SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Geoff Altman who wrote (34058)3/13/2009 5:24:24 PM
From: Peter Dierks3 Recommendations  Respond to of 71588
 
Don't Let Government Dictate Labor Contracts
MARCH 13, 2009

By PETER J. HURTGEN and JOHN S. IRVING
In the face of our increasingly dire economic situation, with job losses accelerating and businesses struggling, unions are pushing for the most fundamental change to the nation's primary labor law in more than 60 years. The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), a bill that failed in the last Congress, was reintroduced on Tuesday.

EFCA, as most people now know, would replace the 70-year-old guarantee of secret ballots in union elections with unreliable "authorization cards," often signed by employees under the watchful eye of union representatives and based upon extravagant promises. The new penalties and injunctions imposed -- including substantial fines -- are designed to intimidate employers into remaining silent during union campaigns so employees will not receive full information to make an informed choice. Meanwhile, there are no new penalties for unions, despite the potential for coercion in the card-signing process.

These changes would no doubt greatly expand union membership beyond the current 8% in the private-sector workforce and, hardly coincidentally, boost union dues as well. We are not opposed to increased unionization of employees per se. What this bill does is destroy the fundamental premises of our labor law.

Less publicized and arguably even worse, the EFCA injects government into collective bargaining. If a union and an employer cannot agree to their first contract in 120 days, the government will appoint a panel of arbitrators who will.

Mandatory arbitration is devastatingly bad policy -- it throws a monkey wrench into the collective bargaining process. Nothing would more certainly make private bargaining a waste of time. Why make concessions at the bargaining table that would simply move the starting point for arbitration?

An arbitration panel's power to dictate terms is virtually limitless. Such panels could impose uncompetitive wage rates and unworkable work rules. Arbitrators could also impose mandatory union dues and discharge for failure to pay.

Arbitration panels are by definition a stranger to the work place. Yet real, private agreements are products of the needs, desires, capabilities and resources of the negotiating parties who are anything but.

Collective bargaining strikes a balance between the normal desires of management to keep costs down and retain flexibility, and the union's desire to deliver on promises made to employees. Current law provides that bargaining parties are not required to make concessions. Thus, resolving these differences takes time, since sometimes their goals are unrealistic.

But parties' goals and demands are tempered by other bargaining dynamics, such as the respective rights to strike and lockout, about which this bill is silent. Most often, the delays that do occur in reaching first agreements are due to these dynamics and the realities of collective bargaining -- not to unlawful "bad faith" by either party, for which prosecution and injunctions already are available.

Despite what union leaders would have us believe, the system of collective bargaining in place since 1935 is not broken. Nor is the mechanism for determining union representation: In fact, unions currently win well over 50% of certification elections. (In the first half of 2008, they won 67% of the time.)

There is simply no basis for depriving employees of free choice, and employers and unions of meaningful opportunities to shape their own private bargains without government interference. The proper role for government is to bring parties to the table for good-faith bargaining after employees have freely chosen union representation; it is not to dictate terms of employment.

Mr. Hurtgen was director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service from 2002-2004 and chairman of the National Labor Relations Board from 2001-2002. Mr. Irving was general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board from 1975-1979.

online.wsj.com



To: Geoff Altman who wrote (34058)3/16/2009 12:25:46 AM
From: Peter Dierks1 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 71588
 
Labor's European Model
MARCH 16, 2009

First came the huge stimulus, then the huger budget, then the Obama universal health-care plan. But Big Labor, cheering each, was really waiting for this: The "card check" bill introduced last week and considered the missing link in the revival of unions in America.

The so-called Employee Free Choice Act would let unions organize a worksite once 50% of employees sign a card saying they support a union. No secret-ballot election would be allowed. Supporters claim this is necessary because workers are intimidated by companies to cast a vote against the union in secret, but are only too happy to express their true feelings to a union steward. Right.

The bill also gives the government power to influence wages and benefits under its binding arbitration provision. The exact terms of a first contract between an employer and a new union would be set by a state-appointed mediator if parties fail to reach a deal by a state-appointed deadline. Unions would have every incentive to make maximum demands, knowing that an arbitrator would more often than not split the difference.

We think workers have every right to form a union, and companies that get them often deserve their fate. (See: auto and steel makers, failure of.) But the goal of "card check" is to use federal power to tilt the playing field in favor of union organizers. Union rolls hit a peak of 32.5% of the labor force in 1952, then fell fast. As of last year, 12.4% of American workers belonged to a union. The share of unionized government employees has held steady for decades, but a mere 7.6% of the private workforce chooses to join a union. Unable to reverse the trend in the marketplace, unions have focused on electing Democrats who will rewrite national labor law.

And now they see their big chance. The House is almost certain to pass "card check," so the real battle is in the Senate. Six Senators who previously backed the measure, including Democrats from right-to-work states like Arkansas and Louisiana, are expressing new skepticism. But Big Labor's lobbying has only begun, and business needs to be wary of false compromises.

* * *
The larger union economic model here is Europe, where organized labor first led the charge to build welfare states. Then it concentrated on fighting back attempts to roll back costly entitlements and regulations once the bill of chronic debt, stagnant growth and stubbornly high unemployment came due. Margaret Thatcher defeated them in Britain, but successive German, Italian and French leaders have failed.

American political traditions are different, and Ronald Reagan stopped an earlier slide toward Europe. But complacency is misplaced. The Democratic Party sketched out plans for a Continental-like welfare model before Barack Obama burst into the White House.

In the last session of Congress, Democrats tried to: Raise the notice period required for certain layoffs at private companies to 90 days, extend health benefits for laid-off workers for up to a decade, and increase penalties for noncompliance (the expanded WARN Act); reclassify certain managers as employees who can be unionized, forcibly in non-right-to-work states (the Respect Act); facilitate class action suits for alleged gender-based pay discrimination (Paycheck Fairness Act); and much more. None passed, but now they might.

In the Obama revolution, unions are the vanguard force. Contrary to promises of moderation, the Administration has so far sided firmly with the union left. On the day after the Inauguration, the Department of Labor stopped the implementation of new union financial disclosure rules that provide greater transparency about union finances. A fortnight on the job, President Obama issued four executive orders, on federal contracting and political spending, demanded by Big Labor. Mr. Obama this month endorsed card check and vowed that it "will pass."

In Euro-terms, a "social market economy" offers state-provided health care, generous unemployment benefits, long holidays, various job protections and a prominent role for unions. Sounds good, you might say. But consider that the Europeans have spent the past two decades struggling to wean themselves off entitlements that are a huge drain on the overall economy. These welfare states leech off the productive parts of the economy through onerous taxes, debt and regulations.

Everyone ends up paying. Consider just one measure: the tax wedge, the share of labor costs that never reaches an employee's wallet but goes straight to state coffers. In Belgium, Germany and France, the tax wedge is around 50%; in America, it was 30% in 2007. (See the nearby table.) Not coincidentally, salaries and job opportunities are better here, especially for the least-skilled. The Obama budget, universal health care and now the union-revival effort known as the Employee Free Choice Act would steer America toward the Continent. That's good for the unions, but not for the public good.

* * *
The late economist Mancur Olson explained the phenomenon. Starting with "The Logic of Collective Action" (1965), he showed how democracies are vulnerable to proliferating parochial interests that use government to claim an ever larger share of private wealth. Slow but clear decline follows once narrow interests take the wider polity hostage. Look at France -- or California.

"[Economic] success doesn't depend on natural resources and location as much as on the degree of stupidity of the policies and institutions of the country," Olson wrote. The 2009 debate over Big Labor's agenda is about whether we want to continue to be a dynamic, entrepreneurial nation, or slip into unionized decline.

online.wsj.com