LaborPains.org

A new survey of nine hundred and twenty-five (925) labor economists conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center for the Center for Union Facts illustrates a growing consensus among experts that increased unionization will have a negative effect on the economy. The survey further indicates that labor economists are overwhelmingly opposed to a bill currently before Congress that would radically overhaul existing labor law at the expense of American businesses. Their opposition grew even more fervent when they learned about EFCA’s binding arbitration clause, which would impose outside government arbitrators in the event of a contract dispute. The main findings of the survey are as follows:

1. Nearly two-thirds of economists surveyed believe Congress should not pass the Employee Free Choice Act.
2. When informed about EFCA’s binding arbitration clause, the percentage of economists in favor of the bill declined from 36% to just 27%.
3. 58% percent of economists believe that increased unionization would have a negative effect on President Obama’s job creation program, while only 22% believe it would have a positive effect.
4. By a ratio of more than 3 to 1, economists surveyed believe that changes to the economy and business climate — rather than employer resistance — are likely to blame for the recent decline in union membership.

“As President Obama looks for ways to pull the country out of its economic downturn, he should heed the opinions of economic experts who overwhelmingly believe that increased unionization will only further hinder our economic condition,” said Richard Berman, Executive Director of the Center for Union Facts. “Legislation like the curiously named Employee Free Choice Act, with its illogical binding arbitration clause, will only make things worse for American businesses and their employees.”

See the poll questions here.

This letter needs no explanation.

I came across the Service Employees Town hall “pledge” this weekend. It appears that the unions heavies haven’t gotten around to signing it.

“If were[sic] going to have a successful democratic society, we have to have a well educated and healthy citizenr [sic].” —Thomas Jefferson

Town Hall Meetings are a Pillar of our American Democracy, but Members of the Radical Fringe are Hijacking Town Halls with Cheap Scare Tactics and Intimidation.

Some members of the radical fringe and naysayers of reform are using disruptive tactics in an effort to hijack democratic forums. Not only are they preventing participants from having a meaningful discussion, they aim to intimidate and invoke fear. These lobbyist-run groups have overstepped their bounds. It’s time to reclaim our democracy and have a civil debate on how to fix our broken health insurance system.

Protect Our Democracy

No one should be subjected to the scare tactics of those who want to delay and deny healthcare. Sign this pledge and take back your democratic freedom:

1. I am attending this town hall to learn and contribute to public discourse.

2. I hereby pledge to contribute to public debate about important healthcare issues our country faces without being disruptive or disrespectful.
3. I will honor the long-standing American tradition of town hall meetings an public forums to allow citizens to participate in our democracy.
   
4. I pledge to allow the opinions of fellow attendees to be heard even if I disagree.

Signature: _____________________________ Date: ________________

Here’s how people live up to their pledge:

FOX News took a look at California unions’ greenmail scheme to force solar power builders to sign project labor agreements–or else.

UPS and Teamsters are framing their shameless scheme to unionize FedEx as an issue of fairness.

UPS accuses FedEx of leveraging “an unfair competitive advantage” and an “unfair application of labor laws.” Ken Hall, Teamster’s head of the package division, said “we hope at the end of the day the Senate will see this as a simple issue of fairness.”

Here’s what is and isn’t fair:

The Washington Post reported today that “unionized UPS workers say they are being forced to write letters to their lawmakers in support of more stringent labor rules for arch rival FedEx.” Websites are filled with accounts of disgruntled employees saying they were forced to write FedEx-bashing letters to their elected officials—fearing repercussions if they did not. There is nothing fair about that.

UPS, just like every other company, should be expected to compete on the open market. That’s what’s fair. Instead, they are pushing federal policies that will help UPS by hurting their competitors. This kind of shameless rent seeking should not be tolerated by lawmakers, employees, or citizens.

Check out the template UPS is graciously providing their employees during the “optional” letter-writing campaign

From this video, it appears that an SEIU clad thug attacked someone at a health care townhall because he “attacked America.”

This was passed along to me from a friend:

National War Labor Board

to

National Labor Relations Board

to the

No Longer a Republican Board

to the

No Labor Relations Board

to the

National War Labor Board

That seems about right.

Yesterday, federal authorities charged New York carpenters union leader Michael J. Forde, seven other union officials, a contractor, and contractor’s representative with 29 counts of corruption, including racketeering, fraud, bribery, and perjury. According to the charges, bribes were paid out to union leaders to allow contractors around the city to pay cash to workers at below union-rate wages and therefore avoid paying benefits.

The New York District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of America has been here before. In 1990, the union had been infiltrated by organized crime and the federal government came in, cleaned out union leadership, and established monitoring. Yet, here we are again.

Union leader Forde was hailed as a reformer in 2000, after his predecessor was indicted on corruption charges, but his tenure has been plagued by no fewer than two bribery charges-—one ending in an overturned conviction and the other in acquittal. This apparently didn’t set off any alarms for court-appointed and union-paid monitor, William Callahan, who was almost removed in 2007 for a lack of evidence he was actually doing his job—but a federal judge refused to remove him. Fast forward two years.

Yesterday’s slew of charges is the activity the court-appointed corruption monitor is in place to prevent. Clearly the current system of corruption monitoring isn’t working.

(Image courtesy of PetroleumJelliffee )