Although the only “noise” about the possibility of the EFCA ever seeing the light of day centers around a potential lame-duck-session maneuver, there is plenty of activity on the legislative and regulatory front, at both state and federal levels, to give heartburn to American business owners. In California, legislators are attempting to push another bill that would allow card check recognition for farm workers in certain instances. A Schwarzenegger veto will most likely have to be overcome to make it law. In a recent decision by the now-union-friendly NLRB, unions were given free reign to use banners at secondary boycotts. Expect the frequency of such activity to increase, along with the embroiling of neutral employers in labor disputes not of their own making. 
In an even greater assault on worker freedom, the NLRB has reopened the discussion of the Dana Corp decision. The original 2007 board decision granted employees the right to demand a secret ballot election to remove an unwanted union within 45 days after the union obtained bargaining status through the card check process. The former-union-lawyer-stacked NLRB is now looking to . Since Dana was decided, fully 25% of such decertification votes have rejected the card check recognition of a union, validating the purpose and need for a secret ballot election. In a side note on the NLRB, Bush appointee Peter Schaumber’s term has expired, reducing the board to 4 members. The board only operated at full 5-member strength for 2 months. Although Schaumber’s replacement should technically hold allegiance to the other side of the aisle from Obama’s other 3 appointments, it will be interesting to see how close to the line this next appointment will come. At the SEC, a new rule will provide unions governance. Pat Atkins, a former SEC commission, gave the following warning in a WSJ article:
It’s no coincidence that only unions and cause-driven, minority shareholders want this coveted access. They would use it to advance their own labor, social and environmental agendas instead of the corporation’s goal of maximizing long-term shareholder wealth. The rule will give them pressure points with which to hold companies hostage until their pet issues are addressed. Many corporate managements and boards will acquiesce to avoid a contested director election. Transparency and fairness will suffer because the rule invites abuse. Institutional representatives admitted—at a public 2007 SEC roundtable on the proxy process—that they already use the machinery of shareholder proposals as leverage to accomplish private objectives behind closed doors. In other words, they threaten to propose a proxy measure and see what the company will give up to keep it off the proxy ballot. The company may even adopt some or all of the proposal, even though the measure would likely fail in a shareholder vote. This rule adds another powerful tool to that arsenal of threats.
The FEC refuted a complaint filed by the National Right To Work Foundation and has allowed the SEIU to pursue an illegal political fund-raising scheme. Here is how one op-ed writer eloquently describes the ruse:
Imagine the outcry if McDonalds executives demanded that franchise owners collect “voluntary” contributions totaling $25,000 for the company’s Political Action Committee (PAC) from employees at every restaurant. What if the fast food titan’s headquarters followed up with a threat – pay us, or face a $37,500 fine? Do you think this heavy-handed scheme would raise a few eyebrows at the Federal Election Commission (FEC)? Replace “McDonalds” with “SEIU” in that description and you’ve got a pretty good idea of Big Labor’s latest political fundraising strategy. To meet their ambitious fundraising targets, Service Employees International Union bosses are now threatening to fine any local affiliate that doesn’t meet its PAC contribution requirements. The only problem with this racket is that FEC guidelines explicitly prohibit organizations from collecting PAC funds by threatening members with financial reprisals. SEIU bosses aren’t exactly hiding their intentions, either – they actually wrote this fundraising provision into the union’s constitution at their annual convention. If McDonalds had the nerve to collect contributions from employees using similar threats, you can bet the FEC would be all over the case. The SEIU, however, seems to have gotten away scot-free.
Perhaps the scariest news out of our Capital is the SEIU-backed government take-over attempt of all citizens’ private 401(K) retirement plans. This three and a half minute video is a must see. Watch video here. These moves of desperation by Big Labor are no surprise to our newsletter readers. Union membership in the private sector is falling, due both to lack of satisfaction with union representation and rising unemployment; union approval among the general public is on the decline; the call to ban collective bargaining among public sector (or at least government) employees is on the rise. As Terrence Scanlon of the Capital Research Center succinctly sums up:
Labor unions are a relic, a unique product of 19th-century demographics and an early-20th-century industrial economy. In the 21st century, workers live longer, are more mobile, change jobs often and serve an increasingly service- and information-driven economy, factors ill-suited to the old labor ways. In the face of such hostile socioeconomic forces, Big Labor bosses see the continued power of liberals in Washington, and especially the prospect of the mass unionization of health care workers under Obamacare – as their last, best hope.
Big Labor has put all their eggs in the political basket for quite some time – they feel they have no real choice, as Americans continue to prove that when given the option, they prefer by wide margins to work without unions. This is not to say unions are out of the fight – a cornered bear will fight ferociously until dead, as AFL-CIO head . In fact, the worst possible scenario may be that unions finally decide that they can no longer rely on Democrats, and instead capitalize on continued economic frustration over the next few years. Due to their entrenchment in the public sector, many of them will have the resources to carry on the battle for quite some time.
