-
200 Miles of Blisters and Deceit
March 27, 2013 | 256 comments
-
Busting Union Reform
February 13, 2012 | 21 comments
-
Unionization by Regulation
March 30, 2011 | 4 comments
The Public Policy
Obama’s Big Labor Wins a Big One
A divided court has upheld a rogue agency’s pro-unionization rule change.
Unions have been disappointed by the Obama administration’s inability to move their agenda forward. But they finally won a victory last week. This is bad news for America’s transport sector, not to mention travelers and businesses of all sizes that rely on rail and air shipping, because it could cause major disruptions to travel and commerce.
Last year, the National Mediation Board (NMB), the government agency charged with overseeing labor relations in the railroad and airlines industries, changed voting rules to favor unionization. On Friday, December 16, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia upheld the rule change as consistent with the Railway Labor Act (RLA).
However, as dissenting Circuit Judge Karen Henderson explained, the NMB failed to provide any justification for changing a rule that had stood for 75 years.
The Act clearly states: “The majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to determine who shall be the representative of the craft or class.” A craft or class is any job classification that may be organized as a bargaining unit of like workers — for example, railroad engineers or airline pilots. The new rule makes it possible for a minority of the employees of a craft or class to vote in a union.
The rule change predictably met with strong objections from most of railroad and airline companies. The Air Transport Association of America and U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit challenging it. But this is no simple labor versus management dispute. Several Delta Airlines employees also filed suit on the grounds that the rule change violated their rights of freedom of association.
Congress passed the RLA to govern railway unions in 1926 and expanded it to include airlines in 1936. In order to avoid disruptions to America’s transport network through strikes and other kinds of work stoppages, the Act imposed mandatory mediation and gave the president the ability to order workers back to work.
The RLA allows unions to organize workers for the purpose of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement as the workers’ exclusive representative. However, unlike the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which regulates labor relations in other industries and allows unions to organize on a location-by-location basis, the RLA requires a bargaining unit to include all the workers of the same classification throughout an entire company.
By requiring unions to organize on a company-wide basis, the RLA helps to avoid the creation of a patchwork of work rules that would result from piecemeal unionization at various facilities. It also prevents localized issues from disrupting nationwide transport networks. Balkanized work rules detract from the standardization and economies of scale upon which network industries rely.
In addition, the RLA requires a union to gain votes from a majority of all workers it would represent in a bargaining unit in order to be certified. This ensures that a union truly enjoys the support of the majority of workers in a given craft or class. The rule change now requires merely a majority of votes cast. Thus, under the new rule, a bargaining unit of 100 employees could be unionized with only 41 employees voting for the union in an election in which only 80 votes are cast.
The court also failed to address the fact that the NMB made no effort to educate workers about the rule change. It issued no postings, memos, letters, or public service announcements to that effect. The original rule had been in place for 75 years, so to say that the employees would find a rule change surprising and disruptive is an understatement. Employees who once could simply abstain to express their desire not to join a union would be in for a rude shock.
That’s not all. Under the NMB’s rule change, there is more than one way for a union to receive “yes” votes. First, the new ballot includes a “write in” section where any vote cast automatically counts as a vote for the union, because “no union” votes may only be entered in the section so labeled. Second, if there is a runoff election, it may only include the top two union vote getters, with the “no union” option left out.
Reforming the Railway Labor Act is a job for Congress, not an unaccountable agency. This case deserves to be either reheard by the full circuit or taken up by the Supreme Court.
For its part, Congress should consider reforming the Act in a way that protects employees’ right to decide for themselves whether to join or refrain from joining a union. Specifically, it should change the voting procedures back to 50 percent-plus-one of the craft or class and allow runoff elections to include the “no union” option. It should also hold the National Mediation Board accountable, and make it clear that it is not a mechanism to grant favors to the president’s union allies.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (46) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Russ Brown
More Articles by Ivan Osorio
More Articles From The Public Policy
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/20/obamas-big-labor-win-a-big-one
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Pecos Pete| 12.20.11 @ 7:19AM
Headline in NYTimes: Transportation network grinds to a halt from union strikes supported by OWS.
An OWS leader stated, "This will teach the 1% that what's theirs is ours."
An out of work grocery store clerk explained, "Empty shelves mean I don't have a job."
Purp| 12.20.11 @ 11:27AM
You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs ... it's the American way.
SeymourGlass| 12.20.11 @ 11:32AM
True - but the saying refers to breaking eggs, not throwing them.
Moe Blotz| 12.20.11 @ 12:03PM
Aye, and you canna' make an omelet when someone hands you lemons.
markenoff| 12.21.11 @ 2:16AM
"You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs." - Walter Duranty, 1932
In 1932 and 1933 Stalin imposed crippling demands on peasants for grain and other foodstuffs, which were extracted by brute force and executions. By the spring of 1933, people in Ukraine were reduced to eating grass, tree bark, earthworms and anything else they could find. There were hundreds of cases of cannibalism in a country with some of the world's most fertile farmland, and at its climax an estimated 25,000 people were starving to death each day.
Duranty was a correspondent in Moscow while the famine raged and he knew it was happening. He not only turned a blind eye, but vilified the few Western journalists who did report on it, branding their dispatches as anti-Soviet lies.
During his time in Paris he married and began writing reports for the New York Times. His clever and well-crafted articles won him a job as the newspaper's Moscow correspondent. There is no evidence that Duranty particularly sympathised with communism, but he wrote glowing reports about the Soviet Union because he wanted to gain access to top officials.
He succeeded in doing that spectacularly by securing the first interview for an American newspaper with Stalin himself, who Duranty described as 'the greatest living statesman'. He became the Soviet regime's favourite correspondent, always presenting the Soviet Union in a positive light, and in 1932 he won the Pulitzer prize for a series of articles about the Soviet economy.
When stories about the famine began to surface in Moscow, Duranty dismissed them as 'exaggerated or malignant propaganda', and in one report employed the phrase 'you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs'. However, British Foreign Office documents show that Duranty confided to a diplomat at the British Embassy in Moscow that he believed around 10 million people had perished.
Malcolm Muggeridge, then the Manchester Guardian 's Moscow correspondent, travelled secretly and at great risk to Ukraine. He was appalled at the scenes of mass starvation and heaps of dead bodies that he witnessed and described them in his reports. Duranty attacked Muggeridge and debunked his reports. Duranty was 'the greatest liar of any journalist I have ever met', retorted Muggeridge.
Historian Robert Conquest told The Observer that Duranty played an important role in covering up the famine and 'he should be exposed again and again and again'. Conquest believes the Soviet secret police may have been blackmailing Duranty over his sexual behaviour.
So not really the American way.
W| 12.20.11 @ 7:19AM
The change is from a majority of the voters eligible to a majority of th votes cast. If the members do not want a union they can vote no instead of just ignoring the election.
This is the same system we have to elect all our political leaders: winning the votes cast. Why is it bad for unions but ok for the country.
Carol| 12.20.11 @ 7:33AM
Because Obama wants to give HIS union thugs free reign to hassle people who don't want to belong to unions.
Brian Mc| 12.20.11 @ 7:37AM
If I don't want to be unionized, why should I be compelled to show up to cast a vote of 'no'? One would assume that my failing to show is 'no' enough. Unless you're attempting to deceive.
W| 12.20.11 @ 7:47AM
Stay home on November 2012 and you absence will be counted as a vote against Obama.
How tough is it to take ten minutes to vote no if you don't want a union?
Redstateboy| 12.20.11 @ 8:32AM
At least they're consistent, Leftist/Socialist/Communists/Democrats/Slaveparties - like W; here.. Are all for these kinds of shananigans and also against a Voter I.D. cards.
W| 12.20.11 @ 10:20AM
Red,
who said anything about voter Id cards?
In the NLRB certification election you have to produce ID plus a NLRB agent supervises the election to match the names and signatures of the voters with a list provided by the employer.
The union elections, once a union wins, though are a different story.
Bottom line, if you are too lazy and ignorant to take part in the election and vote intelligently then you get what you deserve.
One problem with unions is only a small minority of the members are involved and vote or attend the union meetings. The only complain about the company and the union but do nothing about it.
RICHARD| 12.20.11 @ 12:04PM
Unions are an anachronism. Unions need to be banned pure and simple.
Jeff| 12.20.11 @ 5:38PM
Unions are gradually eliminating themselves as the companies for whom they work are priced out of the marketplace.
W| 12.20.11 @ 7:22PM
Unions are also eliminating themselves because they keep lobbying Congress to pass laws affecting terms and conditions of employment, such as Wage/Hour, OSHA, EEOC, etc. As a result there is not as great a need for unions today as there was 100 years ago. Thus unions do not have that much to offer when they try to organize and recruit members.
markenoff| 12.21.11 @ 2:21AM
Except that the LAW passed by CONGRESS says "The majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to determine who shall be the representative of the craft or class." The MAJORITY. Not the majority voting. An administrative agency or a court does not have the power to interpret a rule or law in a manner that is totally contrary to the explicit language of the law. Unelected bureacrats do not trump our elected representatives.
markenoff| 12.21.11 @ 2:23AM
Except that the LAW passed by CONGRESS says "The majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to determine who shall be the representative of the craft or class." The MAJORITY. Not the majority voting. An administrative agency or a court does not have the power to interpret a rule or law in a manner that is totally contrary to the explicit language of the law. Unelected bureacrats do not trump our elected representatives.
Aiken_Bob| 12.20.11 @ 9:04AM
the simple answer is that political and union elections are different. To vote for a union means that you are allowing another person to control you wages - while a political election is.... Wait a minute they are the same.
W| 12.20.11 @ 10:24AM
We are talking about the first election conducted by the NLRB or other agencies to certify a union, not subsequesnt elections conducted by a union once the union wins. You are correct about some of the elections conducted by unions, but the first certification elections are generally fairly run. Whenever a union loses the certification election, it always files charges with the NLRB that the company intimidated employees.
Petronius| 12.20.11 @ 10:36AM
B
There is a tenet from English Common Law still observed everywhere. "Qui tacit consentire." Silence is consent.
Brian Mc| 12.20.11 @ 4:24PM
So, if I don't go to a Yankee's game that makes me a fan?
markenoff| 12.21.11 @ 2:24AM
Except that the LAW passed by CONGRESS says "The majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to determine who shall be the representative of the craft or class." The MAJORITY. Not the majority voting. An administrative agency or a court does not have the power to interpret a rule or law in a manner that is totally contrary to the explicit language of the law. Unelected bureacrats do not trump our elected representatives.
Pecos Pete| 12.20.11 @ 9:50AM
People don't show up for union elections because of union thug intimidation.
Purp| 12.20.11 @ 11:28AM
You just said it - "political leaders" follow the golden rule. Those with the gold make the rules.
markenoff| 12.21.11 @ 2:22AM
Except that the LAW passed by CONGRESS says "The majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to determine who shall be the representative of the craft or class." The MAJORITY. Not the majority voting. An administrative agency or a court does not have the power to interpret a rule or law in a manner that is totally contrary to the explicit language of the law. Unelected bureacrats do not trump our elected representatives.
markenoff| 12.21.11 @ 2:24AM
Except that the LAW passed by CONGRESS says "The majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to determine who shall be the representative of the craft or class." The MAJORITY. Not the majority voting. An administrative agency or a court does not have the power to interpret a rule or law in a manner that is totally contrary to the explicit language of the law. Unelected bureacrats do not trump our elected representatives.
W| 12.21.11 @ 6:15PM
Markenoff,
When the statute does not clearly define of some term, such as "majority" of votes cast or voters, then the law is that the agency created to enforce that law defines the term.. The courts can reject the definition or interpretation . Or Congress can amend the law to clearly state majority of votes cast.
This happens all the time. IRS,EEOC, OSHA, etc. all interpret and define the law.
It is another example of Congress abdicating its responsibility in not writing clear laws and thus allowing agencies the broad power to define and interpret terms.
Timothy L. Pennell| 12.20.11 @ 7:34AM
I think it was Jefferson, but I could be wrong, who thought that the Judiciary would prove to be the real problem for this form of Government. I think that he believed that their UNACCOUNTABILITY would prove to be our undoing.
(Okay......GO! Everyone hit those Keyboards with your corrections. The 1st one to post, wins a picture of Alan Brooks in the tub, explaining to Clint and Jack*ssinWi that: "Just because I'm Circumcised, doesn't mean I'm a JEW.)
"We REWARD our Friends and PUNISH our Enemies." JUST WORDS? JUST SPEECHES?
While Johnny Boehner and the boys, tip toe around on Egg Shells, ABU HUSSAIN plows ahead with his Transformation of a once Mighty Nation, in to a Third World Basket Case. And, why not? That's what he SAID he was gonna do. That's what he CAMPAIGNED on. Everybody knows who, and WHAT he is. It's another thing to stand up on your hind legs, and TELL THE TRUTH, as you see it.
I don't feel like going through the whole litany, again: Muslim, Marxist, Atheist/Communist Mommy, Muslim/Marxist DRUNK, for a Father. Indonesian Muslim Schools and Mosques for 11 Years. Davis, Wright, Farrakhan, Rashidi, Black Panthers, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Saul Alinsky, Acorn, SEIU, Cloward and Piven, my typing finger hurts.
(If you miss any of this, you can probably see it tomorrow, by Peter Ferrara.)
All these things we know, but are afraid to mention. We have a Trail of Breadcrumbs leading us back to This Man's Creation. That lead us back to how his DNA was put together, and where it would INEVITABLY lead him to, and it was purposefully Ignored. He's BLACK, don'tcha know. We wouldn't want to be called RACIST. Better to just let him take this Country to HELL, than to be called that.
Our "Consultants", with their Nice Suits, and their Soft Hands, recommend Marques of Queensbury as Obama's boys bash us upside our heads, with Metal Pipes. We're Racists, and Bigots, and Homophobes. We HATE Brown People, and your Mother. We want Dirty Air, Dirty Water, and Dirty Profit. We want to Ship all the jobs Overseas, and we wanna give a big hug to every Fat Cat Banker, we can get our arms around.
THIS is what THIS POS is saying at his Rallies. He doesn't do any work. He campaigns. Like Hitler at Nuremberg, he goes after us like it was the 1930's, and we were a JEW. And, it's getting more and more like GERMANY Circa 1930's, with each passing Day.
We're all supposed to be SHARING in the SACRIFICE, while the FUHRER is off to his Mountaintop Retreat. Another $4 MILLION VACATION, as his people Clamour for Food, and Heating Oil. Is there a DIFFERENCE, between this guy, and the one who just DROPPED DEAD, in North Korea? Cause I don't see it. I think that they're just the same.
The DEAD North Korean, has his own Army. So does this guy. He has his UNION ARMY, just like he told us he would. "We need a Civilian Army, that is just as powerful, and just as FUNDED, as the Military one." He keeps his Friends well paid, and well Fed, and the rest of the people, be damned. The Stimulus Money went to HIS ARMY, not to the Private Sector. Everything he does, he does to the detriment of the Middle Class. "We REWARD our FRIENDS and PUNISH our ENEMIES." The GOAL is North Korea. Two Groups. Friends and Enemies. Nothing in the Middle. Friends get the LIGHT and the FOOD. Enemies Eat Grass and Tree Bark in the Dark.
So, where am I going with this? my HATRED for the Domestic Enemy, clouds my vision, at times. It leads to The Dark Side, where He dwells.
This Court Decision is one more REMINDER that Elections have Consequences. (I'm talking to YOU! Peggy Noonan, Mort Zuckerman, Ed Koch, and that WH*RE who used to sit next to Client #9 on CNN, with his hand up her skirt.) They let the Winner pick the Judges. They let the Winner make the Rules. And the Breadcrumbs have shown us WHERE this is headed.
The Airlines and the Trains WILL come under Government Ownership, as sure as Michelle is stuffing two handfuls of Cheese Fries with Chili into her America Hating Mouth, as she prepares to make another Plea for a Healthy Nutritious Diet. The UNIONS will run them in to the Ground, just as they have EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY, that they've laid their THIEVING HANDS on.
Look around. See what he has wrought, in just 3 YEARS. Where does it End? How is this happening?
"And I saw the BEAST rise from the Sea. And he was given a MOUTH to speak Haughty and Blasphemous words. And he was allowed to exercise authority for forty two months." Revelation 13-5.
JUNE 2012.
Please try and be ready, won't you?
Purp| 12.20.11 @ 11:31AM
George W Bush left this country as a basket case when he left office and America knows it. Why do you think we don't see hide nor hair of Dubya? No, it was GW Bush and Republicant policies that are destroying America and lining the pockets of the 1% , no matter how much you crow about the Black One you don't like.
bill| 12.20.11 @ 8:06AM
Newt Gingrich is right when he pledges to overhaul the Judicial Branch. All those liberal activists Judges, ruling in favor of the Obama Administration and his ally, the big labor unions, that rises the integrity of the Courts, whether they are doing their duty, or just misinterpreting the Constitution to favor their liberal base.
Redstateboy| 12.20.11 @ 8:57AM
"For its part, Congress should consider reforming the Act in a way that protects employees' right to decide for themselves whether to join or refrain from joining a union"
That is IF we had a Republican Congress that had some balls and was more concerned with doing what was right than they are pleasing the Leftist-Socialist Media.
VonMisesJr| 12.20.11 @ 9:21AM
During serfdom in the Middle Ages, socialism existed in the form of Guild Socialism. Trades were restricted by family ties. If one's father was not a blacksmith, the son was not going to be one either.
If you follow our so-called Progressive movement back to its foundations to the struggle between Adam Smith "Invisible Hand" and "laissez faire" representing the "Industrial Revolution" and capitalism, versus the Enlightenment and "Age of Reason" that attempted to reverse the emancipation of the serfs; you can see what this is really about and where it is going.
It is an effort to create classes of people. The ruling class will use union jobs to promote good behavior. Good pay with pension and benefits for life is the carrot for submission. A stick across the head like we are seeing in Egypt this week is the cost of rebellion.
You can have serfdom, I vote for liberty.
Purp| 12.20.11 @ 11:34AM
. Sure, capitalism and the "free hand" is at work t, but left on it's own, the boom and bust cycle creates far greater booms (which we all like) and far greater busts (which we all don't like). There is nothing steady about the free market and laissez-faire, so Keynesian doctrine comes along to iron out some of the highs and the lows to keep the economy on a more even keel. And, that lends a lot more certainty then keeping hands off the economy. Imagine what would have happened without George Bush's TARP Program or Barack Obama's Recovery Program? 30% Unemployment anyone?
I prefer an even keel, with certainty, and will give up the wild, wild financial west of the "invisible hand" so we can avoid the terrible low swings with high unemployment, low or no growth and people in the streets begging for help.
VonMisesJr| 12.20.11 @ 2:20PM
No Perpetrator, you prefer a hand to feed you. We all heard this smoothing nonsense before. Don't you have any new talking points?
If you like Keynesian economics so much, then move to England. They invented it and have perfected the welfare state. Get on the dole there and you can join four generations of families with no one with a job ever and sucking off the teat of government.
We have learned that you are usually gone by 2PM or so. Either you have put in your three hour MoveOn day, or need to check in with your parole officer.
markenoff| 12.21.11 @ 2:32AM
Keynesian economics circa 2011 USA: Borrow $100 billion from the Chinese. Launder it through 100,000 federal government bureacrats down to the "deserving" so that they can spend it on things made in China thereby stimulating the Chinese economy. As a bonus, the interest paid by the US government every year to the Chinese government for the money we've borrowed to maintain our welfare state is sufficient to pay for the Chinese military.
Kevin| 12.20.11 @ 11:48AM
"Polite" dictatorship is how I would describe the Obama administration.
Purp| 12.20.11 @ 11:56AM
Really? And who instituted wireless wiretaps? Who passed the patriot act? Who suspended habeas corpus? just a smattering of GW Bush's dictatorial rule.
W| 12.20.11 @ 12:11PM
Congress passed the Patriot Act, and has been renewed by Obama's administration.
You are sloppy with the facts, Purple.
Who went to war in Libya and Central Africa this year without Congressional approval?
Purp, why is it ok to kill terrorrists but not to waterboard three terrorrists to obtain info that led to Osama's kill and to save American lives?
SeymourGlass| 12.20.11 @ 12:21PM
Who suspended habeas corpus?
Lincoln.
markenoff| 12.21.11 @ 2:37AM
Who suspended habeas corpus? Well, Abraham Lincoln for one and Franklin Roosevelt for another.
Bill| 12.20.11 @ 11:51AM
Obama is "Socialism 2.0."
bill| 12.20.11 @ 1:33PM
I HATE big labor unions.
Anthony| 12.20.11 @ 2:16PM
....and the sclerotic Bob Schieffer and some RINO former GOP Attorneys General thinks Newt Gingrich is dangerous.
We are at war with the Left and the R establishment.
cicero| 12.20.11 @ 3:07PM
To equate labor unionism as originally organized to remedy the imbalances of the industrial revolution with the unionism of today is to use static models for analysis sake. Shouldn't be done. One of the problems with labor unionism is that it was overly successful. The old industrial unions (see UAW,UMW,etc) managed to get legislation passed that usurped their real functions - wages and hours, working conditions, safety rules, etc. When the government allowed the public employees to unionize, translating the protections for the unskilled to the professional and civil servant class, what we have now ensued.
Unionization for the unskilled gave them necessary leverage. Unionization of the skilled, professioanl, and government classes gave us economic tyranny sponsored by government which thinks they benefit thereby.
A possible answer is to disallow unionization for any entity that receives substantial funding from any governmental source. If a unionized workforce oversteps its bounds in the private sector, it bankrupts its source of funds, and another more competitive entity takes its place. If a government supported entity is bankrupted by its unionized worker bees, it merely bludgeones more money out of the taxpayer.
Bydand76| 12.20.11 @ 9:26PM
Can anyone say "Atlas Shrugged"?
POST American| 12.20.11 @ 11:51PM
"Observe, once again, as the campaign approaches,
the agenda is set, and the REAL issues disappear."
The Globalist-RED China set-up, sellout
and world TREASON OP is, undeniably,
the one, the ONLY ISSUE for 2012.
RETRO-active IMPEACHMENT for our
past 4 CFR Globalist front op administrations.
----------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012---------------
The Bruce| 12.21.11 @ 1:33AM
The Unions are plenty pissed at Obama's pipeline indecision.
Add to that the administration's very public decision to not seek the white, blue collar, middle-class vote? Doesn't this Imbecile-in-Chief know who got him elected?
Wow, just wow (but I'm enjoying my popcorn in the meantime).