LaborPains.org

Earlier this month, a judge ruled that private businesses are required to display posters showing workers how to unionize. With the ruling going into effect on April 30, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has plans for a big campaign around the change.

Notably, the mandated poster doesn’t explain how to decertify a union—a right which many workers also might like to know. But details like that don’t trouble the NLRB. Apparently, it’s busy concentrating on getting nonunionized workers to think like union members:

The National Labor Relations Board will focus on workers’ rights to engage in ‘protected concerted activity,’ which allow two or more employees to take action for their mutual aid or protection […]. In the next two weeks, the NLRB is set to roll out a Web page explaining ‘concerted activity’ and highlighting cases involving unlawful punishment for it. It also plans pamphlets in English and Spanish that will be distributed through worker-advocacy groups and sister federal agencies, such as the Labor Department. NLRB officials will address the issue in speeches and appearances on radio and television. (The Wall Street Journal, 3/22/12)

These developments come on the heels of the NLRB’s controversial “quickie elections” rule, which the Retail Industry Leaders Association calls a blow not only to “employers’ free speech and due process rights” but also “American business’ ability to grow jobs.”

The NLRB has had no difficulty making these moves despite the Obama administration’s recent order to avoid overly burdensome requirements. While the White House denies that it’s encouraging overregulation, the NLRB is swinging into action—an institution with a very particular idea of what labor relations should be, and unafraid to tip the scales in order to make it reality.

During AT&T’s recent attempt to acquire T-Mobile, its cooperation with the Communications Workers of America (CWA) was considered a model of how businesses and unions could proactively work together. So much for all that: “Two months after the $39 billion deal collapsed,” The Wall Street Journal reports, “some union leaders say the carrier doesn’t seem very grateful.”

Why the discontent? Perhaps it’s because the CWA is in the habit of holding business deals for ransom to get what they want out of contract negotiations. Now, the CWA is squaring off with Verizon, trying to grind its deal with Comcast to a halt. In what The Hill calls part of a “swarm” by unions, the CWA “descended on Capitol Hill Tuesday to urge lawmakers to oppose” the deal.

Meanwhile, union rallies have not-so-coincidentally hit Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New York. As WKBW News said of the New York action, the “event was planned in coordination with national actions led by community groups and unionized Verizon workers that are taking place in cities across the country during the week of March 19th.”

It’s certainly not the first time a union has drummed up public protests to pressure legislators into protecting its agenda. But this election season, with the President’s numbers suffering from some decisions unpopular with certain factions of the AFL-CIO, some politicians may be especially prone to making a few big concessions to unions in the hopes of keeping a broader narrative from taking hold.

In the meantime, Americans from coast to coast will find themselves facing rising prices in yet another important area of everyday life. If you’re wondering why your cell phone bill is so high, you might look for the union label.

What’s true in Nevada is all too true around the country – employees often can’t vote by secret ballot on basic issues such as whether to recertify their unions, or to unionize in the first place. They have almost no control over whether their dues money is funneled into political campaigns or the pockets of unions’ political allies. The SEIU, for instance, recently spent $86,000 on radio ads in Nevada and Florida to criticize Mitt Romney.

That’s why the Center for Union Facts (CUF) has launched a new Las Vegas ad campaign promoting the Employee Rights Act in print and on television. CUF’s full-page ad comparing the lack of representation in unions and in North Korea ran in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. And CUF’s “Repair Shop” and “Class Elections” commercials have been on the air.

The Vegas blitz continues CUF’s $10 million campaign in support of the ERA. CUF executive director was invited on “Face to Face with Jon Ralston” last week to discuss the campaign and the merits of the Employee Rights Act.

(Jump to 9:10 for interview)

Union leaders and their Democratic allies may oppose the bill, but momentum and the public mood is on the ERA’s side. The status quo is beginning to crumble even in our nation’s capital.

For too long, the labor reform debate has been bogged down in a big business versus big labor mindset. The ERA isn’t about attacking unions, but rather ensuring that they function the way their dues paying members want them to. More democracy in the workplace is an idea that protects workers, squares with America’s values and promises real economic benefits – in Nevada and across the country.

After the successes of New Jersey’s Chris Christie and Wisconsin’s Scott Walker in tempering the power of public sector unions, the failure of Senate Bill 5 in Ohio was a difficult loss. But the desire to curb Big Labor’s power is not completely lost; Ohio and Indiana are proving otherwise – even if the odds are against them.

Despite the recent defeat of Ohio Senate Bill 5, Ohioans have set their sights on ending forced union membership. “Ultimately, freedom to associate also means freedom not to associate,” said Maurice Thompson of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law to The New American. Thompson heads the organization, which is one of several attempting to pass a right to work law in Ohio. If the newly proposed “Workplace Freedom Amendment” is approved by Ohio voters in November 2012, then the state will become the 23^rd state to protect the freedom of choice for its employees – unless Indiana beats them to it.

Indiana leaders also have their eye on the right to work prize. In the 2011 session, right to work legislation was tabled after House Democrats fled the state forcing the Indiana House to shut down. Passing such legislation looks more promising this time around, especially since Governor Mitch Daniels is reportedly willing to put his weight behind the bill. Indiana Republicans control both the House and the Senate, so the votes are likely there. That leaves Indiana Democrats with only the extreme option of once again fleeing the state.

Yet despite the somewhat favorable political environment, observers doubt that either Ohio or Indiana will become the 23^rd right to work state. Right to work legislation hasn’t been successfully passed since the 1980’s, with the exception of Oklahoma in 2001. The reason? Labor unions will fight these efforts tooth and nail. It is estimated that Unions spent up to $50 million to successfully fight against SB5 in Ohio.

An excellent example of just how difficult it is to pass this kind of legislation can be seen in Colorado. In the fall of 2008, Colorado sought to pass right to work legislation, Amendment 47. In response, unions launched four “poison pill” measures, Amendments 53, 55, 56, and 57. These initiatives would have been “devastating to Colorado’s economy,” said Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce president Joe Blake to the Colorado Statesman.

The poison pill measures were more or less introduced as union bargaining chips in order to kill Amendment 47 by effectively blackmailing businesses – and it worked. Members of the business community struck a deal and pledged $3 million to defeat Amendment 47 in exchange for the removal of the offending measures. Amendment 47 did not pass, and Colorado was left with its hybrid right to work law, which allows employees by a vote of 75 percent or more, to eliminate right to work privileges and become a closed shop.

Union leaders are so desperate to retain their members that they are willing to go to almost any length to make sure right to work legislation is out of play. Right to work legislation is a great way to expand employee rights, but history suggests you shouldn’t hold your breath for it to pass in either Ohio or Indiana.

Photo credit: Bill McBain

Don’t expect the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to turn a profit any time soon. Thanks to a multi-billion dollar contract that the financially challenged (to put it mildly) agency negotiated with its biggest labor union, the USPS is poised to keep on delivering losses as routinely as it delivers mail.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) thinks the agency’s contract with the American Postal Workers Union, originally intended to save USPS $3.8 billion over 4 ½ years,  will do exactly the opposite. From Bloomberg:

“This contract falls short,” Issa said at a hearing about the Postal Service’s labor costs. “We have deep concerns that some of the provisions of the contract may in fact be the wrong direction, to less flexibility, less ability to trim the workforce and less ability to in the future make the kinds of investments we need to make.”

In other words, the agency won’t be in the black for the foreseeable future.

Adding to USPS’ financial woes, Bloomberg reports that the agency indicates it will “run out of cash unless Congress permits it to delay a $5.5 billion payment, due Sept. 30, for health benefits for future retirees.” And here’s the kicker: “The labor costs include payments for those benefits.”

Despite this grim financial forecast for USPS, Postmaster General Patrick Donohue told the oversight committee that his budget-busting negotiations with the postal workers union represent, in his mind at least, “a responsible agreement.”

Read more

As President Barack Obama said two years ago, “Elections have consequences”. He’s probably less enthusiastic about that bromide today — as are the unions who campaigned on his behalf. As the New York Times reports, state officials are gearing up to take on organized labor:

State officials from both parties are wrestling with ways to curb the salaries and pensions of government employees, which typically make up a significant percentage of state budgets. On Wednesday, for example, New York’s new Democratic governor, Andrew M. Cuomo, is expected to call for a one-year salary freeze for state workers, a move that would save $200 million to $400 million and challenge labor’s traditional clout in Albany.

But in some cases — mostly in states with Republican governors and Republican statehouse majorities — officials are seeking more far-reaching, structural changes that would weaken the bargaining power and political influence of unions, including private sector ones.

The explanation for all this from the unions is that newly-elected Republicans are looking to exact revenge because organized labor spent so much money on Democrats in 2010. But that doesn’t explain Cuomo. It also doesn’t explain the massive public pension problems facing state lawmakers. The aforementioned Indiana, for example, has more than $442 million in unfunded public-sector pension liabilities as of last year.

It’s not all bad news for labor though. There will still be jobs for union hotshots in the New York Attorney General office.

Image courtesy of James Durkee.

One of the more shocking aspects of the Race to the Top application process is the way that teachers unions across the country have decided to fight against their school districts receiving more money. In Massachusetts, for example,

the American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts, one of the two statewide teachers unions, has now urged its affiliates not to sign on to the [Memorandums of Understanding laying out the state's application] and, worse, to withdraw their commitments from Round 1.

 

This is a particularly regrettable development as AFT Massachusetts represents teachers in many of the urban districts including Boston, Lawrence, Salem, Lynn, and Lowell that could benefit most from participation.

Colorado is facing similar problems:

Sometimes, school districts force troubled schools to hire tenured teachers who can’t find jobs elsewhere. The bill would end that and allow principals to only hire teachers they approve. Teachers who can’t find a job after two hiring cycles would be placed on unpaid leave until they can find an assignment.

 

The Colorado Education Association, the state’s largest union, opposes the bill. It says the details about how teachers will be evaluated should be worked out first, arguing there’s a lack of trust between administrators and teachers after years of reacting to the latest test scores.

At a time when education funding is about to drop by 6.4 percent, the union says districts and the state doesn’t have the money to cover yearly evaluations and new ways to develop new assessments besides the state’s current standardized tests, the Colorado Student Assessment Program.

What is there to gain from winning Race to the Top funding? Well…funding!

Two states that changed their teacher evaluations, Tennessee and Delaware, won $600 million in the first round of competition.

It’s amazing: Teachers spend years complaining about being underfunded, and when the chance comes along to rectify the situation unions cross their arms and stymie progress.

Photo via Extra Ketchup.

Jeff Merkley has become very good at the political two-step. Asked a question, he gives a response seemingly related to but not really answering the query.

In the clip below, Mr. Merkley was approached and asked a question about the issues. Specifically, whether it was hypocritical for Mr. Merkley to accuse Senator Gordon Smith of taking money from special interests like “big oil” (a favorite Democrat boogeyman) in exchange for voting for their bills when Merkley himself has taken tens of thousands over his career in exchange for supporting the union-sponsored and grossly mis-named Employee Free Choice Act?

First, a little background: The Employee Free Choice Act, or card check legislation as it is also known, would take away workers’ right to a private ballot in the workplace when voting to unionize. Union organizers would instead pass out cards indicating whether workers wanted to have the union represent them.

Stop and think about that for just a minute. Everyone where you work would know whether you support unionization. No private ballots to avoid intimidation, coercion or threats by the Union Bosses and their hired thugs. They could even come to your home to “persuade” you to vote for unionization.

That’s right, the party that claims to be about big “D” Democracy is all for taking it away when it serves their purposes for increasing union membership and boosting the campaign coffers of politicians like Jeff Merkley.

This piece of legislation is one that Big Labor and the Union Bosses are pushing particularly hard this year. Last session in Congress, it passed the Democrat-controlled House but stalled (thankfully) in the Senate. Union Bosses know that this year, they have a slim chance to win some desperately needed Senate seats in places like Oregon.

So, they are pumping millions of out-of-state dollars (dollars forcibly taken from union members) into races like Jeff Merkley’s in the hopes that they can smear Senator Gordon Smith and cover up the fact that Jeff Merkley supports their despicable bill. A bill that takes away the fundamental American right to a private ballot.

Even George McGovern, a self-described friend to labor unions, is against the Employee Free Choice Act.

Back to Mr. Merkley’s response. He tries to pass off some dribble about supporting workers’ rights and is disappointed in Senator Smith for voting for tax increases to ship jobs overseas. Then, in order to avoid looking even more foolish, he quickly thanks the voter and walks away.

At least he took the time to listen to the question this time.

Leaving us to wonder, why won’t he just answer the question honestly? Is it because he knows that he’s being a hypocrite? Is it because he responds to questions like a Raggedy Andy doll: “Pull my string once for a canned response about Iraq, pull my string twice for a rehearsed response about jobs in Oregon, pull my string three times for my re-hashed diatribe on linking Gordon Smith and George Bush.”

It would be nice if for once, Mr. Merkley would just answer the question he is asked instead of making up a question in his head and then giving us that answer.