Unions.. Well What Can I Say

Ah Yes....Local 32BJ of the SEIU was out marching the other day (as an anti-rally to Glenn Beck's Washington rally) showing you why you want to be a union member. They are all about workers' rights and freedom and the AMERCAN way... oops... isn't that missing something... that's right! There is no "I" in union it is "WE."  No... wait a minute there is an "I". Hmmmm may be we need to change the spelling to UNWEON.

(photo credit Joe Schoffstall, eyeblast.tv)

An Union Update: Craig Becker and the NLRB

I know many of you have to stiffle a yawn when you see the word "union" in a blog title. Well you shouldn't. It is IMPORTANT, especially at this time with this current administration. Of course if you feel that being unionized is good for business then don't even bother to read further. But if you are in the other camp, as am I, then read on.

Craig Becker, who was the chief counsel for the SEIU (Service Employees International Union), was given a recess appointment to the National Labor Relations Board, despite the fact that the Senate had voted overwhelmingly against his appointment. (52-33) Well, he is in and now in a position to help make signifcant rulings on hundreds of cases that had found to have been made incorrectly because of a lack of a quorum on the board.

If you think that now, as a member of the NLRB, he will make unbiased decisions then you need to probably rethink that stance. To give you a bit more background on Mr. Becker I point you to Michelle Malkin's blog post on him, Summer of corruption: Obama’s Big Labor ethics loophole. Lest you think this is a "fan" piece I will warn you right now it is not. But she points out information about Becker that I find to be rather telling. Here is bit more information on this subject from the WSJ.

So read up and understand why you need to be concerned about EFCA or EFCA like decisions that may come out of the NLRB.

Update on EFCA: SEIU Rejects "Card" Signing: SAY WHAT???

According to an article in the LA Times (SEIU borrows business' anti-union tactics to fend off a rival) the SEIU, the Service Employees International Union, is rejecting exactly what they are supporting in the Employee Free Choice Act. The article states "...the union is urging federal officials to throw out petitions signed by tens of thousands of its own members who have asked to be represented by a rival upstart group." The article goes on to say " In lodging legal challenges to the roughly 80 petitions filed by its fledgling competitor, the SEIU has moved to block organizing elections at hospitals, clinics and nursing homes up and down the state. And it has used some of the same tactics that employers often use to thwart union drives."

Amazingly the SEIU, as the article states "One of the giant union's allegations echoes a key argument that corporate interests make against the proposed law, the Employee Free Choice Act: that labor activists can intimidate or mislead workers during organizing campaigns." Talk about being two-faced! The SEIU has turned to the NLRB and has charged the rival union with unfair labor practices (ULPs) and wants the petitions set aside. Yet Andy Stern, president of the SEIU, says this does not change his stance on EFCA. Sure, not as long as it will work for his benefit. But let it work against him and he is for using current labor law. Sounds like a good argument for not needing EFCA in the first place.

Read the article (link above) to get the full story, especially if you think EFCA is a good thing. This may help you decide otherwise.

A side note: Al Franken will be made the newest Senator next week. This will give the Democrats a philibuster proof majority. This is going to make it much more likely that the EFCA will be passed along with all the other pending legislation mentioned in yesterday's post. Read them and weep.

SEIU Targets Banks: Union Workers Will Reform the Banking Industry

In the Sunday issue of the Atlanta Journal Constitution in the Pro/Con column there was a discussion on unionizing the banking industry. The question was whether or not unionized workers will help improve and reform the banking industry. On the PRO side, Stephen Lerner, Special Assistant to the President, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) claimed "Workers at big banks like Bank of America can play a central role in reforming an industry that puts profits over people and drove our economy into the ground." He went on further to state that to do that "...they need a voice on the job to sound the alarm and repair our economy. These are exactly the kind of workers who benefit from a union, and it is an excellent example of how having a voice on the job can significantly improve the services workers provide..." He finished his argument by saying "By allowing bank workers to form unions, they can unite to create an industry that puts consumers, workers, and our economy ahead of profits." (News flash to Mr. Lerner, profit is important for continued operation. Even a union will go out of business if does not make money in the form of dues.)

Speaking for the CON side was Peter R. Spanos, Labor & Employment Partner, Burr & Forman. He points out that "Fewer than 2 percent of all bank employees nationwide are represented by unions, with most in only about a dozen banks. The SEIU has plans to picket some banks, but their employees are not reaching out for help." He further states "Compensation and benefits run 7-8.5 percent higher at unionized banks, a serious drawback now. Union work rules and grievances could add more operational costs."

There is no doubt that some banks have had trouble. Three banks were closed just this past Friday. However, this is not because of how they treat their workers. It was poor decision making and bad lending practices. Having unionized tellers is not going to change that. In most cases people do not unionize to reform the companies for which they work. They unionize to improve their wages, benefits, working conditions and personal safety. In some cases, such as with nursing, reducing hours may have the effect of improving patient care. However, most banks do not have 24/7 working hours (in fact I don't know any that do).

It is a well documented fact that unionization increases the costs to the company or organization. It is not just the wages and benefits costs, but it is in the restricted operating environment that gets introduced. And we all know that increased costs result in increase prices. With banks that is increased fees on services. Do you really want to pay more for your ATM? Or have a service charge for talking to a teller? I think unionization will result in higher automation and fewer people. But the SEIU has targeted bank tellers, hoping, I am sure, for a passage of EFCA to make union organization easier.

So you can expect at some point to see picket signs in front of your local bank. And the next time you talk to your teller check for the union label.

And You Would Belong to the Union Why?

This got some play on a radio show yesterday, so I thought I would mention it again. The SEIU, the Service Employees International Union, is being struck by the union that has organized the workers of the SEIU. Say what?? Yes, that is true. the Union of Union Representatives has filed unfair labor practice charges against the SEIU, according to the Washington Post article, which said "The workers union's leaders say that the SEIU is engaging in the same kind of practices that some businesses use: laying off workers without proper notice, contracting out work to temporary-staffing firms, banning union activities and reclassifying workers to reduce union numbers." The quoted a union official ""It's completely hypocritical," said Malcolm Harris, president of the workers union. "This is the union that's been at the forefront of progressive issues, around ensuring that working people and working families are taken care of, but when it comes to the people that work for SEIU, they haven't set the same standards."

The article further quoted Harris saying "... his union's understanding is that the layoffs are the result of budget troubles faced by the SEIU, which, on top of the California dispute, spent $80 million during the 2008 election and is planning to spend tens of millions more to advocate on behalf of Obama's health-care plan and card check." The article also mentioned that "Fewer than half of the workers at SEIU chapters are unionized, and Harris's union's contract with SEIU forbids it from trying to help organize SEIU employees in local chapters."

My first question is, if the SEIU is so great why is it necessary to have their workers represented by another union?? My next question is, why would anyone want to be represented by a union who mistreats its own workers? The SEIU seems to be more about making Andy Stern a powerful man as opposed to making things better for workers. He is on a power grab, waging war on other unions. But it seems that his "better world" may be falling apart on him. Some of the unions that broke away from the AFL-CIO following the SEIU have gone back or are considering so. Regardless, any company being organized by the SEIU certainly needs to use this example of how the SEIU treats its own workers as a picture of what the world really looks like.

Andy Sterns: Business' Biggest Enemy?

Andy Sterns is the president of the SEIU, Service Employees International Union, an AFL-CIO breakaway and the fast growing union organization in the United States. He is also one of the biggest threats to American businesses. In an interview in the Wall Street Journal in December called Let's 'Share the Wealth' : America's most powerful union boss says Europe offers a good economic model Sterns makes it no secret that he feels unions got Obama elected and he intends to hold Obama's feet to the fire. "Mr. Stern sets this simple bar for the Obama presidency: "I expect nothing less than what he said he was going to do, and we should hold him accountable."

And Stern seems to have Obama's ear. Stern recommended Rep. Hilda Solis as a nominee for Labor Secretary (see yesterday's blog post) and was on the inauguration stand right beside the new President as he was sworn in. Stern is obviously a big proponent of the Employee Free Choice Act. So he will be bringing a great deal of pressure to bear on Congress and the Obama administration to get it passed. After all $450 million buys alot of favors.

Stern is not your stereotypical leader. He is highly educated and articulate. He has never held a blue collar job and had been trained in union tactics by a reputed socialist organization. He has been able to team with WalMart, a hated enemy, to argue for universal healthcare (see my post from Feb. 08, 2007 called Strange Bedfellows.)

However, he is not without his warts. There are union members in California who feel that he has run roughshod over their rights and many union leaders are unhappy with his strong-arm tactics against unions he wants possession of. See SEIU President Andy Stern is a threat to labor soul published at NYDailynews.com.

So do not take this man lightly. He is out to get business. And other unions. And, by the way, politicians if they do not do what he wants. The WSJ had this fact and quote. "The bit about accountability is no idle warning. Organized labor put up some $450 million to get Democrats elected. The SEIU accounted for $85 million of that, making Mr. Stern's union the single biggest contributor to either party in this election cycle. And just in case, the SEIU set aside an additional $10 million fund to get people unelected if need be. "We would like to make sure people appreciate that we take them at their word and when they don't live up to their word there should be consequences," he says."

So Much for Free Choice: Unions and Secret Pacts With Employers

I have written several times, as have other bloggers, about the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, an attempt at legislation that will take away the right for employees to select, by secret ballot, whether or not they wish to be represented by a union. Well here is another tactic by the unions to erode that right even further. On the front page of the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal the following headline "Unions Forge Secret Pacts With Major Employers". The first paragraph of the article reads "Two of the nation's largest labor unions have struck confidential agreements with large employers that give the companies the right to designate which of their locations, and how many workers, the unions can seek to organize."

The unions are the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), (the AFL-CIO breakaway) and Unite Here. The employers are Sodexho, Inc. and Compass Group USA. The agreements go beyond neutrality agreements (organizing attempts that the employers do not dispute) and there is a selection process between the company and the union on which locations can organize and which cannot. Thus, the unions and the employers decide who has the right to belong to the union and not the employees themselves. These agreements have been criticized and the question has been asked what the trade-off is. Well the trade-off is that the unions get to increase their membership without dispute and the companies get the unions to agree to not strike. Sounds good? Maybe for the unions, maybe for the employer, but not for the employee! The employees do not get to decide if they want to organize, they do not get to have a say by secret ballot, and if they are organized they cannot strike if they so desire.

Makes you wonder whose side the union is on doesn't it? Well I have always said that a union today is just a business and they make their money off of dues. If they can increase their membership and hence their revenue by making secret deals they will do so even if it does not benefit the employees. The businesses who are entering into these agreements are probably trying to limit their damages, thinking they would probably have been organized at sometime anyway (which means they probably deserve a union). So they get to pick who gets oranized and who doesn't. But they are not thinking in the best interests of their employees either.

So the unions gain, the companies gain and the employees lose. What a great system.

Strange Bedfellows: WalMart and Union Join Forces

In one of the strangest alliances of recent memory, WalMart and arch foe the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), joined forces to announce that they were going to work together to push the federal government to provide universal healthcare and to get out of the system of employer provided healthcare. As reported in a Washington Times article, H. Lee Scott, CEO of WalMart and Andy Stern, President of the SEIU, held a press conference in in Washington, D.C. and "...pledged to work together for the first time to fix what they called the nation's health-care crisis by 2012." Joining in the press conference were representatives from AT&T, Kelly Services, Intel, and the Communication Workers of America.

The thrust of the announcement was that the healthcare system in the U.S. is not working, people are uncovered by insurance and the system of employer provided healthcare makes U.S. companies less competetive in a world market.