Quotes of the Day - union leader Samuel Gompers

Samuel Gompers, born January 27, 1850, was a cigar maker. He is best known as the founder of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), where he was president from 1886-94 and then again from 1895 until his death on December 13, 1924.

His take on labor unions, their purpose and their actions, is a bit different from today's and so I thought it might be interesting to share some of his quotes, especially in light of the many issues facing unions - and all of us - today.

While I don't agree with everything he said and stood for, there is wisdom and insight in much of what he said and stood for, especially in his support of America during World War I and his opposition to socialism as a unsound economic solution to the ills Americans were experiencing at the time. He opposed immigration without Americanization, something many labor leaders of today fail to address.

And he opposed loyalty to a particular party. Wonder what he'd think of today's labor movement?

The worst crime against working people is a company which fails to operate at a profit.

I want to urge devotion to the fundamentals of human liberty – the principles of voluntarism. No lasting gain has ever come from compulsion. If we seek to force, we but tear apart that which, united, is invincible. . . . I want to say to you, men and women of the American labor movement, do not reject the cornerstone upon which labor’s structure has been builded – but base your all upon voluntary principles and illumine your every problem by consecrated devotion to that highest of all purposes – human well being in the fullest, widest, deepest sense.

There may be here and there a worker who for certain reasons unexplainable to us does not join a union of labor. This is his right no matter how morally wrong he may be. It is his legal right and no one can dare question his exercise of that legal right.

We want a minimum wage established, but we want it established by the solidarity of the working men themselves through the economic forces of their trade unions, rather than by any legal enactment. . . . We must not, we cannot, depend upon legislative enactments to set wage standards. When once we encourage such a system, it is equivalent to admitting our incompetency for self-government and our inability to seek better conditions.

The workers of America adhere to voluntary institutions in preference to compulsory systems which are held to be not only impractical but a menace to their rights, welfare and their liberty.

Labor Day is devoted to no man, living or dead, to no sect, race or nation.

I have no word of censure for a man because of his views on political, social or economic questions, but I contend that trade unions are the natural form of organization for wage earners under existing economic conditions, and I propose (so far as I may be able) to keep them undefiled and free from alliance with any political party . . . . Factions who wish to dally with hobbies and fine spun theories . . . have no place in the ranks of trade unionism.

And what have our unions done? What do they aim to do? To improve the standard of life, to uproot ignorance and foster education, to instill character, manhood and independent spirit among our people; to bring about a recognition of the interdependence of man upon his fellow man. We aim to establish a normal work-day, to take the children from the factory and workshop and give them the opportunity of the school and the play-ground. In a word, our unions strive to lighten toil, educate their members, make their homes more cheerful, and in every way contribute an earnest effort toward making life the better worth living.

That which we call freedom, that which we call liberty, are not tangible things. They are not handed to any people on a silver platter. They are principles, they are questions of the spirit, and the people must have a consciousness that they not only have the term liberty and freedom, but they must have the power and the right to exercise these great attributes of life.

To strengthen the state, as Frederick Howe says, is to devitalize the individual. . . . I believe in people. I believe in the working people. I believe in their growing intelligence. I believe in their growing and persistent demand for better conditions, for a more rightful situation in the industrial, political, and social affairs of this country and of the world. I have faith that the working people will better their condition far beyond what it is today. The position of the organized labor movement is not based upon misery and poverty, but upon the right of workers to a larger and constantly growing share of the production, and they will work out these problems for themselves.

I do not think American labor is engaged in a class struggle and I do not think American labor believes it is engaged in a class struggle, because in our country we have no such thing and I hope never will have.

We are proud of the country which we claim as our own; we are proud of its history, proud of its heroes and proud of its traditions, and we hope as we struggle for its glorious future. But we maintain that patriotism does not mean the hatred of our neighbor. Nor do we believe that it is a wise policy, as some would advocate, that a foreign war might be a good cure for our domestic evils.

In the exercise of great powers often requisite under military control, the right of free meeting, the right of free speech, and free press is endangered. And when the smoke of battle is gone these rights, taken from the masses of the people under often necessary conditions, are seldom freely given back to the people.

That war transformed me from an ultra-pacifist to one willing to fight and sacrifice with my fellow countrymen in defense of the principle of living our own lives and working out our own destiny; and if there be a mad-man nation still, large or small, which will attempt to repeat that monumental crime I hope that the generations, perhaps yet unborn, of our self-governing civilized nations, may throw themselves with equal vigor in the battle to maintain the fundamental principles of freedom, justice and humanity.

[D]uring the years of [World War I] I was absorbed with the one object that it was labor's war as much as it was the war of any other group of our people; that labor had to make good in helping to win the war and to emerge from the war with freedom and democracy safeguarded and its honored name and high ideals maintained.

I want to tell you, Socialists, that I have studied your philosophy; read your works upon economics, and not the meanest of them; studied your standard works, both in English and German -- have not only read, but studied them. I have heard your orators and watched the work of your movement the world over. I have kept close watch upon your doctrines for thirty years; have been closely associated with many of you, and know how you think and what you propose. I know, too, what you have up your sleeve. And I want to say that I am entirely at variance with your philosophy. I declare to you, I am not only at variance with your doctrines, but with your philosophy. Economically you are unsound; socially, you are wrong; industrially, you are an impossibility.

You are mistaken in asserting that I am embittered against everybody or anything that savors of socialism. What I resent and what I have persistently opposed is any effort that will mislead the wage-earners and delude them with vain hope. There have been so many burdens and so much suffering and so much misery heaped upon those who are called the wage-earners, that I resent with every particle of force within me anything that would perpetuate their suffering or lead them into greater depths. Because I am firmly convinced that socialism is founded upon principles that will not lead out into broader liberty, independence and opportunity, I have done what I could to show men the fallacies of the doctrine of socialism.

There are people in the labor movement who seem to believe that success can only come by entrusting great, yes, absolute power in the hands of an individual or an executive officer. I warn you against a calamity none greater than which can occur to the labor
movement. Autocracy is as dangerous in our movement as in the state. Mistakes may be made by the masses but they learn to do better by reason of their mistakes. The individual, on the contrary, when having absolute power rarely makes mistakes, rather commits crime. The man who would arrogate to himself in the labor movement absolute and autocratic power would be a tyrant under
other circumstances and has no place in the labor movement.

One thing to be considered in discussing immigration is that the greater the number of immigrants the less American the United States becomes. . . . The American Federation of Labor believes that the foreigners now in this country should be assimilated before others are permitted to come except from such countries as Great Britain, France, Germany and Scandinavia.

America must be kept American. Those who would flood the country with hordes of immigrants from southeastern Europe care no more for America then do the Hottentots. Their desires are governed by greed.

The industrial field is littered with more corpses of organizations destroyed by the damning influences of partisan politics than from all other causes combined.

We deny the assertion made by some of our opponents when they say the American Federation of Labor is against political action. We are against the the American labor movement being made a political party machine.

I am very suspicious of the activities of governmental agencies.

We have been asked, or advised, to go for all the laws we can get. Save the workingmen of America from such a proposition! There are numbers of laws we can get, but prudence and defense of the rights and the liberties of the toilers are much more important than the effort to secure all the laws we can get.

Several times the proposition to form a labor party has been considered by the trade union movement, but after careful and thorough consideration it has been invariably decided that we can attain our purposes more quickly and more effectively by continuing our political policy of independent political action partisan to principles rather than to a party.

A law that is really a law, is a result of public thought and conviction and not a power to create thought or conviction. The enforcement of a law follows naturally because the people will it. To enact a law with the hope and for the purpose of educating the people is to proceed by indirection and to waste energy. It is better to begin work for securing ideals by directing activity first for fundamentals. Frequently, when the people concerned become mindful and eager for what will promote their own welfare, they find that they are much more able to secure what will benefit and adapt their methods to changing circumstances than is any law or the administration of that law.

There are a number of people who mistakenly charge me with being a Democrat. I never was a member of the Democratic Party. I was at one time, in my early years, a member of the Republican Party, and cast my first vote for a Republican President--U. S. Grant as soon as I attained my majority. I never did belong to the Democratic Party. In the pursuit of the Nonpartisan policy of labor in which I thoroughly believe, I supported Republican or Democrat or publicist as in the varying parties I believed that they would best serve the people without regard to party.

I love my liberty, and imprisonment would be, to say the least, very disagreeable to me; but there are some things that are even less desirable, among them one's loss of self-respect and the loss of inherent and lawful constitutional rights.

The meaning of America lies in the ideal she represents. That ideal is liberty and opportunity. But beautiful as any ideal may be, it becomes of practical value when it has effectiveness in the daily lives of men and women. Real liberty and opportunity mean a certain mental attitude toward life, certain standards of life and work, and possession of that which secures the enjoyment of opportunities. America the ideal -- the land of the free -- exists only when her people are American in all things.

By nature I am a non-conformist. I believe that restrictions dwarf personality and that largest usefulness comes through greatest personal freedom.

Note: Many of these quotes are from the Samuel Gompers Papers.

AFL-CIO: Obamacare 'highly disruptive' to union health plans

The AFL-CIO is holding their national convention this week and they have approved a resolution that says the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is being implemented in way that is "highly disruptive" to union health care plans.

At issue is how the regulations impact union-sponsored health plans. They also want the subsidizes for low-income workers who enroll in the exchanges to be available to low-income union members who participate in union-sponsored health plans.

Here is one report from Fox News:

The AFL-CIO approved a resolution saying that President Obama's health care overhaul will drive up the costs of union-sponsored health plans to the point that workers and employers are forced to abandon them.

In a strongly worded resolution released Wednesday, the federation said that labor unions still support the Affordable Care Act's overall goals of reducing health costs and bringing coverage to all Americans, but added that the law is being implemented in a way that is "highly disruptive" to union health care plans.

Some individual unions have complained about the law's impact for months, but the resolution marks the first time the nation's largest labor federation has gone on record embracing that view. Unions were among the most enthusiastic backers of the law when it passed in 2010.

A labor official told The Associated Press that White House officials had been calling labor leaders for days to urge them not to voice their concerns in the form of a resolution. The official, who wasn't authorized to discuss the conversations publicly and requested anonymity, said many union leaders insisted that they wanted to highlight their concerns.

Continue reading...

And here is the AFL-CIO post on the resolution where they identify it as calling for "fixes" in the act.

Fiscally conservative Ohio school board turns a deficit into a surplus while cutting taxes and giving raises

In light of the fact that Swanton has a school levy on the ballot today (after it was defeated in May), and several others, including Toledo Public Schools, will have levies on the ballot in November, I thought this was an important article to share.

It's from EAGNews.org, the website for the Education Action Group Foundation in Muskegon, MI. It's about the success of Springboro Schools here in Ohio.

SPRINGBORO, Ohio – It’s tempting to describe the financial turnaround that’s taking place in the Springboro school district as something of a miracle.

How else to describe the district’s dramatic reversal in fortune?

In the span of just four years, Springboro schools have gone from projecting a massive deficit of $28.7 million to planning for a surplus of nearly $7.2 million by 2017.

That’s a swing of nearly $36 million to the district’s benefit.

That’s unheard of during these tough economic times in which many U.S. school districts are cutting student programs, laying off teachers and raising taxes.

Here’s something else that’s unheard of: Instead of just stockpiling the extra money in the district’s bank account, Springboro school board members are preparing to give a portion of it back to taxpayers.

Last month, Springboro board members voted to place a five-year levy renewal on the November ballot that will actually cut taxes by 15 percent, which equals about $1.3 million a year. The levy would shrink the projected surplus by several million dollars, but the once-needy district would still be left with a tidy sum in reserve.

In a press release, Springboro school board President Kelly Kohls told taxpayers that if they pass the levy, the district “will be able to move forward without any type of levy for some time to come.”

It’ll be up to voters whether or not to accept the deal, though it’s difficult to imagine them turning it down.

It’s not just taxpayers who are reaping the benefits from Springboro schools’ improved financial condition. The district just agreed to a new contract with the local teachers union that gives many educators a 12 percent pay raise – through step increases and a base pay increase – over the next two years.

And even though the new contract also increases teachers’ health insurance contributions – from 15 to 20 percent – most teachers will still see their take home pay increase by about 10 percent over the next two school years, according to Kohls.

This district focused on a 'children-first' approach, adopted zero-based budgeting (where they don't start with last year's spending and add to it), and their test scores improved.

Continue reading...

But that's not enough. Unions didn't want the reduced levy on the ballot. Giving back money just isn't done and if the district isn't 'flush with cash' it doesn't need, how can the unions demand - and get - even more?

Taxpayers will probably like this a lot, though, but we'll have to wait until November to find out for sure.

There's the big question: Can you imagine any school district in Lucas County doing the same thing?

Your answer is 'probably not' - which is a sad commentary on our local educational system and the people we elected to do what is best 'for the children.'

UAW member makes the case for Workplace Freedom

I wanted to share this email with you so you can attend one of these Workplace Freedom workshops. I had the pleasure of meeting Terry Bowman - and hearing him speak - at a Citizen Watchdog Training. As a union member, he has a unique and compelling perspective on right-to-work positions and can tell how Michigan became a RTW state.

For more information on Bowman, his website is Union Conservatives.

Here is the email:

UAW member and Union Conservative founder Terry Bowman will be the guest speaker at two Toledo area Workplace Freedom workshops

Wednesday, July 17th
6 p.m.
West Branch Library
1320 W. Sylvania Ave.
(between Lewis and Jackman)

Tuesday, July 23th
6 p.m.
Point Place Library
2727 117th St.
Point Place


Bowman, a current UAW member for Ford Motor Co., was a leading advocate for Michigan's recent successful Freedom to Work legislation, and he will be sharing his story about how it happened in Michigan. He will also be sharing valuable insights on how Ohio can become the next Right to Work state in the nation.

"Now is the time for Ohio to discard compulsory restrictions on workers and allow them to choose for themselves whether they want to pay money to an outside, third-party agency as a condition of employment," said Bowman in an e-mail to Union Conservatives members. "I will use my time in Columbus to not only tell the story about how it happened in Michigan, but to make a simple, yet bold declaration: Ohio union workers deserve the same rights that Michigan workers have been granted, and Ohio Workplace Freedom is now on the table."

Bowman will be there to issue a 'call to action' to grassroots activists and Ohio's legislature and Governor Kasich.

"I am very excited to be talking to so many enthusiastic supporters of the pro-union worker issue that is correctly being called "Workplace Freedom" here in Ohio. With Indiana and Michigan now Right to Work states, Ohio cannot wait any longer to grant their union workers the return of their 1st amendment right of Freedom of Association - or conversely to not associate."

Bowman says their are many economic advantages to becoming a Workplace Freedom state, but granting workers the freedom to choose will always be the single best reason for Ohio to become the 25th Right to Work state in the nation.

The events are co-sponsored by Children of Liberty and Toledo Tea Party.

For event information, please contact Union Conservatives, or:

Toledo Tea Party
Contact: John McAvoy
Mobile: 419-787-9585
E-mail: John@ToledoTeaParty.com

Quote of the Day - racism is collectivism

As a conservative, I'm often lumped in a group the left/progressives/democrats accuse of being racist. I think, however, that it is the left/progressives/democrats who are the real racists in that they (as a group) tend to delineate people by the color of the their skin rather than the "content of their character."

In fact, I once voted against an individual for appointment to the Toledo-Lucas County Public Library board. He was a union officer whose only qualification was that he was a union officer. There were several business leaders with experience in running organizations whom I preferred for the post, but I was the lone Republican on the Board of County Commissioners and the union guy was appointed.

I received a phone call from a local minority newspaper to ask about my vote. I explained the difference in qualifications between the individuals I supported and the one selected. I was then asked if my vote was because the union guy was black.

My response was, "I don't know what color his skin is - it's irrelevant to the position and has nothing whatsoever to do with the ability to do the job."

The reporter didn't know what to say, because clearly, the external, visual pigmentation should have been the ONLY consideration - at least to him.

The union guy was later convicted of embezzling.

Here is the quote:

"Collectivism is a doctrine that holds that the individual has no rights, and the ultimate standard of value is the group to which 'he belongs.' Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors. Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas -- or of inherited knowledge -- which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men. Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination." ~ Ayn Rand

TPS union members stood up by their AFSCME rep

Toledo Public Schools have cafeterias. Cafeterias have workers. Those workers are in a union - specifically the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME. Not news so far - right?

TPS has an ad hoc Food Service committee and this committee, clearly of interest to the AFSCME union and its members, is scheduled to meet at 11 a.m. tomorrow.

Guess who won't be there?

The AFSCME business rep, David Blyth, Jr.

What could be more important than representing the TPS employees? Why Michigan, of course.

I'm on an email list that notifies me of all TPS meeting dates and times. Blyth is too, and he hit 'reply all' when he responded with this note:

I am unable to attend this meeting since I must be at the "Right to work" protest in Lansing Michigan. Sorry, Dave

Yes - instead of staying in Toledo to actually - you know, REPRESENT his members, he's going to the Michigan state capital to protest a bill that passed the Michigan legislature last week and is scheduled to be signed by the governor tomorrow.

Wonder if any of his members will mind being stood up for a useless exercise in media attention - in another state, no less...

Quote of the Day - right-to-work from labor's own mouth

“I want to urge devotion to the fundamentals of human liberty – the principles of voluntarism. No lasting gain has ever come from compulsion. If we seek to force, we but tear apart that which, united, is invincible….I want to say to you, men and women of the American labor movement, do not reject the cornerstone upon which labor’s structure has been builded – but base your all upon voluntary principles and illumine your every problem by consecrated devotion to that highest of all purposes – human well being in the fullest, widest, deepest sense.” ~ Samuel Gompers, American Federation of Labor

How LCRP should handle vacant Toledo council seat

Phil Copeland, an at-large Toledo City Council member, was elected to the position of Lucas County Recorder on November 6th. As a result, he will resign his council seat and council, a majority Democrat, will name his replacement.

Some local unions - specifically the Building Trades - are supporting Sean Enright who lost a district seat to Mike Craig. In a Blade article Lucas County Republican Party Chairman Jon Stainbrook said:

"...there isn’t anything the Republican Party can do to derail the appointment.

“Obviously this guy has turned his life around and it happened over a decade ago. If the Democratic Party is picking Mr. Enright, then Mr. Enright is going to get the nod. It’s just the way it is,” Mr. Stainbrook said.

Actually, that's NOT the way it has to be - and this attitude is just part of the failure of this particular party chairman.

Despite this being a Democrat union town (but I repeat myself), Republicans can and do get elected. And even when there isn't a good chance of their election, there are things the local GOP can do.

What our party needs to do is recruit a business person as a placeholder until the next election when the VOTERS - and not a political party - can make a permanent selection.

We then promote the idea that our candidate is more interested in representing the voters than holding to any dictates from a political party or special interest (union).

Our placeholder would not seek the office, which would allow Enright and any other interested candidates to campaign for the support of the voters.

We enlist the support of other unions in the city (there are more than just the building trades), civic groups and the citizens themselves. We might not be successful in getting our placeholder appointed, but we can certainly bring significant pressure to bear on sitting council members and use their vote against any placeholder as part of any campaign against them when they are up for reelection or seek any other office.

Additionally, we should certainly embarrass the individuals who are willing to support Enright. I know there are other Democrats - including union members - who are more qualified than him.

Simply because Stainbrook wants to roll over and give in doesn't mean the LCRP should follow his lead. The GOP - even as a minority party in Lucas County and Toledo - has a vital role to play in articulating an alternate view and promoting what we believe will be best for Toledo.

Hey Hostess union: how about those principles now you no longer have a job?

I once had a very wise man tell me: never let your principles interfere with your labor negotiations. It's a tenant the Bakery, Confectionery & Tobacco Workers (BTCGM) at Hostess never learned.

Let's go back in time a bit.

It was December 1993 and I'd just been elected Clerk of Toledo Municipal Court. Since I was filling an unexpired term, I took office right after the votes were certified.

On my first day I found a 'lovely' parting gift from my predecessor: a signed union contract covering all supervisors and management staff and a union petition for recognition covering everyone else. Oh - and the recognition petition had never been posted as required by law, so I was in violation the minute I took the oath of office. And one more thing - clerks of court offices in Ohio had never been unionized before.

Things eventually worked out with me getting the wish-list contract thrown out, my managers excluded and a good contract for everyone else which included the first-ever requirement for performance appraisals. But I had to learn a lot of lessons the hard way.

Fortunately, I had a very good labor attorney, Jim Burkhart, who helped me. He's the one who gave me the good advice that I instantly rejected upon first hearing it. How in the world, I wondered, do you ever set aside your principles in your labor negotiations? Isn't everything you bargain for based upon those principles?

The short answer is both yes and no - but in case you're wondering how that works, a look at the BTCGM and their now-unemployed members gives you a perfect picture.

BTCGM is the union that went on strike and put Hostess, maker of Twinkies, Ding Dongs and Wonder Bread (to name a few), out of business resulting in the unemployment of more than 18,000 workers.

BCTGM International Union President Frank Hurt issued a press release when the company announced it was going to liquidate - and one comment encapsulates the point perfectly:

"Throughout this long and difficult process, BCTGM members showed tremendous courage, solidarity and devotion to principle. They were well aware of the potential consequences of their actions but stood strong for dignity, justice and respect."

They were so busy standing for their so-called principles that they put their company out of business and not only lost their jobs, but the jobs of all other employees - including other union workers - as well.

BTCG and their wage and benefit demands are not the sole reason for the company failing, but there were the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. They were so intent on 'standing up to management' that they eliminated the management and the company entirely.

Clearly, they let their principles interfere with their negotiations and you can see the disastrous results.

But that's not all. Labor Union Report took a look at the union management, including Hurt, and, sadly, what they found won't surprise you.

Here are the main points:

* 18,500 Hostess workers unemployed

* BCTGM boss Frank Hurt encouraged the strike (knowing it could shut down the company)

* As BCTGM membership has fallen 30% since 2000, Hurts salary has gone up nearly 45% to over $260,000

* The bakery industry union pension fund is less than 50% funded ($10 billion in liabilities), yet bakery union bosses have their own fully-funded (100%) pension plan -- funded by members.

* Bakery union bosses Hurt and the Sec.-Treasurer both have their kids on union payroll.

Here is the post (the links to the info are embedded):

Let Them Eat Cake: As Hostess Workers Get Hurt, Bakery Union Bosses (& Their Kids) Do Well

When I was doing a regular radio show on WSPD (Eye On Toledo), I had Dan Wagner, president of the Toledo Police Patrolman's Association, as a guest at a time when the city was threatening layoffs of police and fire. I asked him a question and got a surprisingly honest answer.

Q: It it came down to every member police office taking a small pay cut or most of them maintaining their current pay while some of their fellow union members lost their job through a layoff as a result - and in light of the union mantra 'all for one' - what would your members choose?

A: Sadly, I think they'd opt for the layoffs of some and keep their current wages/benefits.

BCTGM took that to an extreme. Can you say 'stuck on stupid'?

So long Twinkies....

Because union memebers wouldn't make concessions, Hostess is closing down operations and liquidating their assets. The Wall Street Journal has the details.

Leftists are always talking about greedy corporations and greedy CEOs but never a word about greedy government or, heaven forbid, greedy unions.

What could be more greedy than a union who would rather everyone be out of job than for some of the workers to take concessions and hope the company can return to profitability in the future?

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! And yes, this does qualify for 'stuck on stupid' designation!

So 18,000+ people are going to lose their jobs because of a greedy union.

Brilliant!

4 in union truck charged with receiving stolen property

Early this morning, officers from the Perrysburg Police Department charged four men with receiving stolen property following several reports of missing political yard signs.

Perrysburg is a small town in Wood County just outside of Toledo, Ohio.

The stolen property was a truck bed full of Romney/Ryan yard signs, some measuring as large as 4 ft x 8 ft.

Also in the truck were tools such as drills, which might have been used to take down the large mini-billboard signs. The signs were allegedly removed from several private property and business locations across Lucas and Wood County.

Charged and summoned to appear in court were:

* John Russell, 39, of Eleanor Street, Toledo, Ohio
* Sean A. Bresler, 33, of Capistrano Drive, Toledo, Ohio
* Corey J. Beaubien, 37, of Kelsey, Toledo, Ohio
* Christopher Monaghan, 41, of Oak Street, Rossford, Ohio

The 2010 Ford pickup they were in was registered to the Sheet Metal Workers Local #33 on Corporate Drive in Parma, Ohio.

Interestingly, four individuals in the Toledo area with the exact same names are listed as officers of the Sheet Metal Workers Union, or sheet metal workers.

The website for Local #33 lists a John Russell and Christopher Monaghan as business agents for the Toledo District.

A John Russell is also listed as the Vice President of the Northwest Ohio Building and Construction Trades Council, representing Local #33.

A Facebook page for a Corey Beaubien who lives in Toledo identifies himself as a Sheet Metal journeyman since 1999.

A Toledo Blade Log page from 2005 lists a Sean Bresler as a marriage license applicant. That Sean Bresler was listed as being 26 years old at the time - the same age as the one charged - and having an occupation of sheet metal worker.

Now, it is possible that the four men charged are not the same ones identified as union members and officers, but that would have to be a very large coincidence and would not explain how they got access to a truck registered to the Sheet Metal Union Local #33.

Below are screen shots of the references and the police reports.

If this were boxing, Mayor Bell would have a TKO over Steve Steel

Councilman Steve Steel doesn't want any 'appearance' of impropriety over Mayor Mike Bell's proposal to increase wage scales for exempt city employees. He's suggested that, since some of the current employees have made donations to Bell's campaign, any pay raise that is later given might be seen as a quid pro quo for a donation.

Never mind the fact that Steel has no qualms about any similar 'appearance' of impropriety on his part when he votes against a charter school while his wife, Catherine Hernandez, serves on the board of the Toledo Federation of Teachers - a group known for their opposition to charter schools and school choice ideas.

Never mind that Steel and other members of the city council routinely solicit and accept both contributions and endorsements from city unions and then vote on contracts with those same unions.

No - we don't need to worry about those appearances of impropriety.

But Mayor Bell has trumped Steel - handily - in submitting a new ordinance for a council vote.

While it is already illegal for individuals to solicit contributions from public employees in the classified service, Bell's ordinance would make it illegal to solicit and/or accept contributions from current city employees (not just those in the classified service), members of current employees' family and/or the bargaining units that represent city employees.

I'd call this game-set-match for Bell.

Let's wait and see how far this goes in Council....

Here is the text of the ordinance:

ORD. __ - 12

Prohibiting persons in elective city offices from soliciting and/or accepting political contributions from current City employees, members of current employees’ families and/or the bargaining units that represent City employees by supplementing the Toledo Municipal Code by adding new Sections 115.05 “Prohibited Contributions to Candidates for City Council” and 119.04 “Prohibited Contributions to Candidates for Mayor;” and declaring an emergency.

Summary and Background:

City Councilman Steve Steel has suggested that the Mayor agree to not accept political contributions from City employees. Councilman Steel’s suggestion illustrates the need to protect the integrity of the political process by prohibiting elected officials from soliciting or accepting contributions from employees and employee organizations. Importantly this will protect public employees from any appearance of collusion. This ordinance supplements the Toledo Municipal Code to add sections prohibiting acceptance of political contributions from City employees, employees’ families or the bargaining units which represent them by persons in elected City office.

Be it ordained by the Council of the City of Toledo:

SECTION 1. That a new Toledo Municipal Code Section 115.05 which reads as follows:

“115.05 – Prohibited Contributions to Candidates for City Council

No member of City Council shall solicit and/or accept any political contribution from an employee of the City of Toledo, a member of any Toledo employee’s Immediate Family, and/or any Bargaining Unit that represents City employees.

As used herein, political contribution shall include monetary donations, provision of services or the donation of anything of value.

As used herein “Immediate Family” shall mean the employee’s spouse or registered domestic partner, regardless of domicile and children living in the employee’s residence.

As used herein, “Bargaining Unit” shall mean the employee organization certified or recognized as an exclusive representative under section 4117.05 of the Revised Code and or any local, regional, national organization that includes the employee organization.

Any violation of this Section shall constitute a misdemeanor of the first degree”

be and the same is hereby enacted

SECTION 2. That a new Toledo Municipal Code Section 119.04 which reads as follows:

“119.04 – Prohibited Contributions to Candidates for Mayor

The Mayor shall not solicit and/or accept any political contribution from an employee of the City of Toledo, a member of any Toledo employee’s immediate family and/or any bargaining unit, that represents City employees.

As used herein, political contribution shall include monetary donations, provision of services or the donation of anything of value.

As used herein “Immediate Family” shall mean the employee’s spouse or registered domestic partner, regardless of domicile and children living in the employee’s residence.

As used herein, “Bargaining Unit” shall mean the employee organization certified or recognized as an exclusive representative under section 4117.05 of the Revised Code and or any local, regional, national organization that includes the employee organization.

Any violation of this Section shall constitute a misdemeanor of the first degree”

be and the same is hereby enacted.

SECTION 3. That this Ordinance is declared to be an emergency measure and shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage. The reason for the emergency lies in the fact that this ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety and property, and for the further reason that the public is served by the prohibition of certain political contributions.

Only thing auto bailout did was protect the union, not the industry or the taxpayer

President Barack Obama is in Maumee this morning, beginning his bus tour of Ohio and Pennsylvania, two key states in the November election.

He plans to tout the auto bailout as the primary reason for Ohio's recent economic success. But this summary from the National Center for Policy Analysis proves that the so-called auto bailout was nothing more than a union bailout, preserving high-paying union jobs to the detriment of other creditors - and at a huge loss to the American taxpayer.

Auto Bailout or United Auto Workers Bailout?

The government bailout of General Motors (GM) and Chrysler between 2008 and 2009 will cost taxpayers approximately $23 billion, as estimated by the Treasury Department. President Barack Obama emphatically defends his decision to subsidize the automakers, arguing it was necessary to prevent massive job losses, say James Sherk and Todd Zywicki of the Heritage Foundation.

Even if one accepts this premise, the government could have executed the bailout more efficiently with no cost to taxpayers had the administration required the United Auto Workers (UAW) to accept standard bankruptcy concessions. Instead, the Obama administration gave special treatment to the UAW above and beyond what other creditors and unions received:

•Bankruptcy typically brings uncompetitive wages down to competitive levels, yet existing UAW members did not take pay cuts at General Motors.
•The administration could have kept the automakers running without subsidizing the UAW's above-market pay and benefits.
•Subsidizing UAW compensation cost $26.5 billion -- an amount that exceeds the estimated taxpayer losses on the bailout program.

When GM and Chrysler each ran out of cash, the Obama administration forced the companies into bankruptcy as a condition of receiving government support and funded them through the bankruptcy process. Even in this regard, the president shamelessly ignored standard bankruptcy protocol in order to dole additional favor upon the UAW.

•A cornerstone of bankruptcy policy is the requirement that creditors' priorities are preserved in bankruptcy in the same order as they are preserved outside bankruptcy.
•Specific to the auto manufacturers, priority should have been given to paying secured lenders in full before paying unsecured lenders (like the UAW).
•Instead, the plan imposed by the government forced Chrysler's secured creditors to accept only 29 cents on the dollar, while the UAW recovered most of the value of its claims.
•Another standard element of bankruptcy proceedings is that similarly situated lenders should be given equal priority.
•However, the UAW's fellow unsecured lenders received no such special treatment by the government's bankruptcy process.

Thus, while the Obama administration may sell this program as being necessary to stem the hemorrhaging of jobs, the Detroit bailout was little more than a UAW bailout.

Source: James Sherk and Todd Zywicki, "Auto Bailout or UAW Bailout? Taxpayer Losses Came from Subsidizing Union Compensation," Heritage Foundation, June 13, 2012.

Toledo council knowingly violates charter to help union

Considering how egregious the action by Toledo City Council was, I thought my comments about their willingness to violate our city's charter in order to help a union (not us - the taxpayers - mind you, but a union) deserved wider coverage.

My post on their action is up at Ohio Watchdog:

OH: Toledo council knowingly violates charter to help union

The most important thing Toledoans need to know is that the Democrat members of council (Republicans did not support the measure) decided that they would willingly and knowingly violate the charter in order to protect Firefighters Local 92 from having unknown costs associated with the domestic partnership benefits the city wanted to extend to same- and opposite-sex couples.

They have absolutely NO IDEA how much this is going to cost us, the taxpayers. And they don't seem to care. But when a union said, 'hey, wait a minute,' they jumped all over themselves - ignoring the advice of the law director - to be sure the union wasn't financially harmed.

Talk about arrogance, hubris, and disdain for the people who have to foot the bill...not to mention for the oath of office they took in which they swore to uphold the charter of the city of Toledo!

Remember this when they tell you we have to have a Recreation levy!

Quote of the Day - teaching unionism

From EAGnews.org comes little gem courtesy of Milwaukee Teachers Education Association President Bob Peterson:

“If teacher unions want to be strong and well supported, it is essential that they not only be teacher unionists, but teachers of unionism. We need to create a generation of students who support teachers and the movement for workers rights, oppressed peoples’ rights. That’s our responsibility.”

And they say there's no indoctrination in public schools.

Teachers should be outraged at being co-opted by their union to be a political tool rather than the instructors and educators they desire to be.

Link Roundup - taxes, tyranny, tortoises and free speech

Here are some interesting stories from around the Internet that I came across and wanted to share:

* Union argues that Indiana right-to-work law infringes on free, er, subsidized speech - it's hard to believe but a union in Indiana is arguing in court that the state's new right-to-work law, which makes union dues voluntary and not a requirement for employment, impedes their right to free speech because it cuts the amount of money they have to 'communicate' that speech.

They're claiming that free speech depends on funding. As the article says:

The right to free speech does not include the right to publication, or of revenue either resulting from or in service to that speech. The act of refusing to join does not keep the union from expressing itself. It just means that they may not have access to the best platforms from which to deliver that speech, which puts them in the same boat as everyone else. Perhaps they should spend more time convincing people to support them voluntarily than in getting courts to forcibly extract cash from workers in order to pursue their own political purposes.

* Mojave Solar Project Killing Threatened Desert Tortoises - Environmentalists and conservations have documented that the have documented that the have documented that the BrightSource Energy's Ivanpah solar power project in the Mojave Desert has directly caused many desert tortoise deaths, in addition to disturbing the natural environment of all the reptiles in the area.

It's bad enough that the project is costing more than $2 billion. Shamefully, the solar energy from Ivanpah will be three times more expensive than natural gas or coal. What's even worse is that the state's Public Utilities Commission has estimated that customers will see their bills increase up to 50% for renewable energy as a result.

But the kicker is the hypocrisy of all who support the project. Could you imagine the outrage, outcries and demonization that would come from politicians and the media if this was an oil or coal plant doing the same thing?


* Women vs. the State - the National Center for Policy Analysis has summarized a recent Reason Magazine article on how women fare under many laws. What I thought was particularly interesting was the tax ramifications which many people don't think about:

• Unless a wife makes more than her husband (and 72 percent do not), the government will tax the first dollar the wife earns at her husband's highest marginal rate.

• This tax policy and the steep jump in the marginal rates as a couple's income rises discourage women from working, as they receive disproportionately low after-tax compensation.

• The effect is a marriage penalty on women's desire to work.

• According to economists Nada O. Eissa and Austin Nichols, married women increased their employment substantially in response to reductions in marginal tax rates following the 1986 tax reform, and similar results were seen again in the 1990s.

• It also explains why, despite the fact that almost 80 percent of working mothers say they would prefer to work part time, almost two-thirds work full-time instead.

And speaking of taxes, since they're are due by April 15th, this article from Cato is especially timely...

* American Income Tax Tyranny - This article details several types of tyranny in the tax code, including the lie that our taxes are imposed by the 'consent of the governed':

The United States has the most progressive (i.e., unequal) tax system in the world. The bottom 50 percent of income earners, on average, receives more in tax benefits than they pay in taxes — while the highest earners pay a wildly disproportionate amount of their income in taxes — despite the myth that Warren Buffett has a lower tax rate than his secretary. A progressive income tax only meets the test of “consent of the governed” when a majority of each class of taxpayers consents to its tax rate. Otherwise, it is tax tyranny of a low-tax-rate majority against a vote-poor, high-tax-rate minority. The apologists for the progressive income tax claim it is only “fair,” ignoring the fact there is nothing at all “fair” about taxing at a higher tax rate those who work longer and harder and/or spend more time acquiring an education and work skills. It is destructive and tyrannical for a society to tax the most productive, innovative and job-creating people at a higher rate than others.

But this is only one such tyranny. I hope you'll read the entire article.

Irony Alert on Occupy Wall Street

Rusty Weiss, who writes at The Mental Recession, has this post about the latest Occupy Wall Street stunt:

The Mental Recession: Irony Alert - Occupy Wall Street Stages Subway Fare Strike, Demands Free Ride:

Isn't that what Occupy Wall Street is all about, a free ride? What most average Americans would refer to this as 'theft of services', the Occupy slugs and their union counterparts staged a subway fare strike in New York City this morning.

Apparently, they're mad about rising costs and decreased services, along with crime on the New York City subway, the MTA.  As Rusty writes:

So union workers are threatening the MTA to bow to their demands, or they and OWS will continue letting people ride for free? Isn't that like a store worker asking a manager for a raise, and letting customers take items for free until the manager agrees?

In fact, according to this MTA report for 2010, the MTA received a total of $8,904,281,373 in one year alone.  Note - that's nearly $9 BILLION. Yes, billion.

If $9 billion isn't enough for the "Occupy slugs and their union counterparts," what is?

As Rusty points out, at least one Occupier gets it:

A real "fare strike" would be people walking to their destinations, not stealing rides. Yes, it is theft of services, and it's exactly the kind of thing that feeds the anti-OWS lunatics -- strikes me as a bad idea.

A bad idea, indeed ... and all of us 'anti-OWS lunatics' will have a field day with the irony.

The worst part about all this is that the MTA is already heavily subsidized, like most public transportation, so even though they're complaining about rising costs, they're not paying anywhere near the actual cost of the service.

New Report: Workplace freedom enhances prosperity

The Buckeye Institute held a press conference this morning to release their new report: Ohio Right-to-Work, How the Economic Freedom of Workers Enhances Prosperity.  The conclusion of the report is that  "forced unionization has meant lower income, fewer jobs and out-migration."

I think it's important to note that the first page of the report is titled "Why This Report Matters to You" and it puts the reasoning in very specific terms:

This Buckeye Institute report looks at how a right-towork law likely would impact Ohio for the good, helping stem the outflow of people and capital that has contributed to the stagnation of the Ohio economy. At a time when resources are limited, this is a state legislative action that does not add to budget woes, and indeed helps provide the resources for future growth of both private and public needs. The bottom line is that freedom is the key to opening the door of prosperity.

Here is the Press Release:

March 28, 2012—COLUMBUS, Ohio – If Ohio had passed a Right-to-Work law in 1977 the personal income of a family of four would, on average, be as much as $12,000 higher annually according to a report released by the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions today.

"Given the actions of our neighbor Indiana, right-to-work is not a debate Ohio can avoid,” said Buckeye Institute president Kevin Holtsberry. “But Ohioans deserve a debate based on the actual history of the issue and the economic realities that underlie it – not myths and misinformation. We believe this report will serve as a basis for that debate.”

The report finds that states with right-to-work laws have much higher rates of growth in income, new jobs, wages, capital investment and in-migration of people. Ohio has suffered a growth deficit for several decades¬¬¬–growing less than the nation as a whole, and its income levels have fallen below several southern states-historically the poorest of the nation. Ohio has paid a high price for failing to avail itself of right-to-work legislation.


The lead author of the report, Dr. Richard Vedder, is Distinguished Professor of Economics at Ohio University and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He is the author of numerous scholarly papers in journals of economics and public policy as well as several books.


“Monopolistic practices in labor markets have been an important factor in Ohio’s economic stagnation,” said Dr. Vedder. “The bottom line is freedom is the key to opening the door of prosperity and right-to-work laws are an important step in the right direction.”


At a time when resources are limited, the report argues, making Ohio a right-to-work state does not add to its budget woes and provides an opportunity for economic growth and increased income for Ohioans.


Recent polling data indicate that a majority of Ohioans support such reform.


###


The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions is Ohio’s premier free market think tank. The Buckeye Institute has provided the research and solutions to Ohio’s toughest public policy challenges in economic freedom and competitiveness, job creation and entrepreneurship, and government transparency and accountability for 18 years.

I hope you'll take the time to read the report - it's not long and it provides facts and figures to consider about this highly-emotional topic.



NOTE:  Blogger has changed its layout and I'm still getting used to it.  I apologize for any technical issues in this post.

NLRB makes providing jobs more difficult

This morning I attending one in a series of Workplace Regulation Seminars sponsored by the Toledo Regional Chamber of Commerce. James Yates, of Eastman and Smith, was the presenter with an overview of recent National Labor Relations Board actions and their impact on employers and the workplace.

The session, New Year - New NLRB Rules on Social Media and Union Organizing, was eye-opening. I've followed the shenanigans going on at the NLRB with claimed recess appointments as well as the U.S. Chamber's opposition to those appointments. But since I don't have employees, I've not paid as much attention to the various rules and regulations. Today's session brought me up to speed - and it's pretty scary. Let's just say that the NLRB is making it more difficult to provide the jobs so desparately needed in today's economy.

One of the most important facts I learned today is that the NLRB, unlike federal agencies and departments, is just a board. The name should have been a clue, but understanding the difference is critical.

Like the U.S. Supreme Court, this board has no authority under law to create regulations or rules. They speak, as does SCOTUS, through their decisions on cases brought before them. While their decisions become 'case law,' providing guidance to others in similar circumstances, they cannot create something new to impose upon Americans.

That, however, hasn't stopped them.

One of the negative aspects of a board that is packed with leftists is that they refuse to accept the limits on their authority - choosing, instead, to exercise rule making and hoping it will stand.

A case in point is their dictate that employers display a new Employee Rights Poster. This was originally supposed to be required last year, but thanks to a lawsuit the implementation date has been pushed back several times and is now April 30, 2012. Oh - and if you have employees who speak anything other than English, you must display the poster in one of the 24 languages whose translation they've provided.

Not surprisingly, industry groups sued over the rule. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Federation of Independent Business are all trying to block the implementation.

Included among the points they make in the lawsuit, Yates explained, are these:

* Nowhere does the National Labor Relations Act give the board the authority to coerce employers to post such notifications;

* The rule arbitrarily and capriciously excludes from the mandatory notice a description of an employee's fundamental right to be free from compulsory union membership or dues; and

* It violates federal law by failing to property assess the significant economic impact the rule would have on small businesses.

Additionally, as many comments on the proposed rule pointed out, there has been nothing - no study, or finding, or collection of data - that indicates a need for the regulations. So why impose a costly mandate, one for which you really have no authority, when there is no demonstrated need to let employees know they can form a union?

Good question. But since the NLRB doesn't care about their lack of authority to mandate a new regulation, what makes anyone think they're going to worry about a need for such a mandate?

Yates provided overviews of some of the other NLRB actions, including the complaint against Boeing to block the opening of their production facility in South Carolina. That a supposedly impartial NLRB was used as a negotiation tool to intimidate (through government threat of law) Boeing is clear to just about anyone who bothers to learn about the issue. The problem, though, is that the complaint was dropped as soon as the union got their way. What are the implications for employers who find themselves in similar circumstances? Unfortunately, since the NLRB didn't rule, I expect we will see similar strong-arm tactics from unions in the future. After all, with a board dominated by union people, it's not likely that they will prevent the NLRB from being used to coerce employers into agreeing to union negotiation demands.

So much for an unbiased, impartial board who is supposed to ensure all sides are following the National Labor Relations Act.

Some other interesting rulings Yates informed us of:

* The 'rat' case. Yes, a large, inflatable rat displayed outside a secondary employer is not the same as picketing and is allowed, as this Daily Caller article and source of the below photo explains.

Current law says that unions cannot picket a secondary employer - in this case, a hospital that was using a contractor with whom the union had a beef. But, with the NLRB ruling that such displays are not 'picketing,' unions are now free to place large, ominous rats right at the doors of your company.

As Yates explained, the ruling decided that this large, ugly, scary, toothy, evil-looking creature in a blow-up format is not frightening to families, children and patients at the hospital and that its presence would have no effect on the visitors to the hospital.

But, I wondered, if there was no effect on the people going into or coming out of the hospital, why display the rat at all? What would its purpose be if it had no effect?!?

Apparently, that's a bit of logic beyond the comprehension of the NLRB.

Yates also detailed some rulings regarding social media that employers need to be aware of - especially because they will require changes to employer policies. Additionally, these rulings impact most all employers, even those without a union in their company.

The current standard for allowable - as in not able to fire over - speech is that it must be protected (relating to employment, working conditions, wages, etc...) and it must be concerted (meaning not just related solely to the person making the comments, but related to one or more employees in the same class).

So if, for instance, an employee gets on TV and, as part of an interview over a strike or walk-out, relates lies about his employer's failure to comply with regulations having nothing to do with employment, that's okay. You, as the employer, cannot fire the individual who just told lies about non-existent illegal activity at your company because he was doing it as part of his protected and concerted actions. Never mind that most people won't know it's a lie or that your company's reputation has just been, perhaps irreparably, harmed. You can't do anything about it, so long as the employee really didn't have 'actual malice' in mind when making the comments. As anyone who's ever been slandered or libeled can tell you, proving 'actual malice' is nearly impossible.

But it gets worse, as Labor and Employment Law Update explains:

In this case the NLRB majority agreed that Parexel International did not terminate the employment of Theresa Neuschafer for protected concerted activities under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). (Section 7 of the NLRA expressly prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for engaging in protected concerted activities.)

Generally, employees have received protection under the NLRA when they were retaliated against for internally criticizing a term or condition of their employment to their coworkers or a member of management.

The employee in this case was found to have discussed alleged pay raises and purported preferential treatment towards South Africans by the management of Parexel, Int’l (Neuschafer was not South African). The NLRB concluded that the company wanted to prevent Neuschafer from engaging in such discussions with her coworkers in the future. Such action, according to the NLRB’s majority, served as an unlawful preemptive strike against protected concerted activity.

The NLRB reasoned that because an employer violates the NLRA by threatening to terminate an employee in order to prevent her from exercising Section 7 rights, it follows that an employer similarly violates the law by terminating the employee in order to be certain that she does not exercise her rights in the future. In so finding, the NLRB majority expanded the theories on which the agency may hold employers liable, stating that an employer violates the NLRA when it fires an employee “to be certain that she does not exercise her Section 7 rights.”

Even though the employee had not engaged in protected and concerted activity, she might decide to do so in the future and, if she had done so, the company would have been prevented from firing her.

So, because she might, sometime, in the future, maybe, engage in some activity that would be protected, she can't be fired now for her non-protected comments.

How's THAT for certainty in the workplace!

I guess the lesson the NLRB wants employees to know is that as long as they couch their defamatory, negative, harmful, disparaging, disloyal, derogatory comments in sentences about the terms and conditions of their employment, they will win any wrongful termination complaints when they get fired for doing so.

Other things of note from Yates' presentation:

* The NLRB is likely to find that small units are 'appropriate.' In the past, the NLRB had held to the position that fragmentation within a single employer doesn't help collective bargaining - it undermines it. Many fights over unionization deal with the composition of the 'appropriate' unit. For instance, if you have a manufacturing facility with 50 plant employees (no supervisors), it's likely that the 'appropriate' composition of the potential union group is all 50 employees. Past practice would say that the 10 people in the warehouse or the five people in shipping are not part of two separate units.

However, with private sector union membership in such decline, the NLRB is looking for ways to help unions, so determining that 10 warehouse workers can be their own bargaining unit is one way to do so. The unions get their foot in the door; they don't have to convince all employees - just a small number of them - to join; and the battles begin.

And just to make it more difficult, employers now have to show "overwhelming" support against the smaller unit in order to prevent such action.

* 'Liking' a Facebook post of a fellow employee who comments about terms and conditions of employment on their wall may be enough to constitute the 'concerted' standard.

* Personnel policies will probably have to be revised, Yates advised, to reflect these changes:

- You can no longer prohibit disparagement of the company, unless you expressly exempt online discussions that are permissible under Sect. 7 of the NLRA (protected and concerted).

- Policies that prohibit the use of your company's name, logo or service marks outside of the normal course of business without prior permission are unlawful.

- Policies prohibiting representations about the company, including comments to the media, without prior approval of the company are unlawful.

- Broad prohibitions against disclosing confidential, sensitive or non-public information are unlawful, though prohibiting disclosure of proprietary or legally confidential information (like health data) is still allowed to be part of your policy.

- You can't even require that social networking communications be 'professional' or 'appropriate.'

- And you cannot require employees to expressly state that their comments are their own personal opinions and not those of their employer.

- Comments or posts that would violate policies against harassment or hostility in the workplace on account of protected classes are ones that employers can still restrict.

- Dissemination of product launch or release dates, including pending reorganizations, mergers or acquisitions can still be prohibited in your policies.

These are just the NLRB and social networking issues employers have to be aware of. Add to them all the OSHA, EEOC, FMLA and ADA requirements and you've only just begun. There are rules and regulations from the Federal EPA, the State EPA; licenses and permits; Workers' Comp and unemployment; health insurance, pension and benefits laws; and you've not even gotten to the actual production of the service or product you're trying to sell.

Given just these, and there are myriads more, what individual in their right mind would want to start a business today? Or stay in business when you have these sorts of headaches to deal with?

It boggles the mind - and most people making the rules (or trying to make rules when they have no authority to do so) have no clue what their 'little provision' means in the real world to the people trying to provide jobs for their neighbors and communities.



***Side Note: Eastman & Smith will host a day-long seminar, A Proactive Approach to Labor and Employment Law Issues, on Feb. 7 from 9-3 at the Grand Plaza Hotel. Registration begins at 8:30 and there is a $10 fee for registration and lunch. Further information is available here.

Unions are one-for-all and all-for-one, except when they aren't

I've always been puzzled by the contradiction that unions present.

The general concept of joining together to advocate for things like wage scales, benefits and working conditions has a basic premise in the 'strength through numbers' idea.

Clearly, if all workers are standing together and refusing to work until some objective is reached, they are in a better position than if it was just a single person fighting for a position.

But too often, there comes a point at which the 'one for all' cry is abandoned and it's 'every man for himself.'

I once interviewed the president of a local police union during a time when the city was threatening layoffs if they didn't get wage concessions. I asked the president what he thought his members would do if the choice was to keep everyone employed at a 3% reduction in wages or to keep the current wages and lose 25 officers. His response, surprisingly honest, was that "sadly" he thought the members would pick the layoffs.

When I challenged this and asked how a union - united - could throw some members under the bus instead of suffering a shared sacrifice among all, he wouldn't make a judgment, just share what he thought the outcome of such a choice would be.

This union president is not alone in his thinking - this is what many unions choose when faced with a similar choice of cuts or layoffs.

And this is what puzzles me so: how can an organization formed to support the one-for-all approach to employment so willingly sacrifice some members so others can keep a certain level of gains. Wouldn't the idea of unionism require a general sacrifice of all in order to keep all employed?

The unions selectively apply this one-for-all approach, resulting in hypocrisy.

For instance, the Wall Street Journal is reporting a new AFL-CIO ad campaign to boost union image and membership (subscription may be required for full article):

The AFL-CIO is launching an ad campaign that seeks to bolster the labor movement's image—the first such effort in more than a decade—as unions try to reverse a slide in public approval and membership.

Labor officials say the broad campaign, which is being rolled out initially in three cities at a cost of $1.5 million, isn't political and remains separate from the AFL-CIO's election mobilization, when the federation is expected to spend tens of millions of dollars to support President Barack Obama.

...

The ads, which avoid contentious images of strikes, attempt to characterize unions as representative of all workers. "Most people…see us as a valuable check on corporations. But as to whether they see us as fresh and innovative and changing with the times, those ideas aren't really on people's minds," said Elizabeth Shuler, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO, who is heading the ad campaign.

She added the campaign is an effort "to reach out to all Americans whether they're in a union or not."

One 30-second television ad that is scheduled to air for the first time Tuesday in Pittsburgh and Austin, Texas, and in coming days in Portland, Ore. ...

So when it comes to spending $1.5 million to do a little self-promotion (in only three cities), the argument will be that it's for the good of the entity - the union itself - thus benefiting all members.

We've all heard the rhetoric: that an attack on one union is an attack on all; that any effort to reduce union wages or pensions is an assault on the entire middle class; that unions maintain the standard of living in a community and if their standard is reduced, it negatively impacts everyone. Basically, they're promoting the all-for-one concept.

But these same individuals will agree in negotiations and approve contracts with two-tiered wage scales where newer members don't get the same wage scales and benefits as the older workers.

The same union leaders who complain about cuts to wages and proclaim that having employees pick up a portion of health care costs is unreasonable, don't offer to reduce the dues their members pay in order to offset the cuts being proposed.

In fact, when have you ever heard of a union leader saying he'll take the same cut in pay he's negotiated for his members? Has that ever happened?

This contradiction - of being one-for-all and all-for-one, except when they're not - is part of what contributes to the image problem and declining membership unions are experiencing. Well, that and their unsustainable public union contracts, their behavior in Wisconsin and other areas, and their growing irrelevance (based upon the successful implementation of laws to address much of their early grievances and issues)....

I once read a rant from a local union leader who, in criticizing the Tea Party efforts, said he wouldn't want to be member of group that would have him as a member. Apparently, the hypocrisy of being a union leader and a member of group that not only had him as a member, but elected him to a leadership position, was beyond him.

It's the hypocrisy the unions need to be worried about. While many will overlook the other negatives, hypocrisy is hard to embrace - and, when given an option, too many people will refuse to pay for it.