Stephen Cabot's Blog | Labor Relations

CAT | Uncategorized

May/11

13

NLRB GOES AFTER ARIZONA

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

In a further attempt to promote card checks, the National Labor Relations Board has filed suit to void a voter-approved constitutional amendment in Arizona that allows the formation of unions only by secret ballot elections.

This is not only blow against democracy, for Arizonians voted to approve the way unions could be formed, but it is also evidence of the NLRB’s ongoing determination to promote Card Checks as a way of increasing union membership.

Arizona’s attorney general will fight the lawsuit, making a stand for democracy and the rights of workers and management to decide upon unionization based upon secret ballot elections.

That, however, has not curtailed the intentions of the NLRB, which now plans to sue South Dakota as well over its passage of a constitutional amendment similar to Arizona’s In addition, the NLRB may initiate legal action against South Carolina and Utah in the coming weeks or months. It is apparent that if organized labor cannot get congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act (aka, Card Checks), then it will let the NLRB do its bidding, even if it involves abrogating the votes of citizens.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

May/11

5

BOEING FIGHTS BACK

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

Having endured a potentially injurious decision by the National Labor Relations Board that would have delivered a severe financial blow to its bottom line, Boeing is fighting back. Its attorney, Michael Luttig, has issued a statement that the NLRB’s charges “fundamentally misquote or mischaracterize statements by Boeing executives.”

Indeed, Boeing has been vilified in the media through fallacious statements erroneously attributed to some of its executives.

To wit: Boeing was charged with wanting to fire its workers in Washington and replace them with non-union workers at its new South Carolina facility. It is a patently false charge, for no workers in Washington were going to be fired, none would be replaced by workers in South Carolina.

Boeing also states as false the government’s assertions that its move was an attempt to punish union workers in Washington. Since work would continue in Washington and no workers would be fired, one might ask how Boeing was punishing those workers. It’s an indictment without evidence. It is simply a charge based on complaints by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and advanced by its advocates on the NLRB, both of which do not want Boeing to operate in a right-to-work state.

We fully support Boeing’s position that the National Labor Relations Board should withdraw its complaint. Its complaint accusing Boeing of wanting to locate a new plant in South Carolina to avoid future labor disruptions in Washington state and to punish its unionized workers are without merit. As with all American companies, Boeing has the right to operate in geographic locations that are conducive to high levels of productivity.

· · · · · · · · · · ·

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

The attorneys general of nine right-to-work states, where workers cannot be forced to join a union as a condition of employment, have issued a statement condemning a wrong-headed ruling by the National Labor Relations Board that prevents Boeing from building its Dreamliner 787 in South Carolina. The states are South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Virginia, Arizona, Oklahoma, Florida, Alabama, and Georgia. Alan Wilson, the Attorney General of South Carolina, wrote: “The only justification for the NLRB’s unprecedented retaliatory action is to aid union survival.” We could not agree more.

As we recently reported, Boeing chose to open a manufacturing facility in South Carolina because several strikes in Washington had not only significantly delayed the company’s production goals by many months, but had also cost the company tens of millions of dollars. South Carolina provides a more business friendly environment than does the state or Washington.

As a corporation operating in a free-market economy, Boeing has the right to operate a manufacturing facility wherever it wants, especially as it contributes to the welfare of its employees and to a profitable bottom line. It is an essential element of our capitalistic heritage. And we support the right of all corporations to do business wherever they want, not someplace chosen by the NLRB, catering to the demands of unions, such as the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which has applauded the NLRB’s decision.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Apr/11

22

NLRB ATTACKS RIGHT-TO-WORK STATES

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

The National Labor Relations Board has further evidenced its pro-union advocacy by attempting to prevent Boeing from opening a manufacturing facility in South Carolina, a right-to-work state.
Having endured numerous strikes against its manufacturing facility in Washington, including a 58 day strike in 2008 that cost the company $1.8 billion, Boeing management decided to build its new 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina. The proposed new facility would generate 1,000 new jobs and bring a $2 billion investment to the state..
The NLRB, however, filed a complaint against Boeing, alleging that Boeing is attempting to violate labor law in retaliation for past strikes against the company. The Board wants Boeing to stay in Washington. It’s no surprise that the International Association of Machinists District 571, which represents Boeing workers, declared the ruling “a victory for all American workers.”
Yet, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham called it “one of the worst cases of unelected bureaucrats doing the bidding of special interest groups that I’ve ever seen.”
The NLRB is effectively attempting to abrogate the rights of Corporate America by eliminating its ability to decide where it wants to do business. It is also sabotaging the economic viability of twenty-two right-to-work states, which have been providing more new jobs than states which cater to unions and their often extortionate demands.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

Though Republican congressional representatives have expressed their displeasure at the overtly pro-union rules and regulations issued by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), they failed to cut the Board’s budget.
The vigorously negotiated budget deal that was recently agreed upon has exempted the NLRB from the budget cutter’s scalpel, thus leaving intact a major obstacle to the economic well-being of Corporate America. There had been vigorous lobbying to cut the Board’s budget, but union lobbyists may have outspent their opponents, leaving former union attorney Craig Becker to direct the NLRB’s actions in accordance with the wishes of organized labor.
The Wall Street Journal had reported earlier this year that the GOP intended to cut the Board’s annual budget by $50 million, which would have amounted to 1/5 of its overall budget.
Not only has the proposed budget cut not materialized, but the Board has actually experienced an increase in funding. The result, unfortunately, will be that that Board will be energized by the unfulfilled threats of its opponents and its increased budget; it will continue on its pro-union, anti-management war path. Its actions, no doubt, will prove pernicious to the economic growth of the country.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

Angela Greiling Keane reported on Bloomberg News that the U. S. Postal Service negotiated a 4 ½ year contract with the American Postal Workers, which has 202,000 members. She quotes Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican, as stating: “We have deep concerns that some of the provisions of the contract may in fact be the wrong direction, to less flexibility, less ability to trim the workforce and less ability to in the future make the kinds of investments we need to make.”

The new contract will not stem the tide of enormous losses; and it will certainly not lead to a renaissance of profitability for the postal service, which has suffered losses for the last five quarters. Its labor costs are a whopping 80% of its total budget, while labor costs for UPS are 69% of its operating budget, and 43% for the operating budget of FedEx, which is staffed by a combination of employees and independent contractors.

Until the postal service can bring its labor costs in line with private sector employers such as UPS and FedEx, it will continue to run huge billion-dollar deficits. The sorry state of the U. S. Postal Service is just another example of how public-sector unions drive companies into the ground. The goals of the governors of Ohio and Wisconsin should become the goals of a fiscally responsible federal government.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

From the Desk of Stephen Cabot:

Following the lead of Wisconsin and Ohio, Governor David Heineman of Nebraska and Republican lawmakers have decided to rein in the ever-growing power of public sector unions. They have introduced legislation that would curtail the power of the state’s Commission of Industrial Relations, which adjudicates labor disputes.
The proposed legislation would not only curtail the power of the Commission (which many view as pro-labor) to set wages and work conditions, but it would also remove its jurisdiction over retirement and healthcare benefits, especially for teachers.
Not only are lawmakers dissatisfied with the Commission, but they are worried about the state’s budget deficit which is projected to be $943 million over the next two years.
The Commission was created in 1947 as a result of a debilitating utility workers strike, and Nebraska became one of 31 states with commissions that adjudicate labor disputes.
Governor Heineman has declared that if the reform of the Commission does not take place, he will work to generate a ballot initiative that would call for the elimination of the Commission.
The ongoing efforts to increase productivity and reduce the power of public-sector unions are fast becoming one of the most important labor relations trends of the year; and if those efforts are successful, all Americans will benefit from reduced taxes and higher levels of employment.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

FROM THE DESK OF STEPHEN CABOT:

Tax payers, long upset about the extortionate powers of public-sector unions, are giving their whole-hearted support to courageous governors who are determined to curtail the inordinate money grabs made by those public-sector unions.

It started in Wisconsin, where Governor Scott Walker stood his ground against aggressive and often abusive pro-union demonstrators, and it has now spread to Ohio, where Governor John Kasich is proving to be even tougher than his neighbor Governor Walker.

While the Wisconsin law would permit workers to negotiate inflation-adjusted wages based on seniority, the law proposed in Ohio by Governor Kasich would permit workers to negotiate wages based on performance and merit only. In the private sector, workers normally receive salary increases based on performance and merit. The two are naturally tied together. And Governor Kasich would like to public-sector workers to be as responsible as private-sector workers are.

In addition, Ohio, unlike Wisconsin, would restrict negotiations on health insurance, sick leave, and vacations to the same level as those enjoyed by non-union government workers. In other words, there should be one rule for everyone: union workers should not be entitled to greater benefits than their non-union colleagues.

Again, unlike Wisconsin, Ohio would not permit unions to negotiate levels of staffing, teacher-student ratios, disciplinary procedures, and outsourcing. And binding arbitration to settle contract disputes would be eliminated. Finally, the same rules that don’t permit police and fire fighters to strike would apply to all government employees.

States, counties, and cities can no longer afford to spend outrageously large sums of money to meet the demands of avaricious unions. Debts are crippling states, and taxes are over-burdening the middle class. It’s time for public-sector unions to live by the same rules that govern free markets.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Mar/11

18

NLRB CONDONES PRO-UNION THREATS

FROM THE DESK OF STEPHEN CABOT:

Each new decision by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) confirms its agenda to advance the cause of organized labor. The latest such decision follows a union election that took place in 2008. At that time, the Communications Workers of America won a 14 to 12 vote to represent the workers at MasTech Direct TV.

A number of employees who did not want to vote for union representation reported that pro-unionists threatened physical violence against them and their families if they carried out their intention to vote against the union. Each of the threats was documented.

In years past, the NLRB would overturn an election if either side had voiced threats of physical violence in an effort to affect an election outcome. Now, however, the NLRB has decided not to abrogate the aforesaid election because it does not meet a confusing and abstruse set of criteria set by the NLRB. In other words, documented evidence of threats is no longer considered prima facie evidence. So much for the rule of law!

The NLRB continues to spearhead its aggressive pro-union campaign to let unions organize as many employees as possible with opportunistic disregard for well-established precedents.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Mar/11

11

REALITY SWEEPS ACROSS MIDDLE AMERICA

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

After years of being over taxed to pay the outrageous salaries, benefits, and pensions of public sector employees, four principled Republican governors decided to turn back the collective bargaining clock and make public-sector and even some private-sector unions responsible to all citizens.

It has taken considerable courage on the part of the governors of Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and Idaho to face down angry, vituperative mobs who have attempted to block legislative buildings and intimidate legislators. But, the governors stood firm, for they know that they have the vast majority of the citizens on their side. And those citizens expect their governors to balance state budgets and reign in extortionate unions without imposing ever more burdensome taxes.

In Wisconsin, collective bargaining by public sector workers would be restricted to salaries only, and legislation would require unions to permit members to vote annually about whether they want to remain unionized. In Indiana, proposed new legislation would prohibit unions from collecting union dues. In Ohio, collective bargaining and binding arbitration for public-sector workers would end. Legislation would also permit the hiring of replacement workers during strikes. In Idaho, collective bargaining by teachers would be limited to salaries and benefits. In addition, tenure would be phased out for teachers.

Altogether, governors in the Midwest have taken courageous stands, ones that should stiffen the spines of other governors across the country

· · · · · · · · · · · · ·

<< Latest posts

Older posts >>

Disclaimer: Although this blog may be helpful in informing clients and others who have an interest in labor relations issues, it is not intended to be legal advice. The thoughts offered in this space refer to complex matters, and the significance of them – i.e. how they might apply (or not) to any particular individual or organization – may vary considerably. Readers should not rely on the information or opinions expressed in this blog as a substitute for competent legal or consultative advice specific to their circumstances.