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

Today's Unions: Stirring the Kool-Aid and Causing Collateral Damage

As former union leaders, there was a time when we admired unions and what they allegedly stood for. However, like many, the deeper we dug, the more we saw, and the more we experienced the betrayal of workers, the more disgusted we became with the union leaders of today. Like many people who are duped into believing in something, only to find out it is based on a false premise, a collectivist creed, and, in the end, causing more harm than good, we left in order to oppose that which we once preached.

There are several stories circulating in the media that offer prime examples of just what is meant by the above paragraph.

The first, of course, is the sordid battle going on between the SEIU and the CNA. There are enough stories floating around the internet for one to research on their own, so we won't spend any more time on it, except to offer you our opinion on What's Really Behind the SEIU vs. CNA Fight, which we posted on Friday.

The second story comes by way of the Detroit News and discusses a United Auto Workers' (UAW) strike against General Motors at one of its plants and several others that the UAW has threatened with strikes. The title of the piece is aptly titled: Motive in UAW threats unclear.

In the piece, the writer quotes a UAW striker, Michael Shrubbe, as saying: "None of us know why we're here."

Mr. Shrubbe, the article states, has been walking a picket line in Delta Township, where workers have been off the job since April 17 at the factory that builds GM's popular crossovers.

The article goes on to say:

GM believes the UAW threats, all against factories that either make critical models for the automaker or supply the parts to build them, are a tactic being used to draw the company into the strike against American Axle & Manufacturing Holdings Inc., according to several sources familiar with negotiations. Labor law prohibits the union from striking because of a dispute elsewhere; many think the union is using local negotiations to apply indirect pressure.

"There's a feeling among workers that their jobs are being jeopardized by things beyond their control," Gary Chaison, a labor specialist at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. "Their expectations were when everything was tied up nationally everything would fall into place. Now it appears to be unraveling so fast."

The American Axle strike, in its ninth week, has created a parts shortage that has forced GM to idle or cut production at more than two dozen North American factories. But GM's bottom line has been relatively unscathed since the affected factories produce slow-selling large trucks and SUV that were backing up on dealer lots.

Now, besides strikers not knowing why they're unemployed and on the picket lines (that, by itself, is condemning enough of the union's leadership), the fact of the matter is, if GM's assumptions are correct and the UAW is trying to use local strikes as leverage to draw the car maker into the American Axle strike, then the UAW has become woefully inept at flexing its own muscle.

As every unionist (former or otherwise) knows, the strike is a union's only weapon and for a union to pull the trigger without making sure its gun is fully loaded and correctly aimed is not only irresponsible, but borders on a negligent dereliction of a union leader's duty--to care for his membership first.

In this case though, it would appear GM workers and their families are being sacrificed because of Ron Gettlefinger's poor calculations in dealing with American Axle and, if true, that is both reprehensible and inexcusable.

Our third and final story comes from the Los Angeles Times and deals with the aftermath of the 100-day writer's strike.

In the LA Times article, the reporter discusses at length the many hardship cases of the "collateral damage" caused by the strike. Namely, the crew members and other talent (mostly union members) that are facing financial ruin from the economic fallout from the writer's strike.

As the article states: Some are at risk of losing their homes. Some can't afford groceries. Others have filed for bankruptcy. Still others struggle to work enough hours to hold on to their health insurance.

Although hard figures are not available, union officials say that thousands of crew members who normally would be busy at this time of year are still idled because of the sharp contraction in television production. Some union locals report a quarter of their members are sitting at home.

Karen Hartjen is one. She can't bring herself to open the utility bills lying on her
kitchen table in Simi Valley.

The 53-year-old assistant prop master has been out of work since early November,
when a string of jobs on TV shows such as "CSI: New York" and "Medium" came to a halt after the writers walked out.Although Hartjen is accustomed to earning $100,000 a year, she is now $10,000 in debt and her home is threatened with
foreclosure. She has turned to her church and the Salvation Army for help with
groceries.

To add insult to injury, these workers who stood behind their union "brothers" and "sisters" are getting the shaft from their own unions who administer their health care...

Many crew members are in a race against the clock to keep their health insurance.
Union rules require that members work at least 300 hours every six months to
maintain their benefits.

After a four-month hiatus, foley artist Dominique Tabach of Valencia recently returned to work part-time on the CBS drama "Numb3rs." But she has nothing else lined up.

Without additional work, Tabach, 43, is concerned that she won't accumulate enough hours to keep her union health insurance beyond September. The insurance covers Tabach, her 8-year-old daughter and her husband, a former TV executive who recently lost his job.

Yet, in the face of an actors' strike that is certain to bring financial devastation to those teetering on the edge right now, NONE of these "victims" seem to question whether their "union solidarity" was worth it. None seem to wonder if "Hollywood is a Union Town" is really a good thing, or perhaps it is a bad thing.

Last December, we received a comment from a rather irate wife of a man who was unemployed due to the writer's strike (which is posted here). In her comment, she called she and her husband "collateral damage," to which we took her to task. In sum, if you place yourself in harm's way, then you cannot call yourself "collateral damage."

In closing, as was stated at the beginning of this post, when people realize that today's unions are based on a false premise, a collectivist creed and, in the end, causing more harm than good, perhaps they will stop allowing themselves to become the "collateral damage" to half-witted union leaders of today who only know how to lead people down a one-way path to self-destruction.

WHAT'S REALLY BEHIND THE SEIU VS. CNA FIGHT...

Nichole Lucht from the Las Vegas Sun writes about the current war between the SEIU & the California Nurses Association:

On the surface it appears as a fight between the Service Employees International Union and the California Nurses Association.

But the torn history between the service workers' union and the AFL-CIO (which the nurses' association is affiliated with) could be the real reason behind the current rift, as well as the steady decline in union membership across the country.

Ms. Lucht is sort of close to hitting the nail on the head with her piece. However, she doesn't take it where it needs to go...back to basics. And, perhaps because she's not a dude, she's over-thinking it...(no offense, Ms. Lucht.)

You see, this is nothing more than a grudge match between two guys who used to be friends....Except they're letting CHICKS DO THEIR FIGHTING FOR THEM.

Like two old pervs going down to the neighborhood Hooters to check out the Tuesday night mud-wrestling match, the dudes in DC are just hanging back (plausible deniability), checking out the chicks ripping each other apart, hoping the one he's betting on won't lose her top before the other does.

These two three-pieced pimps of power are letting CHICKS do their fighting for them, placing their bets, and each are hoping they don't get too covered in the dirt themselves.

THAT'S IT. IT IS REALLY THAT SIMPLE. HERE'S WHY:

Like most street fights over who controls the corner, Andy Stern, the former student, picked a fight with his old boss John Sweeney a few years ago over money. (Stern wanted to spend the cash on getting more Johns to visit the bordello, while Sweeney wanted the money to go to the politicians for protection).

Stern called his old boss out in front of the whole neighborhood and, while Boss Sweeney showed remarkable restraint, he didn't give in.

It should be noted that Boss Sweeney could have squashed Stern then and there (and, in hind sight, he may be wishing he did), but he let the little traitor shoot his mouth off for months and months.

As the Spring of 2005 went on, like a drunk at the bar, Stern's ramblings got louder, his insults more insulting and Boss Sweeney showed remarkable tolerance and restraint as his former friend slapped him in the face. As a result, Stern got even more upset and decided to try to burn the House of Labor down. By Summer, Stern split the K Street Crew, and almost half the gang went with Stern.

Well, as it turns out, barely a year later, the 2006 elections proved Old Boss Sweeney was right.

Now, Stern's got egg on his face. His gang hasn't grown much and he's back to backing politicians with millions of dollars.

Over the last couple of years, as though having taken a lesson from The Godfather, Boss Sweeney's been patiently lining up his new crew, the California Nurses Association, and waiting for the right time to strike back.

That day came a few weeks ago, when the CNA went to Ohio and snatched 8,000 workers from the SEIU in an SEIU-staged election.

Predictably, like Sonny Corleone whose temper always got the best of him, the younger Stern struck back by sending SEIU thugs to the Labor Notes conference to disrupt in typical SEIU fashion, but it backfired...A woman went to the hospital, an SEIU member died, and its been a PR war ever since.

Unfortunately for Stern, Boss Sweeney's got the upper hand in this war, his moral authority ratings are slightly higher in the world of labor opinion (not that that really matters).

However, until Andy Stern grows up and offers his old boss an apology and kisses Boss Sweeney's ring, it appears that the mud-slinging will continue between the SEIU and AFL-CIO's CNA.

In the meantime, although we wish we had some buttery popcorn, we are having fun watching the melee and reading the dueling press releases. Everyday more mud is thrown and more flesh exposed by this hypocritical internecine war, the more the public sees today's unions for what they are: Parasites living off the blood of America's productive workers.

TV ads to target Employee Free Choice Act

Since 2004, we've been talking to clients (and anyone else who would listen) about the union agenda to do away with worker rights to a secret-ballot election.

All-too-often, it seemed as though we (and very few others) were the only ones on the bandwagon trying to raise awareness to the link between unions' efforts to do away with the right to an election and the Democratic Party.

Of course, the National Right to Work Foundation has been a longstanding protector of employee rights in many different respects. But very few (none, as far as we could tell) were committed to raising awareness about what the unions call the "Employee Free Choice Act," but what is really the Kill American Jobs Act.

Then, a couple of years ago, UnionFacts.com came along. At last...A beacon in the night.

A few months later, on Labor Day 2006, we started EmployerReport.com, with no donations, no expert web people, just us...on our own time and on our own dime.

Then, of course, the Democrats took over Congress in November of 2006 and FINALLY some people began to wake up in the business community. (Better late than never, as the saying goes.)

Well, it's long past time (but maybe not too late) that the American public be made aware of the $1 billion scheme union bosses are trying to pull off in this year's elections by demanding their political puppets pass the hallucenogenically-named Employee Free Choice Act.

According to a press release, the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace will be airing nationwide TV spots.

Hopefully, between watching Desperate Housewives and reruns of M*A*S*H* the public will sit up and take notice.

Perhaps the public will realize that the so-called "hope" that so many Bush-weary citizens have been fawning and fainting over has already sold out to special interests....the union bosses at the AFL-CIO & Change to Whine federations.

But, then again, perhaps we're hoping for too much?... Time will tell.

In the meantime, welcome to the party CDW! We're happy to have you in the fight to save workers' private ballots and their jobs from the future outsourcing and small business closures that will occur if EFCA passes.

You can view the ad HERE or here...

WHY CONDOLEEZZA RICE IS A BAD CHOICE FOR VEEP...

If this doesn't make you 'bitter'...

"But clearly, the prime minister has laid down some ground rules which any functioning democratic state would insist upon, having to do with, you know, arms belonging to the state, not to -- not in private hands."

FOR THE WHOLE STORY, YOU CAN CLICK HERE, BUT THE ABOVE SAYS IT ALL...

As the saying goes: Outlaw guns and only outlaws will carry guns.

Thanks go to the good Professor McDevitt for pointing this out to us.

CHANGE TO WIN BOSSES BLOW IT BIG TIME BACKING THE WRONG DUDE...

On March 5th, AFSCME boss Gerald McEntee told the AFL-CIO Executive Committee in San Diego: ``We kicked Andy's ass from one end of Ohio to the other, and in Texas, too.''

With that in mind, please allow us to be blunt: The Change to Win bosses (that Gang of Seven) got their asses kicked tonight in Pennsylvania (again).

After breaking up the House of Labor, their boss of bosses being accused of top-down management, anti-democratic hostile takeovers, and now embroiled in another inter-union fight, SEIU members and their "brothers" and "sisters" in the Change to Win federation have one more thing to be ashamed of tonight:

The union bosses have picked the wrong presidential primary candidate again...

Remember President Howard Dean? Oh yeah, the SEIU's Andy Stern (the ringleader in the Gang of Seven) bet big on him too during the '04 primaries.

Although the Pennsylvania primary results are still coming in, Hillary has beaten Barak in another big key state. The question is: By how much? (Click here to go Pennsylvania's Official Election Page.)

This evening, SEIU's website still has a page posted boasting SEIU Members: Making the Difference in Pennsylvania, then listing all of the actions that the SEIU has had its members do for Obama, such as:

• More than 3,000 SEIU members working directly to contact voters door-to-door or over the phone
• Extensive statewide TV ad featuring SEIU members and other workers on the air 4/17 through 4/22
• SEIU members leafleted at a Philadelphia gas station on 4/17 to inform voters about Obama’s plan to reduce gas prices
• More than 150,000 doors knocked and 17 waves of direct mail to hundreds of thousands of Democratic households
• SEIU President Andy Stern, Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger and Pennsylvania State Council President Eileen Connelly have been campaigning across the state to turn out the vote for Obama
• Stern, Burger and Connelly introduced Obama at the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO 38th Constitutional Convention
• Burger and Connelly participating in an Election Day rally on Obama’s plans to turn around the economy
• SEIU members canvassing alongside thousands of Change to Win union members in numerous cities

Now, add the SEIU's partners in the Change to Whine federation, the Teamsters, UNITE-HERE, Carpenters, UFCW, Laborers, and UFW--all of them backing Obama--and that's a lot of members' time and dues money wasted. Obama outspent Clinton three to one in the Keystone State.

And, since 32% of Pennsylvania's union members dominated by Change to Whine unions, it appears that all their union dues have gone to back another candidate who starts strong and fizzles at the end...

Hillary should be happy that Change to Whine is in Obama's camp, as they haven't picked a winner yet, and it appears their track record at picking candidates may fail again

EMPLOYERREPORT.COM ALERT: Tell Senate that Ledbetter is BAD, not Better...

We've received several e-mail 'alerts' today regarding another Orwellian-named bill that unions and their anti-business allies are attempting to pass called the "Lily Ledbetter Pay Fair Act" (aka HR 2831).

With bill-sponsor Ted Kennedy (D-MA) leading the assault on employers' ability to do business in America, the Senate WILL BE VOTING ON THIS BILL WEDNESDAY.

This bill, if passed, will remove any time constraints on employment-related claims of discrimination. This means that employers will be exposed to lawsuits from employees who claim they were discriminated against years (or decades) before.

To get more information on this dangerous and costly bill, check out:

The US Chamber of Commerce's Action Alert (complete with a form to e-mail your Senators) here...

EMPLOYERS, BY NOT TAKING ACTING ON THIS LEGISLATION, YOU MAY BE IGNORING IT TO YOUR OWN (AND YOUR EMPLOYEES') PERIL.