From the desk of Steve Cabot:

Maybe it’s arrogance, as Organized Labor feels increasingly emboldened by its protectors and enablers in the Administration and Congress. Or maybe it’s desperation, as union leaders sense a political sea change that threatens those cozy relationships and their delusional demands at the bargaining table.

Whatever the motivation, what is clear is that employers are being confronted increasingly by labor tactics as old as extortion and physical violence and as new as cyber attacks and a range of dirty tricks impacting companies and their customers alike.

One current high-profile illustration of over-the-line union thuggery involves a broad campaign of blackmail, extortion and other criminal acts against Sodexo USA, which has filed suit against SEIU in federal court under the RICO Act. A U.S. district judge recently denied the union’s motion for dismissal, thus green-lighting the case for immediate prosecution.

One of the documents discovered as this case has unfolded is a 70-page “how-to” intimidation manual (click here to download) which encourages, among other things, targeting board members and their families for public harassment and personal embarrassment within their community. You may remember an example of this in May when SEIU drove 14 busloads of screaming, bullhorn-equipped, placard-carrying protestors to the home of Bank of America’s deputy general counsel in suburban Washington, DC, terrifying their teenage son who was alone in the house.

It has been equally alarming to watch the union tactics in the Verizon strike. You may have seen the viral video of a picketer pushing his young daughter in front of a moving Verizon truck while shouting obscenities at the nonunion employees trying to get to work. In a related incident, police in Uniontown, PA reported an act of “criminal mischief” in which the power was cut to all land lines in the area,  including those to state police barracks and other emergency services. All indications are that it was an inside job.

This is disturbing stuff. And while Organized Labor may take comfort knowing they are being given a long leash by the pro-union NLRB and Department of Justice, 2012 is coming – and the American people will be heard.

Bank of America · CWA · extortion · Labor Relations · labor violence · management-labor · picketers · pro-union Department of Justice · pro-union NLRB · RICO · SEIU · Sodexo · strikes · verizon

From the desk of Steve Cabot:

With his Congressional rubber stamp privileges revoked by the decisive loss of the House of Representatives last November, President Obama continues to use the rule-making and regulatory powers of the Executive Branch to work his will on employers.  He seems emboldened by the push-back from the American people, and is doubling down on his efforts to “transform” the country in his remaining time in office.

Previously, we described how the Democrat-dominated NLRB recently proposed rules which would significantly impact management’s ability to makes its case leading up to a union ratification election. Now it’s the Department of Labor which has stepped in to influence and intimidate employers who seek advice from outside attorneys and consultants (officially known as “persuaders”) as they prepare for these elections.

Specifically, the DOL has proposed a rule related to the reporting requirements under Section 203 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which would broaden “advice” to mean any “oral or written recommendation regarding a decision or course of conduct.” The rule stipulates that both the company and its consultants must open their books to report any of the newly-covered activities – and, even more intrusively, the details of any compensation involved.

As usual, the devil is in the details, as found in the language of the rule:

“For example, persuader activities may additionally include: Training or directing supervisors and other management representatives to engage in persuader activity; establishing anti-union committees composed of employees; planning employee meetings; deciding which employees to target for persuader activity or discipline; creating employer policies and practices designed to prevent organizing; and determining the timing and sequencing of persuader tactics and strategies.”

The rule goes on to state that even “union avoidance” seminars and conferences offered by lawyers or labor consultants to employers will constitute “reportable persuader activity.”  The proposed rule was  published on June 21, 2011, in the Federal Register. Public comments can submitted until August 22, 2011.

Cabot Institute for Labor Relations · consultant disclosure · corporate america · Department of Labor · employer disclosure · Labor Relations · new rule · organized labor · persuader advice · President Obama · section 203 lmrda 1959 · stephen cabot · Steve Cabot · union elections · union organizers · unionization · Washington

From the Desk of Steve Cabot:

Having failed to get congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), organized labor is now benefitting from proposed new rules issued by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The new rules will ease the way for organized labor to win union elections by dramatically truncating the period of time from petition to election. It currently takes an average of 57 days from petition to election; under the new rules that period would be reduced to from 10 to 21 days. Of course, union organizers often spend months convincing employees to vote for unionization, prior to the filing of a petition. Now, the newly imposed brief interregnum will significantly curtail a company’s ability to educate employees about the disadvantages of unionization.

As if that were not sufficiently injurious to Corporate America, the NLRB rules would also permit the electronic filing of election petitions, defer litigation about voter eligibility until after an election, require employers to provide a union with the phone numbers and e-mail addresses of all employees prior to an election, consolidate all litigious matters into a single post-election appeals action in order to eliminate individual actions that could delay an election.

One can only speculate what additional pro-union rules and regulations the NLRB may issue in the coming months. Certainly issues of wages and benefits will be an enticing subject for the NLRB ideologues to consider.

Corporate America has, thus far, been too complacent, believing that because the number of union members has decreased over the years that unions have been rendered ineffectual. In fact, unions are vigorously preparing for an aggressive assault on Corporate America, and its chief advocate and front-line ally is the NLRB, which is proposing a number of radical threats to Corporate America that should not be ignored.

cabot institute · corporate america · elections · electronic filing · Labor Relations · litigation · National Labor Relations Board · new regulations · new rules · nlrb · organized labor · petitions · stephen cabot · Steve Cabot · union elections · union organizers · unionization · Washington · workers

From the desk of Steve Cabot:

Businesses across America are suffering at the hands of an aggressively pro-union National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). As a result, 86 national business associations and 131 state and city associations have formed the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace. The Coalition’s mission is to amend the National Labor Relations Act, so that businesses can operate at maximum rates of productivity and profitability.

The Coalition supports the Job Protection Act, H. R. 1976, which would, according to an article in the P J Tattler, clarify the NLRA “with respect to state right to work laws, reining the agency in after a series of unprecedented actions that heavily tilt toward Big Labor.”

From allowing micro unions to organize to preventing Boeing from operating in a right-to-work state, from permitting union organizers to trespass on private corporate property to promoting card checks, the NLRB has been proving to be one of the most injurious institutions to the health and growth of American businesses.

We urge all readers of the Cabot Institute of Labor Relations blog to contact their congressional representatives and voice their support for the Job Protection Act, H R 1976.

big labor · Boeing · cabot institute · Coalition for Democratic Workplace · H R 1976 · Job Protection Act · Labor Relations · national labor relations act · National Labor Relations Board · nlra · nlrb · organized labor · Right to Work · South Carolina · stephen cabot · Steve Cabot · union · unionization · Washington · workers

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

Just before Americans were to celebrate the unofficial beginning of summer over the Memorial Day weekend, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decided to make Catholic educators unhappy. It declared that St. Xavier University was not sufficiently religious to be exempt from federal jurisdiction. That ruling followed an earlier one against the Christian Brothers’ Manhattan College.

Though a Court of Appeals has twice ordered the NLRB to cease harassing religious institutions, the NLRB – in its aggressive pro-union actions – has ignored the court. It hasn’t mattered to the Board that in 2002 and 2008, the court reversed the NLRB, thus exempting religious institutions from the 1935 National Labor Relations Act. The Board insists that it has the right to determine if a religious institution has a “substantial religious character.” And if it doesn’t meet the Board’s criteria, then the Board can impose its policies. This dispute is likely to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

It becomes increasingly apparent that the NLRB will do whatever is necessary to advance the agenda of organized labor, even if that means obviating federal law when it comes to religious institutions. College faculty members, after all, represent a huge pool of potential dues-paying union members.

1935 Act · cabot institute · Catholic · Catholic colleges · Catholic educators · Catholic universities · Court of Appeals · federal court · Labor Relations · national labor relations act · National Labor Relations Board · nlrb · religious · religious freedom · stephen cabot · Steve Cabot · Washington · workers

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

The National Labor Relations Board’s decision to prevent Boeing from opening a new out-of-state manufacturing facility has apparently inspired other workers to file complaints with the Board.

The American Guild of Musical Artists has now filed a federal complaint against the New York City Opera, which wants to move out of its famed Lincoln Center home after 45 years. The opera company is in serious financial difficulty and deeply in debt. Not only will the company move to a more affordable space, but it plans to reduce the number of operas it will stage next year, from five to three.

The opera company’s 200 members, including fifty choristers and ten production workers, are claiming that the move to a less expensive venue and the company’s intention to produce fewer operas than last season will result in reduced pay.

Of course, it will: that’s the point of restructuring. If the company is to survive and continue providing first-class opera performances to opera goers, it must cut costs. And one of its major costs is its labor expenses.

One can now expect that unionized workers of any company that wants to relocate to file a complaint with the NLRB. The Boeing decision has opened a Pandora’s Box of complaints that will continue to place obstacles against new opportunities not only for increasing profitability and productivity, but also (in this case) against a corporation’s very survival.

Corporate America can only hope that the NLRB does not approve this latest operatic complaint. It is an aria sung out of tune with logic.

American Guild of Musical Artists · Boeing · cabot institute · Choristers · City Opera · Labor Relations · Lincoln Center · National Labor Relations Board · New York City Opera · nlrb · Opera goers · Right to Work · stephen cabot · Steve Cabot · union · unionized · workers

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com), the NLRB has broadened its recent decision about not permitting Boeing to open a manufacturing facility in a right-to-work state. It wants to apply that decision to all companies.

Unions have traditionally focused their attentions on collective bargaining, wages, and benefits. Management has heretofore been free to decide where a company should operate.

Now the NLRB wants to change that formula: The Board would like to force all unionized companies to consult their workers’ unions before deciding to relocate to another state. In other words, if employees don’t want to move, then the company will have to stay put or attempt to get an exemption from the union and/or the NLRB. Unions would have unfair leverage as well as a veto.

This is a further example that the NLRB will do what organized labor demands to counteract the waning levels of union membership and even help unions capture new members. Rather than preserving jobs in America, such tactics will cause companies to relocate out of the United States. And that will be bad for everyone: workers, consumers, companies; in fact, it will prove injurious to the entire economy of country.

Boeing · cabot institute · International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers · Labor Relations · National Labor Relations Board · nlrb · Right to Work · South Carolina · stephen cabot · Steve Cabot · Washington · workers

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

In Columbus, Mississippi, permanent replacement workers have taken up the anti-union banner: they want to decertify the union at Omnova Solutions, Inc., a maker of upholstery products.

A petition for decertification has been filed; and after a four-to-six week period awaiting approval of the petition by the NLRB, more than 100 workers could vote in a secret ballot election to make the company non-union, following a year-long strike that has had a negative effect on the company’s bottom line.

This is another example of American workers being fed up with unrealistic union demands, especially during a period of high unemployment when workers are desperate to earn a living, to pay their expenses, and put food on dinner tables. Only high-handed union officials seem unconcerned with the day-to-day problems of the unemployed. It’s time for all American workers to say no to unionization and yes to full employment.

cabot institute · Columbus · decertification · employees · labor · Labor Relations · management · Mississippi · National Labor Relations Board · nlrb · Omnova · organized labor · petition · stephen cabot · Steve Cabot · strike · union · unionizaion · Unions · upholstery · workers

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

In a further attempt to promote card checks, the National Labor Relations Board has filed suit to void a voter-approved constitutional amendment in Arizona that allows the formation of unions only by secret ballot elections.

This is not only blow against democracy, for Arizonians voted to approve the way unions could be formed, but it is also evidence of the NLRB’s ongoing determination to promote Card Checks as a way of increasing union membership.

Arizona’s attorney general will fight the lawsuit, making a stand for democracy and the rights of workers and management to decide upon unionization based upon secret ballot elections.

That, however, has not curtailed the intentions of the NLRB, which now plans to sue South Dakota as well over its passage of a constitutional amendment similar to Arizona’s In addition, the NLRB may initiate legal action against South Carolina and Utah in the coming weeks or months. It is apparent that if organized labor cannot get congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act (aka, Card Checks), then it will let the NLRB do its bidding, even if it involves abrogating the votes of citizens.

amendments · Arizona · cabot institute · card checks · constitutional amendment · Employee Free Choice Act · employees · Labor Relations · National Labor Relations Board · nlrb · South Carolina · South Dakota · stephen cabot · Steve Cabot · unionization · Unions · Utah · workers

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

Having endured a potentially injurious decision by the National Labor Relations Board that would have delivered a severe financial blow to its bottom line, Boeing is fighting back. Its attorney, Michael Luttig, has issued a statement that the NLRB’s charges “fundamentally misquote or mischaracterize statements by Boeing executives.”

Indeed, Boeing has been vilified in the media through fallacious statements erroneously attributed to some of its executives.

To wit: Boeing was charged with wanting to fire its workers in Washington and replace them with non-union workers at its new South Carolina facility. It is a patently false charge, for no workers in Washington were going to be fired, none would be replaced by workers in South Carolina.

Boeing also states as false the government’s assertions that its move was an attempt to punish union workers in Washington. Since work would continue in Washington and no workers would be fired, one might ask how Boeing was punishing those workers. It’s an indictment without evidence. It is simply a charge based on complaints by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and advanced by its advocates on the NLRB, both of which do not want Boeing to operate in a right-to-work state.

We fully support Boeing’s position that the National Labor Relations Board should withdraw its complaint. Its complaint accusing Boeing of wanting to locate a new plant in South Carolina to avoid future labor disruptions in Washington state and to punish its unionized workers are without merit. As with all American companies, Boeing has the right to operate in geographic locations that are conducive to high levels of productivity.

Boeing · cabot institute · International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers · Labor Relations · National Labor Relations Board · nlrb · Right to Work · South Carolina · stephen cabot · Steve Cabot · Washington · workers