LaborPains.org

Who said the following?

There are strong forces in America that preach the vision of scarcity, the vision of division and the vision of fear. They try to convince us that we are not a country gifted with great abundance; they try to convince us that there is not enough abundance to go around, so we had better be jealous of anyone who has more than we do. We had better try to take away from someone who has more than us and bring them down to our level of scarcity rather than trying to bring ourselves (and everyone else) up to their level.

That sounds like something that a free-marketer would right, albeit an surprisingly emotive one. After all, unions have been playing the class card for decades, asserting that our abundance is a limited pot and the wealthy need to relinquish their wealth more through taxes. Virtually all union rhetoric hinges on this idea.

As a matter of fact, it was written by United Auto Workers President Bob King in a recent op-ed. King was presumably describing conservatives who think union members are overpaid. Or something. Whatever the case, Bob King accidentally did a pretty good job describing the mixed-up world f Bob King. (Takes one to know one?)

Here’s the rub. King wrote in another op-ed just a few months ago: “But remember, some cynically want this government to fail in order to remove all restrictions on corporations and preserve tax cuts for the ultra wealthy.” Sounds like Mr. King needs figure out which side of the “out-of-step with reality” fence he’s on.

Image courtesy of L4urenZ.

The United Auto Workers have been busy bees lately. Their next target could be Caterpillar, the world’s largest manufacturer of construction equipment:

The United Auto Workers on Sunday voted by an overwhelming margin to allow leadership to call a strike against Caterpillar Inc. if a new contract cannot be hammered out.

UAW members at seven locals – including Local 974 in East Peoria – voted by a 94 percent majority to authorize a strike if necessary. The union did not give vote totals.

The existing six-year contract expires March 1, and UAW and Caterpillar have been negotiating since Dec. 15. Neither side has gone public with details from the talks, which are taking place in Caterpillar’s Building CV in East Peoria and are scheduled to resume Monday.

Caterpillar is staying quiet on the issue. We’ll keep you updated at this develops.

This isn’t us spouting off either. This is Bob King, president of the United Auto Workers. King is threatening to go after foreign-owned automakers in the American South with all the subtlety of a Mack truck. “I don’t want to use the word boycott,” he said last week. Our thought: Then don’t. Oh wait, he did.

In a strikingly candid interview today, King admitted that the UAW’s very survival depends on this campaign:

“Here’s the terrible position we’re in (with) autos,” King said. “Because we’ve fallen so far in the percent of workers represented by the UAW in autos,” the union can’t demand big increases because of non-union competitors.

“So if we go in, we dramatically raise fixed costs for Ford, General Motors or Chrysler, we’re shooting ourselves in the foot…. We don’t want to disadvantage the (Detroit 3) companies.”

Welcome to the real world, Mr. King. This is as clear an admission as you’ll ever get from a labor leader that unions drive costs up for businesses and make them less competitive. Foreign automakers have apparently acted as a check on the UAW, keeping its demands reasonable. Now the UAW wants to do away with that check.

Why? It seems the UAW is getting nostalgic:

“What we’re really committed to is creating the UAW of the ’40s and ’50s and ’60s. The UAW of those days was an activist union — members were mobilized all the time,” King said.

Just what the country needs right now: more business disruptions.

Image courtesy of TrevinC.

Labor unions are allowed to “pressure” businesses with which they have a direct dispute. But what about companies that are completely neutral? Keith Eastland, a labor lawyer in Grand Rapids, wrote an op-ed explaining an unfortunate decision by the National Labor Relations Board.

Employers can expect the new board to grant much broader protections to union-related activity. An Aug. 27 board decision on “bannering” highlights this point. Bannering refers to the display of large signs, often containing misleading claims, at job sites belonging to neutral parties. It is a union tactic often designed to threaten and coerce neutral businesses to avoid dealing with non-union contractors or suppliers.

Although the law expressly prohibits unions from engaging in coercive or threatening actions toward neutral businesses, the new board has ruled that bannering is protected. Under this new rule, unions can now target your business or job sites with large banners — or use giant inflatable rats signifying the presence of “scabs” — even when you have no labor dispute with that union.

The case before the NLRB began in Arizona where representatives of the Carpenters Local 1506 (consisting of non-union temp workers  being paid to play the part of “picketer”) held 16-foot-long signs outside two medical centers and a restaurant. The signs read “Shame on…(the name of the establishment)” with the words “Labor Dispute” nearby. The catch? The establishments had no conflict with the union. The dispute was with construction companies doing work for the establishments’ owners.

This should have been a no-brainer for the NLRB. The National Labor Relations Act forbids conduct found to “threaten, coerce, or restrain” secondary businesses not involved in the primary dispute. But chalk one up to the labor-stacked NLRB, i.e. Craig Becker and Co.: They found a way to rule in the union’s favor.

To what extreme’s will unions take this new rule?

Recently the [United Brotherhood of Carpenters in Salt Lake City] has taken its bannering a step further by targeting companies that don’t do business with the Contractors. The banners are the same. But the handbills reveal that the company named is a potential tenant in a building where one of the Contractors is slated to perform work. According to the Union, the company being bannered is guilty of “thinking about profiting from unfair labor practices.” By this measure, most of the population might be subject to bannering.

A “potential tenant” where a company “is slated to perform work”? How far will bannering go? Could a union pressure the company that employs the aunt of the owner of a plumbing company that services an office building that houses a paper company that sells supplies to another company with which the union has a dispute? Or perhaps just thinking about selling supplies is enough to put a company in the unions crosshairs. Thanks to Craig Becker’s NLRB, it’s certainly possible.

This video drives home the point. Despite being about NFCW, not the Carpenters, it’s the same practice of creating a deceptive union picket line.

There have been several times when I’ve discussed the alternate means of implementing some of the key tenets of the Employee Free Choice Act, like HERE and HERE. It’s just nice to have the President blatantly confirm this agenda in his speech to the AFL-CIO.  Basic story? EFCA will be a challenge in the lame duck session, but no worries, we’ve got other ways of making it happen. From the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Obama reiterated that the administration will put its weight behind it. “We are going to keep on fighting to pass the Employee Free Choice Act,” he told the 54 executive council members and others in the room. “We also know what and who is standing in the way of progress,” he said, adding that it will be “tough” to get the bill through the Senate and will take time to reverse the impact of “at least eight years in which there was a profound animosity toward the notion of unions.”

Mr. Obama also reminded the labor officials of the ways in which the administration has already supported unions, in part by wielding executive powers for actions that don’t require legislation.

“There’s a reason why we nominated people to the National Mediation Board that would ensure that folks in the rail and air” industries can organize, said Mr. Obama, referring to the board’s overhaul in May of a decades-old rule that had made it harder for airline and railway workers to unionize. He also cited the Democrats he nominated to the National Labor Relations Board to “restore some balance” to the group, which supervises union elections and referees disputes between private-sector employers and employees.

From ABCNews:

“More than 500 decisions by the leading federal agency that referees disputes between labor and management will have to be reopened after the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the five-member board had operated illegally when its membership dwindled to two.

The high court, in a 5-4 ruling in which the court’s leading liberal — retiring Justice John Paul Stevens — sided with the court’s four most conservative members, said the law does not allow the National Labor Relations Board to operate while it is short-staffed because of political arguments. [...]

The decision means that more than 500 of employee-employer cases decided by the NLRB while its membership had dropped to two must now be reopened by the board, which currently has four members.”

Image courtesy of IslesPunkFan.

When I see quotes like this from politicians and labor leaders, I think that this is less like the resurrection of EFCA (Frankenstein style) and more like a haunting that just won’t go away. Which do you think is more apropos?

Pretending like EFCA isn’t dead will not make it less dead.

From Richard Trumka over the weekend at the UAW conference, as reported by the Detroit Free Press:

Trumka also called on UAW members to intensify phone calls, letter writing and other lobbying of their congressional representatives and senators to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. The bill, which the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and most companies vigorously oppose, would simplify the process for workers to call for union representation and limit certain tactics employers now use to discourage workers from voting in a union.

“We won’t quit until the EFCA becomes the law of the land and everyone who wants a union can have a union,” Trumka said.

Rep. John Lewis seconded that:

During a speech to UAW delegates at Cobo Center this afternoon, U.S. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., urged the union to continue to fight for labor law reforms, such as the Employee Free Choice Act.

“I do not understand it. … We control the White House. We control the Senate. We control the House of Representatives,” Lewis said. “Let’s pass it and pass it now.” Lewis, also a civil rights leader, applauded the UAW for its past history of supporting civil rights struggles.

Image courtesy of Stephen G.

Ever since Blanche Lincoln forced Bill Halter’s rout on Tuesday, I’ve wanted to hear what newly-elected, baby-out-with-the-bathwater, SEIU President Mary Kay Henry had to say. I was not disappointed. From Politico:

“SEIU President Mary Kay Henry, who last month replaced Obama ally Andy Stern, shrugged off the suggestion that the movement lost prestige by throwing so much money at a losing candidate in such a high-profile race.

“We’d do it again in a heartbeat,” she told POLITICO. “This isn’t about the White House, and it isn’t about us. This race was about working people all around this country who’ve lost jobs or watched their paychecks shrink.” On Thursday, in another assertion of independence from the Obama-led Democratic establishment, the SEIU plans to deliver 30,000 signatures on behalf of an independent challenger to Kissell, a freshman who voted against health care reform.

Shrinking paychecks? As a reminder, not all paychecks are created equal. Perhaps that is why the SEIU has their purple eyes set on the public sector?

According to new numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, “[t]otal employer compensation costs for private industry workers averaged $27.73 per hour worked in March 2010.  Total employer compensation costs for State and local government workers averaged $39.81 per hour worked in March 2010.”

And we wonder why state budget’s are in the red.