LaborPains.org

Imagine my slightly-surprised moment when I flipped through the most recent issue of The Economist and noticed that they doppelgangering-ly titled their Lexington article on labor unions “Labour Pains”.  They even had a petite Richard Trumka sitting on President Obama’s shoulder, whispering in his ear.

Here are some highlights:

The lead: “Barack Obama will never satisfy his union backers. Nor should he try.”

After chronicling Obama’s handouts to labor unions, and mentioning that public cash is the unions’ lifeline, the magazine moves onto impact of unions on the American job market…and why the market forces don’t apply to the public sector:

Market forces place a natural check on unionisation at private firms. [...]  Such checks do not apply in the public sector. The government cannot easily go bust. When a company pays over the odds for labour, the money comes straight out of its owners’ pockets. They usually object. But when a politician hikes public servants’ pay, he wins votes. If this year’s budget is tight, he can promise lavish pensions, secure in the knowledge that the bill will come due only in the distant future.

Unfortunately, that distant future is now, which is why so many states are in a fiscal pickle. Per hour worked, state and local government workers enjoy 34% higher wages and 70% more benefits than their private-sector counterparts, calculates Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank. [...]

And a hearty warning from the Economist about the November elections:

Organised labour is, of course, organised; and that confers political influence. But union bosses can sound jarringly out of touch. “A job is a good job because workers fight to make it one,” says Mr. Trumka. Many other Americans, however, think a job should pay well if you do it well, and grumble that this rule doesn’t seem to apply to unionised public servants. Taxpayers are angry, and itching to vote in November.

Maybe instead of trying to sit on President Obama’s shoulder, union leaders should be looking over theirs.

The SEIU is using the Vancouver Olympics as a perfect media moment to attack their nemesis, French-based Sodexo.  Sodexo is a big fish to fry.  It’s the largest facilities management and catering company in the world–and the SEIU has set their sights on them.

The Soxedo-SEIU battle, spanning oceans, has proved less-than-sexy to the media despite transcontinental protests.  After other labor setbacks, the SEIU has decided to bring the Olympics, specifically Olympic athletes into the fray. From a press release:

“The Service Employees International Union, the nation’s largest healthcare union, is raising questions about the safety of food being provided to athletes at the Vancouver Winter Olympics by Sodexo, a global food service contractor based in France who served contaminated meat at a camp in Virginia sickening more than two dozen boy scouts.”

It should not come as a surprise that SEIU’s motives in Vancouver have little to do with athletes’ safety.  According to Politico’s Ben Smith, “Sodexo is also the target of an intense SEIU organizing campaign.”  The SEIU hates Sodexo for the wages they pay American workers and for Sodexo somehow avoiding massive unionization drives, according to the New York Times. According to Business Week, the SEIU has been using “The Embarrassment Factor” to attack Sodexo, among other European companies, and this Olympic attack is more of the same.

Using the Olympics and Olympic athletes to aid in a union drive is irresponsible, opportunistic, and potentially damaging to the athletes. Olympic athletes, many of whom I am sure have torrid relationships with food as it is, don’t need the SEIU messing with their game….or messing with the Games.

The SEIU should leave the Olympic athletes alone.

Image courtesy of KevinDooley.

Washington's Blizzard: Round Two

Washington was hit with two storm’s this week. Big Ol’ Labor was hit with two storms as well– a micro-incident and it’s macro-implications.

First, Becker’s NLRB nomination failure leaves the President little choice but to make an awkward recess appointment.  Second, it leaves Big Labor with little to show for what was supposed to be the greatest presidency ever for unions. From both sides, commentators are finding common ground in the disastrous results of lobbying efforts undertaken by labor unions in the last year.

From the Washington Post:

“For American labor, year one of Barack Obama’s presidency has been close to an unmitigated disaster. Labor’s primary priority — the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) — died when the Democrats lost their 60-vote majority in the Senate. Labor’s normal priority — a functioning National Labor Relations Board — also seems out of reach, with Republicans on Tuesday blocking the appointment of Obama nominee Craig Becker (that’s why Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown scurried down to Washington last week to take his seat).”

From the Las Vegas Sun:

“But with that battle stalled in Washington, experts say unions feel even greater pressure to preserve the bread-and-butter elements of collective bargaining. “Right now, most labor unions in the United States are in a defensive mode trying to protect past gains,” said Gary Chaison, a professor of labor relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. “All across the country, unions are concerned the door will shut closed on pension plans, that health care benefits will be whittled down. The unions are trying to protect the issues they know resonate with unorganized workers.”"

From the Washington Examiner:

“As Stern made clear during the 2008 campaign, he and other labor leaders expect a handsome return on their partisan investments. [...] Despite heavy lobbying and incessant sympathetic coverage in most corners of the Mainstream Media, though, Card Check stalled months ago. Stern and his buddies now are reduced to hoping Card Check might be slipped unobtrusively into another bill that Congress can pass.

From the Wall Street Journal:

“His supporters at the SEIU saw an opportunity to run around Congress, which has so far failed even to vote on Big Labor’s dream of a “card check” law that would make it much easier to organize. [...]The message from yesterday’s cloture motion is sobering for the White House and its union allies. Support for their antigrowth agenda, from universal health care to easier unionization rules, is collapsing on the Hill almost as quickly as in the country at large. Political overreaching has consequences, too.

From CounterPunch’s piece entitled A Dagger in the Heart of Labor:

Just when organized labor had entered the seventh and final stage of the grief cycle—after having witnessed the death of the EFCA (Employee Free Choice Act), they’d already passed through shock, denial, anger, bargaining, guilt and depression—they get dealt another crushing blow, this one in the form of Craig Becker, Obama’s nominee to the NLRB, being denied confirmation by a hostile congress. The Becker rejection could hurt even more than the EFCA (“card check”).  Why?  Because Becker’s chances were infinitely better than those of the EFCA, which, beneficial as it would have been, remained broken down in the driveway.

EFCA, who knows. Health care reform, too many union goodies. Card-check, toxic. Green jobs, too manipulative. Immigration reform, despondent. Tariffs, so last century. Clean trucks, too obvious. NLRB nominations, exceptionally troublesome.  All this and more can be yours if you surrender part of your income to a labor union near you.

That is….in addition to your union dues.

The Senate just voted 52 to 33 on Obama’s nomination of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. Sixty votes were necessary for confirmation.

The question that remains is whether Obama will use a recess appointment.

Thanks to some very snowy weather, NLRB nominee Craig Becker’s vote before the Senate was postponed a day to today, Tuesday. [It is on the Senate schedule this afternoon, but thanks to Snowmageddon part deux, everyone is keeping an eye on the sky.]   One of new Senator Scott Brown’s first votes (which he is likely unhappy about) is the highly contentious vote on Becker, a former lawyer for major labor unions.  Thanks to Senate rules, Democrats need 60 votes to confirm him.  They’d like Scott Brown to be vote # 60, but it’s been doubtful that he wanted Becker’s nomination to be the first hill he dies on. But last night, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska indicated he would join the filibuster, making Becker’s confirmation highly unlikely, according to the Wall Street Journal.

From Nelson’s press release:

“Mr. Becker’s previous statements strongly indicate that he would take an aggressive personal agenda to the NLRB, and that he would pursue a personal agenda there, rather than that of the Administration,” said Senator Nelson. “This is of great concern, considering that the Board’s main responsibility is to resolve labor disputes with an even and impartial hand. In addition, the nominee’s statements fly in the face of Nebraska’s Right to Work laws, which have been credited in part with our excellent business climate that has attracted employers and many good jobs to Nebraska. Considering these matters, I will oppose the upcoming cloture motion and the nomination.”

Politico explains what might happen if and when he indeed loses the Senate vote–and what organized labor would like to see happen next:

“Some are urging Obama to install some of his nominees during the Presidents Day recess the week of Feb. 15. On the top of the list: Craig Becker, Obama’s controversial, labor-backed nominee for the National Labor Relations Board. Democrats will try to get the 60 votes necessary to break a GOP filibuster on Becker’s nomination Monday. But with the arrival of Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), they’ve got just 59 likely votes, and it’s not clear whether they can persuade a single Republican senator to cross over on the cloture motion.”

“They can’t let the minority party call the shots when it comes to the handling of critical nominations,” Bill Samuel, legislative director of the powerful AFL-CIO, said, calling on Obama to consider recess appointing Becker if his nomination stalls.”

Some analysts say that Democrats might have enough political cover to have Becker confirmed as a recess appointment (one that Obama can make while the Senate is in recess), while many Republicans say that Democrats have no such thing.  There will be a high price to pay, say Republicans, if Becker is pushed through without a vote. Sen. Nelson joining the filibuster throws a wrench in a potential complaint by Democrat’s that Republicans are simply being obstructionists. Nonetheless, Harry Reid threatened recess appointments last Thursday if the Republicans use Scott Brown as a filibuster.

When it comes to whether NLRB nominee Craig Becker can “implement the Employee Free Choice Act by administrative fiat,” AFL-CIO’s Stewart Acuff says “yes”. Senator Harkin justified his pro-Becker vote yesterday by saying “no”.

This comes directly from Senator Tom Harkin’s prepared statement at the HELP Committee Executive Session on Pending Nominations yesterday.  Shout out to LaborUnionReport.com for calling attention to this:

“Critics have also questioned whether Mr. Becker would come to the Board with an agenda, and whether he would try to implement the Employee Free Choice Act by administrative fiat. As you are all aware, I’m a supporter of the Employee Free Choice Act, and I hope to see it passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.  But I don’t have any illusions that those important changes can somehow be accomplished administratively, and neither does Craig Becker.”

““He has clearly and consistently explained, on numerous occasions, that all three major reforms proposed in EFCA—card check, binding arbitration for first contracts, and treble backpay for illegally fired workers—cannot be accomplished without a change in the statute. And as we all know, statutes can only be amended by those of us elected to Congress, not Executive Branch appointees.”

Bottom line: If Craig Becker couldn’t do so much, the unions wouldn’t fight so hard. It’s what Sen. Harkin was referring to when he begged the HELP committee to approve Becker so he could “start his important work“.  Senator Harkin and Stewart Acuff may not be on the same page publicly, but privately, it’s a whole different story.

Image courtesy of gualtiero.

Update: Senator Harkin justifies vote saying NLRB nomineee “cannot” change the rules

As the Director of Organizing at the AFL-CIO, Stewart Acuff draws a smaller crowd than the SEIU’s Andy Stern or his boss at the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka. But that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have something laughable to say.

In his poorly timed Huffington Post piece yesterday, Acuff took that opportunity to sing the praises of the Employee Free Forced Choice Act and bemoan it stalling on the Hill.  Acuff decided it would be a great idea to show big labor’s cards on the day before the Craig Becker vote.  He wrote that if the Senate “no longer” has EFCA’s 60 votes, then labor will be able to simply create new regulation through nominees to the NLRB.

Um, that’s exactly what the opposition to Craig Becker is claiming will occur, and they have Acuff to thank for confirming that publicly. From his own post:

“We are very close to the 60 votes we need. It we aren’t able to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, we will work with President Obama and Vice President Biden and their appointees to the National Labor Relations Board to change the rules governing forming a union through administrative action to once again allow workers in America access to one of the most basic freedoms in a democracy–the freedom of speech and assembly and association so that workers can build the collective power to challenge the Financial Elite and Get America Back to Work.”

Acuff may have gotten some much needed attention from his post. But if the Senate doesn’t confirm Becker now, Acuff might get some attention and credit for that too.

Image courtesy of coloradostatesman.com.

The labor numbers out last month were unprecedented, even if they were not unexpected.  Union members in the public sector outnumbered unionized private sector workers for the first time in history.  For union leaders, it is justification for their shrewd calculation–a choice to focus on unionizing public sector workers and make private sector jobs newly public sector jobs.

It’s reminiscent of the “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.  Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”

Private companies are like ponds or lakes, whereas the government is a vast sea of wealth. Here’s the union version: Unionize a private sector worker and you’ll get dues for a few years, until you over fish the pond and it dries up. Unionize a public sector worker and you’ll get dues for a lifetime.

From the Wall Street Journal:

In private industries, union workers are subject to the vagaries of the marketplace and economic growth. Thus in 2009 10.1% of private union jobs were eliminated, which was more than twice the 4.4% rate of overall private job losses. On the other hand, government unions offer what is close to lifetime job security and benefits, subject only to gross dereliction of duty. Once a city or state’s workers are organized by a union, the jobs almost never go away.

This means government is the main playing field of modern unionism, which explains why the AFL-CIO and SEIU have become advocates for higher taxes and government expansion in cities, states and Washington. Unions once saw their main task as negotiating a bigger share of an individual firm’s profits. Now the movement’s main goal is securing a larger share of the overall private economy’s wealth, which means pitting government employees against middle-class taxpayers.[...]

As we can see from the desperate economic and fiscal woes of California, New Jersey, New York and other states with dominant public unions, this has become a major problem for the U.S. economy and small-d democratic governance. It may be the single biggest problem.

Image courtesy of cobalt123.