August unemployment figures will be released Friday, with the expected 9.5 or 9.6 percent national jobless rate punctuating the importance of jobs and the economy just in time for the Labor Day holiday. Yet, in attempting to shape the Labor Day news coverage, the Obama Administration is promoting its successes (such as they are) in having government direct economic activity, while organized labor is just calling for more political activism.

They’re both missing the mark: What’s needed to encourage jobs growth are policies that make the United States more globally competitive while ending the uncertainty that keeps employers from hiring more workers. The NAM’s recent “Manufacturing Strategy for Jobs and a Competitive America” laid out those necessary policies, and our new “Labor Day 2010” report put them in context of employment and the economy. These are substantive documents, if we do say so ourselves.

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis issued a statement via video that talks about jobs, but mostly offers examples of government intervention rather than a clear strategy for job creation. The statement will be even more underwhelming when the Bureau of Labor statistics announces the unemployment tomorrow.

Meanwhile, labor leaders are using the week to issue a political call to action, urging union members to mobilize in advance of the midterm elections. Union bosses are rightfully nervous that their allies in Washington  – those who have embraced labor’s anti-competitive program — are facing serious threats to their re-elections. Materials distributed by the AFL-CIO again make vague statements of support for anti-worker proposals like the Employee Free Choice Act.

We hope that all policymakers and candidates take the opportunity this Labor Day weekend to not only read the NAM’s Labor Day Report but also declare their opposition to card check legislation in any form. For jobs and the American worker, it’s time to focus on competitiveness, not proposals that would only worsen employer-employee relations.

Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, “Making Patriotic Choices To Save The Economy“:

It’s time for all Americans to remember that patriotism is about more than fighting abroad. It’s also about fighting for ourselves, our neighbors and our communities here in the United States. It’s time for economic patriotism.

Trumka came out with his “economic patriotism” rhetoric in time for Labor Day and the fall elections. Judging by his column, it’s just another, more invidious slogan to accompany the rest of the usual slogans.

Samuel Johnson had smart observations on the topic in “The Patriot,” his 1774 essay directed to the electors of England.

A man sometimes starts up a patriot, only by disseminating discontent, and propagating reports of secret influence, of dangerous counsels, of violated rights, and encroaching usurpation.

This practice is no certain note of patriotism. To instigate the populace with rage beyond the provocation, is to suspend publick happiness, if not to destroy it. He is no lover of his country, that unnecessarily disturbs its peace. Few errours and few faults of government, can justify an appeal to the rabble; who ought not to judge of what they cannot understand, and whose opinions are not propagated by reason, but caught by contagion.

Just saying …

President Obama appears with Trumka next Monday at the annual Laborfest in Milwaukee. Will the President, too, embrace this rhetoric of “economic patriotism?”

Labor Day approaches this year more with a feeling of trepidation than relief for the American worker.  Despite an economic recovery that began in the second half of 2009, the unemployment is higher now that it was a year ago and private sector job growth has slowed in recent months as consumer and business confidence has slipped.

The factors behind the current state of the labor market and the recovery are the topics of the thirteenth annual 2010 NAM Labor Day Report, which in addition focuses on possible legislation and regulations that could depress the outlook for workers and companies by making it more difficult for our economy to compete in the global marketplace.

One of the noteworthy findings of the report is that uncertainty with respect to both the underlying strength of the economic recovery as well as possible policy changes from Washington D.C is causing manufacturers to curtail employment and capital spending plans.

For comments from NAM President John Engler, see the NAM’s news release, “NAM Report Examines Impact of Anti-Labor Policies on Working Men and Women.”

<!–37ee3bcad7d04f66978c57d16df8fa9e–>

The U.S. Department of State last week submitted its first-ever report to the U.N. Human Rights Council on conditions in the United States, “Report of the United States of America Submitted to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights In Conjunction with the Universal Periodic Review.” (News release, report.) We’re not so great, really, the State Department seemed to be saying.

News coverage centered on the report’s inclusion of Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law as an affront to human rights, a violation the Obama Administration was addressing through court action. As Politico reported, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer called the criticism of the state’s law “downright offensive.”

The State Department report also suggests that labor policy is an area where the United States falls short:

Freedom of association also protects workers and their right to organize. The labor movement in the United States has a rich history, and the right to organize and bargain collectively under the protection of the law is the bedrock upon which workers are able to form or join a labor union. Workers regularly use legal mechanisms to address complaints such as threats, discharges, interrogations, surveillance, and wages-and-benefits cuts for supporting a union. These legal regimes are continuously assessed and evolving in order to keep pace with a modern work environment. Our UPR consultations included workers from a variety of sectors, including domestic workers who spoke about the challenges they face in organizing effectively. Currently there are several bills in our Congress that seek to strengthen workers’ rights—ensuring that workers can continue to associate freely, organize, and practice collective bargaining as the U.S. economy continues to change.

Our emphasis. If the legislation is needed to “strengthen workers’ rights,” the implication is that U.S. labor laws are weak and these rights are not adequately protected.  Those claims — commonly made by organized labor and other advocates of the Employee Free Choice Act — are not founded in fact:

In 2009, labor unions won 68.5 percent of representation elections. Furthermore, 95 percent of all elections are conducted within 56 days of the filing of a petition by the union, with a median of 38 days.

But the report eschews fact-based analysis to base its claim for legitimacy on “civil society” consultations, a series of hearings around the nation dominated by aggrieved activists, interest groups and people with an an axe to grind.

(continue reading…)

Today is NLRB Board Member Peter Schaumber’s last day at the Agency, as his second term has expired. Mr. Schaumber has been a member of the Board since 2002 and has served there through many trying times. As a result of political gridlock blocking the confirmation of additional members, he served as one of only two members of the NLRB for over two years from December 2007 – March 2010. His departure creates a new dynamic on the Board. Its membership will drop to only three confirmed members plus Craig Becker, who was recess appointed by President Obama earlier this year despite bipartisan opposition in the U.S. Senate. After today, the Board will have three Democrats, one Republican and a vacancy in the important general counsel position.

While many folks may not be familiar with the day-to-day workings of the NLRB, manufacturers are certainly watching it closely. Efforts to pass the jobs-killing Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) through Congress have proven to be difficult for labor leaders and their allies in Washington, whose attention now turns to enacting the goals of the legislation through NLRB actions. President Obama recently addressed the AFL-CIO’s Executive Council, highlighting his efforts to appoint members to the Board that will effectuate the labor law changes that labor leaders seek.

We expect President Obama to announce soon his nominee for Schaumber’s post and the general counsel post. We hope that the nominee will uphold the principles of fairness and balance that have guided the Agency for the past 75 years. We urge all Board members to reject efforts to implement the goals of the EFCA by dutifully adhering to the sound administration of the National Labor Relations Act to promote positive relations among employees and employers. For now, we wish Peter Schaumber the best of luck as he leaves government service and await the announcement of who the President will nominate to replace him.

We’re struggling to make the connection: Passage of the DISCLOSE Act will create jobs, how exactly?

From Hotline on Call, “DISCLOSE Act Will Get Second Look”:

Senate Dems plan to bring up a campaign finance measure once again, according to the bill’s supporters who hope to win cloture by wooing key GOP senators.

The DISCLOSE Act, which could not clear Senate hurdles when it came up just before the Aug. recess, will head back to the floor for a vote when the Senate returns next month, according to spokespeople for Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the bill’s lead sponsor.

The DISCLOSE Act is to free speech as the Employee Free Choice Act is to freedom of association.

That is, antithetical.

On July 27, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on S.3628, the DISCLOSE Act, by a vote of 57-41. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid voted no in order to retain his parliamentary ability to bring the measure back up.

To again quote from the National Association of Manufacturers’ “Key Vote” letter in opposition to the bill:

Put simply, this bill threatens First Amendment freedoms and is a direct assault on the U.S. Constitution. Its purpose is to hinder the ability of organizations, including associations such as the NAM, to give a voice to their members’ views and priorities. The U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly has recognized that voluntary associations are key participants in the public debate, and that government’s attempts to curb participation in associations in order to stifle their voice in the public debate violate the First Amendment. There need be no further discussion on whether First Amendment freedoms should apply to some and not to others.

(Hat tip: Center for Competitive Politics, which posts, “DISCLOSE back from the dead?”

A new Gallup survey reveals, “U.S. Approval of Labor Unions Remains Near Record Low,” with a topline finding that only 52 percent of Americans approve of unions, the second lowest percentage in the 70 years the organization has studied the issue.

Another striking result: Forty percent of Americans want labor unions to have less influence, 27 percent the same, and 29 percent more.

Gallup finds these implications:

Labor unions are less popular now in the United States than they have been for most of the last 70 years. One reason for this could be the economic downturn. With many Americans out of work and struggling to find work, organized labor groups’ missions may not seem appropriate or even fair as they might have when jobs are more plentiful. There is some precedence for an economic-related downturn in union approval, as Gallup found a mild drop in union approval during the late 1970s and early 1980s when the U.S. economy was in poor shape.

The more negative appraisal of unions the last two years could be due to the belief from union opponents that unions are likely to benefit or are benefitting from the policies of the Obama administration, including recent legislation providing aid to states that will preserve thousands of education and public sector jobs.

You don’t really have to be a union opponent to believe that “unions are likely to benefit or are benefitting from the policies of the Obama administration.” You can reasonably draw that conclusion from reading President Obama’s recent speech to the AFL-CIO executive council.

(Hat tip: Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit)

Yee-haw – we felt it was about time that we did another labor round up at the shopfloor.org corral.

Recusal refusal: The Wall Street Journal echoed our concerns with the National Labor Relations Board when it published an editorial earlier that examines recess-appointed NLRB member Craig Becker’s conflict of interest with his consideration of NLRB cases that involve his former employers – the AFL-CIO and the SEIU. 

Ch-ch-ch-ch-Changes: Can’t help but to think of the lyrics of the old Bowie tune when we learned of Anna Burger’s impending departure from the labor groups Change to Win and the SEIU: “I still don’t know what I was waiting for And my time was running wild”. And run wild they did. During Ms. Burger’s time the labor group has tirelessly advocated expanding government, the jobs-killing Employee Free Choice Act and radical changes at the NLRB to seat one of their own (Craig Becker.) Perhaps she realized: “Every time I thought I’d got it made It seemed the taste was not so sweet.”

When the Data Doesn’t Help Your Case, Question the Data! The top brass over at OSHA have had a hard timing understanding why injury and illness rates have shown such marked improvement over the years. So instead of acknowledging that America’s workplaces were getting safer, they questioned the accuracy of the data. In October of last year the agency launched an initiative to ferret out an alleged widespread underreporting of workplace safety incidents by employers. However, the agency quietly “paused” the program recently as regional OSHA officials expressed doubts about the program’s effectiveness, saying they were not finding significant violations.

Labor in Focus in the Rocky Mountain State: EFCA will continue to be an issue during the midterm elections. After this week’s primary elections in Colorado the voters will face a decision between two candidates that have different approaches to the card check legislation. There is incumbent Senator Michael Bennet who has not taken a clear position on the jobs-killing bill and Ken Buck, Weld County district attorney, strongly opposes the measure.

Problems with EFCA in the Mountain State: West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin, the Democratic frontrunner in the U.S. Senate race for the late Sen. Byrd’s seat, has said he has doubts about the card check legislation if it hasn’t made it through a Democratic-controlled administration and Congress. ‘I told labor, “Something is wrong with that piece of legislation if you haven’t been able to get it passed by now,”’ Manchin said.”  Something wrong? The fact that the legislation would cost 600,000 Americans their jobs shows just how wrong it is.

We hope all candidates will realize the devastating economic impact that card check and related proposals will have on our economy and join the NAM in rejecting the misguided legislation.

The Employee Free Choice Act played a much smaller role in the Senate Democratic primary in Colorado than it did in the Arkansas primary, or so it seems to us (having followed the races from afar).

Organized labor wanted to punish Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) for her criticisms of union-backed policies like the Employee Free Choice Act, but she handily defeated their favored candidate, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. In Colorado, both the incumbent Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet (appointed in January 2009) and his challenger, former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, had their labor support.

Still, Romanoff endorsed the Employee Free Choice Act, while Bennet avoided taking a position on the anti-democratic legislation, labor’s No. 1 priority. Most notably, Bennet did not cosponsor the bill, S. 560, in the U.S. Senate.

And in the end, Bennet won with a healthy margin of victory, 54-46 percent.

Bennet will face Ken Buck, Weld County district attorney, who defeated former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, 51.5-48.4 percent in the Republican primary. He opposes the Employee Free Choice Act in clear terms.

Here’s how Buck responded to a Denver Post candidates’ survey question on the issue:

Ken Buck: EFCA seeks to undermine the privacy of voting in unionizing elections. By implementing a “card check” system, EFCA would undermine individuals the right to cast a private ballot. Citizens of our country should have the freedom to vote how they want without the fear of retribution. EFCA also requires mandatory arbitration. This requirement inhibits the union employees’ and employers’ ability to negotiate. The inclusion of a third party in such conflict complicates and undermines the process.

We would expect the Employee Free Choice Act to be an issue in the general election, with voters demanding that Sen. Bennet address his support or opposition to the bill with more specificity.

Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, was on the CSPAN “Newsmakers” show this morning. Asked whether the Employee Free Choice Act will be considered in Congress this year, Trumka said: “I think you’ll see the Employee Free Choice Act come up again. I think you’ll see it probably before the end of the year.”

Before the elections or in a lameduck session? Trumka: “Either one.”

The reason the Employee Free Choice Act has not passed Congress is because 40 Senate Republicans have blocked it, he said.

Oh, pshaw, Trumka. The reason EFCA has not passed is because the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to what the bill would do, opponents have made an effective case that “card check” and forced unionization are antithetical to democratic principles and economic growth. The legislation is extraordinarily unpopular, which is why key Senate Democrats joined Republicans in preventing the bill’s consideration on the floor this Congress.

If it were popular, the President would have already signed the Employee Free Choice Act into law instead of planning to put its provisions into effect through Executive Orders, presidential nominations, and regulatory enactments. (See Shopfloor post, “If EFCA Won’t Pass the Senate, We’ll Turn to Federal Labor Boards.”

Trumka also continued pounding the table for more federal stimulus spending, dismissing concerns about the federal deficit, saying we have a jobs crisis in this country, not a deficit crisis. (UPDATE, 10:58 a.m.: Here’s the exact quote: “We have a job crisis right now, we don’t have a debt crisis right now. The only thing that can possibly make this recession, and this recovery from not stalling and going back into recession is if government continues to do some stimulus spending. And unfortunately, the states aren’t in a position to do that, so it’s going to take aid from the federal government.”)

CSPAN Radio will re-run the interview, about 30 minutes worth, at 6 p.m. Eastern.

UPDATE (11:20 a.m.): An interviewer asks, well, if the Employee Free Choice is so popular, and Democrats control the House and Senate, why haven’t the Democrats brought it to the floor for a vote? Trumka:

The President supports it, the vice president supports it, a vast majority of the House support it, a vast majority of the Senate report [sic] it, and like a hundred and some other bills in this country, 40 Republicans said we’re saying no to everything, and so they’ve stopped it.

It has come to the House and the Senate, remember? It passed by a large majority in the House. It’s been in the Senate where 40 Republicans have said no, just like they’ve said no to extensions of unemployment benefits, to help for state and local government, they’ve said no to everything. It doesn’t surprise us they’ve said no.

UPDATE (11:50 a.m.): Let’s be more accurate about the recent legislative history of the Employee Free Choice Act. In the 110th Congress, 2007-2008, H.R. 800 was introduced on Feb. 5, 2007. It passed the House on March 1, 2007. In the U.S. Senate, the bill failed to achieve cloture on June 26, 2007, with a vote of 51-48, short of the 60 votes needed. The only Republican to vote for cloture was Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylania, who subsequently became a Democrat (and who lost his party primary this spring). Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) was absent.

In the current 111th Congress, H.R. 1409 was introduced in the House on April 29, 2009, referred to committee, with no subsequent action. In the Senate, S. 560 was introduced on March 10, 2009 and referred to committee, with no subsequent action. From July (Sen. Franken’s swearing in) to December 2010 (Sen. Scott Brown’s arrival) the Democrats enjoyed a 60-vote majority in the Senate — enough to invoke cloture — but leadership chose not to pursue a vote because several members of the caucus would have voted no.

The portion of the interview concerning the Employee Free Choice Act is here as an .mp3 file. The host is Bill Scanlan and the interlocutors are David Catanese of Politico.com and Victoria McGrane of Dow-Jones.

Edited and updated for clarity, style.