like the one above. Most labor-based publications and articles on EFCA include quotes much like this one from any (or all) of our country's labor leaders. It's the main argument made to convince the American public that we need a system like "card check", complete with "first contract mandatory Arbitration" to level the playing field, as it were.

You know...just like Canada has!

What sets the above commentary apart from the normal rhetoric we've become accustomed to is that it's not from James Hoffa, Andrew Stern, John Sweeney, Richard Trumka or anyone else normally associated with the American labor movement. In fact, it's not even commenting ON the American labor movement at all.

These comments are taken directly from a PowerPoint presentation to the membership of the CAW Council, that being the CANADIAN Auto Workers union, the largest private sector labor union in Canada, as a means to explain the sorry state of affairs with regard to Canadian Labor Relations. (OK, I changed the spelling of "labour" in the quote, but I didn't want to make it too easy for you). The presentation was made to explain a deal that was struck between themselves, and Magna, a large Canadian auto parts manufacturer.

It would seem, judging solely from the presentation offered by the CAW, that the concept of card check and first contract arbitration has not stopped the erosion of union density in Canada. It seems that unions there, much like our labor unions choose to blame the boogeyman, that is, those big, bad employers, for the failure of unions to thrive. After all, if not for the vast "right-wing neo-conservative agenda" to fall on, unions would have to admit to some unpleasant realities, like that change is needed from within the unions if they're to thrive in this economy, and that they need to take their case to the workers of America in an effort to appeal to them, and not to the government in an effort to remove from them their rights to a secret-ballot decision. We know that’s not going to happen anytime soon, and hell...it's just so damn easy to blame the employers for their lot in life.

I will however, offer up my congratulations to the CAW for one aspect outlined prominently in this agreement. It appears that the CAW has successfully, and quite skillfully negotiated an agreement with Magna that they claim will remove the potential for employer intimidation so prevalent in Canadian unionization campaigns (take note American unions, you may learn something) On slide 16 of their presentation, they outline "8 Standard Features" of their agreement with Magna. Topping the list is their preferred remedy for dealing with employer intimidation. You guessed it...these lucky employees will get to vote on the question of unionization via a Secret-Ballot election. (no, i'm not making this up!)

Call it Free Choice- Canadian style!

Democrats Against EFCA

2008-11-18T05:52:00.002-06:00

As the Obama presidency moves from the feel-good optimism of a campaign victory to the nitty-gritty of actually governing, some Democratic voices are starting to speak up and question whether we should pass EFCA so quickly. True, these are not Senators or Representatives, the people whose votes will actually matter. But at least two op-eds in major newspapers over the past week from Democrats have broken from the party line.

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal ran an excellent piece by Ariella Bernstein. Ms. Bernstein is a former employee at both FMCS and the NLRB. Her op-ed clearly shows that she has a lot of inside knowledge about how the agencies work. Bernstein’s point was that the NLRB and FMCS have a lot of hidden data that – if opened to the public – could shed light on many of the union claims about organizing and negotiating first contracts. She recommends that we hold off on EFCA until we have properly mined this data. While we are convinced that EFCA is a bad bill new data or not, her idea still has a lot of merit. Isn’t Congress supposed to be a deliberative body? Aren’t they supposed to crunch all of the numbers and make sure that the bills they pass make sense? Why the rush in the first 100 days to pass EFCA?

Of course the answer to that question is that organized labor has no interest in more data. In fact, there is a possibility that the data Ms. Bernstein writes about will demonstrate even more dramatically that EFCA is bad public policy.

Yet, if some moderate Democrats who are uneasy with the bill want a compromise, this might be a good one. Let’s maybe open up all of the books at the NLRB, FMCS, DOL, etc. and really intensively study the issues involved in EFCA. Then, we can propose labor reform based on the results of those investigations. Right now, we are taking the union’s word about what’s wrong without any objective data, discussion, or debate.

Bernstein isn’t alone in her EFCA skepticism. Froma Harrop, a nationally syndicated columnist and middle of the road Democrat, devoted her entire column last week to EFCA. She gets right down to business:

“The first campaign promise Barack Obama should break is to push through the Employee Free Choice Act. That harmless sounding piece of legislation would let union organizers do an end run around secret-ballot elections: Companies would have to recognize a union if most workers signed cards in support of it.

We're not children here. We know how those majorities can be reached. There's repeated harassment, bullying and more inventive tactics, such as getting workers drunk, then sliding sign-up cards under their noses.”

Both Ms. Bernstein and Ms. Harrop deserve enormous credit for speaking out publicly against EFCA. Let’s just hope that the people in Washington, DC who will be actually casting votes listen to these sensible Democrats.

Employee Free Choice Act - Why Campaigns Matter

2008-11-17T15:55:00.005-06:00

I received the following email today from someone who got my "Unions: The 7 Lies You Must Know" email series. I thought I would share it. My response follows. Here was the email from "localunion21":

Hello Philip
I have read your seven lies and have a question for you. I work non-union in Omaha Nebraska making $17.00/hr with no health benefits for my family and no plan for retirement.

I was approached by a union organizer and he did use some of the info you provided. Please tell me how can joining a union that offers $24.00/hr plus benefits for my family and a retirement plan be bad for my family and myself.I know that I have to pay union dues but that seems a small price to pay for everything I get in return? Thank you very much Stu

Here was my response to Stu:

With an email address like "localunion21" I find it a little hard to believe that you are nonunion and considering joining one, but I'll take you at your word...

Unless this organizer is offering you a job at Local 21 and paying you out of the union treasury he is lying to you if he says that he can offer you a job making $24 per hour plus benefits. Your company pays your wages and benefits, and just because a union comes in does not mean that your pay or benefits would increase - that would be subject to negotiation. If your organizer is being honest he will also tell you that there is no guarantee that you would make anything more than you make now - and you could even make less.

Let's pretend that the union does come in and negotiates $24 an hour, plus benefits, plus retirement. That would dramatically increase your employer's labor costs. Now that probably doesn't sound too bad to you - after all, you'd and your family would now have a lot more money, benefits and a retirement plan. But how long would that last? Take a look at Detroit to see what happens when companies agree to contracts they can't compete with. As they say, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

If you don't like your current pay and benefits and can't negotiate a better deal for yourself individually, then do yourself, your family and your coworkers a favor. Look for a job at a company that does provide pay and benefits that you think are fair and reasonable - you'll know that at least for the time being that company has figured out a way to stay in business at that labor cost. If you think a union would make your life better, look for unionized companies. But in the end remember that a union can only do one thing for you: negotiate. And whatever they negotiate you have to live with, even if you don't like it (and you almost always pay dues whether you like what they got you or not).

I'm not saying unions are bad - there are good union jobs out there. But if your company is currently non-union and is having such a hard time competing that it can't even offer health or retirement benefits I doubt that a union is your answer. In this economy a union could just as easily be the straw that breaks your company's back for good.

Hope this helps. Good luck and best wishes to you and your family. Phil.

I get emails like this pretty regularly from union supporters who sign up for my series on the 7 Lies organizers tell (OK, normally they are not this well reasoned as this and start out "hey sh*thead" or something equally intelligent). I think they are great examples of why an election campaign, where both sides has an opportunity to tell its side of the story, is so critical to our current process and why the EFCA is a disastrous policy.

What Employee Free Choice Act Will We See?

2008-11-13T07:59:00.004-06:00

A very good point was made yesterday on an HR blog, responding to an discussion Bill O'Reilly and Karl Rove had about Obama's first moves as president. The key point was that Obama could be construed as too liberal if he pushed the EFCA forward as-is in one of his first acts, fostering a devisive atmosphere rather than a cooperative one.

The take-away is this: I am convinced there WILL be an EFCA, but the nature of the final law could still be impacted by the noise the business community makes now, even before the inauguration. The more we petition our Senators, both personally and through our businesses and trade associations, the more likely it is that Obama will push his friends in the Senate for a version of the bill that could be construed as a "true improvement" to labor law rather than an anti-democratic piece of legislation via the eradication of private ballot elections.

Employee "Free Choice" Act Reality

2008-11-12T08:41:00.003-06:00

This pretty much about sums it up - at least in regard to card check vs. secret ballot.

EFCA in the First 100 Days?

2008-11-10T07:31:00.001-06:00

With the Obama presidency un-officially starting, a rash of stories appeared in the news media lately on the prospects of the Employee Free Choice Act passing. Steven Greenhouse over at the New York Times wrote a good piece summarizing the playing field on Saturday.

The bottom line is this: labor wants to press for EFCA in the first 100 days of the new Congress/Presidency. Labor is not interested in compromise. Labor wants to pick off a few Republican votes in the Senate to ensure passage as is.

In some ways, labor has significant leverage. They just pumped in $100 million dollars over the past year to the winning presidential campaign. Their get-out-to-vote effort undoubtedly helped Obama in blue-collar states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana. Their party is now in charge – why should they try settling for anything less than complete victory?

The NYT story does mention the possibility of compromise and that’s still an option, especially if the Democrats can’t poach the necessary votes in the Senate. But either way, the reality is that employers might be facing a very different labor environment by the end of next March. As we have said in other posts, they should start preparing now for the coming changes.

Employee Free Choice Act: Your Company's "Transition Plan"

2008-11-06T09:35:00.004-06:00

The post-election chatter has now turned to the "transition" from the Bush administration to the new Obama administration. That got me thinking. It is time to start planning your company's transition to the new administration as well.

While the political environment is still uncertain (it looks like there will be at least 57 Democratic votes in the Senate and perhaps even more with the results in Alaska, Georgia and Minnesota still up in the air). But there are two things we know for sure:

The Obama administration will appoint much more pro-labor officials into the Department of Labor, the National Labor Relations Board, OSHA, EEOC and other key departments.
Congressional Democrats will act early on a number of key changes to labor and employment law. As we sit today Democrats probably only need to turn 2 Republican Senators to pass legislation and get it to Obama's desk (the two Independents and Arlen Specter are solid votes with Democrats on union-backed legislation). The Employee Free Choice Act will be at the very top of that list.

Here are the key steps that should be part of every company's "transition plan" for the new environment:

Appoint a transition team. Just like Obama has begun appointing the key advisers who will manage the transition for him, your company needs to identify a "transition team" whose job is to identify key vulnerabilities most likely to occur in the first few months of an Obama administration and to manage implementation of the action steps you develop.
Conduct a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) based on the best evidence available. How would the most likely legislative changes impact your business? Due to industry, competitive environment or geography are you likely to be an early target of unions, government agencies or employment lawyers? How would you attack your company based on what you know? What tactics would work best?
Develop a two-track plan for the new environment. This should include a proactive track that covers things you can begin implementing immediately, even before the legal landscape is settled, to help ensure your company is a "hardened target" for outside intervention. The second track is your reaction plan. Setting up early warning systems, training key leaders and developing ready-to-launch tools are critical paths for this track.
Identify internal and external resources that you will use in a worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is that companies will face multiple threats at once - a smart union will attempt to overwhelm the resources at a target company. How will you deploy internal and external resources to deal with this threat. In today's environment you may have the luxury of a week or two to get your act together. It is very likely that your case will be over in that period of time under the new rules. If you are going to rely on internal resources your job is to get that team completely up to speed (perhaps developing checklists or other tools that allow non-subject matter experts to easily implement the plan you develop). If you are relying on outside resources, make sure whatever communication tools or outside consulting resources you plan to use are pre-approved so that all you have to do is pick up the phone to deploy them when the time comes.
Be flexible and plan for both best and worst case scenarios. Even if Republicans are able to force a compromise on the EFCA this year remember that unions are already targeting more Senate races in 2010. And I can't stress enough that the EFCA is just one of the big changes heading your way - as shocking as this may sound, for many companies the EFCA will be the least important change to the law. Your plan should be flexible and revisited regularly. Speed will be of the utmost importance in the new environment. Be ready for whatever is going to get thrown at you.
Start lobbying now. With all the talk of how to prepare for the worst case scenarios I don't want to leave the impression that all is lost. As we sit today a small number of Republican Senators will be critical to getting anything done in the next two sessions of Congress. This makes the job of letting your congressional delegation (especially your Senators) know where you and your company stand on these issues. Plan on helping your employees engage in the political process and let them know about how these proposals could impact their company.

Those are the key elements to your "transition plan" and you should get started today. If you need any help developing your transition plan don't hesitate to drop us a line.

Employee Free Choice Act: Obama Wins - What about the EFCA?

2008-11-05T11:55:00.006-06:00

It is Wednesday morning and I am beat.

After staying up late to see whether there would be a call in Minnesota, Georgia, Alaska and Oregon (there wasn’t) I finally hit the sack around 1AM. Things aren’t any clearer this morning.

As I write this today it looks like there will be a runoff in Georgia. In Oregon the Republican has a slim lead with 75% of the ballots counted – still way too close to call (Update 11/05/08 at 6:10 PM - Merkley just pulled into the lead). Minnesota is headed for a recount. It looks like Alaska will remain a Republican seat (Update 11/06/08: I hear there are over 50,000 uncounted ballots in Alaska and that seat will be up in the air for a while).

Based on this, it looks like Democrats will have between 56 and 58 seats when all is said and done (including two independents who caucus with the Democrats, although Joe Lieberman may be kicked out of the Democratic caucus tomorrow).

What does that mean for the EFCA?

I handicap things like this: If you are predisposed to take a “wait and see” approach to the EFCA, you’ll find some evidence to support that course of action. The Democrats will need to peel off 2 to 4 Republican votes to get the EFCA past a filibuster in the Senate. Whatever happens it is unlikely that the legislation will sail through the Senate without debate or at least some compromise.

If you are predisposed to be proactive, you’ll see plenty of reason to worry about some version of EFCA passing in the first half of 2008. The bill will fly through the House. Both Independents will vote for the legislation. Senator Specter from Pennsylvania will vote for some version of the EFCA (he will probably be a key leader in the Senate negotiations on the bill). Thus Democrats should only need 1 to 3 additional votes to overcome a filibuster.

The Republican party, after the drubbing it has received in the last two mid-term elections, will be far from unified. There will be a lot of soul-searching among moderate Republicans and unions will be putting massive pressure on legislators to pass something. Further, those who think the “squishy” Republicans will not cave into pressure from unions should not lose sight of the fact that unions are not even asking these Senators to vote in favor of the Free Choice Act. They are simply asking them not to filibuster the legislation. These Republicans will be characterized as protecting the right to vote by preventing a democratic vote on the legislation.

What will happen?

It is much too early to tell. I anticipate that some compromise version of the EFCA will pass sometime in the first half of 2008. It will probably include quick elections and increased penalties (perhaps even some sort of penalty for forcing an election and then losing - this is based on the UK model and is highlighted as a possible change by Specter in his article). It may even include some sort of interest arbitration (perhaps as a penalty for unfair bargaining).

Additionally, the NLRB is likely to receive increased resources in exchange for commitments to speed up its process and more aggressively enforce the statute. It is also very likely that the NLRB will actively expand the Act, including restricting the definition of a supervisor and perhaps even allowing “minority” bargaining units. The NLRB and Department of Labor are also likely to engage in rulemaking in an attempt to “level the playing field” for unions.

Let’s also not lose sight of the fact that the old law is still in place and unions – already energized during the election campaign – will be even more engaged now that they’ve got their man in the White House. Case in point: NLRB petitions were up more than 6% in September 2008 over the year prior. This is during a month when unions were expending enormous resources trying to get Obama elected President.

Smart companies will understand they have no time to lose now that the election results are in. It is very likely that some form of EFCA will pass. No matter what its form, the initiation point will be the signing of a union card. Your supervisors and employees must know what to do the moment they are confronted with one, and understand why a union may not be in their best interest or in the best interest of the company.

In an economic environment fraught with problems (and companies laying off employees at a rapid pace) being prepared for card-signing activity is more important than ever. Your company must make sure all employees are listened to and treated with respect and dignity, no matter the pressure on the bottom line. The companies that do this will protect their direct relationship with employees. Many of the ones who wait to see what the final legislation looks like will be heading into contract negotiations before the end of the year.

Election Observations Part One

2008-11-05T08:46:00.000-06:00

There is a lot to say about this election and not enough time to fully address everything, but here are some important initial points.

Despite losing the White House and seats in both houses of Congress, Senate Republicans must feel like they at least won a moral victory last night. For all of the talk that the Democrats could get that filibuster proof majority, they ended up 4 votes shy.

What does that mean for EFCA? As ardent readers of this blog know, we have closely followed the presidential and senate races. If the Democrats could have hit the superfecta – The White House, House of Representatives, and Senate – filibuster proof, then the smart money would be on EFCA passage – probably in February or March. Instead, they hit a trifecta with winning all three but not gaining that filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

Some employers and workers might interpret this to mean that EFCA will be dead again. If the Senate GOP holds together like a stone wall, they could be proven right. But there is also a very strong possibility that won’t happen. There is ample evidence (more below) that EFCA will be the first bill the new Congress addresses. The labor unions will go all out to pass it – they just didn’t make a $100 million dollar investment yesterday to watch it all go for naught. There will be significant pressure on moderate Senate GOP members like Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe. There will be significant beltway-pressure to at least give President Obama something of a honeymoon, play nice, work together, etc. The end result is that we could still see EFCA passed or – more likely – see some sort of compromise bill that could have better PR massaging, but might very well have the same practical effect as EFCA would anyway (i.e. 7-day elections, interest arbitration, etc.)

Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard makes a good argument in the Wall Street Journal yesterday related to this prior point. When the Democrats previously controlled Congress and the White House in the late 70s and early 90s, a significant chunk of conservative-moderate Democrats were still in office (think folks like Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan). Those people who fought labor law reform during the Carter administration can attest that it was southern Democrats that helped scuttle the legislation. There will be no such luck for employers and workers now – the moderate-conservative Democratic is pretty much extinct.

Those of you that watched Fox News last night were probably amazed at the amount of attention that card check received. Fred Barnes brought it up several times, as did the other pundits. It made one wonder why we were talking about it so much as the votes were being tallied instead of talking about it when it might have actually changed votes! That view was only further confirmed when Juan Williams of National Public Radio committed a huge blooper. He said that we didn’t know how Obama felt about card check. Now, Williams is a very smart guy, he is as clued into the Washington political and policy scene as anybody else – and he always comes over on television as being left-of-center but very fair. So, it was positively stunning that on the issue they were talking about as the FIRST issue that Obama would tackle, a very well-informed pundit simply got Obama’s position wrong. I think it just shows how low EFCA was on the election radar screen. (To his credit, Barnes immediately interjected and stated that Obama had voted for EFCA and said he would sign it as president)

Perhaps the most interesting piece of beltway gossip on EFCA came from Nina Easton on that same Fox News panel. Easton is a writer for Fortune magazine. She said that her sources have said that Obama will indeed solidly support EFCA, in the hope that going all out for EFCA will help him get labor off his back on other issues, like free trade. If Easton is right, that’s a very shrewd move by Obama. It sounds entirely plausible.

As we said above, there is a lot more to say about the election. We will post additional material in the coming days.

UAW Agrees To Bargain Under Tribal Law

2008-11-04T10:41:00.003-06:00

In an interesting development in the Foxwoods Resort Casino case, the UAW has agreed to begin collective bargaining under tribal law, although neither party has waived their right to appeal to federal labor law. The casino is located on the Mashantucket Pequot reservation, and last November the employees elected to allow the UAW to represent them. However, the tribe challenged the election on the grounds that the National Labor Relations Act does not apply to a casino on tribal land. The NLRB ruled against the tribe, and both sides finally came to an agreement to stay further legal actions and bargain under tribal sovereignty, including submitting to arbitration under the tribal system after five months of bargaining.

"The concepts of tribal sovereignty and self-government are very important to all Native American tribes," said Jackson King, general counsel of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation. "We are very pleased to have come to an understanding that both acknowledges employees’ rights to join unions and respects the rights of Native American governments."

EFCA & Real-World Economics

2008-11-03T11:12:00.003-06:00

Though the batting average of solid economic analysis of the Employee Free Choice Act is not as I would hope (see our last post), Forbes just posted a very insightful look. The article author David Henderson points out that

"Government grants of monopoly (except, possibly, patents, which are problematic) are wrong whether they are granted to taxicab companies (as they are in almost all U.S. cities), TV cable companies, or groups of workers."

He is speaking of unionization in general, and if you value the concept of true individual freedom, you have to agree with his argument. The article lays out in detail how under our current law (the Wagner Act as passed under Roosevelt in 1935), it is possible for even a minority of workers to usurp the rights of all of the employees at a particular company to negotiate for themselves. More to the point, the economics of such a monopoly are detrimental to the entire economic landscape:

"Decades of research by labor economists have come to the conclusion that the small percentage of workers who are in unions get higher wages but that most of these gains come at the expense of non-union workers. How so? In response to higher wages due to unionization, employers lay some employees off or do not hire as many in the first place. These workers then go to the non-union sector, driving wages down there. One might think that the solution is to unionize all labor so that there would be no non-union wages to be driven down. But if that were to happen, the effect would be zero wages for the millions of workers put out of work by union monopolies."

And as the recent Boeing episode suggests, job loss would be magnified by companies moving completely out of the country wherever possible.

The Employee Free Choice Act is not just a bad idea, it is a bad idea that makes an already bad situation (a reduction of individual liberty) even worse!

EFCA Experts

2008-11-02T16:02:00.000-06:00

The Wall Street Journal has yet another take on EFCA, this one appearing in this past Friday’s edition. For the most part, the story tries to paint an even tone, though two experts they cite incorrectly play down EFCA’s total impact.

One economist – who posts over at the Huffington Post blog which tells you a lot about his economic views – claims that the act would increase productivity and lead to better labor-management relations. The practical evidence that mass unionization leads to greater productivity is, of course, nil – instead we can look to a long line of unionized companies that are either bankrupt or close to it. And we don’t know of a SINGLE employer who thinks that EFCA would lead to better labor-management relations.

The second economist was somewhat more mystifying – she works for Moody’s Economy.com. Her take is that since unionization is such a small part of the economy, EFCA’s impact would be marginal. That’s true in a literal sense, but, the entire point of EFCA is to change the first part of that equation – EFCA wants to make unions a far more robust part of the economy. It’s as if this economist really can’t imagine a situation where unions have hefty membership – yet just a few paragraphs before her quote we have a quote from Andy Stern saying that he could unionize millions of workers if EFCA passes.

The story does quote at least one well-informed expert, former NLRB member Chuck Cohen. Cohen, who was appointed to the board by President Clinton and opposes EFCA, says that the interest arbitration provisions of EFCA would be quite radical. His exact quote:

"Having an arbitrator decide contract provisions is a sea change for this country."

The WSJ has published a lot of well-written pieces about EFCA, far more than any other major newspaper. Kudos to them and we hope they keep it up. But we also hope that they find experts who are knowledgeable about what the bill would really do. It seems that they were only batting .333 in that respect with this piece.

EFCA: Gaining Attention

2008-10-31T15:31:00.002-05:00

Even while we can lament in earlier blog posts that John McCain ignored EFCA -- possibly at his peril -- it does seem that the conservative elite establishment in Washington, DC has finally realized what a major change EFCA would entail. Four or five years ago, we don't think anybody outside of the small orbit of those who follow labor and employment law knew what EFCA or card check even was. It just wasn't on the radar in a significant way.

It still isn't in many respects but at least over the past month or so, we have seen a trickle of very well-written opinion pieces from major writers that talked about EFCA or card check. Fred Barnes, Richard Epstein, and George Will are the three biggest writers that come to mind.

Joining them now is Charles Krauthammer, whose syndicated column appears in newspapers all across the country. Krauthammer is also a frequent guest on Fox News and a member of the "Fox News All-Stars" panel which analyzes the day's events around 6:45pm est every day. Today's column was "Part Two" of his "Case for McCain" series (he started it last week). What is the first issue he mentions this week as a reason to vote against Obama?

"(1) Card check, meaning the abolition of the secret ballot in the certification of unions in the workplace. Large men will come to your house at night and ask you to sign a card supporting a union. You will sign."

There won't be much that anybody could do if Obama does win and the Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate. The best case might be a hail-Mary hope that some Democrats would come to their senses. But it is at least encouraging that some major national news figures are now showing an interest in the issue and will presumably use their own pulpits in the coming months to point out the many flaws of EFCA and card check.

Could EFCA Start the Real Fight?

2008-10-31T10:56:00.004-05:00

Years ago, a friend of mine came up with this reason to why liberals seemed to be more engaged in social & political activism. According to his explanation, the rationale for both liberal & conservative positions revolved around the same issue: money.

Most conservatives are capitalists - who believe that the best chance for their prosperity lay in the business of being about business. Most liberals believe that their best chance for prosperity involves the amount of money they can siphon from productive sectors of the economy through government largess (income redistribution).

What is a bit scary is the volume of activity that Big Labor adds to the sucking power of that siphon. According to the AFL-CIO, just one of many labor organizations that deployed activists during this campaign season, their efforts included:

* a 21-state presidential battleground program
* 70 million phone calls, 10 million door knocks, 57 million pieces of mail and 27 million worksite fliers
* a diversion of 4000 paid union staff working on the election
* top officers criss-crossing the country campaigning
* communications people in key states, blogs launched
* outreach expressly to minority communities
* union lawyers working in communities to "protect" voting rights (while ignoring ACORN...)

And - during the remaining 4 days until the election:

* 10's of 1000's of volunteers will visit more than 3.9 million homes
* make 5.5 million more calls
* distribute more than 2 million more workplace leaflets

I can only imagine what will happen once Big Labor secures the government, passes all of the union-centric legislation already lined up, and swells the ranks of both their constituency and their power. Forget "one-party" rule in American. Think instead "one special interest group" rule.

This may sound depressing, but I'm not actually depressed! If there's one thing Americans know how to do it's fight! Once the facade has been lifted and the veil pierced, and the pressure put on hard-working Americans to support the graft & handout mentality of this huge thug (Big Labor), they will fight back - yes - including their own membership! Perhaps the Achilles heel of Union Bosses is that they consistently act in a way that a great percentage of their membership do not support.

Once America's business owners and entrepreneurs wake up to the reality of a Union-directed economic landscape, they will act. I wish it would have been sooner, as we are likely to go through more pain than would have been required to get past this, but the fight is on nonetheless!

Lost Opportunity?

2008-10-30T05:38:00.001-05:00

Readers of this blog know that we have said on more than one occasion that John McCain should have talked more about the consequences of EFCA. The general public is woefully ignorant of what EFCA would do. Bringing up EFCA and tying it to the broader economic crisis might have been shrewd.

Shikha Dalmia from the Reason Foundation has an excellent piece on Forbes.com making that same case. The opening paragraph hits nails the problem:

“Perhaps Republicans deserve to lose this election--but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try to win. It is not clear, however, that the McCain campaign agrees. How else to explain its failure to alert voters of frightening liberal ideas such as "card check" that are bound to be enacted if Democrats sweep into the White House and Congress?”

As we noted a few weeks ago, the Weekly Standard quoted a GOP campaign official who said that card check wasn’t brought up in this election because nobody understands it and it doesn’t move voters. We have already explained why we think both are dubious propositions at best.

Let’s add a third possible reason though why McCain ignored it – that McCain is hoping to attract the white, blue-collar workers who comprise many unions rank and file membership. Having what be dubbed an “anti-union” message could turn off those voters, or so the argument goes.

This isn’t convincing either, especially when you look at past exit polling in presidential elections. The New York Times has a great compilation of exit polling going back to 1976. Here is the chart. It shows that the GOP candidate attracts somewhere between 25% to 40% of union household votes in most presidential elections. The highest ever was 46% for Reagan in 1984, but that election was a landslide.

In general, the percentage of union households that vote for the GOP is stable, suggesting that those union households are probably voting on other issues – for example, abortion, gay marriage, etc. Voting for the GOP candidate – especially when union members are bombarded with appeals from their union leaders to vote for Democrats – also shows a certain amount of independence. These union households are probably not fond of labor union leadership.

Where does McCain stand with union households? The latest IBD/TIPP poll puts him at 36%, which is on the high end of the “GOP Union range” but still within the well-established ballpark.

What’s all of this mean? McCain probably was not going to lose union votes over EFCA. The legislation is more popular with union leaders than the rank and file. The rank and file who are predisposed to oppose union leaders are probably are skeptic of EFCA too – and probably predisposed to vote for McCain anyway. Even if say McCain lost 5-10 percent of union voters because of vocally opposing EFCA, he might have picked up other non-union voters who will be outraged at such a blatant union power grab.

Of course, this is all an academic exercise. It’s too late at this stage to really make EFCA an issue. But it’s still worth noting that other candidates not in the pocket of labor unions might want to talk about labor issues in future elections. The reasons for ignoring such issues are simply not convincing.

Obama Coat Tails Likely to Decide Senate Races

2008-10-29T16:30:00.003-05:00

Things continue to look grim for opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act. The remaining key races could be decided by factors that are difficult to predict and impossible to control. The Obama campaign has purchased vast amounts of television time so even if Republican candidates wanted to purchase additional time it would be tough to do even if they had the money, which many of them don’t. So, this could come down to the size of Obama’s coat tails. Will he be able to carry Democratic candidates into office with him.

Here is where we stand today:

* Alaska – The jury is still out, literally. Stevens is on trial for lying on his financial disclosure form. The case has gone to the jury but one juror was dismissed Monday and replaced by an alternate. This brings into question whether there will be a verdict. Stevens is counting on a not-guilty verdict to put him over the top but if the jury is still out on election-day it will hurt his chances. Democrat Mark Begich has consistently been ahead in the polls but only by a small margin.

UPDATE: Stevens was convicted today on seven counts of failing to report improper gifts he received from 1999 to 2006. Give Alaska to the Democrats!

* Colorado – The Democratic candidate Mark Udall leads by double digits.

* Georgia – One month ago Republican Saxby Chambliss was ahead by 17 points. Today that lead is down to 2. A heavy African- American turnout could swing this state to Democrat Jim Martin.

* Kentucky – As in Georgia, a double-digit lead for the Republican one month ago has dwindled to within the margin of error. Democrat Bruce Lunsford has turned Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s seat into a race too close to call.

* Mississippi – Another very close state. The polls show Republican Roger Wicker ahead but by a small margin. A heavy African-American turnout could swing this state to Democrat Ronnie Musgrove.

* Minnesota – Former comedian Al Franken leads Republican Norm Coleman but the race has tightened. Al Franken is funny. This race is not. Put this in the toss-up column.

* New Hampshire –The Democratic candidate Jeanne Shaheen leads by over 8 points.

* New Mexico – Democrat Tom Udall leads by 17 points.

* North Carolina – Democrat still leads over Republican Elizabeth Dole. A heavy Obama vote could seal the deal.

* Oregon – Democrat Jeff Merkley leads Republican Gordon Smith but still within the margin of error. Obama has big lead in this state so his coat tails could make the difference.

* Virginia – Democrat Mark Warner has 25 point lead.

The Democrats are certain to pick up 4 states and very likely to pick up 1 more. This leaves 6 states in the absolute toss-up column (Kentucky, Mississippi, Georgia, Minnesota, Alaska and Oregon.) All these races have been trending to the Democrats but four are strong McCain states. As the Presidential race stands today these states are as follows:

Alaska............McCain 57 Obama 33
Kentucky.......McCain 53 Obama 41
Mississippi....McCain 49 Obama 39
Georgia..........McCain 50 Obama 44
Minnesota.....McCain 40 Obama 51
Oregon..........McCain 38 Obama 53

Conventional wisdom would say that the Democrats win the Obama states and Republicans the McCain states. But Alaska will probably be decided based on the outcome of the trial. If Stevens is found guilty, there is a hung jury or the jury is still deliberating he looses. If he is found not guilty he wins.

I have a funny feeling about Georgia. As late as mid-September McCain had a strong double digit lead that has constantly narrowed and the Chambliss lead has shrunk even more. Almost 30% of the state is African-American and they are exceptionally motivated voters this year.

I feel better about Mississippi. Even though the race is close and African-Americans make up 36 percent of the population Wicker has consistently held his narrow lead and has shown little slippage.

The Kentucky race shouldn’t be anywhere near this close. Incumbent Senate Minority leader in a GOP-friendly state should be winning easily. But the state is 57% Democrat and just elected a Democratic Governor by 18%. The financial situation is also a factor but in the final analysis McConnell should win.

So, how does this all add up. Democrats win 3 of the 6 states still in play (plus perhaps Alaska) for a total 8 or 9 seats increasing their majority to 57 or 58. With 2 Independents and 1 Republican who supported the Free Choice Act last year the prospects of defeating the legislation in the next Congress look grim.

Speaking of Next Tuesday....

2008-10-28T15:07:00.003-05:00

.....Where do things stand in terms of the presidential race and Senate races?

The polling at the presidential level does seem to be all over the place, as of late. Some polls have it much closer than others. From what we have read, the major difference in the poll results has to do with the type of weighing that the pollsters are using. There is one school of thought that the upcoming election will be much like past elections in terms of the people who vote -- and that roughly the same amount of democrats/republicans/independents that traditionally vote, will vote in this election too. In these surveys, the race is relatively tight -- the Gallup poll using this methodology has the race at a 2 point margin as of today.

There is another theory that the folks who turn out next week will be very different from your usual presidential electorate -- for example, there will be more young people who are drawn to Obama and minorities. On top of that, the theory posits that the number of people who self-identify as Democrats or Independent leaning Democrats will out vastly outnumber GOP voters. Gallup uses a variation of this in their daily polling and that has the race at +7 for Obama. Other polls using this methodology have put Obama head by 10 or 15 points.

What's the right school of thought to use? We are just labor relations consultants, not polling experts, so it's really anybody's guess. The fact that Gallup -- the most non-partisan and respected pollster -- is using two different sets of weights should indicate that even they don't really know. But the common thread in both is that Obama is ahead. That has not changed over the last few weeks.

What about the Senate? Our friends over at Kilpatrick Stockton have a nice post about the state of those races. It appears that Republicans are hanging onto their filibuster abilities by a thread -- the projections that Kilpatrick Stockton cites puts the Senate in Dem hands by a 59-41 margin.

The political reality is that employers and workers could wake up next Wednesday to a Congress that would pass EFCA, a GOP that could not filibuster it, and a President that would sign it.

Smithfield Foods and UFCW Settle RICO Suit

2008-10-28T07:57:00.004-05:00

In a somewhat major legal development, the United Food and Commercial Workers and Smithfield Foods have settled a ground-breaking RICO lawsuit, just before the case was scheduled to go to trial.

The terms of the agreement are still sketchy– what we do know is that the union has agreed to end ALL corporate campaign activity. The company and the union have also agreed to a “fair election process” though they did not elaborate on what the terms of such an election would include. The specific circumstances surrounding what exactly the “fair election process” entails will ultimately determine whether this is a good deal for workers. Some “fair election agreements” are very one-sided in favor of unions and that might be the case here. The fact that they are just not having a regular NLRB election (or, at least they are not calling it that) means that we should at least approach this with some caution.

But reading between the lines, it looks like UFCW might have caved. The union was obviously fearful of going to trial and losing. Having the corporate campaign deemed a violation of RICO statutes could have opened up the litigation flood gates. UFCW tried – unsuccessfully – at several turns to have the case dismissed. It seemed that they were reluctant to have this head to the jury.

There is also the very real possibility that the prospect of an EFCA friendly President and Congress made fighting over a corporate campaign a moot point. The clear goal of most corporate campaigns is card check/neutrality agreements. EFCA would mandate both of these provisions. In labor’s eyes, it will be nice to still have corporate campaigns at their disposal – and so maybe it did not seem prudent to have them classified as civil RICO violations – but at the same time maybe UFCW figured it was just not worth their time and money to fight for a tactic that could become far less important as of next Tuesday.

Union Boss On TV

2008-10-27T12:32:00.002-05:00

This is a nice little commercial starring a union boss. Makes a compelling case for the Employee Free Choice Act, eh?

A Rose By Any Other Name...

2008-10-27T12:05:00.004-05:00

Have you heard about the new bill being teed up to be rushed through Congress once Obama is elected? The "Employee Bullying by Labor Goons Act." No - haven't heard of it? Perhaps you know it by the glossy name the unions attached to it, the Employee Free Choice Act. This short editorial frames the issue nicely, while also making addressing the recent "bailout."

The Employee Free Choice Act -- And Beyond!

2008-10-27T09:12:00.002-05:00

To the extent that labor issues have been raised in the presidential campaign -- which isn't very much -- most of the attention has been focused on EFCA. But while EFCA would be the biggest possible change, it's not the only pro-union measure coming under a possible Obama presidency. The Wall Street Journal -- whose editorial and news staff are covering labor issues with great fervor -- has another piece today, this one an opinion-column exploring EFCA as well as other possible union goodies. Highly suggested reading for employers and workers just so they are completely aware of what Big Labor has in store should they win in a week.

Union Proponents = Failed At Math

2008-10-27T08:13:00.003-05:00

I'll admit that we are all guilty of filtering facts to fit our worldview. If we are going to be honest with ourselves and others, and create authentic arguments that go beyond emotional appeal alone, we have to consider the basic underlying facts of an issue.

Here is a good example of someone completely avoiding the hard math behind an issue. When the employees of a Canadian Wal-Mart tire & lube department won union representation, they sought increases in labor costs that would put the department into the red (meaning the shop would lose money), and there was no room to raise prices to compensate due to competition in the marketplace.

It is unfortunate that our government-owned school system fails to prepare our citizens in the basics of math. Oh well, as long as unions control the school system, who has a right to expect this to ever change?

WSJ Take Two

2008-10-24T17:01:00.004-05:00

The Wall Street Journal wins the prize for best labor-related stories today. In addition to the wonderful editorial on union dues, the news department has an interesting story on the fight being waged in DC over card check, with a special emphasis on the role of the US Chamber.

There is no doubt that the story is not framed properly when it's viewed solely as a labor v business battle -- EFCA is primarily about basic fairness to workers. The WSJ story would have been better if they would have also interviewed many workers who have been involved in card check campaigns and walked away disenchanted with labor. But it's also true that employers would be negatively impacted by the legislation in a big way and it's good to see that an advocacy organization for employers is taking the fight seriously.

What's most stunning is the Washington insider gossip the story reveals. Senator Chuck Schumer from New York supposedly doesn't like the Chamber playing such an active role in politics and personally called them and asked them to cut it out. The Chamber didn't back down, which is good for them.

No matter your politics, the hard reality is that one party is opposed to EFCA while one has supported it -- overwhelmingly. It's worth pointing out that in the not-so-distant-past, Democrats were trying to distance themselves from organized labor and instead promote a more free-market style economics, albeit with some caveats (that were largely acceptable to the business community). It was Bill Clinton and his team of economic advisers that passed NAFTA, after all. But the Democratic Party has unfortunately taken a hard tack to the left on labor and economic issues over the last 8 years. Asking the Chamber to sit out the election when there is an issue like EFCA that will impact their members so profoundly is akin to political malpractice. It's somewhat galling that Senator Schumer would even ask.

The major flaw with the WSJ story though is their description of card check as a process that would "streamline" the election process. I guess that's technically right, but streamline usually means changing something in a way that makes it more efficient without losing fundamental fairness. Card check and EFCA go way beyond "streamlining" -- it's a wholesale, one-sided, change of well-established labor law. It should not be masked.

Spending Dues Wisely?

2008-10-24T09:18:00.002-05:00

Whatever one thinks of the pros and cons of gay marriage, there is little doubt that some of your average union members out there are at least skeptical about the idea. So, why then, has organized labor given over $1 million dollars to a ballot measure that would essentially support gay marriage in California? That’s the question the Wall Street Journal asks this morning, in a very good editorial.

Spending union dues in this fashion is nothing new for the organized labor movement. Too many union leaders consider the dues of their hard working members as an some sort of political (and sometimes personal) piggy bank. In fact, if you search through union financial records, you can find countless examples of Big Labor donating to gay advocacy organizations, the Rainbow Coalition, ACORN, etc. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a noted scholar at the Hudson Institute and the former Chief Economist at the Department of Labor, uncovered many such expenditures in a report she released last year on union spending.

There is no doubt that the leaders of organized labor today also consider themselves part of a broader left-wing political front. The reality however is that a lot of union members – and would be union-members – do not subscribe to that political view. Unions might be more attractive to workers if they stayed out of political fights like this and instead focused solely on helping workers – but with the state of union leadership today, there is little chance that will happen.

Kentucky Union Members Protest Chamber of Commerce Meeting of Employee Free Choice Act

2008-10-22T09:14:00.004-05:00

I ran across this today. I don't really have time to comment, but it is self explanatory.