Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hilda Solis, Secretary of Unions - What's she have in common with Lenin?
The Freeman ^ | October 10, 2011 | Charles W. Baird

Posted on 10/10/2011 9:29:27 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum

Lenin argued that communism is so obviously virtuous that any worker who resists it must be a victim of “false consciousness.” He cannot think straight because his oppressors have muddled his brain.

Hilda Solis, Obama’s secretary of unions – oops, labor – thinks a bit like Lenin. She thinks labor unions are so obviously virtuous that any worker who votes against unionization does so only because evil labor relations consultants have conspired with the worker’s malevolent employer to muddle the worker’s brain.

Public comments on Solis’s proposed rule to impede labor relations consultants who advise employers on how legally to avoid unionization ended on September 21. Despite an overwhelming preponderance of comments against the proposed rule, Solis seems intent on proceeding.

The 1959 Landrum-Griffin Act was enacted to try to clean up union corruption like that portrayed in the 1954 film On The Waterfront. The principal malefactor in the film was union boss and thug Johnny Friendly who ran his union for his own benefit at the expense of rank-and-file members. The Act specifies a bill of rights for rank-and-file union members, and it imposes reporting requirements on both unions and employers.

Unions must report how they use the union dues they extract from workers and fees taken from nonmember employees. Elaine Chao,  George W. Bush’s secretary of labor, forced unions to give details of their expenditures. Secretary Solis rescinded those requirements and now permits unions to lump their expenditures into broad categories designed to keep the rank-and-file, well, muddled.

Reporting Requirements

Under Landrum-Griffin employers must report their expenditures on labor relations consultants and others who “persuade employees to exercise or not to exercise” their right to unionize. The Act specifically exempts those (like attorneys and public relations firms) who give “advice” to employers on how to handle labor relations.

Until the Obama administration took power, persuaders were understood to be people hired by employers to have face-to-face encounters with workers to convince them to vote against unionization.

Secretary Solis wants to shrink the definition of “advisor.” She proposes that only those who give  “an oral or written recommendation regarding a decision or course of action” be considered advisors. The  Department of Labor document that outlines the rule change explains:

The current “advice” standard … treats as advice not only the situation in which a lawyer or consultant reviews drafts of persuasive material at the employer’s request to determine whether the statements in the material are permissible under the National Labor Relations Act, but also covers a lawyer or consultant’s preparation of persuasive material to be disseminated or distributed to employees. . . . [I]n the Department’s view, the latter example appears to be quintessential persuader activity – one that has an object to persuade employees. (27)

So a lawyer or a consultant who helps an employer to compose a pamphlet that argues against unionization is a persuader who must report detailed financial information to the Department of Unions. Any persuader who fails to file accurate information would be guilty of a crime. Solis has boasted that she is looking forward to making the first persuader do a “perp walk.”

Crushing Costs

I think Solis has at least two goals in mind. I suspect she hopes the imposition of financial costs and criminal penalties on persuaders will shrink the supply of those who are willing to help employers resist unionization. It is likely she also hopes to provide unions with a hit list of those who continue to do so. Think of it as Johnny Friendly’s revenge.

There are many good reasons why workers should say no to unionization. Here are two: Because they are better able to adjust to constantly changing market conditions, union-free firms provide workers more job security than union-impaired firms do. And sclerotic union-impaired firms inevitably decline and shed workers.

When union dues and lost wages during strikes are taken into account, union-impaired firms do not pay workers any more (and they frequently pay less) than union-free firms do.

Employers should be free to seek whatever help is necessary in their attempts to make a legitimate case against unionization. Far from being captured in false consciousness, employees are smart enough to evaluate the merits of the arguments presented by both sides.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: solis
The money quote: "When union dues and lost wages during strikes are taken into account, union-impaired firms do not pay workers any more (and they frequently pay less) than union-free firms do."
1 posted on 10/10/2011 9:29:32 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

What’s she have in common with Lenin?

An overall incorrect world view.


2 posted on 10/10/2011 9:37:53 AM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
"Hilda Solis, Obama’s secretary of unicorns"

Sometimes dyslexia is right...

3 posted on 10/10/2011 9:55:46 AM PDT by StAnDeliver (/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StAnDeliver

Remember how Lenin was supposed to have this incredible brain? But when they examined it the scientists concluded that his brain should be in the beaker labeled “Abby Normal”.


4 posted on 10/10/2011 9:57:59 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: StAnDeliver

Remember how Lenin was supposed to have this incredible brain? But when they examined it the scientists concluded that his brain should be in the beaker labeled “Abby Normal”.


5 posted on 10/10/2011 9:58:12 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

you mean, aside from the beard?


6 posted on 10/10/2011 10:01:28 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

How many “Unionistas” realize that it is very simple for someone to avoid become a “MALEVOLENT EMPLOYER”.
The “secret”? Don’t employ a SINGLE person that puts you above the MANDATE minimum. Your business may not grow, but neither will the ulcers, headaches, insults and condemnations.
I’ve done it and it works like a charm. You work a little harder, but sleep at night a whole lot better.


7 posted on 10/10/2011 10:15:22 AM PDT by CaptainAmiigaf (NY TIMES: "We print the news as it fits our views")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Aside from the gender differences, they were both communists. Ergo, not a dime’s bit of difference between 1917 and 2011.


8 posted on 10/10/2011 12:01:02 PM PDT by MasterGunner01 (To err is human; to forgive is not our policy. -- SEAL Team SIX)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson