Stephen Cabot's Blog | Labor Relations

TAG | economy

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

While the news media has been focusing on public sector unions in Wisconsin and Ohio, the Obama administration has quietly encouraged the unionization of 45,000 airport screeners.
The Transportation Security Administrator, John Pistole, a pro-union advocate, has been lauded by federal unions, who have wanted to unionize airport screeners for many years.
This is an extraordinary development in light of the anti-public-union sentiment that has swept the county in the last few months.
As the Obama Administration and Democratic legislators gear up for the 2012 elections, they will surely enlist the vast armies of unionized workers to deliver their election victories. As we get closer and closer to 2012, we can expect to see ever-increasing pro-union directives emanating from the White House.

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

Feb/11

25

PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS WANT HIGHER TAXES

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

Throughout the country, public sector unions are campaigning for higher taxes as a means to prevent government cutbacks. From Oregon to New York and states in between, unions are waging ferocious fights to prevent states from balancing budgets by cutting expenses.

Unions, such as SEIU and AFSCME, are spending extraordinary sums to promote higher taxes as a means to prevent cutbacks that they feel will result in fewer members, lower amounts from union dues, and less money to spend on political campaigns.

In Oregon, the Oregon Education Association and the SEIU spent millions of dollars to pass ballot initiatives that ultimately raised business and income taxes by approximately $727 million.

In Arizona, unions were behind an effort that increased sales taxes from 5.6% to 6.6%, thus helping to raise one billion dollars.

In New York, the United Teachers union spent $750,000 to prevent the state from capping some of the highest real estate taxes in the nation. In fact, real estate taxes in New York State are so high that many middle class families and small businesses have left the state.

And so it goes from state to state, but it doesn’t stop there. It exists nationally as well. Unions give more money than do any other entities to the national Democratic party. And the purpose of their giving is no different from their state-by-state donations: generous donations to congressional, senatorial, and presidential campaigns require a payback, And that payback is legislation that will increase wages and benefits for public sector workers by raising taxes. Public sector unions benefit; public sector workers benefit. And the American people, their states and corporations foot the bill. The American people, who are not members of public sector unions, are the victims of a vicious cycle of union-government-union actions that are increasingly injurious to the health of the American economy.

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

Feb/11

11

THE COMING SEIU TSUNAMI

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

According to an article in The Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com), the Service Employees International Union, which presently has 2 million members, intends to launch a major offensive against corporate America that will “peak in the summer of 2012.”

The Union intends to recruit new members to its ranks in 10 to 15 major American cities, including Cleveland, Milwaukee, Miami, and Detroit. Its recruitment efforts will take place at political primary events, town hall meetings, and other gatherings. No doubt, its focus will be at Democratic Party events, for the SEIU is a stalwart contributor to Democratic candidates. In the last presidential election, the SEIU spent $70 million! It is reportedly prepared to spend tens of millions of dollars on its aggressive new recruitment efforts.

Many of its members are public sector workers who will receive inordinately large pensions upon their retirement, which will further contribute to the near bankruptcy of states. The Union, obviously, hopes to defeat any legislative measures that will curtail the size of those tax-payer funded pensions. Hence, its forthcoming efforts to beef up its membership rolls and deliver the maximum number of votes to its Democratic allies in 2012.

It is essential that both legislators and Corporate America prepare effective survival strategies to defeat the deleterious efforts of the SEIU. If not, public service pensions will indeed bankrupt one state after another leading to financial devastation throughout the land.

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

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

Right-to-work states are growing faster than states where unionization is the norm. A study by Richard Vedder, published in the Cato Journal, found that 4.7 million U. S. citizens moved to right-to-work states from forced-union states during the years 2000 to 2008. In addition, his study found that there is a “statistically significant relationship between right-to-work laws and economic growth.” In fact, during the years 1997 to 2007, those right-to-work states enjoyed a 23% more rapid growth rate for per capita income than states in the Northeast and Midwest.

Not only are jobs and people leaving the forced-union states, but companies, domestic and foreign, are choosing to build new manufacturing facilities in right-to-work states, primarily in the South. Such trends do not portend an economic resurgence for forced-union states. The onerous deficits that are hurting those states will only get worse.

And governors and state legislatures realize that one ailment keeping their economies on life support are unions. It is no wonder then that three states are considering becoming right-to-work states. They are Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Those states, like their neighbors in the northeast, desperately need new businesses, greater employment, and more tax dollars. The only way they will grow their economies and achieve their goals is to become right-to-work states. Other states should take notice and join the trend to economic growth.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Aug/10

20

LABOR UNIONS INCREASE UNEMPLOYMENT

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

During the current recession when unemployment hovers near 10%, President Obama and his hand-picked ideologues on the National Labor Relations Board are using all their wiles and power to effect a pro-union business landscape. The combination of Executive Orders (which I have written about in previous blogs) and the decisions of NLRB member, Craig Becker, (a decidedly radical pro-union advocate and former SEIU official), have resulted in union friendly policies that are injurious to Corporate America and are driving up unemployment.
It has been a well-established fact that unions reduce the numbers of employed workers by mandating wages that move in an ever increasing upward spiral. (The average union wage is 28% higher than a non-union wage). In such situations, cash for hiring new workers diminishes as does cash for R&D and capital improvements.
Furthermore, those high union-mandated wages result in increased prices for manufactured goods. It has long been an established fact that as labor costs increase, demand for consumer goods diminishes and the pool of consumers shrinks.
Faced with such an economically unattractive scenario, corporations will choose to reduce their labor costs by outsourcing work, replacing workers with machines, and/or moving manufacturing facilities to low-labor-cost nations. One need only look at the iconic American manufacturer of motorcycles, Harley Davidson, which announced that it might have to leave its home town of Milwaukee, where it has been an essential manufacturing presence for more than 100 years. And why will it have to move? The simple answer is its union-mandated cost of labor.

While President Obama and his designated pro-union advocate, Craig Becker, would like to do all that they can to help unions, Harley Davidson and other manufacturers will have no choice but to move the states or countries where unions will have no influence. And if that happens, one will see a rise in unemployment greater than 10%, a further diminishment of consumer spending, and a worsening economy.

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

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

According to research conducted by Lee E. O’Hanian, a professor of economics at U.C. L.A., increased unionization will increase unemployment, reduce productivity, and depress economic growth. Increased unionization is the goal of President Obama’s appointees on the NLRB. Its most notorious member, Craig Becker, wrote in 1993 that the NLRB can re-write union election rules without getting the approval of both houses of congress.

In a recent Wall Street Journal editorial (www.wsj.com), Professor O’Hanian wrote: “My research suggests that if unionization rates returned to 1970s levels…and if new unions could achieve the same wage premium as existing unions have achieved over non-union workplaces, then employment would decline by about 4.5million and real GDP could fall by about $500 billion per year.”

The professor provides an apt analogy: When businesses become monopolies, they fix prices. When unions establish base wages and benefits, they force other companies to meet artificially inflated union standards. The effect is to cause small business to hire fewer workers, thus reducing profitability and productivity. Professor O’Hanian points out that “about 55% of union elections occurred at businesses with 30 or fewer employees between 2003 and 2006.” When such small companies become unionized, their profit margins shrink and there is little or no opportunity to hire new workers.

It is a shame that President Obama, who appointed Craig Becker and other pro-union advocates to the NLRB, does not understand how injurious his actions will be to workers, corporate America, and the overall economy.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

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.