|
|
|
 |
|
Home / Washington Business - Current Issue / Points of View: We can always change the rules |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Points of View: We can always change the rules |
|
|
|
Written On: March/April 2008 |
|
|
|
Written By: Rep. Cary Condotta, R-Wenatchee |
|
|
|
In the real world, most products have a life-span. Most teams have a game plan. When either one loses its appeal or fails to accomplish its mission, that plan or product must be improved to fit the current scenario or it will go by the wayside as a historical example of failure. The problem for today’s major labor unions, with the possible exception of one, is that the same old product or game plan is no longer a winner. In fact, it has proven to be a major loser in today’s marketplace.
Panic is setting in as unions are losing members and finding it difficult to move forward. Over the past few years, attempts to organize major groups and companies have consistently failed. A recent example would be the Toyota plant in Kentucky. When workers were provided with information from both union and non-union proponents, employees chose not to organize. This was the third attempt to unionize these workers. The company proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they provided better wages, benefits and working conditions than would any unionized competitor.
These losses are not confined to our domestic unions. Most European unions find themselves looking at concessions for the first time in years. This is the result of Europe’s struggling domestic economies, which are hamstrung by overreaching union rules and regulations. There are other examples, but the fact is that our unions do not have a product or a game plan that is attractive in today’s marketplace. They have become nothing more than political machines dedicated to their own agenda rather than that of the modern labor force.
Labor neutrality or gag order?
So, what to do? Change the game plan? Improve the product? Not these masters of innovation. Instead, they want to change the rules so the other side can’t play. It would be like handcuffing the other team in a game of football. It’s called the Labor Neutrality Bill. Labor calls it, ironically, a freedom act. Business calls it, more correctly, a gag order. The bill is intended to keep business from communicating with its own employees — not just in the arena of union issues, but also with respect to religious and political views. There is very little “freedom” in this approach. In effect, it shifts the balance of power strongly toward the unions.
In an issue closer to home, what if you are winning? Our grocery stores have some of the best wages and benefits in the nation. They have agreed to these provisions under collective bargaining and haven’t had a major strike in nearly 20 years. So, why have the unions decided to push a bill to provide unemployment compensation during a strike? At the committee hearing on this bill, I asked that question and received an unusually honest answer. It was clearly stated that this would allow them to have more leverage to hold out for even more lucrative contracts in the future. The irony is that this would come at great cost to the employer, since they provide and pay the unemployment costs based on benefits paid. This is unbelievable at best, and downright ridiculous at worst. Especially in a state that already has a very expensive and liberal unemployment program.
The bottom line is that in an enlightened world, unions have become, for the most part, unnecessary and unproductive. There are a few exceptions, but that will have to wait for another editorial. In the meantime, keep your eye on the ball. It’s really hard to catch when you’re wearing handcuffs.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
