From the desk of Steve Cabot:

I wasn’t too surprised when Organized Labor decided to throw in with the motley mobs currently laying siege to cities across the country. After all, they have a lot in common. The anti-capitalist, redistributionist rhetoric coming from the agitators is standard fare at union rallies, and the paramilitary tactics of intimidation, disruption, and forcible occupation of public and private property are right out of the SEIU handbook.

The truth is, this is a natural – if unholy – alliance:  the demonstrators want to weaken corporations and demonize profits, and the labor unions are more than happy to provide logistical and financial assistance as a means of building their own public support and political power. For them, this is simply another step toward their goal of reestablishing workplace hegemony.

This is an ongoing saga, one with significant long-term implications. If you’re interested in learning more about the state of Organized Labor today and its impact on our economy, I invite you to read a compelling special report just released by Human Events entitled, “The Big Labor Stranglehold:  Killing Jobs & Hurting America.” Written by Dr. Carl F. Horowitz, project manager for the National Legal and Policy Center, this 26-page report looks beyond the well-publicized but misleading statistics about declining union membership and documents the strategies, goals, impact, and prospects of Big Labor in America.

To receive your complimentary copy, simply click here or on the image below to go to the Human Events website. Once you register, a pdf version of the report will be sent directly to the email address you specify.

For assistance with any labor relations issues, I encourage you to call me on my cell phone (215-990-3423) or contact Georgetta McCabe, my administrative assistant, on her direct line: 800-655-2042.

cabot institute · Employee Free Choice Act · human events · Labor Relations · national labor relations act · National Labor Relations Board · nlrb · occupy wall street · organized labor · President Obama · Right to Work · SEIU · Service Employees International Union · special report the big labor strangehold · unions killing jobs · Washington · Wisconsin · workers

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.

Cabot Institute for Labor Relations · consultant disclosure · corporate america · Department of Labor · employer disclosure · Labor Relations · new rule · organized labor · persuader advice · President Obama · section 203 lmrda 1959 · stephen cabot · Steve Cabot · union elections · union organizers · unionization · Washington

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.

cabot institute · corporate america · elections · electronic filing · Labor Relations · litigation · National Labor Relations Board · new regulations · new rules · nlrb · organized labor · petitions · stephen cabot · Steve Cabot · union elections · union organizers · unionization · Washington · workers

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.

big labor · Boeing · cabot institute · Coalition for Democratic Workplace · H R 1976 · Job Protection Act · Labor Relations · national labor relations act · National Labor Relations Board · nlra · nlrb · organized labor · Right to Work · South Carolina · stephen cabot · Steve Cabot · union · unionization · Washington · workers

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.

1935 Act · cabot institute · Catholic · Catholic colleges · Catholic educators · Catholic universities · Court of Appeals · federal court · Labor Relations · national labor relations act · National Labor Relations Board · nlrb · religious · religious freedom · stephen cabot · Steve Cabot · Washington · workers

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.

Boeing · cabot institute · International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers · Labor Relations · National Labor Relations Board · nlrb · Right to Work · South Carolina · stephen cabot · Steve Cabot · Washington · workers

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.

Boeing · cabot institute · International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers · Labor Relations · National Labor Relations Board · nlrb · Right to Work · South Carolina · stephen cabot · Steve Cabot · Washington · workers

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.

Alabama · Alan Wilson · Arizona · attorney general · Attorneys General · Boeing · cabot institute · Dreamliner · Dreamliner 787 · employees · employers · Florida · Georgia · International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers · Labor Relations · National Labor Relations Board · Nebraska · nlrb · Oklahoma · Puget Sound · South Carolina · stephen cabot · Steve Cabot · Texas · union · Unions · Virginia · Washington · workers

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.

787 Dreamliner · Boeing · cabot institute · corporate america · District 571 · Dreamliner · IAM · International Association of Machinists · Labor Relations · Lindsey Graham · National Labor Relations Board · nlrb · Republican · Right to Work · South Carolina · states · stephen cabot · Steve Cabot · strikes · Washington

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:
Among the many parks in the state of Washington, there are two handsome parks, Dawson and Gonyea that local residents want to keep clean and useful. Through a 16-year-old program called “Adopt-a-Park,” volunteers have stepped forward to keep the grass cut and raked, to pick up garbage and even to clean toilets. Who would complain against such civic minded virtues?
The Teamsters!
Apparently Teamsters Local Union 117 filed a complaint with the state demanding that the county not permit volunteers to maintain the two parks. Of course, volunteers do not pay union dues, so their very presence deprives the union of funds. And as everyone knows, unions are profitable, thriving businesses. Curtail their funding and they howl about unfair practices. But if financially strapped communities save money and maintain local parks by utilizing the services of civic-minded volunteers, well, that’s unfair to the unions. After all, volunteers don’t pay dues, do not require collective bargaining, and will not go out on strike demanding raises that the community cannot afford. In other words, volunteers at the two parks have made the Teamsters superfluous, and no union wants to be thought of as powerless.
This is just another example of unions imposing roadblocks that hurt communities. And when such roadblocks are imposed against local, regional, and national businesses, the unions wind up hurting the economy, hurting workers, and hurting Corporate America.

cabot institute · civic · communities · corporate america · Labor Relations · local · parks · stephen cabot · Steve Cabot · teamsters · union · Unions · volunteers · Washington · workers