Stephen Cabot's Blog | Labor Relations

TAG | pro-union

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.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

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.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Nov/10

12

ORGANIZE TODAY, WIN TOMORROW?

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

For several months, I have been writing that the NLRB has been looking for ways to do an end run around the mis-named Employee Free Choice Act. Ideologically disposed to providing whatever support it can to unions, the NLRB’s latest intention is to endorse quickie elections to hasten union representation.
The time from petition to election usually takes 38 days. However, Mark Pearce, a Board member, would like to shorten that period of time to between five and ten days, which is what exists in Canada.
In order for employers to present their side of the unionization story, to educate their employees to what they will be losing if they vote for union representation, they need sufficient time to communicate facts and concepts to employees. And because union organizers usually operate in secret, employers will not know that their employees have been the targets of union propaganda until a petition has been filed. Five to ten days will hardly be adequate time for management to present its case. After all, the union organizers may have been propagandizing workers for weeks, if not months.
A quickie election is indeed an end round around the dormant Employee Free Choice Act. Instead of card checks, union authorization cards will lead to petitions which will lead to quickie elections. Five days later, a union will be in place. Say hello to the Employee Free Choice Act in disguise. It is, therefore, essential that Corporate America pro-actively develop strategies for defeating such scenarios. And the time for doing so is Now!

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

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

The fight to pass card check legislation has stalled in congress, much to the anger and dismay of organized labor. It, therefore, turned its efforts to individual states, such as Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Oregon, which have passed card check legislation, permitting union organizers to bypass secret ballot elections and increase union membership. More than ten states have now passed legislation permitting the use of card checks. The use of card checks invites union intimidation, harassment, and coercion, not just to employees, but also to their families.

In response to the actions taken by those ten states, four other states have proposed legislation to maintain secret ballot elections. The four states are Arizona, South Carolina, Utah, and South Dakota. To ensure that workers cannot be coerced by union organizers into signing cards declaring they want to be represented by unions, North Dakota, for example, is proposing an amendment to its state constitution that in union elections “the fundamental right of the individual to vote by secret ballot election be protected.”

Unions and their pro-union political allies fail to admit that unionization has been a disaster for their states. Over the last ten years, pro-union governors have witnessed their states’ employment decrease by 2.8%. Right-to-work states, however, have enjoyed a 3.7% increase in employment over the same period!

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

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.