May 10, 2008

Card Check: Hypocrisy

From the WSJ:

Two of the nation's largest labor unions have struck confidential agreements with large employers that give the companies the right to designate which of their locations, and how many workers, the unions can seek to organize.

The agreements are raising questions about union transparency and workers' rights. A summary document put together by the unions says it is critical to the success of the partnership "that we honor the confidentiality and not publicly disclose the existence of these agreements." That includes not disclosing them to union members.

With their advocacy for the Employee Free Choice Act, organized labor is insisting that employees NOT be allowed to maintain confidentiality when voting on whether to join a union. The secret ballot be damned.

But when it serves their purposes, confidentiality is a matter of principle.

The particular offenders here are the SEIU and Unite Here.

Miserable, just miserable.

Posted by Carter Wood at 6:48 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

May 9, 2008

Card Check: Sort of Proves the Point, Doesn't It?

On the Neil Cavuto show, Vincent Curatola -- the Johnny Sac character on The Sopranos -- says he's getting abuse for appearing in the anti-card check commercial sponsored by the Coalition for a Democratic Workforce.

Posted by Carter Wood at 1:38 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

May 7, 2008

Card Check: Unions Will Give Congress No Choice

David Weigel, writing in the latest edition of Reason magazine, does an excellent job in describing the raw, naked, brutal and ugly politics behind organized labor's push for the Employee Free Choice Act. He starts by letting the words of Stewart Acuff, the AFL-CIO's director of organizing, illustrate:

“My brothers and sisters,” he said, “if we go into 2008 with an even larger mobilization of workers behind this legislation, with even more commitment to win the election in 2008, and put this on the agenda in 2009, I’m here to tell you today that we will pass this legislation, in the House, overwhelmingly! We will pass it in the Senate! We will defeat a Republican filibuster! And we will have a president who signs the Employee Free Choice Act! And we can get back to the business of restoring the American dream for millions and millions of workers!”

What’s the Employee Free Choice Act? If you aren’t a lobbyist in Washington, a union worker, or an employer nervously trying to prevent your staff from organizing, you might not have followed the twisty history of the latest attempt to increase private-sector unionization. “Card check,” as it is usually known, would allow employees at a company to bypass secret-ballot elections and declare their intent to unionize by simply signing cards. If adopted, it could portend the most revolutionary change to labor law since the 1940s.

One point we disagree on is Weigel's description of business lobbyists watching with a sense of "resigned horror." Not around here. We sincerely believe that once the public understands that card check means ending secret ballot elections, they'll reject it. Certainly there's no resignation among members of the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace -- including the NAM -- who are assiduously working to point out the legislation's hostility to American democratic principles.

That said, read the whole thing. An informed electorate needs more of this kind of reporting.

Posted by Carter Wood at 1:31 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

Solidarity This, Fellow Union Workers

From The Chicago Tribune:

DAYTON, Ohio - Autoworkers and suppliers are fixing up their homes, worrying about health care coverage and frequenting food pantries as they wait for an end to the 2-month-old strike against a Michigan auto parts supplier that has idled them or cut into their business.

The UAW's strike against American Axle & Manufacturing Holdings Inc., now in its third month, has affected about 30 GM plants.

Posted by Carter Wood at 10:46 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

May 1, 2008

Longshoremen Strike on West Coast

Longshoremen ignore a federal arbitrator's order and shut down West Coast ports in order to protest the war in Iraq. A radical exercise....

The action comes despite a last-minute appeal by employers, backed by a labor arbitrator, to compel longshoremen to report for work.

"We are severely disappointed that the union leadership failed to keep its end of the bargain," said Steve Getzug of the Pacific Maritime Association, an organization representing marine terminal operators. "The coast arbitrator - essentially the Supreme Court on the waterfront - has ordered the union to treat today as a normal work day, but the union appears to have done the opposite."

The ILWU, which represents more than 40,000 dockworkers at 29 U.S. Ports, is currently negotiating for a new labor contract with the PMA. The current pact expires July 1.

Employers said today's protest does little to bring the sides closer to an agreement.

"Shutting down the ports in defiance of the contract and the arbitrator's order in no way benefits an already-fragile U.S. economy," Getzug said. "We have a lot of serious issues to resolve at the bargaining table, and the nation cannot afford uncertainty about the reliability of the West Coast ports."

Not only is the move a gesture of contempt to the law and the union contract, it also tells members of other unions -- those whose work is disrupted -- that they're of no concern. So much for solidarity. And do all longshoremen oppose the war in Iraq?

The Pacific Maritime Association issued a news release on the strike, including these facts.

The West Coast ports are a huge economic engine, supporting eight million U.S. jobs and accounting for 11 percent of the U.S. GDP. ILWU members are among the highest-paid blue-collar workers in the nation; average full-time wages for fully registered workers are $136,000. A rich benefits package, including pension and health care, costs more than $50,000 per worker. Nearly 15,000 registered longshore workers are employed at West Coast ports – an increase of more than 4,000 since 2002.

Posted by Carter Wood at 7:37 PM | 1 comment; click here to read it or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

Oh, is it May Day?

An editorial from the People's Weekly World, the weekly newspaper of the CPUSA, "May Day 2008":

Workers of the world unite! That visionary call, issued 160 years ago, is being answered today in new and powerful ways.

As capital has gone global, using workers around the world as pawns in the transnational corporate profit grab, labor unions are going global too. They are forming unprecedented international alliances to fight the global assault on wages, benefits, living standards and worker rights.

• The United Auto Workers and France’s metalworkers federation (FTM-CGT) are developing a joint strategy for organizing at employers they have in common. They have agreed to share information and assist each other.

UAW Vice President and Organizing Director Terry Thurman said, “We are very pleased to work with our French brothers and sisters. … The corporations cross national borders for their self-interest, and our unions need to do the same thing.”

FTM-CGT includes the shipbuilding, aircraft and rail, electrical and electronic, mechanical equipment, metal, agricultural machinery, jewelry making and automobile industries.

• Earlier this month, the Communications Workers of America and Germany’s largest union, Ver.di, launched the first union ever to represent workers in both the U.S. and Europe. The new union, called T-Union, will support T-Mobile workers trying to win collective bargaining rights in the U.S. and other countries. It will also represent German union members who work for T-Mobile in the U.S.

• Last year, the United Steelworkers signed an agreement with Britain’s largest manufacturing union, Amicus, and the British Transport and General Workers’ Union to move toward a merger. Amicus and the T&G have since joined into one mighty union with 2.1 million members, called, appropriately, Unite.

• The AFL-CIO has just formed a new partnership with Enlace — a network of 21 worker centers, unions and organizing groups representing approximately 300,000 low-wage workers in the U.S. and Mexico — to work together to promote and enforce worker rights in the two countries.

All this indicates that labor is beginning to step onto the global stage as the advocate for the world’s people. It gives every reason for optimism as we celebrate May Day, the international workers’ holiday.

Posted by Carter Wood at 2:43 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 30, 2008

Card Check: But What Does It Do? (We Ask Again)

Harold Meyerson, the Washington Post's most socialistic op-ed columnist, writes a piece today, "Landing the White Whale," on the necessity of Democratic politicians winning white, male, working-class voters to have any hope of gaining the presidency. How to achieve that goal? Reunionize!

For decades, as union membership declined from 35 percent of the workforce in the mid-1950s to 12 percent today (7.5 percent in the private sector), Democrats stood by and failed to strengthen workers' rights to organize. By the late '90s, John Sweeney's AFL-CIO had impressed upon Democrats that their inaction amounted to slow-motion suicide. Today, the party is united behind the Employee Free Choice Act, which, by enabling workers to join unions again without fear of being fired, would also greatly help Democratic prospects at the polls.

What is it, again, that card check, i.e., the Employee Free Choice Act does? It enables workers to join unions again without fear of being fired? Really? How?

We suggest an alternative formulation: "[The] Employee Free Choice Act, which by destroying secret ballot elections in the workplace, would enable labor organizers to pressure and intimidate workers into joining a union against their will, effectively using anti-democratic means to expand the ranks and warchests of organized labor." But as we've noted repeatedly, card-check's supporters don't want to deal with the odious details.

To his credit, Meyerson's column is otherwise bluntly honest: Card check is nothing more than a politically motivated mechanism to push a labor and partisan agenda.

Posted by Carter Wood at 10:26 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 26, 2008

Ledbetter Act: It Wasn't Meant to Pass

The Wall Street Journal reaches the conclusion last week's Senate consideration of the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would have lifted all statutes of limitation on employment discrimination suits, was intended more as a political statement and loyalty pledge than an earnest legislative proposal. From "The Foul Play Act":

Ms. Ledbetter took the novel view that decisions made decades ago by her now-deceased former boss affected her pay all the way up to her retirement, so each paycheck was a new discriminatory act. On this theory, there would be no statute of limitations at all. Cases could be brought long after relevant evidence and witnesses had passed from the scene. In practice, every such suit would become a new trial lawyer pay day, as employers settled cases they would find impossible to defend.

And in The Washington Post, a letter to the editor from David A. Drachsler, vice chairman of the Virginia Council on Human Rights.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which you support, would permit an employee to file a pay discrimination lawsuit years after the pay decision was made, even if the employee was aware of that decision. Indeed, in Lilly Ledbetter's case, her lower pay, compared with that of men doing similar work, was caused by low performance evaluations of which she was aware years before she filed her charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

A simple solution would be to amend Title VII to make the statute of limitations run from the date the employee discovered, or with due diligence should have discovered, the discrimination that caused the pay disparity.

Posted by Carter Wood at 4:59 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 25, 2008

Card Check: That's Johnny Sac in the Ad

So it IS a Sopranos' character in the new ad from the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace. Brain Faughnan explains at The Weekly Standard's blog:

As a Sopranos fan, I was disappointed to be cheated out of a great death scene to end a superb series. Insult was added to injury however, when one of the more show's more interesting characters -- Johnny Sac -- was revealed to be a Clinton fan.

Now at least, Johnny Sac is pushing a cause I can get behind:

Card Check is likely to be a significant issue in a number of Congressional races this year. The Curatola ad plays well on his Sopranos image, and does a good job of illustrating why workers might not want to lose the right to a secret ballot on unionizing. Do they really want their employers and union bosses to know how they stand on such a decision?

The NAM is a member of the Coalition.

UPDATE (10:15 a.m.): More from Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, who calls it "perhaps one of the most effective ads in recent political history to demonstrate the dangers represented by Card Check, thanks to instantly-recognizable Sopranos star Vincent Curatola."

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:59 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 24, 2008

Card Check: Secret Ballot? Not Any More, It Ain't

With organized labor making support for the Employee Free Choice Act a matter of candidate fealty in the fall, opponents of card check have a big task ahead of them: Explain that the Employee Free Choice is a cynically misnamed power play designed by organized labor to actually eliminate employee free choice.

By eliminating secret ballots in union representaton elections, labor organizers will be able to use many types of pressure to intimidate employees into agreeing to join the election.

Hence the new TV spot just released by the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (of which the NAM is an active member). From the news release:

The ad, developed by nationally known media strategist Mike Murphy, uses a widely recognized character who will be easily identifiable to voters and will use humor to reinforce the need to protect private ballots for workers. The ad will begin airing on national cable news channels on Friday, April 25. The script of the ad is attached.

“Worker privacy is at stake in the upcoming elections and our goal is to educate voters about this important issue,” said Brian Worth with the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace. “If this anti-worker legislation passes, workers will lose their right to a private ballot. Our polling indicates that support for card check is a potential liability for candidates on Election Day,” added Worth.

Recent polls in Colorado, Minnesota and Maine conducted by CDW suggest widespread voter opposition to Big Labor’s card-check scheme. Nearly two-thirds of voters in Colorado (68%), Maine (72%) and Minnesota (65%) oppose the EFCA. Conversely, at least 80% of voters in all three states believe that secret ballot elections are the cornerstone of democracy and should be kept for union elections.

The news release also has the script. We're told the arm-twister is a character from the Sopranos. He's certainly ...evocative.

Posted by Carter Wood at 7:53 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 23, 2008

Card Check, Colombia: Unions Running the Show

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) chatted this afternoon with a group of bloggers about the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Act and the House leadership's decision to prevent an up-and-down vote on the agreement. The Senator traveled to Colombia in March, where he found a country more peaceful than in years past, growing economically, and embracing progress.

Many of his additional points will be familiar to readers of this blog: Alvaro Uribe is an impressive leader, an ally, and a man working to protect union leaders. The opportunities for U.S. exports to Colombia are impressive. And the Colombia FTA is a great deal for the United States, since Colombia already exports to the U.S. duty free under the Andean Trade Preference Act.

Corker expressed strong sentiments about the politics that have disrupted the agreement's consideration in Congress, the unions demanding allegiance just as they did with the Employee Free Choice Act, or card check. Corker:

Let me just say bottom line, I’ve never seen anything that’s just so brazenly a genuflect, if you will, by House leadership to unions. Card check, to me, it’s hard for me to believe that people really believe in this country that card check is a good thing, where basically union leaders go out and one on one should pick people off to bring a union into existence in companies. I’ve experienced first hand some of those types of tactics. Years ago, as a young man, I was a card-carrying union member. And again, it’s hard for me to see…it’s hard for me understand the tremendous tilt that this leadership has toward the unions. But this Colombia free trade agreement is absolutely inflicting pain on the very people that are being represented.

Today, per the Andean free trade preference agreement, Colombia can ship goods into our country tariff-free, for the most part. Very few things have tariffs on them. This agreement would allow us, our employees, our companies, our workers here in America to ship goods to Colombia tariff-free.

This is solely, solely bowing to union pressure. To me it’s an embarrassment to our country. This president has been our friend; Colombia as a country has been our friend in a part of the world where we need friends, where we need people who care about democracy, who care about freedom, who care about commerce, who want to be stable contributors, if you will, to the world. He has done that, and here we are, holding him hostage, holding their country hostage, holding our workers in this country hostage to the fact that the AFL-CIO and other unions are trying to lever this to some other end. I really mean it. I have never seen anything so blatant, so blatant of nothing, if you will, of kowtowing to union officials in our country.

If the House members are allowed to vote their conscience, Corker said, he's convinced the measure would pass by a large margin, just as it would in the Senate.

The blogger conference call is available here as an .mp3 file.

Posted by Carter Wood at 5:56 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 14, 2008

Card Check: In Hawaii, a Veto

From Governor Linda Lingle:

I support the rights of workers to form or join labor organizations and have collective bargaining representation, but this bill would deny workers their privacy and right to a confidential vote when making that decision.

Maintaining the secret ballot is the best way to protect workers’ privacy and to ensure workers have the ability to vote their conscience without fear of repercussion or retaliation. There is no compelling justification for replacing a fair, democratic process with one that has the potential to erode a worker’s existing rights and protections under the law.

The legislation, HB2974 HD2, represented the incremental strategy that labor unions have adopted nationwide, i.e., gain card check authority with public employees or other groups regulated by state, not federal, authorities. In this case, the affected groups were still significant:

[Most] agriculture businesses in the state; non-retail businesses with less than $50,000 in annual sales; retail businesses including restaurants with less than $500,000 in annual sales; many small, non-profit organizations; day care centers with less than $250,000 in gross annual revenues; hotels, motels apartments and condominiums with less than $500,000 in annual revenues; taxicab companies with less than $500,000 in total annual revenues; law firms and legal aid programs with less than $250,000 in gross annual revenues; art museums with less than $1 million in gross annual revenues; colleges, universities and secondary schools with less than $1 million in annual revenues; and newspapers with less than $200,000 in annual revenues.

Good for Gov. Lingle for standing up to labor's attempt to introduce the intimidation-based unionization into small-business workplaces all across the state.

More from Pacific Business News.

Posted by Carter Wood at 5:29 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 9, 2008

Colombia and Caterpillar

In their drive to defeat the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, the labor unions are sticking it to their members who work for companies that export. Take Caterpillar, for example, as the Wall Street Journal does today:

Union leaders like to say they're looking out for the well-being of the rank and file. But by quashing the Colombia FTA, [the AFL-CIO's] Mr. Sweeney would weaken the competitiveness of American manufacturing and put some of America's best-paying union jobs at risk. These are jobs that exist today but could well be gone if Congress rejects this market opening in South America.

Exhibit A are 8,600 jobs at two Caterpillar Inc. factories in Illinois. Caterpillar exports more to Peru and Colombia than it does to Germany, Japan or the United Kingdom. So keeping and growing market share in both countries is important to union members in both plants. Not all are union jobs but both facilities are United Auto Worker shops.

Consider exports of the off-highway truck, made in Decatur. Customers in Colombia now pay a 15% tariff – equal to $200,000 – on the import of these vehicles. If the FTA goes through, that import tariff goes to zero immediately. Conversely, if the deal dies and Colombia, which is trying to expand its world trade, strikes an agreement with another country where similar vehicles are made, U.S. exports will immediately be at a 15% price disadvantage.

Union leaders don't care? Sadly, that doesn't surprise us. Their fight against the free-trade agreement is more about the exercise of raw political power than it is about improving the quality of lives of their members.

The Journal also has a good news story today about the advocacy for the agreement, including by the NAM and its member companies.

But the lobbying also will involve smaller firms, such as Quality Float Works Inc., of Illinois, with hopes of widening their reach abroad.

Quality Float's owner, Sandy Westlund-Deenihan, said she has spoken with her local representative, Democratic Rep. Melissa Bean, and hopes to meet other lawmakers next week. "We're not General Motors, we're just the little guy," Ms. Westlund-Deenihan said. "I would just want them to know that we're a small business that supports free trade."

The agreement helps labor and business, workers and employers, large and small.

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:37 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 6, 2008

Employers: This Could Be Coming Your Way

American Rights at Work is a union-funded outfit that serves as a labor think-tank, organizer and polemicist. In her reporting on the Appropriations subcommittee hearing we write about below, the group's Erin Johansson notes the following:

Also testifying at the hearing was Professor Gordon Lafer of the University of Oregon, who noted that “Labor law is the only area of American employment law in which it is statutorily impossible to impose fines, prison, or any other punitive damage.”

Ah, well, that can always be fixed.

Posted by Carter Wood at 5:30 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

Card Check Stops Employers from Killing You

An April 2nd hearing by the Labor/HHS subcommittee of Senate Appropriations obstensibly on the National Labor Relations Board's oversight of union elections became yet another platform for supporters of the Employee Free Choice Act to make the case for eliminating the secret ballot in the workplace -- all in the name of "social justice." Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) was upfront about his views in opening the hearing.

I will openly tell you that I’m a supporter of the Employee Free Choice Act. It is clear to me that in order to rebuild economic security for the middle class in America, we must rebuild strong and vibrant unions; and to rebuild strong unions, we must reduce the unfair barriers to union organizing.

In his testimony, University of Oregon political scientist Gordon Lafer -- whom union groups have hired in the past -- argued using the kind of morally objectionable terms heard far too often from labor activists.

[Even] Saddam Hussein had secret ballots. Indeed, history is full of dictatorial regimes that have remained in power despite the use of secret ballot elections. How do they do it? Through things such as threatening the livelihoods of opponents; denying them access to the media; and forcing all voters to attend propaganda rallies for the ruling party. Our government has rightly condemned these votes as “sham elections.”

Unfortunately, the very standards that we insist on as minimal guarantors of democracy in other countries is violated by the NLRB system. With the exception of the secret ballot – and, as I will discuss later, there is no truly secret ballot in NLRB elections–every other aspect of NLRB elections fails to meet American standards defining “free and fair” elections.

Understand? U.S. employers are the equivalent of Saddam Hussein; only the elimination of the secret ballot in the workplace will prevent their brutalizing employees.

NLRB Chairman Peter Schaumber provided countless statistics from 2007 union elections that debunk this kind of ugly rhetoric. Schaumber's testimony noted that 93 percent of all elections were conducted within 56 days of petitioning, and in fact, unions are enjoying fair success in organizing workplaces.

The results of elections held in FY 2007 show that the union was successful a majority of the time. Employees chose a collective bargaining representative in 59.2 percent% of RC elections [certification], 35.1% of RD elections [decertification], and 33.3% of RM elections [employer called], for an overall union success rate of 50.4 percent. That rate has increased in the first five months of FY 2008.

Schaumber also details the consistent and successful resolution of complaints.

The testimony of John N. Raudabaugh, a former NLRB member now a partner with Baker & McKenzie, was also a fact-full refutation of arguments leveled against the board, which he explains are part of a strategy by organized labor to enact the Employee Free Choice Act.

Driving the quest for an "over the shoulder/in-your-face" card-based alternative to the secret ballot is organized labor's longstanding, institutional angst -- declining union density, a labor economist's measure of success or failure in organized labor's ability to gain representational rights. Private sector union density has steadily declined from a high of 34 percent in 1954. In 2007, organized labor represented 7.5 percent of the private sector workforce, up from 7.4 percent in 2006.

We commend Raudabaugh's full testimony as an excellent summary of the fallacies behind the drive for card-check. We also also appreciate it being fairly argued, avoiding the kind of obloquy favored by Lafer and his fellow union activists.

Posted by Carter Wood at 3:48 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 5, 2008

Depends on Who's Doing the Intimidation

Seth Borden picks up on a not-so-subtle inconsistency about the willingness of some to sacrifice the important principle of the secret ballot to achieve one's political aims.

One of Senator Clinton's (D-NY) supporters may have erred today then, by simply speaking the common-sense truth. In a Newsday op-ed piece, Jay S. Jacobs, the Nassau County (N.Y.) Democratic chairman, explained why he thinks Senator Clinton should stay in the race for the party nomination. Mr. Jacobs opines that Senator Barack Obama's (D-IL) lead is based significantly on the "seriously" flawed caucus mechanisms used in several states -- and that the truer "representation of voters' interests" is disclosed by the primaries' secret-ballot process. Per Mr. Jacobs, a pledged Clinton superdelegate:

Caucuses, which are usually held in the evenings, are often complicated and require voters to be present for several hours, exclude many voters - like those who work at night or don't have child care options or are serving abroad in the military. What's more, caucus-goers are often required to make their choices known publicly, a practice that contradicts the American concept of the secret ballot.

Caucus-goers who are more than willing to abandon the secret-ballot when it comes to endorsing the Employee Free Choice Act, because doing so strengthens their allies in organized labor. More from Jacobs:

I was an observer at one of the Texas caucuses, or "precinct conventions." While mine was relatively well-organized, many others were not. Reports of verbal and physical fights were rampant. Complaints of a lack of checks on participant qualifications were widespread.

Coming soon to a workplace near you, IF the Employee Free Choice Act passes.

Posted by Carter Wood at 1:59 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 4, 2008

Card Check: What Does it Do?

An op-ed by John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, and James Leaman, president of the Virginia AFL-CIO. From the Fredericksburg (Va.) Free Lance-Star:

The Employee Free Choice Act is a piece of national legislation that would level the playing field for America's workers - mitigating corporate greed and repairing the broken labor-law system that has stripped away the freedom to form unions and bargain collectively.

All right. And how would the legislation accomplish this goal? What would the process exactly be?

Sweeney and Leaman never say.

But that's typical. So again: The Employee Free Choice would deny employees the right to a secret-ballot election when deciding to join a union or not. Instead of federally supervised elections, a worksites union status would be determined through the very public process of union organizers collecting individual signatures on cards, hence the term, "card check." The process has proved an open invitation to union intimidation and coercion.

Kimberly Strassel in her Potomac Watch column today:

To the extent companies have stepped up, it's been on single issues, like card check. And therein lies the unions' biggest risk: overreach. Good as the overall political environment is, most Americans don't agree with specific union proposals. A recent poll released by the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, which is fighting against card check, found that two-thirds of voters in key Senate election states oppose getting rid of secret union ballots.

The tactic of pro-union Democrats in the past has been to avoid talking specifics. If Republicans want a shot at winning some political races, they'll need to. Painting the picture of a union-dominated America might help focus minds.

Sweeney and Leaman will do everything they can to keep minds blurred.

Posted by Carter Wood at 7:18 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

How Bad Does Big Labor Want This?

Kimberly Strassel's Potomac Watch column today in The Wall Street Journal looks at organized labor's aspirations for the fall elections and finds that the unions are going all in.

How bad does Big Labor want this? Consider the money and manpower so far. The AFL-CIO has approved a record political budget of $53 million to help fund 200,000 union workers on the street. Its affiliated national and international unions have pledged another $200 million. The National Education Association will throw $40 million to $50 million at races. The Service Employees International Union has marked off $100 million for politics, and intends to pay 2,000 union members the equivalent of their salaries to work on Democratic campaigns. Add in union money for federal or state political action committees, for 527s, and for local and state races, and some astute members of the business community – those who have seen this coming "tsunami" (as one puts it) – estimate union political spending may top $1 billion in 2008.

Don't self-styled reformers say we must rid our electoral system of big-money interests?

Well, never mind.

As to goals....

[Unions] will add passage of "card check," which would outlaw secret ballots in union organizing elections. Alongside will be legislation to make union officials the exclusive bargaining agents of most police, fire and rescue personnel. Then there's the biggie – so big that most officials don't talk about it publicly. Tucked into the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act is a provision called 14(b), which allows for "right to work" states. Big Labor last took a run at deleting this section, and forcing more unionization, in the Johnson administration. With a filibuster-proof Senate, they'd have a far better shot.

Unions want a Department of Labor that will sit on corruption cases, water down financial disclosure rules, and turn a blind eye to the use of pension funds to influence boardroom decisions. The National Labor Relations Board has three vacancies, which Senate Democrats will refuse to fill this year. Big Labor's own slate would include people favorable to proposals to allow "mini-unions" within corporate workplaces, or to rework job definitions to bring more positions under the union umbrella.

Business is overwhelmed on many political fronts and may find it difficult to resist labor's all-out efforts, Strassel observes. Except...and here she reaches the same conclusion we do: The people may well object to labor's overreaching in such instances as card-check, Strassel argues.

Where have we seen that before?

Posted by Carter Wood at 7:13 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 3, 2008

Card Check Survey Says, Protect the Secret Ballot

American Solutions for Winning the Future -- the Newt Gingrich-led group -- has released a new survey that shows the public overwhelmingly in support of secret ballot elections in determining whether to organize a workplace, a right that the Employee Free Choice Act would destroy. From the polling memo:

Democracy in the Workplace: Americans Fiercely Defend the Right to
Secret Ballot Elections.

Survey respondents were clear in their belief of keeping private U.S. workers’ decisions about whether or not to unionize: 79% agreed that “federally supervised secret ballot elections” were a right all workers should have. As the nearby chart shows, nearly half of them (48%) felt so strongly.

By comparison, just 12% denied the importance of this traditional method of organizing. This means that those in favor of secret ballot outnumbered those opposed by 6.5-to-1.

The survey was conducted by polling company™, inc./WomanTrend, headed by the well-regarded Kellyanne Conway. American Solutions has put the polling data, including crosstabs, up on its website here. (Always more receptive to a survey's credibility when the data are made readily available.)

Coming on top of the recent Coalition for a Democratic Workplace survey on the Employee Free Choice Act's potential impact on three Senate races (Maine, Minnesota and Colorado), the American Solutions survey makes it very clear that the candidates who sign on with organized labor's demands on card check are making a pact with their own demise. (Hah. Thought we'd say "pact with the devil," didn't you?) They gain campaign contributions and grassroots workers, but only at the cost of alienating the public.

And in the end, isn't winning elections about winning over the public?

Posted by Carter Wood at 12:40 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

Card Check: Incremental Strategy at Work

Labor unions are continuing their stategy of passing card-check laws at the state level, hoping to build pressure for federal enactment in 2009. From the AFL-CIO blog:

With passage of the federal Employee Free Choice Act a major issue for working people in the 2008 elections, lawmakers in Hawaii last week passed their own version of the bill. Union members were key to passage of H.B. 2974, which levels the playing field for workers considering a union. The legislation, which applies only to agricultural workers in the state, passed in both chambers by veto-proof margins with Republicans casting all the “No” votes.

State laws regulate working conditions for agricultural workers, so the unions are still restrained: They can only deprive a small percentage of the labor force of their right to a secret ballot.

But politically, it's a pretty good strategy.

Except...wonder if state legislators have seen this survey? Voters may be less supportive than union organizers trying to expand their own clout -- and spending.

Posted by Carter Wood at 8:42 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 1, 2008

Card Check: Will Work Against Supporters in Fall

Very interesting. Candidate after candidate backed by organized labor has sworn allegiance to the Employee Free Choice Act, but if a new survey is any indication, that support could cost them votes in the fall elections. The survey of Senate races in Colorado, Minnesota and Maine shows voters supporting secret-ballot elections in the workplace, which the Employee Free Choice Act would destroy:

Voters in Colorado, Maine and Minnesota favor federally supervised secret and private ballot elections over a process where the majority of workers simply sign a card and workers’ signatures are made public to their employers, union organizers and co-workers. In fact, the overwhelming majority of voters agrees that secret and private ballots are the cornerstone of democracy and should be kept for union elections. Voters are concerned that intimidation of workers by management or union leaders could be a serious problem in union organizing elections.

When it comes to Congress taking action on this issue, Colorado, Maine and Minnesota voters prefer leaving federal union laws the way they are now. The majority of voters opposes a bill in Congress called the “Employee Free Choice Act” which would replace federally supervised secret and private ballot elections with a process that requires the majority of workers to simply sign a card to authorize organizing a union.

The survey was conducted by the Coalition for a Democratic Workforce by John McLaughlin of McLaughlin and Associates. The National Association of Manufacturers is a founding member of the coalition. (News release here.)

We've seen the card-check legislation become an issue so far in only one election when the conservatives at the Red State blog cited it in endorsing Sean Parnell, the Republican primary challenger to Rep. Don Young (R-AK).

But the issue should certainly figure prominently in many fall campaigns, with organized labor making campaign contributions contingent on a candidate's support. Thing is, labor doesn't like to talk about what the measure actually does -- eliminating secret ballots -- which suggests a political vulnerability. Candidates who oppose card check and who educate the voters as to the measure's anti-democratic core could do very well for themselves.

We saw the news about the survey at Marc Ambinder's blog at The Atlantic, which was then reported at the Las Vegas Sun's news update blog. Points go to the Sun's Michael Mishak for explaining what card check actually does: "Specifically, the bill would allow workers to sign a card signifying their preference for a union instead of voting in a secret-ballot election supervised by the National Labor Relations Board." Wish more reporters were as careful.

UPDATE (11:05 a.m.) Good blog post at Commentary.

Posted by Carter Wood at 8:56 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

March 28, 2008

NAM's John Engler on CNBC: Energy, Labor, Trade

John Engler, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, was on CNBC's Squawk Box this morning talking about presidential campaign rhetoric versus reality on issues like NAFTA, labor standards, and exports. Video here.

He raises one tax issue that doesn't get talked about enough, repatriation. Engler:

One of the things that Congress could do that would really help is to knock out some of these antiquated laws such as repatriation of foreign earnings. More and more companies today have half or more of their earnings overseas -- you have them on the show all the time -- and to bring that money back to the United States, they’ve got to subject it to the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

Pretty good lineup this morning: Former National Economic Council Director Larry Lindsey, former Treasury Secretary John Snow, and James Lockhart, director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO).

Posted by Carter Wood at 12:14 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

March 25, 2008

Card Check: Schwarzenegger Vetoes

Governor Schwarzenegger vetoes the Service Employees International Union and AFSCME's legislative effort (SB 867) allowing collective bargaining by state-subsidized family care workers, with a simple veto message:

Given California's significant budget challenge, I cannot consider bills that would add significant fiscal pressures to the State's structural budget deficit.

The politically most justifiable explanation given California's budget mess, but we hope there was more behind its rejection. As we noted earlier, the bill would have eliminated secret-ballot elections and allowed recognition of unions via card check, where SEIU and AFSCME organizers would have gone to individual workers and said, "Sign up. No, really. Sign up. It's a good thing to sign up. Really. We mean it." It was part of labor's creeping card-check campaign leading up to another vote in 2009 on the federal Employee Free Choice Act.

(Hat tip: The Union-Free Employer.)

Posted by Carter Wood at 7:29 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

March 24, 2008

Longshoremen to Celebrate May Day with Strike

From SocialistAlternative.org:

The International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) has announced a one-day strike against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, calling for a “No Peace No Work Holiday” to take place May 1. They are calling on the AFL-CIO, the Change to Win Coalition, and other unions to do the same. This is a major development for both the labor movement and antiwar movement in the U.S.

The call was first put forward by ILWU Local 10 at a recent West Coast Caucus and was resisted by the ILWU’s top leadership. But rank-and-file support for the call to action pushed it through, with only 3 out of 100 delegates voting against it.

Rank-and-file delegates, that is. If you're a rank-and-file West Coast dockworker who supports the U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, you're stuck; you lose a day's pay because the ILWU is more interested in making an anti-war point than representing its members. But then, so many unions these days are putting a political or "progressive" agenda ahead of actual worker representation.

(Hat tip: Jim Gray.)

Posted by Carter Wood at 8:19 AM | 2 comments; click here to read them or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

March 21, 2008

Card Check: Now That's Confidence....or Hubris

David Weigel of the libertarian Reason Magazine stopped by the Take Back America conference last week here in D.C., a gathering of labor-progressive usual suspects. Informative passage from Weigel's blog reports:

Last night I cracked beers with some members of the United Steelworkers who were funny and blunt about the election. "We needed to get rid of Hillary, and it looks like she's done," one said. I asked him about the chances of passing the Employee Free Choice Act (which would let people unionize by signing cards instead of holding elections) if a Democrat won the election. He looked at me like I was drooling. "If the sun comes up in the morning, we're passing card check."

And more, citing the head of American Rights at Work, a union group:

A questioner (who works for the Social Security Administration) asks if EFCA can really be passed if the Democrats don't get 60 Senate seats. Mary Beth Maxwell points out that the Act got some Republican votes. But: "It's a beginning, the sea change moment that shows we can turn this around, we can secure this right for millions of workers."

The sea change moment: Eliminating secret ballots in the workplace.

How aspirational.

UPDATE (March 24, 9:30 a.m.) Jim Gray comments: "What is most interesting about the first blog comment is that the rationale given for eliminating the secret ballot is the same rationale that triggered the (original) creation of the secret ballot for NLRB elections!"

Posted by Carter Wood at 10:15 AM | 2 comments; click here to read them or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

March 19, 2008

Whither New Jersey? Or is it Wither New Jersey?

NJ Business Matters has updated developments around the proposed legislation to mandate paid leave, noting Senate President Codey wants a special voting session on the bill by April.

And new unemployment figures show another 1,700 jobs lost in February, including trade, transportation and utilities (-2,800), manufacturing (-1,100), and construction (-500).

In an earlier post, NJ Business Matter also posts a memo on the paid family leave bill from Assembly Republican Leader Alex DeCroce. A good point-by-point primer on the anti-business, anti-jobs nature of the billl. Key facts:

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal on June 20, 2007, the federal Department of Labor estimates that paid family leave programs cost employers an average of $1.76 per hour per full time employee, or 6.8% of total compensation. Using the above hourly estimate, a company with just ten full-time employees would see an increase of approximately $36,608.

What a terrible idea.

Posted by Carter Wood at 1:11 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

March 18, 2008

What Does that Employee Free Choice Act Do?

From the Baton Rouge Advocate, a story about the campaign of Don Cazayoux, a Democrat running in Louisiana's 6th Congressional District, holding a special election after the resignation of Richard Baker. Cazayoux (what a great Louisiana name) spoke at the AFL-CIO's state convention.

Cazayoux, a state representative, said he believes a strong union movement is vital for a strong economy.

He promised to support the Employee Free Choice Act of 2007, which backers say would amend the National Labor Relations Act to enable employees to form, join or assist labor organizations more efficiently and provide harsher penalties for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts.

The act passed through the U.S. House and is awaiting discussion in the U.S. Senate.

Not to pick on the reporter, who had a limited amount of space to work with and might have been new to the issue. And she did attribute the description of the Employee Free Choice Act, so it's not an inaccurate passage. (Except for the bit about it awaiting discussion in the Senate. H.R. 800 failed to gain cloture in the Senate last June, so it's dead for now.)

But it IS incomplete. Readers would be well served by learning what the bill actually does: It eliminates the secret ballot in the workplace, allowing unions to gain recognition through "card check," a process in which organizers collect employee signatures on cards. Employees lose the right to make their decisions in private, instead becoming subject to all sorts of immediate pressure and intimidation by organizers to sign the cards.

We think a large majority of the public will react with revulsion when they discover that the unions want to destroy the secret ballot. The unions probably think so too, which is why they rarely discuss the actually workings of card check in a general audience.

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:54 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

March 17, 2008

Card Check: Creeping in, Bit by Bit

An update from the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, "Union organization by 'card check' lands on Governor's desk":

SB 867 (Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles) to unionize child care providers was sent to the Governor on March 11th. The bill authorizes family child care providers to form, join and participate in "provider organizations," for purposes of negotiating with state agencies. Specifically, a union such as the State Employees International (SEIU), would be considered a "provider organization" and they would negotiate with the State on behalf of the child care providers. This bill will hurt California’s competitiveness and will increase labor costs for California childcare providers, thereby reducing the pool of money available for subsidized childcare for working parents.

Furthermore, SB 867 sets a precedent for the use of "card check" as a method of unionization. "Card check" takes away an individual’s right to a private ballot when deciding whether or not to join a union by replacing the private ballot with a system that allows a union to organize if a majority of workers sign a card. Union organizers oversee the process and the workers’ votes are made public to the employer and employees. Workers are better protected from interference and intimidation by casting their vote privately with a secret ballot.

Organized labor has a well-considered strategy, winning passage of card-check for employees governed by state employment law, e.g. public employees, in an attempt to build the appearance of momentum for federal legislation. In Oregon, Governor Kulongoski signed an executive order allowing unionization of adult-foster care providers through card check. The AFL-CIO has hailed card-check victories in Delaware, New Hampshire and Massachusetts.

But in all cases, the basic fact remains: Card check eliminates secret-ballots in the workplace, replacing it with a system where union organizers use a public process to collect employee signatures. The process invites abuse and intimidation.

Governor Schwarzenegger has a pretty good record in support of business autonomy. Let's hope he continues it by vetoing SB 867.

Posted by Carter Wood at 3:04 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

March 12, 2008

AFL-CIO: On Behalf of All Working Men and Women

Just a bit more history on this historic day:

At a press conference June 28 [2006], NYS AFL-CIO President Denis Hughes stated that Spitzer had won the endorsement of the two-and-a-half-million member labor federation because his “track record of accomplishments on behalf of all working men and women is second to none.”

He added: “Throughout his career in public service, Eliot Spitzer has time and time again stood up for the rights, dignity and concerns of working people. His dedication to protecting those who need help the most is unsurpassed.”

Unsurpassed....

UPDATE (2:25 p.m.): Seth Borden reacts. Heh.

Posted by Carter Wood at 1:29 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

Increasingly Opulent Doublethink from the AFL-CIO

Stewart Acuff, Organizing Director, AFL-CIO, and Sheldon Friedman, Research Coordinator, AFL-CIO Voice@Work Campaign, writing at The Huffington Post.

Extreme economic inequality sharpens perhaps the ultimate contradiction between capitalism and democracy. This can be seen in the corrosive influence of money in the nation's politics, as corporations and the wealthy buy ever more influence with their increasing opulence.

From the Wall Street Journal's "Washington Wire" blog:

The AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest labor union organization, will announce plans Wednesday for a $53 million effort to elect a Democrat to the White House.

Posted by Carter Wood at 12:05 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

Productivity Gains, Costly Progress

From Dragnet, The Big Gamble, broadcast broadcast May 8, 1952.

A union would have saved those jobs.

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:23 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

March 10, 2008

Card Check: Let's Have the Campaign Debate

It's been about a year since we last linked to Kansas City Star columnist E. Tom McClanahan on the topic of the Employee Free Choice Act, that undemocratic legislation that would eliminate secret ballots in the workplace. Tom remains as pointed as ever:

The unions are also clamoring for passage of something they call the Employee Free Choice Act, a pernicious little bill with a grand Orwellian name.

Clinton and Obama are both for it, even though it would wipe out the secret ballot in elections that certify union bargaining units. That would allow union officials to pressure workers into creating bargaining units by signing “check cards” instead of voting privately. Some “free choice.”

The card-check bill would mean a lot more unionized workplaces, so let’s suggest a more honest name: An Act to Drive American Capital and Jobs Offshore.

OK, so you might choose to dismiss McClanahan as just another pro-liberty columnist pounding at the keyboard. Then take a look at this Right to Work Foundation video of Dana Corp. employees who resisted a card check campaign by the United Auto Workers.

Beverly Mulsof: Seemed what they were there for every day, just harassing us, outside the doors, wanting us to sign the cards.

Rita Murphy: And I think they thought just because we were a small town, that, you know, we were just a kind of country ….

Beverly Mulsof: Going to lay back and take it.

Candidates shouldn't be able to get away with high-flown rhetoric about empowering workers when the Employee Free Choice Act would really just invite employee harassment and intimidation. Let's get down to brass tacks and real experience. Make it a point of public debate.

Posted by Carter Wood at 7:42 AM | 1 comment; click here to read it or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

March 7, 2008

Ergonomics: Had the Courts Ruled Otherwise

Walter Olson's Point of Law item on ergonomics cited below is worth taking full note of, as it clearly outlines how a court, ruling on the basis of the law, can thwart the plaintiff bar's efforts to invent an entirely new class of injured person who can demand compensation, and with this new class, new law and sweeping economic consequences. Drawing on this AP report, it's a very good history lesson.

At one point, RSI-carpal tunnel-cumulative trauma was seen as one of the more promising product liability mass torts, with lawyers around the country filing thousands of claims; the favored targets were deep-pocket equipment makers such as IBM and Apple. The suits gathered steam and moved forward for several years but suffered a crushing setback when a federal appeals court in 1993 reversed an order consolidating many such cases (In re Repetitive Stress Injury Litigation, 11 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 1993)). When pursued individually most of the cases fared poorly, and the prospect of a "bet your company" mass verdict was no longer there to serve as leverage to get defendants to the settlement table. The result was a rout for plaintiffs and an unusually thorough win for defendants: RSI-carpal tunnel litigation has subsided and is no longer seen as a threat to the financial health of computer makers, and most lawyers have given up on it.

But what if the Second Circuit had acted differently in 1993 and allowed the mass cases to move forward as a consolidation? What if rather than risk a "bet your company" trial, defendants had one by one begun signing up for a settlement fund to compensate sufferers? What if -- after the lawyers and experts took their billions -- billions were left over for persons who could produce a doctor's note attesting that after they used computers their joints ached in certain ways? Is there really any doubt that the number of newly reported cases would today be far higher, and perhaps would not have declined at all? Is there any doubt that a large body of opinion would now angrily reject the reassuring Mayo and Harvard findings, on the grounds that -- to quote a phrase heard in both the silicone-implant and autism-vaccine episodes -- "We are the evidence."

Some, of course, will draw from all this the conclusion that carpal tunnel is just as real and frequent an ailment as ever but is now being seriously underdiagnosed because workers are ever more discouraged from even so much as reporting it, knowing there will be no remedy. Others will conclude that our legally driven compensation system is quite good at calling forth subjective or hard-to-disprove claims of injury, and that we owe the Second Circuit thanks for a narrow escape, not only from a gigantic and spurious episode of mass tort litigation, but indeed from a whole spurious public health epidemic that would otherwise be raging on to the present.

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:20 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

Cogito, Ergo Nonsense and Insults

In catching up on the Office of Labor and Management Standards yesterday, we learned of a new site sponsored by one of the lesser members of organized labor's popular front, American Rights at Work, a 501(c)(4) organization (overtly political, not tax deductible). The group, headed by David Bonior, has a lovely new web project going, Shame on Elaine, another example of labor's ugly practice of personalizing policy disputes (besides being weirdly late to the game in the last year of the administration). Quick summary: U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao is a bad person.

One section stood out, not just for its vulgar title, "Screwing Workers," but also for the timeliness of its wrongness.

Slashing Safety
Nixing Ergonomics Rules: In 2001, more than 600,000 workers a year had to take time off from work because of ergonomic-related injuries such as carpal tunnel syndrome. Despite convincing evidence on the significance of conditions caused by repetitive motion, Elaine sided with corporations and against worker safety.

Uh, huh. And here's Walter Olson at Point of Law summarizing a new AP report on ergonomics studies.

The AP reports that since the 1990s, the height of concern over the issue, "carpal tunnel cases have plummeted, declining 21 percent in 2006 alone, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Among workers in professional and business services, the number of carpal tunnel syndrome cases fell by half between 2005 and 2006." Researchers are concluding that while repetitive stress injury, to use another catch-phrase, is indeed a serious job hazard for some workers who engage in physically demanding tasks like meat-cutting, mattress-flipping, and so forth, it was greatly overdiagnosed or misdiagnosed as a malady afflicting computer keyboard users. (Ergonomic improvements such as wrist rests for mouse pads have undoubtedly helped, but are unlikely to explain the whole drop, especially since time devoted to keyboarding among the population seems to be rising steadily.) "A 2001 study by the Mayo Clinic found heavy computer users (up to seven hours a day) had the same rate of carpal tunnel as the general population. Harvard University headlined a 2005 press release 'Computer use deleted as carpal tunnel syndrome cause.'"

The proposed ergonomics rules promoted so aggressively by groups like American Rights at Work would have rewarded and institutionalized all those overdiagnosed or misdiagnosed claims, costing employers millions of dollars, harming productivity and doing nothing to benefit the serious sufferers of ergonomic injuries.

Elaine Chao was right on this one, just as she was right on so many other issues that this dishonorable group now attacks her for.

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:06 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

March 6, 2008

Labor Union Accountability: Good Work, OLMS

Following up on our earlier post about the budget of the Office of Labor Management Standards, we note these enforcement actions under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act for February...so far.

On February 8, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Betty Illig, former Secretary-Treasurer for Graphic Communications Workers Local 638-S and the Tri-State District Joint Council, pled guilty to embezzling $145,675 in union funds and submitting false Form LM-3 reports. The plea follows a joint investigation by the OLMS Cleveland District Office and the Department of Labor’s Office of the Inspector General.

On February 8, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Carolyn M. Wallace, former President of Steelworkers Local 02-356, pled guilty to embezzling union funds in the amount of $25,200. On December 13, 2007, Wallace was charged with one count of embezzling union funds in the same amount. The plea follows an investigation by the OLMS Milwaukee District Office.

On February 7, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Bridgett Cardall Hooks, former Secretary-Treasurer of Postal Workers Local 332, pled guilty to one count of embezzling union funds in the amount of $10,820.17. The plea follows an investigation by the OLMS Nashville District Office.

On February 7, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, an information was filed charging Brian Dolney, former President of Machinists Lodge 2333, with one count of bank fraud totaling $11,565. Donley fraudulently negotiated union checks at the Security National Bank in Springfield, Ohio. The charge follows an investigation by the Cincinnati District Office.

On February 6, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, an information was filed against Francis Pagan, former President of Boilermakers Local Lodge 3M, charging him with embezzling $17,415 in union funds. The charge follows an investigation by the OLMS Cleveland District Office.

On February 6, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Chad Mowery, former Secretary-Treasurer of BLE Division 282, was charged with embezzling $2,537 in union funds. The charge follows an investigation by the OLMS Cincinnati District Office.

On February 4, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, an information was filed against Pauline M. Gibson, former President of the Drivers, Warehousemen, Maintenance and Allied Workers of America, Local 1, charging her with making a false statement and representation of a material fact, knowing it to be false, on the local’s annual financial report. The charge follows an investigation by the OLMS Nashville District Office.

On February 4, 2008, in the Douglas County, Wisconsin Circuit Court, John Sigafus, former Secretary-Treasurer of Machinists Local W-335, pled no contest to theft of union funds in the amount of $2,500 or less. Subsequently, Sigafus was sentenced to one year probation and ordered to make restitution in the amount of $5,363.91. The sentencing follows an investigation by the OLMS Milwaukee District Office.

Theft of union funds? Embezzlement of union funds? Yes, but also union members' funds.

Cutting the OLMS's budget to weaken its enforcement ability is objectively anti-worker.

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:29 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

Holding Organized Labor Accountable

Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao testifies this morning before the House Appropriations Committee, the Labor subcommittee, on her department's 2009 budget. We trust she'll make the good case for an expanded budget for the Office of Labor Management Standards, the office that monitors whether labor unions comply with federal laws governing the proper use of union members' funds. Think accountability, transparency...

As this all-too-lengthy summary of OLMS enforcement actions in 2007 indicates, there does seem to be a bit of a problem when it comes to things like embezzlement and misuse of funds.

Last year, President Bush and the Department of Labor's budget called for increasing tohe OLMS budget by $9 million to $57 million. But once organized labor called in its chits, pulled its strings, unveiled its veiled threats, Congress actually reduced the office's budget by nearly $3 million. (Previous Shopfloor.org posts here.) Think accountability, transparency...and then think about getting less of it.

If Congress were making wholescale cuts, reducing budgets to trim government spending, well, OK. But where else were budgets actually cut?

The President's FY09 budget takes another run at increasing the Office of Labor Management Standard's budget, going to $58.3 million, including $8 million to bring OLMS back to its previous size and effectiveness. (For Labor's budget summary for OLMS in .pdf format, click here.)

The Office of Labor Management Standards protects union members and ensures their dues are spent properly.

Or, to take rhetorical inspiration from the unions themselves: Cutting the OLMS budget is anti-worker. People who support cutting its budget are anti-worker. They don't care for workers. They are undermining worker democracy. Why do they hate workers?

The spending history:

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:02 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

March 5, 2008

Card Check: We've Dropped the Ball

We haven't written much about the card-check issue since the Senate stopped H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act, last June by failing to invoke cloture. The bill was dead, no reason to keep restating how undemocratic it was, how much abuse employees would face if they were robbed of their right to a secret ballot in the workplace.

But since then, organized labor has been tireless in promoting -- and misrepresenting -- the Employee Free Choice Act, making it a matter of faith on the political left. Just one example: In Minnesota, the Minnesota Machinists Union endorses Democratic Senate candidate Al Franken, proclaiming, "Al will carry our voice to Washington and not only vote for the Employee Free Choice Act he will proudly co-sponsor it."

That's no surprise, but neither should the unions and candidates simply get a free ride on the issue, claiming card check would "protect the rights of the 60 million people" who supposedly want to join a union. If by "protect" you mean open up to flagrant intimidation by union organizers, sure.

Anyway, we promise renewed attention. And to fire up the effort, an observation from the former top man at GE, Jack Welch, talking to Larry Kudlow on CNBC.

And I think people, the market, is usually ahead of things, are seeing some of these crazy proposals that are out there from these people. We’d be the only country in the developed world that’s raising taxes, not lowering taxes. And there’s a whole series of programs here. And Larry, we haven’t even talked about yet, the first thing they’ll do is pass that damn [Employee] Free Choice Act. And if you want to see jobs escape, in a country where [American workers] don’t have a secret ballot for voting, you’ll see it happen here.

Earlier posts on card check are here.

UPDATE (9:10 a.m. Thursday): So Franken will sponsor the Employee Free Choice Act. How about protecting employees by paying for his employees' workers comp coverage?

Posted by Carter Wood at 7:27 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

March 3, 2008

Ohio v. Texas the Day before the Primaries

The Wall Street Journal.

So tomorrow the eyes of America will be on these two states moving in different directions. Ohio has an economy burdened by high taxes and work rules that impose heavy costs on employers. Texas embraces free trade, keeps taxes low, doesn't impose unions on business and has tooled itself for 21st century global competition. Ohioans may not like to hear this, but for any company considering where to locate a new plant or move an existing one, the choice between Ohio and Texas isn't even a close call.

The challenge for our national economy in a world of competition is to become more like Texas and less like Ohio.

Posted by Carter Wood at 7:33 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

February 25, 2008

Indiana, Mitch Daniels, Manufacturing and Trade

Excellent presentation and Q&A session today at the American Enterprise Institute by Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana, who was in town for the winter meeting of the National Governors Association. (He reports he's released early from NGA attendance having been called to jury service.)

Indiana is the most manufacturing-intensive state in the nation, and the economy is doing pretty well. Daniels noted that the state unemployment rate is at its lowest in six years, and for the third year in a row, the state has broken the record for new investments coming to the state. The governor expressed clear support for foreign companies investing in Indiana, citing the car companies, Toyota, Subaru and Honda.

Which led to the most interesting part of the Q&A session, at least for those who follow manufacturing. A Kalamazoo native asked about the economies of Michigan versus Indiana and wondered about the role of organized labor in discouraging investment in the state. While taking pains not to denigrate unions, Daniels said the adversarial model of labor-management relations appeared to no longer function well in a globablized economy.

And then he turned to trade:

I do get letters and e-mails and things from neighboring states that remark on this contrast, and so forth, so anyway. On the subject of trade, Susan Schwab was one of the presenters and gave a very good presentation, pointed out among other things that since NAFTA, manufacturing output in America has more than doubled. So among her messages was, whatever problems you may be experiencing don’t have anything to do with NAFTA.

But the governor of Michigan took exception to that, and in what I thought not very persuasive terms, attempted to lay the problems of her state on that. I didn’t say anything…there’s no point in that place, or any place, I guess, to have an argument about it. But there’s nothing about Michigan that doesn’t apply to Indiana, too. And yet we have made economic progress. It leads you to think that there are other things, other variables involved, like tax, and costs and regulatory policy and so forth.

In December 2006, Indiana's unemployment rate was 4.6 percent and Michigan's was 7.6 percent.

A transcript of the relevant portion of Daniels' Q&A is in the extended entry below.

UPDATE (8:40 a.m. Tuesday): The relevant portion of Daniels' remarks are available here in an .mp3 format.

[Full disclosure: This blogger was a registered lobbyist for the state of Indiana before joining the NAM two years ago.]

I already told you we’re working hard to diversify the Indiana economy, which is still – unless we’ve diversified enough already – the most manufacturing-intensive state in America, not Michigan, not Ohio or Pennsylvania. That is, manufacturing income over total, manufacturing jobs over total, we have been No. 1 for a long time, and therefore very exposed to the worldwide productivity-driven decline in manufacturing employment.

That said, you have to walk and chew gum, and we’ve had some very good success doing that…In 2006, only a few states had any new Japanese and assembly plant investments. No state, save ours, had got more than one. We got three. Three major…one of them was not Japanese. We’re the only state with three Japanese automakers in the state – Toyota, Honda and Subaru. We’re the only state with two Toyota assembly plants. I think we might be the only state with four, total.

We are committed and I’ve gone to Japan every year. We also have got 250 or more parts and Tier I, II suppliers inside our state. So, none of them is unionized, but that’s a matter between management and workers, but Indiana workers have demonstrated now 250 some times now, I guess, that they’re quite comfortable in a work environment that is flexible and that is organized in a different fashion than the old adversarial model that served us well for a long time.

Automotive News just recently reported that Indiana is going to move from No. 6 to No. 3 market share in automotive assembly, which is a huge move; that’s the import of the article by the way. We’re jumping there in the space of, I don’t know, three years. The projection is by 2010 or 11.

So, this is a clinical statement, not a value judgment: The model that served us very, very well in our state and nation in the past, as we all know, has not proven at all well suited to the world economic competition. What the workers in our state have proven is the same skills, work ethic, the other advantages we think we offer are as real as before, and they have proven adaptable to the newer, more modern forms of how you organize work.

Can I can go on just for a second on this? I’ve just come from this meeting they have once a year. I do get letters and e-mails and things from neighboring states that remark on this contrast, and so forth, so anyway. On the subject of trade, Susan Schwab was one of the presenters and gave a very good presentation, pointed out among other things that since NAFTA, manufacturing output in America has more than doubled. So among her messages was, whatever problems you may be experiencing don’t have anything to do with NAFTA.

But the governor of Michigan took exception to that, and in what I thought not very persuasive terms, attempted to lay the problems of her state on that. I didn’t say anything…there’s no point in that place, or any place, I guess, to have an argument about it. But there’s nothing about Michigan that doesn’t apply to Indiana, too. And yet we have made economic progress. It leads you to think that there are other things, other variables involved, like tax, and costs and regulatory policy and so forth.

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:16 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

Health Care Syndicalism, a Sick Idea

"What if the doctors went out on strike?" asks the Pacific Research Institute's John R. Graham in today's Examiner. The question is elicited by the talk of unionizing doctors, which then raises broader issues about the U.S. health-care system.

Unionizing doctors is not the answer; giving control back to patients is. Let them choose and pay doctors without the bewildering array of bureaucratic intermediaries. The cost savings would be enormous, and doctors and patients alike would feel like they have control over their treatment.

Posted by Carter Wood at 10:20 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

February 24, 2008

Labor Unions and Global Warming

A voice worth hearing from as Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and many legislators propose a regulatory crusade against carbon dioxide.

John Holt, president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Unions Local 1900 in Largo, which represents 1,700 power plant and electrical system workers in the state, predicted that the law could shut down power plants.

"They have basically said, 'Trust us: We won't lose any revenues and we won't lose any jobs,'" Holt said of the bill's sponsors.

Posted by Carter Wood at 10:30 AM | 1 comment; click here to read it or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

February 18, 2008

Ratcheting up the Anti-Business Rhetoric

From page one of this weekend's The Wall Street Journal:

As the Democratic presidential contest moves to the distressed industrial Midwest, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have ratcheted up their antitrade, anticorporate rhetoric.

The candidates have made broad attacks on corporate wealth and tax cuts they say tilt toward the rich, along with more specific attacks against health insurers and oil companies, among other industries. On Friday, Mrs. Clinton began airing a TV spot in Wisconsin in which she says, "The oil companies, the drug companies, have had seven years of a president who stands up for them.... It's time we had a president who stands up for all of you."

Both candidates increasingly sound like former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards as they pursue his endorsement and the voters -- particularly union members -- who were drawn to the populist candidate before he dropped