Why American Business is Losing the War to Big Labor's PR Offensive...

This is an open letter to America's business leaders and, although long in coming, is in response to discussions we've had with several of our readers and clients:

For the last several years, labor bosses and their leftist allies have been waging a PR war on American business. Sadly, American business is losing the war. The problem is, as business loses this war, it is the American worker who ultimately suffers. For those businesspeople paying attention to the climate in the country right now, they realize they are losing the war, but very few understand why.

Note: For an excellent, protagonistic definition of what a businessman is, go here.

As American business is the engine that drives economic prosperity in one way or another for all honest Americans, when the union bosses and their leftist allies win, the results are generally increased regulation, higher tax burdens, or, in the case of the union bosses' ultimate goal (the Orwellian-named Employee Free Choice Act) a broad expansion in unionization--all of these factors result in weighing down and choking the engine that drives prosperity for America.

Why, then, is it that American business is losing the PR war? To answer this question, there are several factors that come into play, as follows:

First, blame Al Gore. For, were it not for his inventing the internet, much of the propaganda spewed by the Left would fall on deaf ears. Now that there is instantaneous communication available to just about anyone with access to a computer, the Left has found innumerable ways in which to spread its message and, in doing so, has formed coalitions among previously disparate groups.

Before St. Gore invented the internet, no one knew (or cared) who Arianna Huffington was, there was no such thing as George Soros' Salon.com, and the proliferation of leftist propaganda was relegated to old mimeographed paper rags. Today, the Left has built an empire almost entirely through cyberspace. Unfortunately, defenders of American business came to the dance late. [To view our post related to this topic, go here.]

Second, though not entirely their fault, blame American business for its complacency. Businesspeople at all levels are generally a positive and productive breed. They see problems as 'opportunities' or 'challenges' to overcome.

Conversely, all-too-often, Leftists have a paranoid, glass-half-empty view of the world. [Think of the saying "it's THEM," then repeat it everytime something remotely bad happens, and you'll understand this phenomonon.] As a result of this frame of mind, Leftists typically blame capitalism (aka businesspeople) for all of the ills that befall society. [Anyone watching the current campaign for president can bear witness to this fact.]

Since the drivers of business generally think in terms of "production" (not "destruction," as many on the Left do), they are generally of the mindset to ignore their detractors on the Left, figuring the detractor is a mere nuisance and that no one of a rationale mindset would give credence to the Left's annoying irrationality.

Note: For a brief description of these two competing worldviews, read Ayn Rand's description of the Malevolent Universe Premise versus the Benevolent Universe Premise. The Left primarily operates in the former, while businesspeople primarily operate in the latter (though not always).

Third, and perhaps most importantly, given the above, it is important to understand that for many on the Left, their full time job is not to build, but to tear down. Not to produce, but to attack. In fact, for most people who are employed full-time in the union movement, their jobs are nothing more than to identify (or invent), complain about and propagandize problems.

Perhaps it is because we came from the union movement and have spent more than a dozen years fighting Big Labor’s propaganda and enlightening workers to the realities of unions that we recognize this for what it is--a war of ideas and a war of propaganda.

You see, whether its the AFL-CIO or the Change to Win union bosses, leaders of these groups (as well as their allies) are either personally trained, or they employ those who are professionally trained in the art of propaganda and very few businesspeople understand this. Businesspeople who fail to grasp the nature of this war are the ones who enable their detractors to win.

Fourth, businesspeople have no idea that by appeasing their detractors, they ultimately lose. It has been said that, "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."

Lastly, businesspeople do not understand that there are no Geneva Convention-like rules in this propaganda war. Fair play is non-existent to the Left. Businesspeople do not realize that the Left's malevolent view of the world leads them to deploy a strategy of 'the ends always justify the means.'

In this regard, for businesspeople to have any idea of the type of foe they face, they need to know who Saul Alinsky was. Though dead now for more than 35 years, Alinsky's Rules for Radicals is the foundation of what many on the Left have built their arsenal on.

If businesspeople understand Alinsky's "rules," they can go a long way in countering Big Labor's PR offensive. In this regard, here are Alinsky's "rules," compiled by a friend of ours whom we refer to as Spartacus:

Alinsky emphatically stated that the end justifies the means but cautions that extreme means are only justified in certain situations. Here are Alinsky's rules to test whether the means are ethical.

1. One's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue.


2. The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.


3. In war the end justifies almost any means.


4. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.


5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
   The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.


6. Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.


7. The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.


8. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition to be unethical.


9. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral garments.


10. Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace."

Alinsky also had rules for what he called "power tactics" or the means used to "take." He described it as "how the Have Nots can take power away from the Haves."

Here are his rules of power tactics.

1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.


2. Never go outside the experience of your people.


3. Whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.


4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.


5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.


6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.


7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.


8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.


9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.


10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.


11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.


12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.


13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Even a cursory review of these rules for radicals reveals that a Leftist activist schooled in them will have no compunction about using almost any tactic in a conflict with businesspeople. In fact, radicals must often create issues to stir up problems in order to radicalize their potential followers.

As stated above, perhaps it is because we've spent so many years both in the belly of the beast and so many years battling Big Labor's propaganda and educating workers to the realities of unionization that, for us, it is easier to engage in the battle than it is for most. However, even to a lay person, once you recognize the tactics for what they are, the Left can be defeated, but in order to do so, one must sometimes play by the same rules as the radicals.

_______________________

For more information, go to EmployerReport.com

LABOR DAY ANNIVERSARY

Dear readers:

This Labor Day weekend marks EmployerReport.com's one year anniversary of providing almost continuous news coverage of issues that impact America's workplace, from labor union issues to the political issues that hurt American companies and their workers. As this Labor Day weekend approaches, we approach our 12,000th visitor to EmployerReport.com.

What a year it's been. What started out as a part-time adventure to draw attention to Big Labor's attempt to strip workers of their right to vote on the matter of unionization through the Orwellian-named Employee Free Choice Act, has quickly turned into a second unpaid vocation. As most of our work is done in differing cites, from the airport terminal to the hotel room at night, our work is an after-hours dedication of exposing the truth about unions and their destruction in America today.

In January, we launched the EmployerReport.com blog to enable us to comment on some of the news items we post on. Although, we don't post as often as we'd like on as many topics as we care about (we do have our clients to consider afterall), we have been able post on some serious (and not-so-serious) issues affecting our nation.

Along the way, we've made many new friends while flustering more than a few of our enemies by exposing their shenanigans. Yes, one could say that we have become a small part of Hillary's imagined 'vast-right-wing conspiracy.'

In June, we started the Pathetic Union Department (PUD) to feature specific issues related to unions' poor treatment of their members. However, the reality quickly sank in that the PU department was just too vast to cite all of the union instances of (pardon the expression) pulling PUDs, so we tossed our PU Department to the trash-heap of tried ideas. If you follow EmployerReport.com long enough, you'll find that all the stories we cover belong in the PU Department anyway.

This week, be sure to check out EmployerReport.com, as there will be a plethora of union news, as there is every Labor Day.

In the meantime, as this Labor Day weekend approaches, we encourage you to read a fantastic op-ed by Federic Hamber entitled On Labor Day, We Should Honor Man's Mind, Not Men's Muscles, as the Real Source of Wealth and Progress. It's a great read and puts thing in perspective as Big Labor ties up the media with their stories about union labor.

In the coming year, our goal is to continue to improve EmployerReport.com, continue to add to our growing list of e-mail subscribers, as well as bring new features to our site.

As the Democrats continue to push Big Labor's agenda, their reach is only beginning to expand (with more in store for 2008). We know our fight is just beginning and we appreciate you coming along for the ride.

Thank you again for continuing to make EmployerReport.com a success.

Best wishes for a safe Labor Day Weekend.

Peter A. List
Editor & Chief Blogger
EmployerReport.com

"I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes." - Thomas Paine

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.