Stephen Cabot's Blog | Labor Relations

Archive for March 2011

FROM THE DESK OF STEPHEN CABOT:

Tax payers, long upset about the extortionate powers of public-sector unions, are giving their whole-hearted support to courageous governors who are determined to curtail the inordinate money grabs made by those public-sector unions.

It started in Wisconsin, where Governor Scott Walker stood his ground against aggressive and often abusive pro-union demonstrators, and it has now spread to Ohio, where Governor John Kasich is proving to be even tougher than his neighbor Governor Walker.

While the Wisconsin law would permit workers to negotiate inflation-adjusted wages based on seniority, the law proposed in Ohio by Governor Kasich would permit workers to negotiate wages based on performance and merit only. In the private sector, workers normally receive salary increases based on performance and merit. The two are naturally tied together. And Governor Kasich would like to public-sector workers to be as responsible as private-sector workers are.

In addition, Ohio, unlike Wisconsin, would restrict negotiations on health insurance, sick leave, and vacations to the same level as those enjoyed by non-union government workers. In other words, there should be one rule for everyone: union workers should not be entitled to greater benefits than their non-union colleagues.

Again, unlike Wisconsin, Ohio would not permit unions to negotiate levels of staffing, teacher-student ratios, disciplinary procedures, and outsourcing. And binding arbitration to settle contract disputes would be eliminated. Finally, the same rules that don’t permit police and fire fighters to strike would apply to all government employees.

States, counties, and cities can no longer afford to spend outrageously large sums of money to meet the demands of avaricious unions. Debts are crippling states, and taxes are over-burdening the middle class. It’s time for public-sector unions to live by the same rules that govern free markets.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Mar/11

18

NLRB CONDONES PRO-UNION THREATS

FROM THE DESK OF STEPHEN CABOT:

Each new decision by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) confirms its agenda to advance the cause of organized labor. The latest such decision follows a union election that took place in 2008. At that time, the Communications Workers of America won a 14 to 12 vote to represent the workers at MasTech Direct TV.

A number of employees who did not want to vote for union representation reported that pro-unionists threatened physical violence against them and their families if they carried out their intention to vote against the union. Each of the threats was documented.

In years past, the NLRB would overturn an election if either side had voiced threats of physical violence in an effort to affect an election outcome. Now, however, the NLRB has decided not to abrogate the aforesaid election because it does not meet a confusing and abstruse set of criteria set by the NLRB. In other words, documented evidence of threats is no longer considered prima facie evidence. So much for the rule of law!

The NLRB continues to spearhead its aggressive pro-union campaign to let unions organize as many employees as possible with opportunistic disregard for well-established precedents.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Mar/11

11

REALITY SWEEPS ACROSS MIDDLE AMERICA

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

After years of being over taxed to pay the outrageous salaries, benefits, and pensions of public sector employees, four principled Republican governors decided to turn back the collective bargaining clock and make public-sector and even some private-sector unions responsible to all citizens.

It has taken considerable courage on the part of the governors of Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and Idaho to face down angry, vituperative mobs who have attempted to block legislative buildings and intimidate legislators. But, the governors stood firm, for they know that they have the vast majority of the citizens on their side. And those citizens expect their governors to balance state budgets and reign in extortionate unions without imposing ever more burdensome taxes.

In Wisconsin, collective bargaining by public sector workers would be restricted to salaries only, and legislation would require unions to permit members to vote annually about whether they want to remain unionized. In Indiana, proposed new legislation would prohibit unions from collecting union dues. In Ohio, collective bargaining and binding arbitration for public-sector workers would end. Legislation would also permit the hiring of replacement workers during strikes. In Idaho, collective bargaining by teachers would be limited to salaries and benefits. In addition, tenure would be phased out for teachers.

Altogether, governors in the Midwest have taken courageous stands, ones that should stiffen the spines of other governors across the country

· · · · · · · · · · · · ·

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

While the news media has been focusing on public sector unions in Wisconsin and Ohio, the Obama administration has quietly encouraged the unionization of 45,000 airport screeners.
The Transportation Security Administrator, John Pistole, a pro-union advocate, has been lauded by federal unions, who have wanted to unionize airport screeners for many years.
This is an extraordinary development in light of the anti-public-union sentiment that has swept the county in the last few months.
As the Obama Administration and Democratic legislators gear up for the 2012 elections, they will surely enlist the vast armies of unionized workers to deliver their election victories. As we get closer and closer to 2012, we can expect to see ever-increasing pro-union directives emanating from the White House.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Disclaimer: Although this blog may be helpful in informing clients and others who have an interest in labor relations issues, it is not intended to be legal advice. The thoughts offered in this space refer to complex matters, and the significance of them – i.e. how they might apply (or not) to any particular individual or organization – may vary considerably. Readers should not rely on the information or opinions expressed in this blog as a substitute for competent legal or consultative advice specific to their circumstances.