Hear updates from Chamber President Brad Meier.
MP3 File
Friday, February 27, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
EFCA Op-Ed
EFCA Op-Ed
Tom Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
WASHINGTON, D.C. — By now, many people know that the so-called Employee Free Choice Act — also known as "Card Check" — would strip workers of the protection of a secret ballot vote in union organizing elections. This inherently undemocratic proposal would make it cheap and easy for unions to corral new members — and the union dues that come with them.
What most people don't realize is that the Card Check bill would also give the federal government the power to set wages, benefits, and work rules for employers in a wide variety of industries throughout the economy.
Under this bill, once a union is formed, employers would be under a strict deadline to reach an agreement on all of the union's demands. If no agreement is reached after just 120 days, the matter would go to a federal arbitration panel, which would then write and hand down the union contract. That contract would bind both parties for two years with the same force as if it had been agreed to through full and fair negotiations.
For the first time a federal authority would set private sector wages, specific work rules and other work place restrictions, including forcing employees into underfunded and unsustainable pension plans.
This one provision would overturn more than seven decades of American labor law, all built on the principle that the government's proper role is to ensure fairness and protect workers — not to dictate outcomes.
The practical result of this radical change would be to incentivize unions to take extreme positions in collective bargaining and then stonewall, expecting the government arbitration panel to at least "split the difference" on their list of demands. Once the government steps in, the employer would lose all control of the workplace.
This would also create an opportunity for unions to force provisions into contracts that they could never get at the bargaining table, such as productivity-killing work rules, union approval of restructuring, and restrictions on the use of new technologies at the workplace.
In addition to employers losing in this scheme workers lose too. Under current law, workers often get the chance to vote on their contract — and they sometimes reject the deal. But when government bureaucrats are dictating the contract, melding together widely divergent positions taken by labor and management, it doesn't matter what the workers want — the Employee Free Choice Act denies them a chance to vote.
Unions say that radical action is necessary because employers and unions don't always reach a first contract despite prolonged bargaining. However, this possibility was understood when the National Labor Relations Act was enacted 72 years ago. The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that the government has no role as blunt instrument of coercion principle in 1970, noting:
"… it was recognized from the beginning that agreement might in some cases be impossible, and it was never intended that the Government would in such cases step in, become a party to the negotiations and impose its own views of a desirable settlement."
The process isn't perfect, but the reason it works is that neither side holds all the cards, there are rules of fair-play, no side is compelled to accept terms that could result in its demise, and the government acts only as referee not dictator.
Perhaps some of those rules could be strengthened and the government could be a better referee. But the Card Check bill sets a time limit for the process and then transforms the government from referee to dictator.
Seventy-five percent of respondents in a recent poll said negotiating is the preferred method for developing contracts rather than allowing government arbitrators to impose a contract.
It's not labor law reform to permit government arbitrators who don't know the business or the employees or the market to write labor contracts — it's a prescription for disaster.
Tom Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
WASHINGTON, D.C. — By now, many people know that the so-called Employee Free Choice Act — also known as "Card Check" — would strip workers of the protection of a secret ballot vote in union organizing elections. This inherently undemocratic proposal would make it cheap and easy for unions to corral new members — and the union dues that come with them.
What most people don't realize is that the Card Check bill would also give the federal government the power to set wages, benefits, and work rules for employers in a wide variety of industries throughout the economy.
Under this bill, once a union is formed, employers would be under a strict deadline to reach an agreement on all of the union's demands. If no agreement is reached after just 120 days, the matter would go to a federal arbitration panel, which would then write and hand down the union contract. That contract would bind both parties for two years with the same force as if it had been agreed to through full and fair negotiations.
For the first time a federal authority would set private sector wages, specific work rules and other work place restrictions, including forcing employees into underfunded and unsustainable pension plans.
This one provision would overturn more than seven decades of American labor law, all built on the principle that the government's proper role is to ensure fairness and protect workers — not to dictate outcomes.
The practical result of this radical change would be to incentivize unions to take extreme positions in collective bargaining and then stonewall, expecting the government arbitration panel to at least "split the difference" on their list of demands. Once the government steps in, the employer would lose all control of the workplace.
This would also create an opportunity for unions to force provisions into contracts that they could never get at the bargaining table, such as productivity-killing work rules, union approval of restructuring, and restrictions on the use of new technologies at the workplace.
In addition to employers losing in this scheme workers lose too. Under current law, workers often get the chance to vote on their contract — and they sometimes reject the deal. But when government bureaucrats are dictating the contract, melding together widely divergent positions taken by labor and management, it doesn't matter what the workers want — the Employee Free Choice Act denies them a chance to vote.
Unions say that radical action is necessary because employers and unions don't always reach a first contract despite prolonged bargaining. However, this possibility was understood when the National Labor Relations Act was enacted 72 years ago. The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that the government has no role as blunt instrument of coercion principle in 1970, noting:
"… it was recognized from the beginning that agreement might in some cases be impossible, and it was never intended that the Government would in such cases step in, become a party to the negotiations and impose its own views of a desirable settlement."
The process isn't perfect, but the reason it works is that neither side holds all the cards, there are rules of fair-play, no side is compelled to accept terms that could result in its demise, and the government acts only as referee not dictator.
Perhaps some of those rules could be strengthened and the government could be a better referee. But the Card Check bill sets a time limit for the process and then transforms the government from referee to dictator.
Seventy-five percent of respondents in a recent poll said negotiating is the preferred method for developing contracts rather than allowing government arbitrators to impose a contract.
It's not labor law reform to permit government arbitrators who don't know the business or the employees or the market to write labor contracts — it's a prescription for disaster.
Get ready for impact of state budget cuts
By David C. Olson
By David C. Olson
Death, taxes and budget cuts. When asked about the things in life that are certain, the first two are the most common response. It’s time to add “budget cuts” to the list at least for 2009.
By this June, Minnesota will have a new biennial budget. The ledger must be balanced as required by our State Constitution. Right now the shortfall between expected revenues and spending in current law is $4.8 billion. After the February forecast, the gap will likely grow to at least $6 billion or almost 20 percent of the state’s general fund.
Budget cuts are as certain as the sunrise. Even if the state’s big-spenders have their way and we require our state’s job-producers to pay higher taxes, it won’t close a $6 billion hole. Reductions in expected state spending are inevitable.
Let me make it very clear that this will be painful. It is a lot more fun to increase spending than it is to make cuts. Given this reality, what should business leaders and chamber of commerce executives do? It is time to tell the public sector, including and especially its “vendors,” to start immediately to figure out how to get the job done with reduced resources.
This is not a license to tell government to “run like a business.” Its responsibilities are too broad. But some common-sense practices do apply. And, the sooner we share them, the better.
First, protect the customers. When a business faces trouble, its last resorts are reducing services and raising prices. Governments and their vendors apparently don’t understand. How many times do we have to hear that the first cuts will be police and fire protection, classroom teachers and plowing our streets? Far too often public officials go right to areas they know will scare their constituents. What are these officials thinking about? Politics, not their customers.
Second, protect your workforce. More often than not, layoffs mean good workers are permanently lost to the enterprise, and the affected workers and their dependents face chaotic, desperate times. When business improves – and it will – firms have to recruit and train all over again. A better route for all is for employers and employees to agree on reduced wages and benefits, sufficient to make it through “the night.” The enterprise keeps and continues to serve its customers. The trauma of job loss is minimized. And the organization is ready to rebound with the economy. There is still plenty of pain, but it need not be fatal.
Third, start now. The new budget in June and the accompanying cuts are around the corner. Every organization that receives a state check – whether it is school aid, local government aid or Medicaid reimbursement – should act immediately to reduce personnel costs, and, if possible, other overhead expenses. The negotiations won’t be easy. Those who represent workers will predict dire consequences to customer service and offer tax increases as the only solution. Everyone should resist this public drumbeat and instead follow the example at thousands of businesses competing for private-sector business by protecting customers and keeping their employees even though it means lower wages and benefits
Budget cuts are inevitable. But, this time, government customers and the customers of organizations supported by state and local governments need not be victims.
Local chambers and their private for-profit members can make this happen. We should gather our elected officials and the executives who manage tax-supported institutions. We should make our expectations clear: Maintain services by retaining workers at reduced expenses. The old way that holds customers hostage to tax increases is history. Period. No excuses. No exceptions.
David Olson is president of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. For more information, visit the Web at www.mnchamber.com
By this June, Minnesota will have a new biennial budget. The ledger must be balanced as required by our State Constitution. Right now the shortfall between expected revenues and spending in current law is $4.8 billion. After the February forecast, the gap will likely grow to at least $6 billion or almost 20 percent of the state’s general fund.
Budget cuts are as certain as the sunrise. Even if the state’s big-spenders have their way and we require our state’s job-producers to pay higher taxes, it won’t close a $6 billion hole. Reductions in expected state spending are inevitable.
Let me make it very clear that this will be painful. It is a lot more fun to increase spending than it is to make cuts. Given this reality, what should business leaders and chamber of commerce executives do? It is time to tell the public sector, including and especially its “vendors,” to start immediately to figure out how to get the job done with reduced resources.
This is not a license to tell government to “run like a business.” Its responsibilities are too broad. But some common-sense practices do apply. And, the sooner we share them, the better.
First, protect the customers. When a business faces trouble, its last resorts are reducing services and raising prices. Governments and their vendors apparently don’t understand. How many times do we have to hear that the first cuts will be police and fire protection, classroom teachers and plowing our streets? Far too often public officials go right to areas they know will scare their constituents. What are these officials thinking about? Politics, not their customers.
Second, protect your workforce. More often than not, layoffs mean good workers are permanently lost to the enterprise, and the affected workers and their dependents face chaotic, desperate times. When business improves – and it will – firms have to recruit and train all over again. A better route for all is for employers and employees to agree on reduced wages and benefits, sufficient to make it through “the night.” The enterprise keeps and continues to serve its customers. The trauma of job loss is minimized. And the organization is ready to rebound with the economy. There is still plenty of pain, but it need not be fatal.
Third, start now. The new budget in June and the accompanying cuts are around the corner. Every organization that receives a state check – whether it is school aid, local government aid or Medicaid reimbursement – should act immediately to reduce personnel costs, and, if possible, other overhead expenses. The negotiations won’t be easy. Those who represent workers will predict dire consequences to customer service and offer tax increases as the only solution. Everyone should resist this public drumbeat and instead follow the example at thousands of businesses competing for private-sector business by protecting customers and keeping their employees even though it means lower wages and benefits
Budget cuts are inevitable. But, this time, government customers and the customers of organizations supported by state and local governments need not be victims.
Local chambers and their private for-profit members can make this happen. We should gather our elected officials and the executives who manage tax-supported institutions. We should make our expectations clear: Maintain services by retaining workers at reduced expenses. The old way that holds customers hostage to tax increases is history. Period. No excuses. No exceptions.
David Olson is president of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. For more information, visit the Web at www.mnchamber.com
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Card Check Legislation-Eisman Shares View
My name is Elliott Eisman. My wife Mary and I own and operate the McDonald’s in Owatonna, Medford and Waseca. We have been members of the Owatonna Chamber of Commerce for many years and appreciate the opportunity Brad has given me to make our members aware of possible legislation that could be devastating to all of our businesses. I’m speaking about the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) or "Card Check."
Trade unions and their allies are pushing for changes in federal law that would make it easier to unionize a workforce. They want to eliminate secret ballots from the process. Instead, the will of employees would be determined by "card check"—signed cards indicating a wish to be represented by a particular union. Unions say that "card check" would protect employees from intimidation, but the opposite is true. It would make it easier to organize a workforce because it would eliminate long-standing employee protections against coercion, peer pressure, misrepresentation, and improper inducements. The proposed card check legislation also calls for mandatory third-party arbitration in some cases and would potentially deny employees the right to vote on a contract and deny both them and employers a remedy for contracts with harmful economic terms.
Here are the key messages to convey when you contact your Representatives and Senators:
Card check is a misguided attempt to fix a system that isn’t broken.
Card check would eliminate current protections against intimidation.
Card check cannot adequately ensure employee free choice.
Card check would eliminate current protections against intimidation.
Card check cannot adequately ensure employee free choice.
The current union authorization process reflects our common understanding of the principles of democracy. The current card check bill would undermine the collective bargaining process. Card check is not the way to improve conditions for working people.
Trade unions have been struggling to reverse declining memberships for at least 20 years. Card check is payback for their support of the new administration. The new administration has targeted card check as one of their first priorities. I will leave sample letters at the Chamber of Commerce to use to contact your congressmen. Please let them know how you feel and talk with other business people and get them involved. To call your Senators, use 202-224-3121 and for the House dial 202-225-3121.
Thank you for your interest and your support.
Elliott Eisman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)