Wal-Mart's Fight For the Truth Should be YOUR Fight Too

Over these past few weeks, the labor movement and its leftist allies have finally outdone themselves in their sheer hypocrisy. By decrying meetings that retail giant Wal-Mart has had with its managers to talk about this November’s election and the consequences of the hallucinogenically-named Employee Free Choice Act, unions are attempting to have their cake and eat it too...

By pressing the Federal Election Commission to investigate whether or not Wal-Mart violated federal election laws, unions are also putting all employers on notice that you have no right to talk to your employees (or managers) on a bill that may negatively affect your business and put employees' jobs at risk--if that bill is something that union bosses want, that is.

While all media accounts seem to agree that (unlike union bosses) Wal-Mart never told its managers who to vote for, it did talk about the ramifications of EFCA on its company. According to union shill American Rights at Work's Mary Beth Maxwell, Wal-Mart "adapted their unionbusting tactics to influence our federal election system."

WHAT?!? Wal-Mart is but one company. Yet, no one apparently sees the blatant hypocrisy of that statement as union bosses spend an estmated a billion dollars of their members' money to "influence our federal election system."

While unions seemingly would rather ignore the truth, here it is:

• The Truth is: Unions have mounted an unprecented campaign to drastically alter America's union organizing system through the moronically-named Employee Free Choice Act


• The Truth is: If EFCA passes, unions will have the unfettered ability to attack compnies and browbeat their workers into signing union authorization cards


• The Truth is: Union bosses have promised, cajoled, and even threatened lawmakers into passing this measure. If lawmakers do not support it, union bosses have earmarked $10 million for efforts to oust them.


• The Truth is: EFCA will make many businesses that become unionized uncompetitive, since unionization raises the 'administrative costs' of doing business anywhere from 15% to 30%.


• The Truth is: EFCA also contains one of the most job-killing pieces of legislation ever called for--binding arbitration.


• The Truth is: EFCA will set the stage for labor battles like those in the 1930s to take place as, once an EFCA-imposed contract expires at those companies that can survive, strikes and lockouts will become more commonplace.


• The Truth is: EFCA is merely a way for labor union bosses to bring more money into their coffers and has nothing to do with freedom.


• The Truth is: Unions have already cost countless workers their jobs in heavily unionized industries.


• The Truth is: EFCA will cost more Americans their jobs.


• The Truth is: Union bosses do not want people to know the truth!

While unions often squeal like stuck Arkansas razorbacks when their opponents use the same tactics the unions use, this instant case goes beyond the bounds of normal union hypocrisy. Further, if the unions win this battle against this employer telling the truth, then all Americans should be concerned. For, if the union bosses and their like-minded ilk win this battle and companies are prohibited from telling the truth, the all Americans will lose as truth will have no place in America any longer.

____________________

For more union-related news, go to EmployerReport.com

Vindication: NLRB rules IATSE & Actors Equity Lost the Joust

vin·di·cate – verb (used with object), -cat·ed, -cat·ing.

1. to clear, as from an accusation, imputation, suspicion, or the like: to vindicate someone's honor.
2. to afford justification for; justify: Subsequent events vindicated his policy.
3. to uphold or justify by argument or evidence: to vindicate a claim.
4. to assert, maintain, or defend (a right, cause, etc.) against opposition.
5. to claim for oneself or another.

We hate unfinished business. Unfinished business is a distraction that we seldom have time for. Well, this week some unfinished business is finally finished. A kingdom restored, a castle secure for the time being.

Since we were raised in, come from and are accustomed to encountering today's labor unions (which seem to be more prone than ever to lie, manipulate the truth, and replace reality with fantasy), to us, this saga is filled with more than its share of treachery, deceit, double agents and ignoble characters.

In the early fall of 2006, an NLRB election was held at a client that has knights and squires and swords and shields and kings and princesses and wizards and serfs and wenches and horses and other asundry things medieval. In the aftermath, wherein the Actors' Equity Association and IATSE (serving as joint petitioners) narrowly lost, the unions accused us of doing all sorts of sordid things to sway the votes of employees.

As we prefer to avoid fantasy and deal in the truth and facts, and having been involved in a few hundred election campaigns against bigger and more respected unions, it was interesting (to say the least) to hear the fantastical and preposterous things that the petitioners accused us of committing.

The unions filed a number of objections to the election and, in order to clear our names, reputation, as well as defend our client, we were required to testify at an NLRB hearing before a board agent who was nothing more than a dolt (at best).

[In fact, and as a side note, an attorney friend had said before the hearing that the board agent in question had "never met a union he didn't like." So we knew going in that objectivity was not on our side.]

Well, the hearing resulted in the board agent dismissing most of the objections, but sustaining one and, therefore, he ordered the election to be set aside.

What was the one thing the board agent stated that yours truly did? Allegedly, yours truly stated the company "would" drag out negotiations for more than a year and, therefore, created the impression that it would be futile for the employees to select the union as their bargaining agent.

Of course, it was bulls**t.

The meeting in question was a participatory exercise conducted, quite literally, thousands of times with workers to explain the language subjects that are part of a collective bargaining agreement. As part of the exercise, language articles such as union security clauses, dues check off, management rights and a host of other language articles are discussed and explained.

What's more, the discussion itself (involving a hypothetical employer, union an group of employees) culminates in an agreement before a year. This alone would seemingly negate the unions' assertions. However, not in the eyes of the union-friendly dolt of a board agent, as the illogic of the unions' claim was apparently way over his head.

[What was even more interesting is that the unions' witnesses could not even recall the definitions of the above-referenced topics that were explained to them a mere month and a half earlier--only that they were told the company "would drag out negotiations for more than a year."]

As stated above, the dolt ruled against us. So, the client's counsel rightly filed an exception (an appeal) to the dolt's decision to the NLRB in Washington, rather than give in to the subjectivity of a wrongly decided determination.

As was their right, the petitioners' counsel filed a brief to our client's exceptions.

Upon our reading the petitioners' Brief in Opposition the Employer's Exceptions... we were aghast at what we felt was a furtherance of pure fantasy, which prompted us to write a letter to the petitioners' counsel.

[Apparently, our letter struck a nerve, for we heard that the petitioners' counsel squealed like a pig.]

In the months that followed, it was often asked, when will there be resolution to this?

Patience, was our advice. The wheels of justice are sometime slow, we stated.

However, we too were beginning to wonder just how long it would take for the NLRB in Washington to issue its decision and rid us of this unfinished business.

Well, this past Tuesday, we received notification that the NLRB issued its decision, overruling the dolt of a board agent and finally certifying the election.

As reported in the Daily Labor Report, even dissenting NLRB member Dennis Walsh stated that yours truly "is an experienced antiunion consultant..."

[A back-handed compliment from a pro-union Board member?]

Walsh observed that "List said nothing to indicate that [the employer] would eschew the bargaining approach he laid out." [Emphasis added.]

That's what we've been saying for nearly a year!

Oh well. At last, we are vindicated. It is finished.

The Democrats Have a Problem...

The BIG NEWS today is that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has quit the Republican Party to become an "independent." As Bloomberg was never really a Republican--he switched from a being a Democrat only so that he could run for Mayor--it's really not that big of a deal to the Right.

However, now that Mayor Mike is leaving his adoptive party, the rumor mill has been burning the midnight oil speculating that Bloomberg is going to make a run for the White House. After all, though he still denies it, Bloomberg's resignation comes only a day after telling an audience at Google's headquarters that the "country is in trouble" and blasting the current presidential candidates, the press, as well as the recent debates.

"They have absolutely nothing to do with the job and the qualifications. And they don't tell you anything about whether or not any of those candidates would be good or bad presidents. What they really say is, did they memorize their notes of ‘What to say if …' and whether their staff was able to anticipate," the mayor said. "If you look at both debates, they pandered, what I would argue, the same ways."

Mr. Bloomberg said the presidential candidates were exploiting the threat of terrorism, and failing to deliver solutions to problems such as illegal immigration, health care, and education.

"I think that none of them are addressing those issues," the mayor said during an exchange with reporters after the Google talk.

Given his talk at Google yesterday and his resignation today, though the rumor mill may be working overtime, it may also be correct.

The question then becomes: If Bloomberg runs for President as an independent under the "I Like Mike" slogan, who will he pull votes from? Democrats or Republicans?

Our guess is that Bloomberg will pull votes from the Democrats as the Democrats are, according to an ABC News article, veering too far to the left and, therefore, running the risk of alienating the moderate swing voters.

"The thing that's amazing about the Democrats is that they could still snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. The major Democrats are all now well to the left of the median voter," says Jeffrey Berry, a political science professor at Tufts University.

In fact, considering that the Democratic front runner, Her Highness Hillary has been taking jabs by unions and feminists, now, even Ralph Nader is joining the fray by asking: Is Hillary Clinton a political weather vane or a political compass?

Heck! By the time the November 2008 presidential election takes place, the swing voters may be so thoroughly disgusted with the Democrats that they may flock toward Bloomberg and Fred Thompson will be our next president.

Interesting devlopment indeed!

The Left & Their Lies...

There they go again! Whether you call it a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, a fib, a lie, or just plain old Left-Wing Propaganda...the Progressives** are once again not telling the truth!

In today's People's Weekly World, as well as on the International Labor Communications Association website, under the heading "NLRB opens new attack on unions" the writers blatantly misrepresented a recent National Labor Relations Board decision as opening "the way for decertification of unions even before the first contract negotiated by a union and approved by the workers takes effect."

As our interest was piqued when we saw this wild assertion, we quickly investigated and realized these left-wing dolts don't know what they're talking about...and clearly, don't know the difference between a decertification election and a deauthorization election.

Here's the REAL scoop:

Back in October, 2005, a company called Convenant Aviation Security agreed to deny their employees the right to a secret ballot election and agreed to recognize SEIU 790 through the often coercive card-check process. The union gained recognition by getting 55% of the 1,010 employees to sign union authorization cards.

In December 2005, the Company and union reached a first contract and the union had the contract ratified with a vote of 378-229 (or 37% of the total bargaining unit).

The contract contained a Union Security Clause, also known as a forced dues clause or "union income security clause," which forces employees to pay dues to the union or be fired from their job.

A number of employees signed a petition seeking to remove the union security clause from the contract. The legal question that arose was whether the signatures gathered were valid, since a majority were gathered before the union had gotten its contract.

After the San Francisco region of the NLRB denied workers their right to vote on deauthorizing the union income security clause, they appealed to the NLRB in Washington. Nearly a year and a half later, the NLRB ruled:

After carefully considering the language of Section 9(e)(1), the legislative history behind that statutory provision, and Board law governing deauthorization elections, we believe that requiring the signatures underlying the showing of interest to postdate the effective union-security provision here would unjustly impede the right of employees to deauthorize a union shop

That's it...

No decertification...Just workers getting the right to choose whether or not their union should get the right to get them fired for refusing to pay the union.

End of story...

In the meantime, however, the wacky "progressive" writers at People's Weekly World, as well as International Labor Communications Association are either deliberately misleading readers or are too stupid to check the facts before writing their story.

In either case, it would appear that giving workers the right to choose where their money goes is somehow "anti-labor" as the PPW writer stated in his piece.

** Editor's note: the term "progressives" can literally be read as socialists, anarchists, leftists, communists, Democrats, Liberals, or whatever other moniker they choose to call themselves these days--and it often changes daily and by audience.

Two Years Later: The Labor Movement's Zombie Walk...

These days, as we observe the skulduggery of today's American Labor Movement, it seems as though we're watching that cult-classic Dawn of the Dead, the sequel to George Romero's Night of the Living Dead. As much as it's grotesque watching the flesh-eating zombies feast on their human prey, our fascination keeps our butts glued to the seats.

More than two years ago, we wrote an essay entitled "The Labor Movement is Brain Dead (and it's time to pull the plug)."

While this was in the months preceding the AFL-CIO implosion/break up in July 2005, it apparently struck a nerve in the halls of the House of Labor, as Anna Berger (SEIU's #2 person and now the boss of bosses in the Change to Whine federation) went around the country misquoting the intent of and the actual statement, as follows: "The American labor movement is clinically brain dead. Labor leaders within the AFL-CIO are living in a perpetual state of denial."

In fact, not only did Ms. Berger use us in her speeches around the country, she put her (mis)quote of us up on a big PowerPoint presentation to use as partial justification for Andy Stern's coup d'union.

Well, it's been more than two years since the Nupsters officially became the Whiners and not much has changed for the zombies of the labor movement (except that they just bought the United States Congress for the handsome sum of a cool $100 million), but we felt it apropos to revisit the premise behind the 2005 essay.

Here is the actual quote just to put it into some perspective for you:

This spring and summer(2005), as America’s union bosses prepare to gather to debate their current malaise, there is one single, undeniable conclusion that no one seems to want to admit: the American labor movement is clinically brain dead. Labor leaders within the AFL-CIO and their political and academic allies are living in a state of perpetual denial about their true fate, repeating the mantra “organize or die” that has been chanted for years. The problem is, it’s too late for that. The chant now rings hollow. It’s fallen on deaf ears for too long. Someone just needs to have the courage and decency to let the union bosses and the rest of the world know the truth…That the time has come to declare the American union movement dead—let’s move on.

So, what's the point? you ask...

Well, here we are two years after the Great Schism in the House of Labor and, so far, the only thing that the labor movement has succeeded in is getting a Socialist Congress elected.

[Editor's note: We're sorry if the above offends anyone who voted for Democrats last November in order to end the War in Iraq but the reality is, you were duped by Big Labor's Red Herring!]

To be sure, the union bosses are pulling all of the strings needed to manipulate their Congressional puppets, but the reality is, they will still have to wait another two years and spend hundreds of millions of dollars more of their members' money to see if they can get Le Grande Puppet in the Oval Office.

So, let's assume that happens and Hillary Obama Edwards wins the White House, then what?

Well, Washington will become a big orgy of "left-wing labor love" and unions will literally rely on an Act of Congress to attempt to revitalize itself...

Alas, the Employee Free Choice Act.

Let us also assume for a moment that EFCA eventually passes and get signed into law in late Spring 2009.

Then what?

Workers will get targeted and succumb to union trickery and/or thuggery. Companies large and small will become unionized. Contracts will get imposed by government bureaucrats through binding arbitration. Where does that leave us?

Well, the US economy will go into the crapper as large companies off shore even more jobs to third and fourth world countries and small companies close under the administrative burden of unionization.

Even though hundreds of thousands of more American workers will lose their jobs, union bosses have a solution--for themselves, that is: Unionize illegal aliens. Of course, with their new puppets in Washington, they will have likely already passed amnesty for illegals, making our non-English speaking counterparts all-too-easy-to-manipulate targets.

And, of course, by then we will likely have socialized health care (or what the left now calls "Universal Health Care"), which will ensure an even larger stream of dues to the likes of the SEIU. [To read Tom Wigand's excellent analysis of labor's left-wing health care scheme, click here.]

As one who does not share the left's disastrous vision for America, it does seem a rather bleak outlook for the moment. However, times change, political winds shift and, at the end of the movie, the zombies don't eat all of the humans anyway.

For the moment, though, all we can do is provide fair warning:

"When there's no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth."

Do labor unions raise the general standard of living?

Mind or Muscle?

The basic question of whether or not labor unions raise the standard of living is being debated in our contemporary society and calls for an answer. However, it has been asked and answered over 40 years ago in this 1963 essay by Dr. Nathaniel Branden.

As we revisit this argument in the 21st century, the basic premise pushed by the Labor Bosses remains the same: That Americans owe their standard of living to unions.

The following is a most eloquent and appropriate response:

One of the most widespread delusions of our age is the belief that the American worker owes his high standard of living to unions and to “humanitarian” labor legislation. This belief is contradicted by the most fundamental facts and principles of economics—facts and principles which are systematically evaded by labor leaders, legislators and intellectuals of the statist persuasion.

A country’s standard of living, including the wages of its workers, depends on the productivity of labor; high productivity depends on machines, inventions and capital investment—which depend on the creative ingenuity of individual men—which requires, for its exercise, a politico-economic system that protects the individual’s rights and freedom.

As stated, the above was written more than 40 years ago, when unions were near the height of their collectivist power. To read the entire essay, click here.

Was Willie Wonka a Union-Buster?

Although this just came in through a google search, it was just too sweet to pass up (pun intended)...

It seems as though our children have been indoctrinated by the likes of Willie Wonka that union-busting and slave labor are okay. Or, that's what the reviewer Scott Tobias would have us believe in his 2-year old review of the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory video game as he describes those poor little Oompa Loompas:

So who are the Oompa-Loompas, anyway? At best, they're just scabs, the union-busting replacement workers brought in by Willy Wonka after he canned his previous staff for giving away trade secrets to competitors. But they're more like unpaid slave labor, "liberated" from their native land and plopped into Wonka's factory, where they keep the chocolate flowing and serve as guinea pigs for experiments in candy that disrupts the space-time continuum. The perversely joyless Charlie And The Chocolate Factory video game might as well be called Charlie And The Chocolate Plantation, because it turns you into an Oompa-Loompa slave-driver, ordering around the little buggers as they bow to the sound of your stern patrician clap. And lording over the whole operation is the imperious Wonka, a dictatorial man-child whose whimsical musings on candy mask a deeper obsession with the bottom line.

Since the original Willie Wonka movie came out in 1971, more than 35 years ago, and has influenced an entire generation (not to mention that tasty candy) , perhaps this explains the reason why unions keep declining.

White House Vows Veto on Employee Free Choice Act

Employers and their union-free employees should be letting out a collective sigh of relief, as Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday pledged a presidential veto of the Orwellian anti-freedom, pro-union-boss Employee Free Choice Act (aka the Employee PAID Choice Act) should it pass the union-bought 110th Congress.

"America is also a country that takes very seriously the right of men and women to work, and to organize within the law. The American labor movement has a proud history and has long reflected a basic principle of our democracy: fair elections decided by secret ballots. This principle will be put to a test in Congress this year. It's important for everyone in the debate to remember that secret ballots protect workers from intimidation, and ensure the integrity of the process.

"Beyond that, if workers do decide to form a union, they and their employer should be able to negotiate without having terms forced on them. Our administration rejects any attempt to short-circuit the rights of workers. We will defend their right to vote yes or no by secret ballot, and their right to fair bargaining. H.R. 800 violates these principles, and if it is sent to the President, he will veto the bill."

[Currently, EFCA is set to pass in the House within the next two weeks, but faces more uncertainty in the Senate.]

So, why should workers being letting out a sigh of relief?

It's pretty simple: More Americans will be able to keep their jobs if the Employee Free Choice Act fails.

Although you can click here to find out why EFCA will kill jobs in greater detail, here's the simple version...

"Capital flees risk. And, like it or not, unions are viewed as an uncontrollable risk to capital."

The above quote comes from Tom Clark from the Metro Denver Economic Development Corp. and is in reference to a union-backed debacle that was nearly foisted on the people of Colorado, before the governor there vetoed it.

"This is not theory," he said. "We've been fielding phone calls from companies who say they are now looking at taking their expansions out of state."

Okay, here is our job....Here is our unionized job going overseas...Any questions?

Although, we're pretty certain that a presidential veto will cause the union bosses and their progressive-socialist allies to squeal like pigs who just had their slop taken from them (after all, union bosses spent $100 million of their members' money to buy the 110th Congress), they'll have another chance to spend a few hundred million more to get Hillary Obama Edwards elected, who has pledged support of EFCA.

[To use Whole Foods CEO John Mackey's analogy that "unions are like herpes," in the case of EFCA, it will keep coming back until it passes.]

Therefore, unlike this current go-round, when the business community got off the dime only at the last minute to raise awareness by launching a yet-to-be-completed website, vigilence will have to be the course of action for the foreseeable future.

Unfortunately, with the exception of the folks at UnionFacts.com, the Tireless Blogmeister at NAM's the ShopFloor and yours truly, too few others have been paying attention to this issue and it's close to passing...

In another two years, it is highly possible (dare we say likely?) that there will not be a Republican president to veto it.

Yes, a collective sigh of relief may be warranted for now...but only for now.