LaborPains.org

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.

The SEIU and UNITE-HERE have settled up. Made peace. Cut ties.

According to the press release from the SEIU:

“The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Workers United and UNITE HERE today announced a settlement agreement on behalf of the unions’ members and elected leadership that will bring to a close the protracted dispute between the unions. [...]

The agreement provides clarity and resolution to a divisive issue in labor, and at the same time, enables each union the opportunity to increase its focus and resources on addressing the larger problems faced by members and workers who have no union.”

The equally generous statement (with a side of smarmy) John Wilhelm:

I am pleased to report we have reached a binding agreement with SEIU that brings an end to nearly two years of hostilities. I credit new SEIU President Mary Kay Henry for personally devoting her energy to making this agreement.  For the sake of workers and the labor movement, I hope that this is the first step in making SEIU the great Union it can be under her leadership. [...]

And it restores to UNITE HERE the bulk of the financial assets that have been tied up in federal court, including the Manhattan real estate. UNITE HERE and SEIU agreed to seek approval from federal regulators to transfer ownership of the Amalgamated Bank to SEIU-affiliated Workers United.

The Amalgamated Bank, which UNITE brought to the table so willingly six years ago when merging with HERE was probably the grand prize in this labor war, and the SEIU won. Some would say that acquiring it was the goal along. Just ask Bruce Raynor, who according to Mary Kay Henry was integrally involved in the negotiations.

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.

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.

So you may have heard about the anti-Wall Street protests…or is it anti-K Street protests?…. that happened around Washington, DC, not New York City, today. Made up of a hodgepodge of unions, they stormed down a bank, closed a road or two (K and 14th NW), pissed off some pigeons in a park, and got generally wet in the rain. This is after they protested in front of the home of a Bank of America executive yesterday.

I decided to brave the weather–without a union branded poncho, of course– and take a few shots. There were a plethora of union colors, a giants cutout of a K Street “corporate” type which reminded me of another protest puppet, posters calling for the Consumer Financial Protection Agency to “protect small businesses”. Riiight.

Schwarzenegger is back.  After a judge declared the end to “Furlough Fridays”, the San Fransisco appellate court backed the Gubernator. From the Sacramento Bee:

Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said that for now the ruling averts other moves the governor has been weighing to cut payroll costs if furloughs aren’t an option.

“We budgeted for the furloughs,” McLear said. “If the unions are successful in blocking furloughs, it would guarantee pay cuts and layoffs. The governor is not going to shield state workers from economic realities facing other California families and businesses.” [...]

“Tuesday’s temporary stay, signed by Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline, gives the governor until Friday to file more documents to buttress his case. SEIU Local 1000 and unions representing state attorneys, doctors and dentists have until next Wednesday to reply.”

“It’s possible that the appellate court won’t settle the issue before Schwarzenegger ends the furlough policy itself. The governor has said he wants to end furloughs June 30, at the end of the 2009-10 fiscal year, in favor of an across-the-board 5 percent pay cut, an increase in employee contributions to retirement, and a 5 percent unallocated cut to state departments next fiscal year.”

As the SEIU and other unions fight the governor on furloughs, “winning” the furlough battle may simply be “losing faster” with more layoffs, sooner.  California stares down the a massive budget deficit, and there are only so many outs available.

Image courtesy of .:Sandman.

The New York Times spared few punches in their piece “Still with Obama, But Worried”:

“Because unions have been so crucial to the Democrats election after election, political experts say labor’s ambivalence, or worse, toward the Democrats could greatly deepen that party’s woes this fall.

“Labor is very disappointed, whether it’s about card check or the effort to tax Cadillac health plans,” said Charles E. Cook Jr., publisher of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, referring to a bill that would have made it easier to unionize and to tax high-cost health plans that many union members have. “They’re really disillusioned. I think one by one unions will start getting engaged and helping out the Democrats, but it could be half-hearted.” [...]

“We’ve seen a decline in support among union members for both Obama and the Democrats,” Terry Madonna, director of the college’s Center for Politics and Public Affairs, said. “Part of it is that unemployment brings low job performance ratings, no matter what the party. And less enthusiasm means that union members are less likely to vote.”"

And my favorite line comes from AFL-CIO head Richard Trumka:

“It’s totally unfair to say that the president hasn’t done this or done that,” Mr. Trumka added. “He’s tried on the stimulus bill. He faces tremendous Republican opposition. On health care, I give him the highest marks for tenacity.”

Saying that someone gets “high marks for tenacity” is like telling your friend that their significant other  “has a great personality”.

Sometime there’s just a great sentence that comes along and captures the essence of what you are trying to say. From Daniel Griswold at CATO in the Washington Times:

“Unions are rapidly becoming an economic anachronism. In recent decades, barriers to international trade and investment have fallen, and domestic markets, including transportation, energy and telecommunications, have been largely deregulated. U.S. industries, on the whole, have accepted and even embraced the more competitive environment. Sectors such as steel, textiles and sugar continue to demand protection from foreign competitors, but they are now the exceptions and not the rule. But leaders of organized labor, on the whole, do not accept the new, more competitive environment.

A return to the era of more closed and regulated markets should be strongly resisted. Although it may be seen by labor leaders as a golden era, it extracted a heavy price on Americans in the form of lost consumer welfare, product innovation and freedom. The preferable policy alternative is to allow competition to work in labor markets just as it has been allowed to work more fully in product markets.”

Out of place, out of good ideas, and out of time, unions are indeed as anachronistic as they come.  At times it seems that unions are the Luddites at the tech convention, imploring everyone to replace their iPhones with a union made CB radios and their iPads with clipboards.

Image courtesy of Kenn Wilson.