Stephen Cabot's Blog | Labor Relations

TAG | Steve Cabot

From the desk of Steve Cabot:

Since the soothsayer’s warning to Julius Caesar, the Ides of March has carried a dark connotation of doom and betrayal by someone close – a trusted advocate or ally. And that’s what came to mind as I read several items within the past week which highlighted the increasing divergence between the priorities of Organized Labor and the workers they claim to represent.

Here we are, still mired in the worst economic times since the Great Depression, and what do we hear from the union bosses – words of concern and a willingness to work with management to save jobs and build productivity? Not even close.

In a recent interview, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka spelled out his commitment to partner with radical (which he calls Progressive) political action groups to push the Far Left agenda of this administration. These are ideologically-driven efforts utterly disconnected with – and often in direct opposition to – the well-being of the American worker.

Is it any surprise, then, that employees – at least in the private sector – are questioning the value (and values) of their union leaders?  They see the abuses, the pointlessly confrontational attitude toward management, the unauthorized allocation of dues to political purposes antithetical to their interests, the intimidation in organizing elections, and the general hijacking of their rights. And increasingly, they don’t like it.

But out of this disillusionment has come great opportunity. For years, the Cabot Institute has believed in – and counseled clients to embrace – a WIN/WIN approach in the workplace, one that sees employees as partners, not pawns. One that rejects us/them in favor of a true shared vision.

And today, more than ever, we are seeing the fruits of this philosophy. I encourage you to reach out to discuss the specific ways we can assess your situation and suggest the best strategies going forward. You can call me directly on my cell phone (215-990-3423) or contact Georgetta McCabe, my administrative assistant, on her direct line: 800-655-2042.

· · · · · · · · ·

Jan/12

23

GROUNDHOG DAY: THE UNFUNNY VERSION

From the desk of Steve Cabot:

In the 1993 romantic comedy, “Groundhog Day,” weatherman Phil Connors, played by Bill Murray, was forced to live through the same dreadful 24 hours, again and again, where nothing changed – until he did. Central to the plot was that only he was aware of this repetitive phenomenon; everyone else was totally oblivious. It was an amusing film and did well at the box office.

Unfortunately, employers – and the rest of America – are being forced to live through a darker, more sinister version of this movie, one in which the lead character continues to push his Big Labor “change” agenda without regard to constitutional restrictions or political precedent. Unlike the original, however, we are all very much aware of what’s going on – only nobody’s laughing, except union leaders and their allies.

The most recent and egregious examples of the president’s imperial excess can be seen in his brazen misuse of “interim appointments” to fill vacancies on the NLRB. With the Senate still officially in session, Mr. Obama ignored the vetting role of that body and simply declared that pro-union partisans Richard Griffin and Sharon Block would join Terence Flynn as new, unapproved members. When challenged by Senate leaders, the president had his Attorney General issue a lockstep ruling supporting his decision. So much for the separation of powers.

But it doesn’t stop there. For example, when Congress refused to pass legislation restricting the rights of workers, the administration promptly switched to rule-making to implement its agenda, including  authorizing “quickie” or “ambush” elections which stack the deck against employers.

The bottom line is that sensing their time in power may be limited, the forces of Big Labor in and out of government are hell-bent on reshaping workplace dynamics as aggressively as possible. I have been helping my clients prepare for the worst for three years, and every day that goes by validates the wisdom of that strategy.

I encourage you to reach out with any labor relations concerns you might have. You can call me directly on my cell phone (215-990-3423) or contact Georgetta McCabe, my administrative assistant, on her direct line: 800-655-2042.

· · · · · · · · · · ·

From the desk of Steve Cabot:

With his Congressional rubber stamp privileges revoked by the decisive loss of the House of Representatives last November, President Obama continues to use the rule-making and regulatory powers of the Executive Branch to work his will on employers.  He seems emboldened by the push-back from the American people, and is doubling down on his efforts to “transform” the country in his remaining time in office.

Previously, we described how the Democrat-dominated NLRB recently proposed rules which would significantly impact management’s ability to makes its case leading up to a union ratification election. Now it’s the Department of Labor which has stepped in to influence and intimidate employers who seek advice from outside attorneys and consultants (officially known as “persuaders”) as they prepare for these elections.

Specifically, the DOL has proposed a rule related to the reporting requirements under Section 203 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which would broaden “advice” to mean any “oral or written recommendation regarding a decision or course of conduct.” The rule stipulates that both the company and its consultants must open their books to report any of the newly-covered activities – and, even more intrusively, the details of any compensation involved.

As usual, the devil is in the details, as found in the language of the rule:

“For example, persuader activities may additionally include: Training or directing supervisors and other management representatives to engage in persuader activity; establishing anti-union committees composed of employees; planning employee meetings; deciding which employees to target for persuader activity or discipline; creating employer policies and practices designed to prevent organizing; and determining the timing and sequencing of persuader tactics and strategies.”

The rule goes on to state that even “union avoidance” seminars and conferences offered by lawyers or labor consultants to employers will constitute “reportable persuader activity.”  The proposed rule was  published on June 21, 2011, in the Federal Register. Public comments can submitted until August 22, 2011.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Jun/11

24

A NEW THREAT TO CORPORATE AMERICA

From the Desk of Steve Cabot:

Having failed to get congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), organized labor is now benefitting from proposed new rules issued by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The new rules will ease the way for organized labor to win union elections by dramatically truncating the period of time from petition to election. It currently takes an average of 57 days from petition to election; under the new rules that period would be reduced to from 10 to 21 days. Of course, union organizers often spend months convincing employees to vote for unionization, prior to the filing of a petition. Now, the newly imposed brief interregnum will significantly curtail a company’s ability to educate employees about the disadvantages of unionization.

As if that were not sufficiently injurious to Corporate America, the NLRB rules would also permit the electronic filing of election petitions, defer litigation about voter eligibility until after an election, require employers to provide a union with the phone numbers and e-mail addresses of all employees prior to an election, consolidate all litigious matters into a single post-election appeals action in order to eliminate individual actions that could delay an election.

One can only speculate what additional pro-union rules and regulations the NLRB may issue in the coming months. Certainly issues of wages and benefits will be an enticing subject for the NLRB ideologues to consider.

Corporate America has, thus far, been too complacent, believing that because the number of union members has decreased over the years that unions have been rendered ineffectual. In fact, unions are vigorously preparing for an aggressive assault on Corporate America, and its chief advocate and front-line ally is the NLRB, which is proposing a number of radical threats to Corporate America that should not be ignored.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

From the desk of Steve Cabot:

Businesses across America are suffering at the hands of an aggressively pro-union National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). As a result, 86 national business associations and 131 state and city associations have formed the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace. The Coalition’s mission is to amend the National Labor Relations Act, so that businesses can operate at maximum rates of productivity and profitability.

The Coalition supports the Job Protection Act, H. R. 1976, which would, according to an article in the P J Tattler, clarify the NLRA “with respect to state right to work laws, reining the agency in after a series of unprecedented actions that heavily tilt toward Big Labor.”

From allowing micro unions to organize to preventing Boeing from operating in a right-to-work state, from permitting union organizers to trespass on private corporate property to promoting card checks, the NLRB has been proving to be one of the most injurious institutions to the health and growth of American businesses.

We urge all readers of the Cabot Institute of Labor Relations blog to contact their congressional representatives and voice their support for the Job Protection Act, H R 1976.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

Just before Americans were to celebrate the unofficial beginning of summer over the Memorial Day weekend, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decided to make Catholic educators unhappy. It declared that St. Xavier University was not sufficiently religious to be exempt from federal jurisdiction. That ruling followed an earlier one against the Christian Brothers’ Manhattan College.

Though a Court of Appeals has twice ordered the NLRB to cease harassing religious institutions, the NLRB – in its aggressive pro-union actions – has ignored the court. It hasn’t mattered to the Board that in 2002 and 2008, the court reversed the NLRB, thus exempting religious institutions from the 1935 National Labor Relations Act. The Board insists that it has the right to determine if a religious institution has a “substantial religious character.” And if it doesn’t meet the Board’s criteria, then the Board can impose its policies. This dispute is likely to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

It becomes increasingly apparent that the NLRB will do whatever is necessary to advance the agenda of organized labor, even if that means obviating federal law when it comes to religious institutions. College faculty members, after all, represent a huge pool of potential dues-paying union members.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Jun/11

3

UNION SINGS NEW ARIA

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

The National Labor Relations Board’s decision to prevent Boeing from opening a new out-of-state manufacturing facility has apparently inspired other workers to file complaints with the Board.

The American Guild of Musical Artists has now filed a federal complaint against the New York City Opera, which wants to move out of its famed Lincoln Center home after 45 years. The opera company is in serious financial difficulty and deeply in debt. Not only will the company move to a more affordable space, but it plans to reduce the number of operas it will stage next year, from five to three.

The opera company’s 200 members, including fifty choristers and ten production workers, are claiming that the move to a less expensive venue and the company’s intention to produce fewer operas than last season will result in reduced pay.

Of course, it will: that’s the point of restructuring. If the company is to survive and continue providing first-class opera performances to opera goers, it must cut costs. And one of its major costs is its labor expenses.

One can now expect that unionized workers of any company that wants to relocate to file a complaint with the NLRB. The Boeing decision has opened a Pandora’s Box of complaints that will continue to place obstacles against new opportunities not only for increasing profitability and productivity, but also (in this case) against a corporation’s very survival.

Corporate America can only hope that the NLRB does not approve this latest operatic complaint. It is an aria sung out of tune with logic.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

May/11

26

NLRB INTENSIFIES PRO-UNION ACTIVITIES

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com), the NLRB has broadened its recent decision about not permitting Boeing to open a manufacturing facility in a right-to-work state. It wants to apply that decision to all companies.

Unions have traditionally focused their attentions on collective bargaining, wages, and benefits. Management has heretofore been free to decide where a company should operate.

Now the NLRB wants to change that formula: The Board would like to force all unionized companies to consult their workers’ unions before deciding to relocate to another state. In other words, if employees don’t want to move, then the company will have to stay put or attempt to get an exemption from the union and/or the NLRB. Unions would have unfair leverage as well as a veto.

This is a further example that the NLRB will do what organized labor demands to counteract the waning levels of union membership and even help unions capture new members. Rather than preserving jobs in America, such tactics will cause companies to relocate out of the United States. And that will be bad for everyone: workers, consumers, companies; in fact, it will prove injurious to the entire economy of country.

· · · · · · · · · · ·

May/11

20

WORKERS TAKE UP THE ANTI-UNION BANNER

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

In Columbus, Mississippi, permanent replacement workers have taken up the anti-union banner: they want to decertify the union at Omnova Solutions, Inc., a maker of upholstery products.

A petition for decertification has been filed; and after a four-to-six week period awaiting approval of the petition by the NLRB, more than 100 workers could vote in a secret ballot election to make the company non-union, following a year-long strike that has had a negative effect on the company’s bottom line.

This is another example of American workers being fed up with unrealistic union demands, especially during a period of high unemployment when workers are desperate to earn a living, to pay their expenses, and put food on dinner tables. Only high-handed union officials seem unconcerned with the day-to-day problems of the unemployed. It’s time for all American workers to say no to unionization and yes to full employment.

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

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.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

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.