NJ Business Matters: The Blog of the CIANJ

Secret Ballot - Meet Executive Order 97

Kudos to Star-Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine for bringing to light a gift to organized labor - Executive Order 97, which gave the Communications Workers of America (CWA) a card check right they had not been given through the legislature.

The Executive Order pertains to community care residential providers (CCRs), who are contractors that provide in-home services to developmentally disabled adults in a manner similar to what foster care provides to children. The Governor's Executive Order gives the CWA the right to represent CCRs at the bargaining table because a majority have signed authorization cards.The government, of course, was under no obligation, but did so anyway.

CCRs are not state employees and therefore not covered under the state's existing card check statute. These types of groups were not included at the time that legislation was passed, only to have the Gov grant the CWA representation rights via Executive Order.

Eventually, it will cost some of America's most overburdened taxpayers even more. The Front Office claims the Order is "revenue neutral".

That may be true this year, but the CWA did not go through a card check process, and the Governor did not sign an EO, all so that the cost would be the exact same, did they?

"They are supposed to be paid based on market rate," said (CWA organizer Hetty) Rosenstein. "We can show what the market rate is so they're paid more.".... 

"It is without a doubt quite a new direction for the CWA and the labor movement in general."

Indeed it is, but it's an expensive direction for the rest of us. The state is already facing tens of billions in unfunded liabilities for benefits granted under the current union contracts. You know how I know that? Because a guy by the name of Corzine has been going around the state repeating it endlessly.

And when we add whole new classes of unionized workers they are going to want lavish benefits as well.

Didn't think so.

ILWU Helps Their Members By Protesting Iraq War

Back in April, your friendly blogger used his space in COMMERCE Magazine to point out some of the subtle flaws in the poorly-titled Employee Free Choice Act. You know, things like eliminating the secret ballot from a unionization drive. We opened by charging big labor has slowly morphed from a labor movement into a political one. An allegation with more than a hint of substance, to say the least.

If you need further evidence, you'll get it on May 1 when The International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) goes on strike to protest the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) has announced a one-day strike against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, calling for a “No Peace No Work Holiday” to take place May 1. They are calling on the AFL-CIO, the Change to Win Coalition, and other unions to do the same. This is a major development for both the labor movement and antiwar movement in the U.S.

The call was first put forward by ILWU Local 10 at a recent West Coast Caucus and was resisted by the ILWU’s top leadership. But rank-and-file support for the call to action pushed it through, with only 3 out of 100 delegates voting against it.

And if you do not agree with the union's position or if you think the wars have little or nothing to do with ILWU's mission? You're short one day's pay, thanks to the union that is supposed to advocate for you.

Hat tip to the NAM and Shopfloor.org.

Who Would Fight New Jobs In A UEZ? You Guessed It

Last week, CIANJ was proud to have Wal Mart's Northeastern President, Hank Mullany, address more than 500 CIANJ members at our Annual Luncheon. Mullany spoke about the hundreds of thousands of people Wal-Mart has hired in the northeast and the billions of dollars in savings - including prescription drugs - offered to consumers.

Of course, the hiring of workers doesn't matter to the United Food and Commercial Workers union if those workers don't pay UFCW dues.

"It will certainly result in a major fight, probably involving litigation, probably involving the defeat of any elected official who allows this to take place," said Evan Stavisky, a spokesman for the United Food and Commercial Workers union in North Jersey and New York.

"The United Food and Commercial Workers, with a quarter-million members in New York and New Jersey, will clearly wage an aggressive campaign," Stavisky said. "We've been successful in defeating every single proposal in the five boroughs. This will be a monumental battle, should anyone make the mistake of trying to slip in a Wal-Mart monster store where nobody's paying attention."

Fight. Fight. Fight. Always fighting those guys. If the UFCW won this 'monumental battle' they will have stopped the creation of 300 new jobs.

Fortunately for North Jersey cooler heads have prevailed as the promise of new jobs and competition (along with ratables) has enticed political leadership.

Wal-Mart encountered little opposition when it opened in Saddle Brook and Secaucus, largely because it picked sites other retailers had shunned. Those stores also don't include supermarkets, although they sell some food products.

Officials in those towns welcomed the Wal-Marts as valuable ratables. Paul Swibinski, a spokesman for North Bergen Mayor Nicholas Sacco, called the store and the redevelopment project it is part of "good news for North Bergen."

Let's hope that attitude holds despite union threats.

Hat tip: LaborPains

Lowering Enforcement and Accountability

During the summer we pointed out the giveback budget cut offered by certain Members of Congress in the form of less accountability for organized labor. Within the Department of Labor is a small division called the Office of Labor Management Standards, charged with ensuring union compliance with government regulations and accounting standards - which are much lower than what is required of business.

In the last six years the OLMS has helped secure the conviction of 775 corrupt union officials and ensured the restitution of $70 million in misspent dues. The office is in place to ensure that dues-paying members of unions do not have their mandatory dues spent in inappropriate ways. Some in Congress, particularly those who have benefited from union political contributions, have decided it's time to defund the OLMS.

Today's Examiner features an op-ed by Richard Berman, President of the Center for Union Facts, on the good work of the OLMS and of the need to ensure accountability in large organized labor.

Given its mission, the OLMS offers critical protection for union members who have little power to stand up to Big Labor, a $10 billion-a-year industry. The agency uses its already-meager budget and authority to step in when corrupt union officials rig internal union elections.

More importantly, OLMS investigates abuse of dues money and monitors compliance with accounting requirements. It’s getting the job done. Since 2001 the courts have ordered restitution of $70 million in OLMS criminal cases. That’s real union money that union bosses are really trying to keep covered up.

If Congress were to pass the budget as-is, the OLMS would be the only segment within the Department of Labor to have its budget cut. We're sure you've connected the dots at this point, but some must not agree that accountability is as important for labor leaders as it is for business leaders.

Agreeing to Agree Tonight in Chicago

Over on the Labor Pains blog, Bret sets the stage for tonight's anti-business demagoguery AFL-CIO's "debate" on Chicago's Soldier Field with several of the Democratic candidates for President. All of the candidates to appear publicly support the misleadingly-titled Employee Free Choice Act.

Maybe we'll hear something along the lines of what the head of the Postal Workers union told the Associated Press,

"I'm a believer and my union is a believer that we've got to wrest control from the capitalists from the Republicans, from their friends in the White House as well the Congress,'' (emphasis ours).

The love-fest begins at 7:00 p.m. tonight.

Of All the Programs in All The Budgets

Congress hasn't done much to cut spending this year, but that shouldn't surprise anyone who witnessed the Senate disagree to do what they had already unanimously agreed to do. Well, they finally found something, and as John Fund points out in yesterday's Opinion Journal, it's the office which monitors the compliance of unions with federal law. It is the ONLY enforcement office facing a cut and it represents less than .1% of the Department of Labor's budget. Why should it be singled out?

In the past six years, the Office of Labor Management Standards, or OLMS, has helped secure the convictions of 775 corrupt union officials and court-ordered restitution to union members of over $70 million in dues....

OLMS, the Labor office that watches over union disclosure forms, says that last year 93% of unions met its reporting requirements. But the other 7% deserve scrutiny. Union members deserve to know how their dues are spent. They might want to know that in 2005, the National Education Association gave more than $65 million to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, and dozens of other liberal advocacy groups that have nothing to do with the interests of teachers. In 2006, 49 individuals employed at the national AFL-CIO headquarters were paid more than $130,000.

Oh, now it makes sense. While Congress was quick to pass through the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 and put requirements on America's corporations, unions file less often, do not need independent certification and use free software while not being required to follow standard accounting practices.

Then again, this is the same group that wants to eliminate the guarantee of a secret ballot before a union can represent workers at the bargaining table.  

Down, But Not Out...Unfortunately

One of the toughest parts of working in public policy is that even the most misguided ideas never seem to completely disappear. That's what makes Richard Berman,  Executive Director of the Center for Union Facts, so accurate in his letter to The Examiner,

Secret ballot elections are still endangered, despite bill’s defeat

The death of the Employee Free Choice Act has been greatly exaggerated. The action in the Senate was simply a dress rehearsal for the real battle in 2009, when union leaders hope to have elected a new (and more compliant) president.

The truly frightening part is that a bill that would virtually eliminate secret ballot elections in the workplace made it to a floor vote in the U.S. Senate. Community and business leaders should spend time now educating the public on this anti-democratic bill, rather than waiting for union leaders to pick the time and place of the next fight.

Richard Berman

Executive director, Center for Union Facts

McLean

While Congress is now out of Washington for recess its July 4th district work period, be sure to tell your representative how important the secret ballot is to you in keeping the process of unionization as free from coercion as possible. The Employee Free Choice Act may be defeated, but big labor is sure to continue to push for its big kickback.

Well If You Don't Have Anything Nice To Say

Big Labor and its friends on Capitol Hill have been particularly rabid when it comes to the now-defeated Employee Free Choice Act. From the official Teamsters news release:

"Today’s vote shows us who is standing with workers and which politicians are in collusion with corporate America to destroy the middle class," said Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa....

"The legal system that is supposed to protect workers is broken, and workers are paying a terrible price,” Hoffa said. “Corporations trample on workers with reckless disregard for the law and they must be stopped"

Well we haven't met the corporations who trample on workers with reckless disregard, but we do know that a majority of union households prefer to have unionization determined via secret ballot.

And here's what Senator Kennedy had to say to opponents of the bill,

Burden of Proof and Unionization

Yesterday, the Senate Labor Committee voted 3-0 (with one abstention) to advance legislation that will create an accounting nightmare for New Jersey businesses that are recipients of public funds.

S2701 prohibits non-union employers from using public funds to oppose unionization drives within their organizations. While the bill may have been drafted in response to public entities, such as Rutgers, engaging in such activities, the bill has much broader implications.

For example, hospitals in the state of New Jersey are required to provide "charity care" for the uninsured. Given this requirement, the state reimburses hospitals for part of their expense. The hospital is therefore the recipient of public funds. S-2701 requires the New Jersey hospital to prove that the money it received from the state is not the same money used in unionization drives. This could require separate bank accounts, limit intra-company transfer of funds and prevents the hospital from using its own money the way it sees fit.

CIANJ strongly opposes the legislation. A similar bill has already been passed in California and is currently being challenged in the US Supreme Court.

Cloture Vote on Employee Free Choice Act Set for Tuesday

The hopelessly-titled Employee Free Choice Act is scheduled for a cloture vote (which would end debate) on Tuesday. Senate rules require 60 votes to end debate on a bill. If not, the legislation is effectively halted. Over on the Kreitzman Mortensen & Borden Labor blog, they have a round-up of all the blog buzz surrounding the EFCA. Be sure to check it out.

As we noted yesterday, the Employee Free Choice Act eliminates an employee's right to a secret ballot and to vote on the first union-negotiated collective bargaining agreement. There is still time for workers and business owners to contact Senators Lautenberg and Menendez and ask them to protect the secret ballot.

Today in Washington: Yea or Nea on Card Check

The U.S. Senate is scheduled to take a key vote today on the haplessly-titled Employee Free Choice Act, legislation that would eliminate the guarantee of a secret ballot for workers considering unionization. Even AFL-CIO President John Sweeney acknowledges the bill does not have the necessary votes to "invoke cloture", but he is adamant about building momentum for card check in 2009. As if it'll be a better idea then.

Regular blog readers know the current system requires signatures of authorization cards before a union can represent a group of workers. Following acquisition of the signatures, the National Labor Relations Board administers an election via secret ballot. If 50% +1 of voters vote "Yes", the union represents all the workers at the bargaining table.

The trouble for unions is that they have been losing about 40% of their elections recently, and have been hemorrhaging membership overall. First they blamed the NLRB under President Regan, claiming it was slanted against unions. Ditto for George H.W. Bush's administration. Then with a favorable board under President Clinton, they blamed the bad economy. Then, amazingly, they blamed the good economy. Anything to get around the fact that people just weren't buying what the unions were selling.

The EFCA gets around that whole messy elections process. Now, if 50%+1 of workers sign authorization cards, all would be represented by a union. The trouble is workers have no guarantee of privacy when given their cards, and would be asked to sign them in the presence of their co-workers and union organizers. In some cases at the home of the worker (unions have the right to ask for the home address of each worker as part of an organizing drive). As you can imagine, the process wouldn't be without coercion.

What's worse, workers wouldn't even be guaranteed the right to vote on their first union-negotiated contract. The EFCA contains provisions that would send the first contract negotiations to arbitration if no deal can be worked out in two years.

The legislation won't pass today, and if it does, the President has vowed to veto it. Nevertheless we'll get a good chance to see who cares, and who doesn't, about a secret ballot this afternoon.

Also, ever timely, the General Assembly will vote on a resolution urging Congress to pass the EFCA and for the state to communicate that message to members of Congress. Great timing. Good thing for e-mail. 

Update: With the near-collapse of the energy bill, it is now unlikely the Senate will be able to consider the Employee Free Choice Act today.

Today in Trenton: Unionization and Public Funds

This morning, the Senate Labor Committee will consider S2701, which would prohibit any nonunion employer from using public funds to engage in unionization activities. CIANJ strongly objects to the measure on several grounds. First, the legislation requires companies that are the recipients of grants or other public monies to keep the public money separate from their unionization activities. This would create an accounting nightmare for employers who wish to communicate likely outcomes if their organizations become unionized.

While the National Labor Relations Act guarantees employers the right to provide information regarding the benefits and pitfalls of unionization, S2701 would have the net effect of limiting employer speech for industry sectors whose businesses depend on public funds. The Senate Labor Committee meets at 10:00 a.m.

More Truth About The EFCA

Danielle Ringwood of the Associated Builders and Contractors corrects some of the myths thrown about by big labor as they try to push through the hopelessly-misnamed Employee Free Choice Act. Remember that  a poll conducted by Zogby International found that 90 percent of workers prefer a secret ballot. Employees' opinions notwithstanding, big labor is pushing ahead.

In today's edition of The Hill Ringwood aptly notes that the claims of mass firings of employees seeking to organize are simply untrue.

Secret-ballot elections happen swiftly under the current law. The average time for a federally supervised election is 39 days, and almost all elections take place within 56 days.
According to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), employees are illegally fired in just over one percent of all organizing drives. In the rare instance when an employee is illegally fired, the NLRB has plenty of tools, including ordering that the union be recognized, to remedy the violation.

As if denying a secret ballot to workers on the issue of unionization isn't bad enough, remember that workers may also be denied the right to vote on their first contract.

This legislation also contains a compulsory, binding arbitration provision on first contracts. If the employer and union cannot reach a contract agreement within 120 days, the federal government mandates a labor contract that is binding on both parties for two years.

Compulsory binding arbitration means that employees do not have the opportunity to accept or reject their new labor contract. They will be stuck with this contract for two years, regardless of whether it meets their needs.

You'd think that an organization that claims to represent workers' interests, would at least let them vote on their first collective contract. No?

Freedom Without a Ballot

In Saturday's Boston Globe, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney lays out his case for supporting the misnomered Employee Free Choice Act.

Both you regular blog readers know that the EFCA is big labor's most recent attempt to stop the hemmoraging of their membership. First they blamed President Reagan and President Bush's National Labor Relations Board. Then under President Clinton, they blamed the bad economy. Then under President Clinton, they blamed the good economy.

Now, as spelled out in Saturday's Globe, the blame falls on American companies who, according to Sweeney, embark on all sorts of nasty intimidation tactics to get their way. I guess he didn't see the story on SEIU Local 49.

So once again we ask a simple question: What is the best way to avoid intimidation? We would argue that keeping a secret ballot, which is completed by an employee with no one else present, is the best remedy. Thankfully, the best proponents of the EFCA can hope for is to see their bill vetoed.

Labels: Employee Free Choice Act, forced unionization