EOW: End-of-the-Week Union Wrap Up

Dear Readers:

Here's the EmployerReport.com End of the Week (EOW) Wrap-Up for your digestion.
[Following your digestion of this wrap-up, please feel free to regurgitate the news by forwarding this along...]

• In a new poll showing how much Big Labor bosses and their political puppets are out of touch with Americans, American Solutions has released a new poll indicating that 79% of Americans support workers' right to decide on unionization through a federally-supervised, secret-ballot election. One surprising aspect of the poll's findings is that 82% of Democrats (5% more than Republicans) support workers' right to decide on unionization through a secret-ballot election. To view the poll results, click here.
• Despite the aforementioned poll (and as we've been saying for many months to clients and colleagues), Labor Union Bosses will be spending about $1 BILLION to buy the 2008 election in order to advance their agenda.
• This weekend, if you watch the weekend talk shows, you'll be hearing a lot about the Department of Labor's release of the March unemployment rate, which climbed to 5.1%. Given the political climate, we're sure that pandering politicians are going to be all over this, offering much blame with very little by way of meaningful solutions. One note that we've found interesting is that, for years, it was considered common knowledge that a 5% unemployment rate is considered "full employment," which makes one wonder: How much of this campaign-season driven angst is mere hyperbole?
• In Virginia, the UAW and Volvo Trucks recently concluded a rather lengthy strike. Now that the strike is over, there is a video out from those good people at the National Right-to-Work Foundation that discusses the brutal intimidation workers suffered at the hands of strikers for choosing to cross the picket line.
• In California, SEIU's internal battle for control of the West Coast is heating up as hundreds of SEIU members rallied to oppose a SEIU-imposed take over of United Health-Care Workers-West (their union local).
• In Kansas City, proving once again that unions are more interested in dues than workers, unions have succeeded in killing hundreds of potential jobs. Yesterday, after intense union lobbying, the Unified Government Board of Commissioners "once and for all" rejected the latest Sands casino proposal for Kansas City, KS. The problem for the unions is the Sands alleged "anti-union" attitude. The problem for Kansas City residents is that Sands has vowed to take their casino project (and its jobs) to another county.
• In New York, teachers at 10 Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of New York have decided to strike over allegations of "unfair labor practices".

On our blog (below), we explore Barak Obama's flirting during a campaign stop in Pennsylvania with the unionized workers at garment-manufacturer Tama Manufacturing Company. While the candidate's flirtatious behavior seemed to catch the attention of Huffington Post bloggers, to us, the real story is how these workers' union (UNITE-HERE) took them out on a 15-week strike last year, costing them more money than if they had accepted management's pre-strike offer.

Additionally, we share with the blogosphere Why Unions Are No Longer Necessary...Or Good for America by drawing attention to James Sherk's superb article on how Labor Unions add to costs and discourage productivity. This article is great brain-food to feast on.

For these and many, many more labor-related news stories, be sure to go to EmployerReport.com.

Please have a great week's end.

Barak Obama Flirts with Union Workers Earning Poverty Wages

Flirting and sweet-talking women who make less than poverty wages (but pay their fair share of union dues) doesn't seem to be below Barak Obama's standards of campaign mores.

According to a Huffington Post, Hillary Clinton's uber-nemesis was visiting a company called Tama Manufacturing near Allentown, Pennsylvania yesterday when he decided to shed his decorum to 'chat up the ladies'...

Obama lavished compliments on dancewear manufacturer Marisa Cerveris, who gave him a black and pink leotard for [Obama's daughters] Malia and Sasha, explaining she was once in the New York City ballet. "You look like you might be a dancer," Obama told her, later adding: "You're big time."

"You're gorgeous," he told Cerveris after glancing at one of her old ballet photos.

"I was," she replied.

"You still are," he countered, asking the crowd, "Isn't she beautiful?" and answering
his own question: "Absolutely."

While this seems to be news to the Huffington Post, the real story is the fact that Tama Manufacturing Company is a garment manufacturer whose employees are represented by UNITE-HERE.

Unlike most garment manufacturers that have left the United States, Tama is still trying to survive in the good old US of A. However, like the majority of U.S. companies in an ever-increasingly unfriendly climate, Tama is facing ever-rising health care costs.

Last year, when it went to negotiate a new contract with the union, the Company asked the unionized workers to pick up a portion of their health care costs.

That did not sit well with the union or the workers so they struck....For 15 weeks.

Since, according to press reports, the average unionized worker at Tama makes about $18,000 a year, for a worker trying to support a family these union wages are lower than poverty level wages, according to the US Dept of Health & Human Services. For the Tama workers making $10.50 an hour, by striking, each worker gave up around $6,300 (not counting overtime).

Since the union ultimately settled the strike with the workers contributing $50 a month toward their health care--the Company had been asking for $170 a month in employee contributions--the union's strike still cost each striker around $2,000 more over the life of the contract than if they had accepted the Company's original offer. In addition to continuing to pay hundreds of dollars per year in union dues, the unionized workers lost a wage increase as part of the settlement.

For his part, though, Obama praised Tama Manufacturing as a success story saying, "I'm glad to see we still have a good company here with a good owner looking after his workers."

It's too bad their union wasn't doing the same.

UNIONISM AT THE POINT OF A GUN: The Debate About Minority Unionism

It seems our blog MINORITY RULES: Unions' New Tactic to Try to Infiltrate Companies has drawn some well-thought out, as well as some irrational comments from a few of our readers--most notably from the collectivist ilk.

As most of our readers' comments (from both sides) center around the workers' rights argument only, none seem to care to comment on either the practical or philosophical justification of a government forcing an employer to recognize a minority (or, for that matter, a majority) union, which is the only way the minority unionism model could be even remotely considered, let alone be applied.

However, in response to their comments, here is where the workers would be trampled (by right and by practice) under this inane theory:

As stated on Monday, the unions' collective argument centers around employees' Section 7 Rights under the NLRA, which provide that workers can pick representatives of their own choosing...

Well, in order to do so, the workers must be convinced that a 'representative' can do better for them than they can (either individually or collectively) themselves. If this involves an external representative (i.e. a labor union), that means that the workers must be 'sold' some product that has no guarantee of actually working for them, right?

Because unions are legally allowed to mislead workers, selling workers on unions is easy (like taking candy from a baby). In fact, unions are legally alowed to make workers promises that even the organizers know are untrue. It happens all the time in today's union campaigns.

[The case law on union promises goes all the way back to 1953, for those who would argue that the sky is green.]

The hard part for the union, however, is delivering a product that actually works. Despite the fact that, after convincing workers that unions are the answer to all things bad in the workplace, unions fail today half of the time to ever get a contract for newly unionized workers. And, of the other half, how good are those contracts?

This means the union product is failing workers--and that's under the majority rules principle--after convincing workers (hook, line and sinker) to buy the product.

Caveat emptor, right, collectivists?

Now, think about it under the 'minority rules' principle of unionism being proposed.

What realistic arguments could a union organizer make to lure only a handful of workers into joining it? Either the organizer would have to be one hell of a persuader (and there are many who are), or the workers would need to be gullible enough to believe they'll have collective 'power' as a minority-represented bargaining unit.

Okay, notwithstanding the fact that today's organizers are specifically targeting workers who have limited abilities to speak English and even less understanding about unions and labor law, we'll give the workers the benefit of the doubt and suppose for a moment that the union's organizer is a good enough 'trickster' enough to make a convincing argument to a minority population of a workforce...What then?

Why would any employer agree to any proposal by a union representing only a minorty of its workers? And since a union's only real economic weapon is its ability to call workers out on strike, what good does that do?

What would this minority union do if the business owner said "no" to the minority union's demands?...Call its minority membership out on strike?

Go ahead. Then watch the minority-union leadership watch its minority membership get replaced. What has that achieved? And, wouldn't it ,therefore, seem that the minority-represented workers would have been been sold a bill of goods? Again, caveat emptor, right?

Oh, you say, the employer shouldn't be allowed to replace the workers who wish to withhold their services...We must pass a law to stop that.

Once that law is passed, unions will be able to strike to their collectivist hearts' content, right?

Or, you say, we must pass a law that binds the employer to whatever a government-appointed arbitrator decides, right?

Good. How long do you think that will last before capital says to labor 'see ya.'

But, you argue, they're already doing that!...

Yes, and have you thought about why?

Now, on to the philosophical side:

Does not the First Amendment (of which the NLRA's Section 7 Rights are based) apply to employers, as well as employees?

If workers have a freedom to associate, do employers not have the same right? If so, the freedom to associate also expressly implies a right not to associate, does it not? Does the Consitution apply only to one class and not the other? If this is the case, then one must argue, why should an employer be required to recognize any union (be it a majority or a minority) at the point of a gun (vis a vis the government)?

Before those "pro" readers, who are seemingly part of today's collectivist labor movement, get themselves into a tizzy about all that is implied in the above, consider this:

The founders of the modern labor movement never, ever wanted government intrusion into labor relations. But today's labor leaders, in their haste to have a collectivist society have all but abandoned their founder's principles.

One may ask, Why did labor's founding fathers eschew government involvement into labor relations? It's very simple: He who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword.

A word of caution: Be careful what you ask for, collectivists, you may get what it is you're asking for.

____________________________

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

Writing about the Writers Strike...

...is getting really, really boring.

Perhaps it's because of America's collective addiction to the TV set, but we really cannot understand why the writer's strike has captivated so much media attention (Google lists over 1,700 stories on the topic).

Karl Marx once proclaimed that religion is the opiate of the masses; however, he never tuned into American Idol, Desperate Housewives, or Monday Night Football. Talk about opiates...

The Golden Globes ceremony has been scrapped...(yawn).

The Oscars may be next...(Zzzz).

Then there's the faux sympathy for the strikers (see Letterman and Obrien) as some late night talk-show hosts return to the air. And don't forget the faux anger from other late night talk show hosts who decided to become strike-breakers (see Colbert's sarcastic 'I don't like union's and I don't need writers' comment).

And, poor, poor Jay Leno, the doughnut-bearing friend of the strikers who now may be put on trial by the Writer Guild for (gasp!) writing his own jokes.

Why it's enough to make the average American...

...go to sleep.

However, there is the occasional moment of interest like today's op-ed in the LA Times from writer John Ridley on why he decided to become a financial core member and the hassle he's had to endure as a WGA member over the last 15 years.

So, what exactly is the issue that has over 10,000 writers out on the streets and the media in such a snit?

(Drum roll please...)

Residual payments for the writers when their content is put out on the internet or DVD. That's it in a nutshell.

The writers want more money when their products are used outside the boob tube and the producers are saying 'no.'

End of story. Time for REM.

That said, from time to time, we get comments from our blog readers that we like to post. A couple of days ago, we got an anonymous comment on our blog that really put the whole issue of the striking writers into perspective, as follows:

A writer has no more claim to downstream income than a set designer or a caterer, they are all just components in a complex business process that involves many people in many roles, from Janitor to Financier...

Ka-BOOM!

Like a clap of thunder, this anonymous reader's comment kicked the living crap out of our ho-hum, we're-so-bored-and-could-care-less observations on this whole stupid scribe strike.

The more we thought about it, the more pathetic the writers' claim for their strike seems.

Our reader is right.

If a worker is paid for his work on a product, should that worker be paid more if the buyer of that work has found other uses for it? Wouldn't that basically be double-dipping?...Getting paid for your product, then getting paid for it again and again and again?

We think that's the fundamental question that should be answered. So, in an effort to further define this, let's apply it to other industries.

Sports. Michael Jordan gets paid a gazillion dollars to play for the Chicago Bulls. He plays, he gets paid. Although he makes a gazillion more dollars on endorsing underwear and sneakers, he doesn't get paid every time a re-run of his jump shot is shown, does he? Nah.

Medicine. The Jarvik dude on TV who invented the artificial heart has made a ton of money, right? Hell, he invented a ticker that keeps ticking when your real one doesn't--that's something, right? Well, anyway, he got a patent on his pumper, and probably gets a legal kickback whenever someone installs one of his pumpers. BUT (here's the question), if one of the recipients of his pumps kicks the bucket and another doc reuses the same pumper, does Jarvik get to double dip?

How about this example: If you work in a lawnmower factory and you build a lawn mower, you should be entitled to some recompense for every blade of grass your mower mows?

You think that's ridiculous, don't you?

Well, what's the difference?

If you're writing a story and being paid for that story at the time of product delivery, why does the buyer of your story need to keep paying you over and over again?

Seems to us, that's double-dipping and that's what the writer's are striking for.

Now, if you'll pardon us, we're going to watch some re-runs so we can fall back to sleep...

Hollywood Hypocrisy, Union-Man Moon, and Drinking the Kool-Aid

Apparently our blog about Hollywood Hypocrisy and the Writers' Strike struck a nerve with at least one reader who wrote:

Big talk from someone who isn't facing the prospect of losing their home. We are part of the group that could be "collateral damage" due to this strike. My husband is Local 80 and was forced out of work four weeks before Christmas when his TV show went down. We support our local brethren when they are actually "talking". Both sides are being greedy and aren't even going to the table. Can't solve a problem unless you are talking! And unfortunately to leave the american dream in CA. you have to live paycheck to paycheck. My husband is making six figures and we are barely surviving. Yes, we could live somewhere else but he has been in the industry for 15 years. And where is in the country do hey produce the amount of shows/movies that they do in Hollywood? So please have a little respect for the people who are actually suffering due to this arrogant strike.

Well, ma'am, here's the deal:

This is a true story.

About six or seven years ago, there was a man whose nickname was Moon who was a truck mechanic in North Carolina. Now, Moon liked giving us a hard time when we were in meetings or out in the shop and, because he was sort of thick-headed, he could really be a pain-in-the-butt.

So, one day, when we were in a meeting and in front of about 30 of his co-workers, Moon says to us rather proudly:

"I'm a union man. I've been a union man all my life and I'll be a union man until the day I die."

My reply was pretty straight-forward and simple:

"Moon," I said, "I can respect that. I may not agree with it, but I can respect it."

Well, a couple of days later, the Teamsters union threatened to call all of the truck drivers out on strike. The company that Moon and his co-workers worked for had pretty deep pockets and it took the threat seriously and hired replacement drivers and trained them over the course of a weekend.

About a week later, we saw Moon in another meeting. Fully expecting his 'I'm a union man' diatribe again, we were rather shocked when Moon stood up and said rather loudly:

"If those f**king drivers go out on strike, I'm going to be one of the first ones to cross the picket line! I can't afford no g**damn strike"

Now, understand we've been in and around unions most of our adult lives so it takes a lot for us to get shocked...but, lady, we were shocked!

The only thing I could say to Moon was:

"Moon, you're not a union man....You're a scab!"

As a former union activist, I went on to explain to Moon that being union isn't like getting on a bus, then getting off at the first stop if you don't like the driver. If you get on the bus, you gotta be able to ride that bus all the way to the end--whether it's a good ride or a bad ride.

Now, ma'am, if the Teamsters called those drivers out on strike, Moon (because he was a mechanic) was going to be collateral damage, just like you and your husband are today. No disrespect.

You have a right to work to feed your family. However, we can only assume you're not one of those mouths that tell other people how to live their lives...Or are you? You see, we're not really picking on you unless you're one of them.

And if you're one of them, that would mean you're a wealthy union elitist, like AFL-CIO boss hog John Sweeney or the SEIU's Andy Stern, who hypocritically tells the rest of America from their bullhorns and pulpits how to live our lives. Or, it could make you one of them--those who can afford to withhold their labor (like Colbert, Daly, Degeneres, Leno, Letterman, Stewart, et al.) and who has decided to abandon your purported principles to cross the picket lines of their union "brethren" with your "oops, sorry..." sheepish, guilty half-shrugs.

You're not one of them, are you?!?

[BTW: As an aside, if you're union, ma'am, you don't just support your brethren when they're talking, you support them when they're NOT talking 'cause that's usually when they're on the picket lines--And there's always collateral damage in a strike.]

You see, ma'am, as former unionists ourselves, we've walked the picket lines of others and have been on strike ourselves. We've endured the hardships that strikes bring.

However, unlike those who are still drunk on the Kool-Aid passed around in today's union movement, we saw behind the sunglasses of the crazy union fat cats and decided to get the hell out before we fully swallowed the Kool-Aid as millions of others have.

We've seen too many times the havoc wrought upon countless workers and their families during strikes that had nothing to do with them--but had everything to do with their union bosses' power.

You see, ma'am, when you witness union fat cats take their paychecks while their members starve, get permanently replaced, only see those same union fat cats end up representing the replacement workers and take their dues, there's a sense of disgust you feel down deep in your gut towards those union fat cats that would cause thousands of workers such hardship.

So, ma'am, the fact that you and your husband are collateral damage is a dirty shame. But, if you're one of those who sings the union tune, don't complain...

Either you're on the union bus, with all its bumps along the way, or you and your husband need to get the hell off!

STAR CROSSED: Hollywood Hypocrisy & the Writers' Strike

The writers' strike which has arguably crippled the television entertainment industry has entered its eighth week and (gasp!) the sun is still rising, America is still strong, and the political left in Hollywood (and elsewhere) have proven once again that they're a bunch of candy-assed hypocrites.

So much for the union slogans:

• United we bargain, divided we beg; or
• An injustice to one is an injustice to all...

Fugheddabout the union credo once called Solidarity. In the end, even Tony Soprano knew that was nothing more than Hollywood hype.

These are all principles that unions stood for at a time when Father Knows Best was still king of the boob tube--but no longer.

It's a dog eat dog world out there and, in the entertainment industry, it seems that, when push comes to shove (or should we say pickets), cold, hard cash trumps liberal ideology by a landslide...(or in California, it may be a mudslide)

In today's unions, as the writers trade their pens for the pickets, the support they've gotten from their 'brothers and sisters' in the union movement has been as thin and as transparent as a piece of onion-paper.

First, it was the Teamsters. Never a union to cross another union's picket lines--guess what they did...They crossed.

Then, it was talk show host Ellen Degenres and Carson Daly deciding early on that their "show[s] must go on," despite the fact that Ellen took some heat for her decision.

Now that late night talk show hosts Jay Leno, David Letterman, and Conan O'Brien have all effectively 'crossed the picket lines' by resuming their shows as well without their striking writers, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert jumped onto the bus recently to resume their shows, leaving their striking writers in the dust too.

Even the AFL-CIO's John Sweeney (aka the Boss Hog of the union movement) has been remarkably silent about all the other union brothers and sisters crossing the WGA's picket lines. An injury to one is an injury to all?...Apparently not to the Grand PooBah of Labor.

With all the hullabaloo about standing together against 'corporate greed' and the 'tyranny of the right,' it appears today's liberal left is willing to abandon their principles faster than Edie Britt (Desperate Housewives) sheds her clothes. For those who are paying attention to this (yawn) labor dispute, you are witnessing first-hand how little solidarity means to today's union movement, and how little principles mean to the leftists who push their ideologies on the rest of America.

Are you watching, Iowa and New Hampshire?

A Union Boss with a Publicist

Amongst all the disappointed theater goers in New York, drifts a solitary figure not many have ever heard of until Broadway shut down was shut down by his union's strike. His name is James J. Claffey, Jr. and he's the president of IATSE, Local 1.

What?!? You've never heard of him?

Well, perhaps you would have if his publicist wasn't paid to keep him out of the press.

What?!? You didn't think union bosses had publicists?

Well, we didn't either. But, apparently this guy does.

According to the New York Times, Mr. Claffey doesn't like publicity.

“I don’t want this to be about me being a celebrity, about me getting my name in the paper,” said James J. Claffey Jr. “I just want to get a contract for my folks. That’s why I do not look to the cameras. That’s why I have a publicist to do that. Most of the time, I’m paying my publicist to keep me out of the press.”

Boy! Now that's a good use of union dues!