LaborPains.org

Economics Nobel Prize winner Gary Becker has joined the long list of intellectuals and academics opposed to the Employee Free Choice Act.   On The Becker-Posner Blog, he stated:

Any substantial shift of federal and state governments toward pro-union regulations would harm the American economy and the position of the typical employee. As Posner indicates, unions want greater monopoly power so that they can raise the wages and other benefits of union members above their competitive levels. Unfortunately, the effects of this are to reduce earnings for non-union workers, shift production outside the US, or toward states with less pro-union laws, and shift production in unionized plants away from labor and toward capital. None of these changes are beneficial to the efficiency and performance of the American economy, especially in a global environment.

Joining Becker, is his co-blogger, Richard Posner, a University of Chicago Law professor as well as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh District (Chicago). Posner reiterated the point by saying,

“We especially do not need an uptick in adversarial unionism during what increasingly appears to be a depression. The fact that Democrats in Congress should be pressing for a revival of the union movement at this time indicates a lack of understanding of the economics of depressions.”

Schwarzenegger desperately tries to balance CA budget; SEIU fights change.

SEIU bus drivers reject a new contract.  They’re happy with wages, but don’t want new security cameras used. So much for safety of workers and consumers.

A few more possible Obama labor law changes ahead.

“Buy American” provision in the stimulus package sparks protectionism fears at Davos Forum.

Labor and other liberal groups launch attack on five Republican Senators over stimulus bill.

American Rights at Work’s (ARAW) December 2008 study, The Employee Free Choice Act: Ensuring the Economy Works for Everyone, takes credit for anything good that has ever happened to the American worker regardless of how the facts stack up.

Now, let’s get to debunking ARAW’s report with a few simple stats.

1. “From 2000 to 2007, income for the median working-age household actually dropped by $2,000 after inflation.”

This is nothing new. There are these events called recessions –ever heard of them. Besides this period, there was also median income stagnation from 53-54, 57-58, 70-71, 73-77, 79-85, and 89-93. Notice that many of these years are the “good old days” of unions.

2. “This stagnation of median wages despite the rise in productivity is linked in large part to the decline in union density. In 1960, private sector union membership was 30%; by 2007, it had dropped to 7.5%. As unions declined, both union and non-union workers lost the economic benefits of collective bargaining.”

Oh jeez. Here we go again. First off, overall the wages haven’t stagnated. The median income in 2007 dollars for a U.S. family has increased from $34,432 in 1960 to $61,355 in 2007. That’s $26,923 or a 78.2 percent increase. Under normal circumstances, I would say they were being deceptive. But, I know these researchers are well meaning people. They probably just mixed up Zimbabwe’s median income stats with the U.S. It happens.

Also on this point, how do unions explain the jump from $52,223 in 1993 to $61,083 in 2000, a 17 percent increase? Were union rates rising during that period? Nope. Falling as usual.

The study finishes off with the usual: everyone wants to join a union but can’t because of intimidation according to (union-funded) research. Nothing new to read here.

Referring to Congress and President Obama, Keith Kelleher, President of the Service Employees International Union Healthcare of Illinois and Indiana, recently said, “Number one on their list should be to make it easier for workers like the ones I knew in Detroit to form a union and finally join the middle class. To do that, Congress needs to pass the Employee Free Choice Act.”

Union officials like Kelleher keep pushing the falsehood that the Employee Free Choice just makes organizing “easier” and that’s it. Not only are union bosses dishonest, but they’re also unimaginative. Today, we’re crossing lines and helping the enemy. We have a few ideas to make the future of organizing even “easier.”

So here we go. A look to the future…future…future…

2009 - Employee Free Choice Act

Unions effectively end democratic secret ballot elections in favor of card check.

Organizing unions becomes a lot “easier.”

2010 – The Friendship and Reform Interstate Employee National Dream Act (FRIEND Act)

Similar to H.R. 6477 introduced in 2008, the FRIEND Act promises to end all Right to Work Laws nationwide. Unions are so good to workers that often members have difficulty paying union dues in Right to Work states where they aren’t forced to do so. With those high union wages going to mortgages and brand new cars, it’s hard to pay union fees. We understand. The FRIEND Act will only help employees exercise their freedom to pay union dues.

Unionization becomes easier still.

2011 - Heroes and Organizers Safety and Health Act (HOSHA)

It’s 2011, and for some reason, workers are still reluctant to join unions?! For union voices to be really heard, the Department of Labor’s Office of the Inspector General and the Office of Labor-Management Standards will be permanently closed and its former employees will be….….eh…..relocated. With HOSHA, union leaders will finally be protected from occupational hazards such as being found guilty of labor racketeering, coercion, and using violence.

Think how much more time employees will have free from reporting tire slashing, back alley beatings, and missing union funds.

It’s just that the paper work is so long. And because of employer coercion –you see –the unions just don’t have an option but to pass this law.

Louisville Slugger says that they’re backed up with thousands of new orders for 2011. Their CEO recently said, “Obviously this bill is a home run for us.” Isn’t it nice for a company to share its windfall profit by lobbying for workers’ rights like that?

Everything will be so easy after HOSHA.

2012 – Employee Smiles Sunshine Rainbows Unicorns Happiness New Born Babies Love Friendship Act (that’s ESSRUHNBLFA for short)

Guantanamo Bay prison will actually be reopened. But this time around, there won’t be any terrorists there. CEOs refusing to admit a union will be flown down for an extended reeducation “vacation” until they agree to a union. No votes, no card check, just fun in the Cuban sun.

Wow. Wouldn’t that make unionizing so much easier! Don’t be shy union leaders. First the ballots, then the world. Go all out.

Imagine this: Every CEO in the Fortune 500 signed a letter asking President-elect Obama to defund the Securities Exchange Commission, saying that it creates a lot of “unnecessary paperwork.” No seriously, just think of the outrage. Now consider that the unions are asking Obama to do just that, except they want him to weaken the government watch that oversees them, the Office of Labor-Management Standards.

The AFL-CIO is shameless. In addition to trying to eliminated employees’ right to a secret ballot vote, they are also trying weaken the Department of Labor’s Office of Labor-Management Standards, which serves as a watchdog for union members by fighting corruption and embezzlement.

In a petition made public by the Obama’s Transition Project–which was oddly filled with typos–the union calls on the incoming administration to issue an emergency interim rule (meaning no public comment period) eliminating “all financial reporting regulations that have not yet gone into effect.” That is their “Priority for Day 1.”

Within the first 100 days, the AFL-CIO’s “High+” priority is to require OLMS investigators to not “exceed the scope of complaints when investigating allegations misconduct.” That way, if an investigator see corruption beyond what was specifically complained about, I guess they’d just have to ignore it.

Finally, within the first year, the AFL-CIO wants major revisions to the OLMS’s LM-2 reporting forms. Suggesting that the “recordkeeping and reporting continues to impose significant financial burdens,” the union wrote:

The current LM-2 does not comply with generally accepted accounting principles [not true] and imposes huge costs on unions [cry me a river]. OLMS should evaluate what changes should be made to the LM-2 that would produce meaningful information without imposing greater burdens on unions.

(I couldn’t help the comments in [brackets].)

Written between the lines is the fact that union leaders hate (hate!) allowing their members to look at the union’s books. After all, as a result of the OLMS, nearly $100 million has been recovered from corrupt union bosses since 2001. And during that time, nearly 1,000 union leaders and employees have been convicted of embezzlement or corruption–all thanks to the OLMS.

At the same time, millions of union members have visited our website UnionFacts.com, looking for information from the OLMS (we take a good deal of our union profile data from the OLMS).

Given all of that, how ironic is it that union leaders’ plans to eliminate transparence and oversight was disclosed thanks to the Obama administration’s commitment to transparency?

I’ll be keeping an eagle eye on the federal register to see if Obama pursues any of these suggestions.

And as I type I’m downloading every single document on the OLMS’s website. Come January 21 (or shortly thereafter), we’ll have an archive of their entire website available on UnionFacts.com. I’ll also be tracking Sec. Solis’ changes to the current OLMS website. We’ll see how quick it takes her to turn off www.UnionReports.gov.
(more…)

Today, a group of 10 governors signed a letter addressed to the House and Senate leadership asking them to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act. Here is their letter:

January 8, 2009

Dear Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, Speaker Pelosi, and Representative Boehner,

The “Employee Free Choice Act” is a highly controversial federal bill which seeks to fundamentally alter federal labor laws that run counter to long held traditions that have protected the privacy and security of American workers. We believe that America must maintain and encourage a competitive workforce. To keep America competitive, the federal government must protect the confidential nature of a worker?s vote. Some of the Act’s primary flaws include:

• Violating the elections process that allows employees to choose whether they want union representation through a secret ballot. Currently, neither the union nor the employer knows how an employee votes. The proposed legislation would eliminate this important protection for employees?one supported by a recent poll that showed 75% of Americans believe that a free and impartial secret ballot election is the fairest way for workers to decide on union membership.
• Imposing Contract Terms on Employers which are not actually requested by their workers. The National Labor Relations Board will be de facto authorized to force an employer to implement a collective bargaining agreement imposed by an arbitrator rather than through the long held tradition of unions working independently on an agreement between the employer and employees in order to secure their top priorities. Instead this bill will allow far removed union executives to insert their own priorities without prior consultation with the affected workers. This represents an unprecedented government intrusion on the right to bargain freely over working terms and conditions.

We respectfully request that you join us in opposing this legislation and cast your vote against it.
Sincerely,

Gov. Sonny Perdue,
Georgia

Gov. Bobby Jindal,
Louisiana

Gov. Tim Pawlenty,
Minnesota

Gov. Haley Barbour,
Mississippi

Gov. Jim Gibbons,
Nevada

Gov. John Hoeven,
North Dakota

Gov. Mark Sanford,
South Carolina

Gov. Mike Rounds,
South Dakota

Gov. Rick Perry,
Texas

Gov. Jim Douglas,
Vermont

Yesterday Rep. Gene Green (D-TX) introduced H.R. 243, which enacts one of the Employee Free Choice Act’s three major provisions: Binding Arbitration. It’s not going to go anywhere, but it sets the stage. Here is what Green introduced:

H.R. 243. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to require the arbitration of initial contract negotiation disputes, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Education and Labor .