LaborPains.org

Unions have always turned to the same trump card when trying to convince employees to unionize: Unions members make more money.

It’s a compelling and appealing argument. But it’s also becoming less true by the year. Bloomberg BNA has released a new report demonstrating that the wage gap is growing smaller—and mainly because union wages are declining.

The drops aren’t staggering, but they’re definitely noticeable. As BNA noted:

[E]ven though union members earned about $1.21 for every dollar earned by nonunion workers in 2012, their mean hourly wage fell for the second year in a row—only the fourth back-to-back decline in the past 30 years. Nonunion workers, on the other hand, saw their wages in 2012 grow for the first time in four years.

These changes are close to historic levels, as they have “ narrow[ed] the gap between union and nonunion pay to its third-lowest point (79.1 percent) since the Data Book started keeping track in 1973.”

Nowhere are these seismic shifts more apparent than in the private sector. For the second time in the last decade, the ratio between union and nonunion pay is higher in the public sector than in the private sector—$1.18 on the dollar to $1.17, respectively. This is a dramatic drop since the 1980s, when “the ratio used to be as high as $1.35 in the 1980s.”

Some industries have even seen nonunion pay exceed union pay. Consider the case of manufacturing where “union members earned just 96 cents for every dollar earned by nonunion workers.”

Oh, and one other thing: None of these numbers factor in union dues. Once those are accounted for, the wage differential grows smaller still. Ouch.

All told, these changes point to something that many union members have known for years: Union officials are no longer serving the best interest of their members. Instead of prioritizing workers’ welfare, they’ve become distracted by the billions they spend on political campaigns, the size of their own paychecks, and other peripheral issues—none of which help the people they claim to represent.

A couple of weeks ago at the beginning of April, the Senate held a so-called “vote-a-rama” on dozens of amendments to the Senate version of the budget. One of those amendments, introduced by Sen. Tim Scott (R-South Carolina), was a provision which would forbid federal agencies from automatically deducting union dues from employees’ paychecks. And in the interests of ensuring employees’ freedom to associate, Heritage Action for America — a 501(c)4 group affiliated with the Heritage Foundation — formally “scored” the vote on the Scott Amendment in the vote-a-rama.

The Scott Amendment resembles a provision of the Employee Rights Act that Scott co-sponsored as a member of the House of Representatives in the last Congress that applied to private-sector employees under the National Labor Relations Act. That proposal would have required unions to get an employee’s affirmative consent before using his or her dues for political purposes.

Unfortunately, the amendment did not pass. (You can review the vote here, on the Senate website.) But with major national groups noticing the importance of employee rights provisions, perhaps Big Labor’s vaults of campaign cash taken from members’ paychecks whether they support the candidates or not will meet some countering forces.

We’ve been chronicling the tactics of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) for years. But David Bego knows what the SEIU is like up close and personal.  In his first book, Devil at My Doorstep: Protecting Employee Rights, Bego details how the SEIU aggressively came after his business in a typical anti-corporate campaign. His company, EMS, was targeted for unionization for years by Andy Stern’s organizers. Bego said he was happy to allow a union in—but only if the employees were able to vote via secret ballot. Not surprisingly, the SEIU was not interested in democracy. Instead, they took to their usual, outrageous tactics, including:

-  Offering money to employees to sign a card.
-  Getting children to hand out flyers in Bego’s neighborhood on Halloween.
-  Filing dozens of unfair labor practice charges.

In his latest book, The Devil At Our Doorstep, Bego, coming off several victories against the union, explains how his battle is but one small part of the larger war that organized labor has waged on the American people. Bego makes it clear, however, that it takes more than just the labor unions to make this happen. He explains that union officials are able to work with others in the far-reaching progressive community, notably the media and politicians. Without that support, unions would be in even worse shape than they are today.

Bego also provides a plan on how to combat the overreach of labor unions and to take the fight to them. For too long, too many people have been happy just to play defense against organized labor. Bego’s account shows that, unquestionably, unions will not rest until they have regained their former power.

Bego’s book is worth a read to get the perspective of someone who has dealt with the SEIU’s bully tactics firsthand—and won.

Huffington Post: Armored Car Drivers Try To Unionize In New York City
Labor wants to make greater inroads into security, a field with traditionally low unionization rates.

Bloomberg: N.Y. MTA Labor Talks Drag as Union Fights Part-Time Bus Drivers
Union officials of the Transport Workers Union Local 100 continue to urge ignorance of reality as unionized drivers continue to raise costs with unnecessary overtime pay.

The Indypendent: Christine Quinn & Labor
Progressives take shots at labor and at New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, the current frontrunner to be the next mayor.

Labor payback can come in many forms. First, President Obama tried to pass the inappropriately named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) that would eliminate basic rights of union members at the behest of union officials. More recently, the D.C. Circuit made it clear that Obama’s recess appointments were unconstitutional. His appointees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), even back in 2010, have been chosen to make sure that labor always wins. Not to mention that Obama just re-nominated the same people he unlawfully “recess” appointed.

The stage is now set for what might be President Obama’s biggest payback to labor yet.

The Wall Street Journal reports that labor unions, once very supportive of Obama’s healthcare reform plan, are now having second thoughts about the “reform.” ObamaCare requires more health insurance coverage than many employers currently provide. Under ObamaCare, families making up to 400 percent of the poverty level will receive some type of subsidy to get the necessary private insurance.

That’s where union officials come in, with their hands out. Multi-employer plans, run by labor unions, must also step up with greater health coverage, which is, of course, more expensive. And since union members are being offered a plan from their employer, via the union, those union members are not eligible for the federal subsidy. Instead, it falls on the union to improve the coverage that it offers.

Now, labor wants some cash thrown its way to make up the difference:

Top officers at the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the AFL-CIO and other large labor groups plan to keep pressing the Obama administration to expand the federal subsidies to these jointly run plans, warning that unionized employers may otherwise drop coverage. A handful of unions say they already have examined whether it makes sense to shift workers off their current plans and onto private coverage subsidized by the government. But dropping insurance altogether would undermine a central point of joining a union, labor leaders say.

The Tampa Tribune has a simple message for the beggars in organized labor:

Welcome to the real world.

The insurance plans of nonunion employers face the same costs, but no one is contemplating providing them a break.

According to Fox News, Republicans in the Senate are prepared to stop any such attempt:

“The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is not ambiguous, in fact it is explicit, on this point,” the lawmakers wrote. “Any consideration of expanding access to subsidies therefore is not subject to regulation, but a change in the law.”

They cited one Congressional Research Service report that said employer-sponsored coverage would “generally” make an employee “ineligible to receive a premium subsidy.”

In one of the rare instances where labor needs to recognize financial realities, union officials face a tough decision that will either lead to cutting the bottom line or, likely, cutting members. As labor union member numbers continue to fall, costs for maintaining these multiemployer plans will continue to rise. Sheet Metal Workers Local 85 in Atlanta, profiled in the WSJ piece, will now have to pay 50 cents to $1 more per hour in member compensation in order to meet the new ObamaCare requirements.

The law is no obstacle for the Obama administration, but it remains to be seen if labor’s pleading for more money will succeed.

Cincinnati Enquirer: Voices: US labor unions face stacked deck
A union organizer argues that employees should only hear one side of the story: his.

Los Angeles Times: Ports face labor discord
The costly strike that ended in December is now at risk of starting again.

Washington Examiner: Study: Transparency in collective bargaining could save taxpayers $50 billion
A Goldwater Institute report reveals that only seven states mandate open negotiations for public sector unions.

Milawuke-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel: Wisconsin’s ‘union’ label fading fast
The tale of the tape in the wake of Wisconsin’s Act 10 shows organized labor in dire straits.

Stowe Reporter: Vermont bill is a mockery of fairness
A Vermont teacher explains why paying a “fair share,” involuntarily, is actually unfair.

By John Raudabaugh, Former NLRB Board Member

The Noel Canning decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has the potential for far-reaching consequences in many areas of the law. The balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches have been recalibrated based on the court’s opinion that President Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on January 4, 2012 were unconstitutional. The same issue is pending in other circuits, making the case all the more likely to come before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Where labor law is concerned, Noel Canning voids all NLRB decisions rendered since Richard Griffin, Sharon Block, and Terrence Flynn, Jr. were recess appointed to the Board on January 4, 2012. That’s because in the 2010 decision, New Process Steel, the Supreme Court ruled that the NLRB must maintain a quorum of at least three members. Since January 4 of last year, the Board has had no more than two legally sitting members at any one time. If the Supreme Court affirms the D.C. Circuit and invalidates the three recess appointments, parties would prevail in their appeals against the Board, and all Board decisions issued after January 4, 2012 would be void including the following radical decisions:

1.      Banner Estrella Medical Center, 358 NLRB No. 93 (July 30, 2012) [Griffin, Block; Hayes dissenting]. In a 2-1 decision, the Board held unlawful an employer’s practice of asking employees not to discuss matters related to an ongoing investigation with their co-workers. According to the majority, the employer’s directive violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because it had a reasonable tendency to coerce employees in exercising their Section 7 rights to form, join or assist labor organizations. Hayes dissented reasoning that the employer merely made a suggestion and did not promulgate a rule.

2.     Costco Wholesale Corp., 358 NLRB No. 106 (September 7, 2012) [Pearce, Griffin, Block], Knauz BMW, 358 NLRB No. 164 (September 28, 2012) [Pearce, Block; Hayes dissenting], and Hispanics United of Buffalo Inc., 359 NLRB No. 37 (December 14, 2012) [Pearce, Griffin, Block; Hayes dissenting].  In the Costco and Knauz decisions, the Board held that confidentiality and social media policies which would chill employees in exercising their protected Section 7 rights to form, join or assist labor organizations were unlawful.  In Hispanics United, the employer fired five employees for their Facebook posts. A fired employee complained on Facebook that a co-worker “felt we don’t help our clients enough[.] I about had it. My fellow workers how do u feel?” In response, four co-workers posted that the criticism of their job performance was unfair. The Board found the Facebook conversation protected concerted activity because it was an effort to mobilize employees to take action in response to the criticism of their job performance. Hayes dissented because, in his opinion, there was no “evidence of a nexus for group action” but only individual venting.

3.      Finley Hospital, 359 NLRB No. 9 (September 28, 2012) [Pearce, Block; Hayes dissenting]. The Board held that employers must continue providing annual wage increases beyond the expiration dates of applicable collectively bargained agreements despite contract language clearly limiting such actions to the duration of the agreement. Hayes dissented noting that “employers must now bargain for contractual language expressly providing that no increase will be paid beyond the contract term…and unions have been given a powerful new weapon to use during negotiations.”

4.      Alan Ritchey Inc., 359 NLRB No. 40 (December 14, 2012) [Pearce, Griffin, Block]. The Board held that in the absence of a negotiated grievance-arbitration system, an employer whose employees are represented by a union must provide the union notice and an opportunity to bargain before imposing discretionary discipline (for example discharge or suspension) even when such discipline does not alter broad, pre-existing standards of conduct.

5.      Piedmont Gardens, 359 NLRB No. 46 (December 15, 2012) [Pearce, Griffin, Block; Hayes dissenting]. The Board overturned Anheuser-Busch Inc., 237 NLRB 982 (1978) to hold that employers can be required to provide a union representing employees involved in an issue of employee misconduct with witness statements obtained by the employer during its investigation. The Board majority announced a balancing test requiring employers to prove a legitimate and substantial confidentiality interest that outweighs a union’s need for such information. And, an employer must raise its confidentiality concern in a timely manner and bargain with a union in good faith regarding its confidentiality interests and the union’s need for the statements. Hayes dissented recognizing the long standing Anheuser-Busch bright-line rule protecting witnesses from intimidation, coercion and retaliation.

6.      WKYC-TV Inc., 359 NLRB No. 30 (December 15, 2012) [Pearce, Griffin, Block; Hayes dissenting]. The Board overturned Bethlehem Steel, 136 NLRB 1500 (1962), case precedent for more than half a century, to now require employers to continue deducting union dues pursuant to a contractual checkoff obligation even after the collective-bargaining contract expires. Hayes dissented reasoning that dues checkoff, no-strike/no-lockout, and arbitration provisions are all “uniquely of a contractual nature” and expire with the contract term.