The Coyote's Tale: More from the Pathetic Union Department...

Here's another run-on sentence of hyperlinks* for the Stupid Union archives:

It seems the United Food & Commercial Workers, the seemingly pathetic, two-faced, high-stakes blinking, illegal-alien loving coyote of a union has given another group of its members a flubbing.

According to the Detroit Free Press, when UFCW-represented members of now-defunct grocer Farmer Jack were laid off, the union apparently negotiated a successor clause with Kroger stipulating that Kroger match employee wages and benefits of any Farmer Jack employees it hires at the newly acquired Kroger stores.

The deal was reached as Kroger was buying the Farmer Jack sites.

The agreement, however, doesn't state that Kroger must hire Farmer Jack employees.

Supermarket analyst David Livingston said the pact could have worked against Farmer Jack workers.

"There is no upside to hiring a Farmer Jack employee," Livingston said.

Wow! With union representation like that, who needs a union?

* For best results, move your mouse over each word that is in bold black font.

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.

Fidel Castro speaks out on the Employee Free Choice Act

This video was sent to us from a "pro business democrat" (yes, they do exist--although they're on the endangered species list). It's funny and worth the look.

The Employee 'Free Choice' Act Top 10 List

Perhaps out of boredom or the desire to be a bit kitschy, as the US Senate takes up the Orwellian 'Free Choice' Act, we at EmployerReport.com felt the need to lighten things up a bit.

Frankly, it was an op-ed by John Newman (to which we'll pay tribute in a moment) that gave us the inspiration for this evening's blog.

So, in a kudos to Mr. Newman, we give you Tuesday's Top Ten List on why the Employee Free Choice Act should be rejected by the US Senate.

10. Currently, like used car salesmen, union organizers are legally allowed to lie to, pay off (aka bribe) or intimidate workers in order to lure them to sign union authorization cards. If EFCA passes, it will only get worse.

9. Under EFCA's binding arbitration provision, government bureaucrats will determine the future economic condition that an employer will be forced to operate under AND workers will not get the right to vote on the contract either.

8. Like vampires, leeches and other parasites, today's union bosses do not need any more victims (or industries) to suck the life out of (for reference, click here).

7. The majority of unionized workers dues go to pay to protect the lazy (average workers who show up to work on time, do their job and go home do not need unions).

6. "Getting rid of a union is worse than getting rid of a heroin habit" (Kudos, Mr. Newman).

5. The labor movement did NOT create the middle class, American capitalism did. (Get that through your thick heads, you Kool Aid-drinking liberals!)

4. EFCA is co-sponsored by Edward "Teddy" Kennedy. (Enough said?)

3. Big Labor + Big Political Donations = BIGGER Government (i.e., socialism), more liberal Democrats, and even less freedom than now.

2. Organized Crime is still alive and well in today's unions.

1. EFCA will wreak havoc on America's economy and, consequently, cost countless Americans their jobs due to more outsourcing, premature automation, and outright company closures.

[Editor's note: If you have other reasons that EFCA should be oppsed, please submit them here. Once we have gathered ten more well-written reasons EFCA should be defeated, we will post them.]

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!

Once Iconic, Often Moronic: It's just NO FUN being a Teamster anymore.

Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it.--Russell Baker

Times change for most, unless you're a union boss...

Those once-bad asses from the American labor movement, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, have become but a pitiful cartoon of their former selves.

Though the shadow of their past reputation for thuggery still earns them respect in the minds of some, the Teamsters leadership is at a comical crossroads of an identity crisis.

Not quite the goons of old, but not quite holding the intellectual superiority of asses either, Teamsters leaders are struggling to find themselves.

In Tuscon, the Arizona Daily Star ran an article this morning about techniques for companies to try to improve employee morale.

The list included things like giving employees a fun break. Examples include bringing in ice cream and hula hoops or a volleyball net.

However, the local Teamsters organizer doesn't seem to want people happy at work...

[F]un isn't why people go to work, and the money could be better used to benefit workers, said Kathy Campbell, a Teamsters organizer in Tucson.

"If you give me a choice between a pizza party and a 25-cents-an-hour wage increase, I'll take the money because I'd rather have pizza with my kids," she said.

As a union organizer, it seems all too obvious why it appears the Teamsters would rather have people be miserable at work. Happy people don't need unions and people like Ms. Campbell need to justify their existences. Without miserable employees Ms. Campbell couldn't justify her $67,445 salary.

(Hell, if you can't beat them into submission like in the old days, you need misery to lure them into your clutches, right?)

Ms. Campbell, it is little wonder you and your ilk need a law like EFCA passed.

You've got nothing to sell anymore except hope to people who are miserable. How pitiful.

In High-Stakes Mexican Standoff, the UFCW Blinks...

...and blinks and blinks...

Being raised in the great American Southwest, where legends of gunfighters abound, there is a belief that the dude who blinks first in a gunfight is gonna wind up dead.

For those unfamiliar with tales of the old wild west, a parallel equivalent can be said about schoolyard fights: The kid who blinks first is going to get a bloody nose.

Well, the current fight between the United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) and grocery chains, Albertsons, Kroger, Ralphs and Vons seemed to be a lot like a Mexican standoff...Until the UFCW blinked...and then kept on blinking.

In Southern California, the UFCW had their clocks cleaned in 2004, when they took their members out on the picket lines for 4 1/2 months. The result was devastating for UFCW members.

As of March 5th, the contract that the UFCW agreed to in 2004 to end their work stoppage has expired. Now what?

Well, the UFCW first tried to rattle their sabre by getting members to authorize a strike against Albertsons back on March 25th, only to get hit over the head by all three chains stating that (like 2004) they would lock out their workers if any one chain were struck by the UFCW.

This was the UFCW's first blink...
Never go to a gunfight with a pea shooter.

Now, the UFCW is attempting to turn up the pressure again by declaring a June 21st deadline for SoCal negotiations to either reach a contract...Or Else...

What's the "Or Else?"...

Well, the UFCW may hold additional strike votes on June 24th for Ralphs' and Vons' workers.

BUT, it should be noted that the UFCW isn't actually saying they'll strike, only that they'll either have a contract or hold more strike authorization votes.

In fact, the UFCW leaders seem to be scurrying away from saying the union will actually strike.

"This is not a call to battle," said Rick Icaza, president of United Food and Commercial Workers union Local 770.

"I don't view this deadline today as confrontational," said Mickey Kasparian, who leads Local 135 of the UFCW, which covers San Diego and Imperial counties.

[Kasparian's local is, however, offering loans through a credit union for qualified members who may be affected by a strike or lock out.]

In a video to his members (which you can view here) , Greg Conger, President of UFCW Local 324 states that if the chains do not provide an offer that can be ratified "the decision regarding economic actions would soon follow..."

Although Conger seems to choose his words carefully on his video, and although it's inferred, he doesn't actually threaten that the union will walk out.

Note: Conger, you may recall, is the same UFCW boss who wrote a nasty letter to a member, threatening the member with retaliation for choosing to cross a UFCW picket line.

It seems as though, like most school yard bullies with paper balls, the UFCW talks tough and has no problem picking on smaller kids (i.e., their members)...BUT seems to be doing everything it can to avoid a real fight.

Blink #2...
Don't make threats unless you're willing to carry them out.
______________________
DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS...

In the Lone Star State (that's Texas, for you Nor' Easterners), the UFCW was also trying to pick a fight over the last couple of weeks with Kroger.

Last Friday, when he got his meat-cutting members to authorize a strike for last Sunday against Kroger, UFCW Dallas boss, Johnny Rodriguez, as proud as a peacock, proclaimed:

"This is Texas-style UFCW solidarity. Kroger meatcutters in Dallas aren't going to let Kroger kick around our brothers and sisters in Houston," said Johnny Rodriguez, UFCW Local 540 President.

However, Sunday's strike deadline came and went.

"We won't strike at midnight. We did agree to a cooling-off period and will get back together some time early this week," said Jill Cashen, spokeswoman for the UFCW in Washington, D.C.

Blink #3...
If you're going to make public proclamations, don't chicken out (see blink #2)

Blink #4...
Don't insult the rest of the people in the good state of Texas with your blast of false bravado (see blink #3); or, simply, Don't Mess With Texas

It should be noted that Kroger is the only chain in the Dallas are with a unionized workforce.
______________________

Although we've written about the two-faced and laughably pathetic UFCW in previous blogs, the UFCW just seems to get more and more amusing.

As a footnote to this...

Another lesson from the old west:

When dealing with braggarts, blinkers, or just plain old scallywags, always be on the look out for a sucker punch. (In Dallas, they call it the shooter behind the grassy knoll.)

It is entirely possible for the UFCW to pull its members out on strike in multiple states at all of the chains with expired contracts. In fact, this was directly implied a couple of weeks ago by one of the national UFCW bosses:

"The battlefield will not just be in Southern California," said Patrick O'Neill, national director of collective bargaining for the union. "It won't be confined to the geography of California if there is a work stoppage."

Now, wouldn't that be interesting...

Stay tuned.