Friday, September 12, 2008's EOW: Labor News & Our Conclusion on Obama...

Dear readers:

Although the rain is falling steadily here on the East Coast, several news stories have seemed to make the day much brighter for those employers who value freedom of choice and secret-ballot elections on the subject of unionization and who, like us, are watching the political campaigns closely.

Before we enter the insane realm of the political and why our Friday is indeed a "good Friday" (as yours should be as well), here are some of the union-related news stories we've posted on

These are just a few of the many stories posted on for you. However it's time to turn to the political front...

The Unions $1 Billion Campaign Against America Is Turning...
[And, in our opinion, Why Barack Obama is Unfit to be POTUS]

This morning, our morning started with a smile as we read several stories that we've posted on, plus an e-mail from a friend...

Of course, all of this can be credited to The Sarah Surge.

Over the course of a short 14 days, the selection of a Hockey-Mom-Turned-Small-Town Mayor-Turned-Governor of Alaska has done more to frustrate Democrats and their Big Union Bosses than anything else the GOP could have done.

So, given all of the events of these last two weeks, and especially the reaction from the Left to Ms. Palin's meteoric rise, we've come to a half-in-jest (but somewhat serious) conclusion: Barack Obama is not fit to be President of the United States (POTUS). Here's why:

Never mind that we disagree with the fact that he supports the Orwellian
Employee Free Choice Act that will kill countless American workers' jobs. Never mind the fact that he's seems to have no idea that it is business that creates jobs and not unions. Never mind the fact that he wants the government to impose his belief that you are your brother's keeper and that is NOT the role that government should impose on a FREE people. None of these are the reasons why we think Candidate Obama is unfit to be President Obama. For us, it boils down to this:

After nearly 20 months of branding, image making, endorsements from the privileged elite and labor bosses alike, well-delivered speeches to fainting audiences numbering in the hundreds of thousands, the unmitigating lack of scrutiny from the press (and people who should know better), as well as the ability to take down arguably the most powerful woman in Western World--after all of that--Barack Hussein Obama was taken down in one 35-minute speech by an unknown hockey-mom of five-turned-small-town mayor-turned governor.

[Note: If you were not one of the 40 million people who watched the speech you can view it in its entirety here]

You see, no matter who John McCain selected as his VP candidate, the criticism from the Left was expected to be sharp. However, with Sarah Palin's pick, the reaction went from the expectedly sharp to
Barack Obama's condescendingly self-aggrandizing dismissal of Sarah Palin to CNN's Anderson Cooper to the hysterical and insultingly shrill claim from South Carolina's Democratic Chairwoman Carol Fowler that "Palin's primary qualification is that she hasn't had an abortion."

You see, here is our theory: If all it takes is a 35-minute speech to eviscerate and reduce the man who has trademarked "Hope" and "Change," the guy that the entire Left (from Democrats to Socialists to Anarchists) has endorsed to a biting, sexist, and condescending babbling boob, then he really is unfit to be POTUS.

If, after His Styrofoam-columned coronation in Denver the week before left the Anointed One seemingly invincible and omnipotent, it only took one-35 minute, well-delivered speech, to knock him off his mile-high perch and expose his glass jaw, it leaves us to question: If someone as simple and down to earth as Sarah Palin can take you down, what chance do you have against Vladimir Putin?

...Or, to put it in the same crudely sexist terminology that the Left seems to be desirous of using:


The media is beginning to say this week that "Palin has gotten into Obama's head." Really?

Was it that easy? A fresh face and a fresh speech to knock him off his game, to maul his mojo?

If that's the case, then how will the free world fare when someone really wants to 'get into his head'? [Hopefully, Mr. Obama doesn't smoke cigars like the last Democratic president did.] other thing...In answer to the question going around the media this week: Was the 'Lipstick on a Pig" comment directed at Palin? Yes, it was. Anyone who knows about writing speeches should recognize that the comment (regardless of the context it was put in) was a barb meant to poke fun at Palin. The problem is, it backfired.

And THAT, dear readers, is our take on the State of our Nation this Friday...

We hope you have a truly wonderful week's end and, for those of you friends and clients who are in the path of Hurricane Ike, PLEASE STAY SAFE.

Until next week.

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Machinists' Union Flip-Flops and Endorses Barack Obama

In another example of today's union bosses' sleaze*, today's tepid endorsement of Barack Obama by the International Association of Machinists seems to be more about endorsing the "silver tongued orator...the man in love with the microphone" than telling Americans how the union really feels about Barack Obama.

For, if honesty were an issue for the Machinists' union bosses, based on their earlier animosity toward the Annointed One, they should have offered a simple "present" when asked of their presidential pick for November.

You see, it was only several months ago that the Machinists' Big Boss Tom Buffenbarger argued that Barack Obama was merely a 'thespian' who abandoned Maytag and United Airlines workers.

You can read the transcript here...

Or watch the video of 'Blowhard Buffenbarger' below...

Now, contrast the above (which is something of an unintential endorsement McCain's abilities over Obama's) to the comments contained in today's statement:
While our no holds barred support for Sen. Clinton might seem to preclude shifting our allegiance to another candidate, we are prepared to support Sen. Obama with the same enthusiasm and the same determination with which we backed Sen.

The difference between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama is nearly invisible when compared to the differences between Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain.

Apparently those differences were visible a few months ago when Buffenbarger compared Obama to “Janus, the two-faced Roman god of ancient times” and his followers "latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies."

Today's the IAM's endorsement of B.O. may seem disingenuous to some (including us). However, the Grand Poobahs over at the Grand Lodge must figure it's okay to back 'two-faced' candidates, so long as they get a commitment to support the no-vote union bill, the Employee Free Choice Act.

You see, to today's unions, principles and having the courage to stand by them is okay..unless that stands in the way of money going to the unions' treasuries.

*And that, folks, is sleaze.

Monday, September 8, 2008

Breaking Union and Political News from 30,000 Feet

This week is starting out to be another interesting week for Americans who follow labor relations in the US of A...

For these, and many more stories, including the SEIU's ongoing battle with its own members in California, be sure to go to

Best wishes for a productive and prosperous week!

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Obama's & The Dem's Union Agenda (...a partial list)

In the not-too-distant future, when workers begin to wonder why, after falling for Barack Obama's rhetoric and electing he and his fellow union-controlled Democrats to control our federal government, the economy tanks even further and more jobs are lost, they need only to look back at all the "feel-good" bills that Obama and his cronies are pushing today--all of which will have a seriously negative impact on companies and their ability to maintain (let alone) create jobs.

To that end, dear readers, here is a partial list of the legislation that has already been introduced (or is being pushed) that employers should expect to see enacted if Obama wins and the Democrats obliterate the GOP in the Senate to the point their is no ability for a GOP filibuster:
  • Employee Free Choice Act (no-vote unionism and binding arbitration 120 days after unionization)
  • Elimination of Right-to-Work states (making all 50 states forced unionization states)
  • Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (eliminates statutes of limitations on pay discrimination claims)
  • Healthy Families Act (mandates seven paid sick days for employers with more than 15 workers)
  • Expanding FMLA to include parenting responsibilities (i.e., parent-teacher conferences) and literacy training
  • Arbitration Fairness Act (eliminates PRE-dispute arbitration agreements)
  • Public Employee-Employer Cooperation Act (unionizes EMS, Fire & Police at the local and state levels)
  • WARN Act expansion to smaller companies
  • ADA Restoration Act (expands the definition of disability)
  • Protecting America's Workers Act (increases penalties--to include prison time--for employers guilty of "willfully" OSHA)
  • Legalizing undocumented workers...and, of course,
  • Nationalization of America's Health Care System

Note: The above list is a partial list that encompasses only that which we know about today. Obviously, this doesn't include the tax hikes that Barack Obama has promised to inflict on America.

Recently, we have heard that the cost to fulfill Barack Obama's campaign promises may be higher than $800 billion, an amount that Mr. Obama says he can save by reducing the amount America is spending on our military.

We do not believe that the $800 billion price tag accounts for the amount of company closures and subsequent unemployment that any of the initiatives listed above will cost America or her workers.


Editor's note: If there is any bright side to this insanity, it is that it should only take two years of Democratic control (compared to GWB's eight) and economic malaise before the ensuing public backlash causes another wave of "hope" and "change" from the electorate. [Can anyone say: Sarah Palin for Prez in 2012?]

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

The Effects of EFCA Begin...

For more than two years, we have called the job-killing legislation which unions and their lackeys have dubbed the Employee Free Choice Act the Kill American Jobs Act--and with good reason: If enacted, EFCA (through its no-vote unionism and mandatory arbitration provisions) will cost many Americans their jobs.

Why? Here it is in a nutshell:

...And it really is this simple:

Unions cost companies more all the way around. While some of the costs are attributable to higher wage and benefits costs (in some cases), the hidden--and often more costly--costs of unionization come from the "administrative" costs attributable to unionization. These administrative costs include higher legal fees, loss of managerial time, overly burdensome work rules, adversarial relationships which result in lower productivity, and the like. These higher administrative costs can easily (and most often do) equate to double-digit costs to a company and, if that company is in any industry that has competition (which one doesn't?), the unionized company becomes less competitive. When a unionized company becomes less competitive, the company must find a way to become competitive again (e.g, outsourcing) or it either shrinks (and lays off its workers) or it goes out of business.

The Law of Unintended Consequences Strikes Again. Now, as union bosses spend $1 billion on the November election to have their political lackeys pass the hallucinogenically-named Employee Free Choice Act, employers have finally awoken and are taking notice. As a result, as we've known for a while now, some companies are not waiting for EFCA's deleterious effects to take hold, they are either altering (or planning to alter) their business models now.

Case in point: Last week, in a discussion with a client's HR manager in the Northeast, the HR manager mentioned that area businesses have already begun planning for EFCA to become law by outsourcing to their workforces to temporary agencies. Since these were primarily warehousing jobs, they do not necessarily lend themselves to outsourcing overseas. However, there are a plethora of companies that provide temporary workers who can easily pick and pack and who, while the per hour cost may be slightly higher, the agencies that employ these temp workers are not unionized.

While unions may cry foul at this approach, they had better get used to it once EFCA passes.

The fact is, the ideas behind EFCA (especially its binding arbitration provision) are not new. In 1994, President Clinton's Dunlop Commission (you can read an analysis of the commission report here) called for such changes to appease union complaints of a declining union movement and their failures in the private sector. However, EFCA (or whatever its predecessor bill might have been named) never came to fruition due to the Republicans' gaining control of Congress in the 1994 mid-term elections.

Twelve years later, on the evening of November 8, 2006, as the last blog entry we posted on Kulture's blog (before blogging exclusively here), we stated that the mid-term elections of 2006 had nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with unions taking over Congress. Well, the union bosses have done it and on March 1, 2007, the unions got their puppets in the House of Representatives to pass EFCA. However, they knew it would never fly until they changed the make up in the Senate and the occupant in the White House.

Now, a mere two years later, union bosses are poised to complete their coup d'etat in 2008. Unfortunately, it is ordinary Americans that will suffer more under the effects of EFCA, as more and more companies look to shed themselves of the economic costs and risks associated unionization.