From Graniterock, a California-based supplier construction building materials and civil engineering contractor, a new release welcoming the Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday in Granite Rock Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

WATSONVILLE, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–The Supreme Court of the United States announced its decision in Granite Rock Company v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters & Teamsters Local 287 on Thursday morning. The Court confirmed Graniterock’s jury verdict against Local 287 and refused to dismiss the International Brotherhood of Teamsters from the case, leaving Graniterock several options to pursue claims against the International. The Court’s decision was unanimous concerning the International. The Court’s confirmation of Graniterock’s jury verdict was issued on a 7 – 2 vote.

The National Association of Manufacturers has joined in an amicus brief in support of the company. The brief and a summary of the case is available at the NAM’s Manufacturing Law Center entry. There are several separate issues involved, so we’ll defer again to the company’s release: (continue reading…)

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, is holding a hearing at 10 a.m. this morning, “Assessing the Implementation and Impacts of the Clean Truck Programs at the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach“:

The Subcommittee will hear from the Deputy Executive Directors of the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach; as well as affected parties at the ports including a licensed motor carrier, an independent drayage driver, and representatives from the American Trucking Associations (ATA), the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Teamsters), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), and the Coalition for Responsible Transportation.

This is the program that the unions (Teamsters) and environmental groups (NRDC) have formed an alliance on, wanting to use it to drive small, independent truckers out of business. Larger operations are more easily unionized. The committee staff memo does not put the issue in those terms.

The National Association of Manufacturers sent a letter to the committee commenting on the issues being considered today. Manufacturers object to the attempt to impose more burdensome, expensive and unnecessary regulations over interstate commerce.

Excerpt:

NAM compliments the effort to improve air quality at the nation’s busiest port complex. It is noteworthy that both ports have dramatically reduced emissions by 80% without any changes to federal regulations and have made great strides in introducing thousands of cleaner trucks to their facilities. Further, the ports achieved this success two years ahead of schedule without implementing a controversial and unconstitutional truck concession plan that would prohibit independent owner operator truck drivers from operating harbor drayage trucks at either of the port facilities.

While the Clean Trucks Program is assessed by Congress and contemplated by other port facilities in the nation, we urge you to recognize the importance of maintaining uniform and consistent regulation of interstate commerce. Altering longstanding trucking rules that govern pricing, routes, and services as codified in the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) as some are proposing, would have dramatic consequences beyond the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach and would impact other public-private facilities responsible for moving freight in the supply chain by introducing economic regulation and limiting competition for transportation services. Such a change would create a patchwork of state and local trucking rules that would disadvantage U.S.-based manufacturers and exporters who rely on the efficiency of the entire transportation network. These rules have benefited manufacturers and helped keep transportation costs affordable and competitive, especially in a challenging economic climate.

The letter was signed by Robyn M. Boerstling, NAM’s director for transportation and infrastructure policy.

An alliance between Big Labor and environmental groups has been working on multiple fronts to drive small, independent truckers out of the port business with the goal of unionizing larger operators. The latest maneuver is to pressure Congress to change the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), which preempts state and local jurisdictions from regulating interstate trucking and commerce.

It’s a cynical effort that threatens to destroy jobs, raise freight costs and retard the recovery.

The National Association of Manufacturers and U.S. Chamber of Commerce on March 11 sent a joint letter to Capitol Hill outlining our objections. Excerpt:

[The] International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Change to Win organization and others are currently pressing Congress to consider granting local governments the ability to regulate the harbor drayage industry to address environmental and port security matters, and thereby eliminate the federal preemption of state and local regulation of foreign and interstate commerce. While we strongly support efforts to improve air quality and port security in and around America’s ports, it is entirely unnecessary to undermine federal preemption of state regulation of interstate commerce in the process. These restrictions are specifically designed to eliminate competition from small independent businesses in favor of companies that the Teamsters believe could be more easily organized. If enacted, these changes could unfairly sideline independent operators who provide valuable support for the nation’s supply chain and create a fragmented, local patchwork regulatory structure for foreign and interstate commerce which runs contrary to the intent of the interstate commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Last week, Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA) also challenged the unions’ move. In a Dear Colleague letter, Miller wrote, “Compliance with air quality standards should be determined on a truck by truck basis without regard to the employee or ownership status of the driver of that truck.” He added:

We believe that protecting our environment by reducing truck emissions is an important mission that we must undertake, and it is easy to see that our nation’s ports play a vital role in that effort. Industry stakeholders, including many small businesses, have shown that they are taking a proactive approach to meeting environmental goals as they have made significant investments in clean equipment. It is important that we do not get distracted by unnecessary provisions and mandates that are not related to environmental goals and could have long term, negative consequences on interstate commerce.

The American Trucking Associations has been a leader on this issue. From ATA’s Truckline.com, “Opposition is Widespread to Union-backed Change to Federal Transportation Law.”

The ATA this month also thanked the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for adopting a new clean-air policy that did not attempt to eliminate small, owner-operated trucking lines from serving the port. See ATA release, “NY/NJ Clean Trucks Plan Launches Without Owner-Operator Ban.”

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters is currently facing a labor dispute with its own workers. General President Jimmy Hoffa recently sent a letter to the union’s officers indicating that the Teamsters employees’ union “refuses to acknowledge the current economic conditions”. Perhaps they’re just following in the footsteps of their employer who is lobbying for the jobs-killing Employee Free Choice Act at a time when the economy is struggling to create and retains jobs. That certainly seems to demonstrate that the Teamsters’ leadership is refusing to acknowledge current economic conditions.

The letter further goes on to state: “No amount of embarrassment will cause us to commit to a collective bargaining agreement that jeopardizes the financial health of your International Union.” But the Teamsters think it’s OK to jeopardize the health of the manufacturing economy by supporting the Employee Free Choice Act, legislation that would require newly unionized employers to commit to a collective bargaining agreement drafted by a federally appointed arbitrator if the parties aren’t able to reach agreement within 120 days.

Another example of “do as we say, not as we do?”

From Politico, “Incoming AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka vows tougher labor politics“:

Richard Trumka admits that unions were outmaneuvered on a key element of the Employee Free Choice Act — a bill making it easier for workers to organize…[snip]

“[We] could have done a lot of things,” Trumka said in an interview with POLITICO, acknowledging that unions did not do enough to combat the business community’s portrayal of organized labor’s top legislative priority as merely an attempt to strip workers of the right to a private ballot in union elections.

“But we didn’t, and we are where we are.”

For a labor boss who claims to represent workers around the country, this is an awfully insiderish, Beltway, tactical and politics-first view of the world. Outmanuevered, after labor spent tens of millions of dollars on electing pro-union candidates and organizing and messaging? Go back through the AFL-CIO’s blog for the past two-plus years and look at all the effort expended on the Employee Free Choice Act. Labor was manuevering before business got out of bed in the morning.

Labor’s problem was the bill itself, the dishonestly named Employee Free Choice Act, which was not merely but first and foremost an attempt to strip workers of the right to a private ballot in unions elections.

The only outmaneuvering business did was to call attention to the substance of the legislation. The Employee Free Choice Act – including card check, binding arbitration, and other anti-employer provisions – is a bill that undermines management flexibility, employee autonomy, and economic innovation.

Wall Street Journal, Saturday, “Union Pensions in the Red:”

We’ve all read about underfunded corporate pensions, but here’s an unreported story: Union pensions are even more in the red, and it’s one reason union chiefs are so eager to rig organizing rules to gain more dues-paying members…[snip]

In April, the SEIU National Industry Pension Fund—which covers some 101,000 rank-and-file members—announced that its pension has been put into what the feds call “critical status,” or “red zone.” In other words, it lacks the cash to pay promised benefits and may have to cut them. As of 2007, the last year for which it reported results to the government, the fund had 74.4% of the assets needed to pay its benefits.

Thirteen of the bigger plans operated for the Teamsters have, together, a mere 59.3% of reserves necessary to cover obligations. Or consider that 26 pension funds at the food workers union, the UFCW, are at 58.7%. Seven locals at the United Brotherhood of Carpenters fare better at 67%. As a rule of thumb the government considers a fund to be “endangered” at below 80%, and in “critical” status at below 65%, and requires them to come up with a plan to get off probation within a decade.

Short of winning direct taxing authority, labor bosses have determined that the Employee Free Choice Act  is the best means for dragooning unwilling workers into unions so their cash can help cover up the pension mismanagement.

By the way, the SEIU’s counsel, Craig Becker, has been nominated for a seat on the National Labor Relations Board. His confirmation hearing could serve as a welcome opportunity to explore the SEIU’s political bullying and self-serving leadership.

The Washington Post today takes an editorial shot at the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers for opposing any talk of legislative compromise in Congress over the Employee Free Choice Act.

From the lead editorial, “The Imperfect Union Bill”:

WE HAVE SAID before that the Employee Free Choice Act is a flawed solution to a real problem: unfair barriers in the way of union organizing. We have been critical of the labor movement for its reluctance to consider alternatives that could level the playing field between labor and management. So we have, we hope, some standing to criticize a leading management group for its absolutist stance against not only the Employee Free Choice Act as written but also against compromise proposals. Instead of engaging in a good-faith effort to fix the problem, the group, the Coalition for a Democratic Workforce, chooses to deny that there is a problem.

A few quick thoughts:

This is a classic example of Washington political thinking that elevates process over substance, viewing compromise and consensus as valuable in and of themselves. To the vast majority of NAM members, businesses small and large, the possibility of forced unionization and a government-imposed binding arbitration are matters of life and death. A “compromise” looks like, “Please, just kill us a little bit…later.”

And who is it exactly doing the “compromising” up on Capitol Hill? Senator Tom Harkin compromising with Sen. Arlen Specter? The AFL-CIO compromising with the Teamsters? Starbucks with Costco?

As for denying there isn’t a problem, here are the basic facts from the National Labor Relations Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

• Union membership is on the rise (400,000 new members last year)
• Unions are winning most of the elections (unions won 66.8 percent of all elections in 2008)
• Elections take place in a timely manner (94% within 56 days)

Organized labor does not win every union organizing election, and that’s “the problem” they want the Employee Free Choice Act to fix. But labor has never engaged in good faith discussion about the issue, starting with its decision to dishonestly represent the bill as “free choice.”

Given that the legislation is a raw power grab by organized labor, where’s there any room for compromise?

We close with these thoughts from a Democratic Senator known for his belief in good faith negotiations and willingness to broker compromise, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE):

You take away the arbitration issue, and you still have the “card check,” so that doesn’t work. You take away the ‘card check’ and you still have the arbitration problem. And if both go away, you’re left with nothing. It’s a fool’s errand to do this. I just don’t see an agreement happening.

Mickey Kaus contextualizes the latest developments on the Employee Free Choice Act. In early March we wondered why the Los Angeles AFL-CIO was “street phoning” Senator Feinstein to lobby on card check. Now we know.

Employee Free Choice On the Move!  Now Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein is waffling on “card check.”  Look for Marc Ambinder’s note on how this only better positions the anti-secret-ballot legislation for 2012! … 11:17 P.M.

___________________________

I was worried that anti-card-check lobbyists had made the horrible mistake of killing it quickly, before they’d put their kids through college. But no, there is still talk of a compromise that’s damaging to their business clients.  Sen. Harkin seems to be trying to use the Starbucks Plan as a push-off point in order to give labor an incremental victory. Faughnan speculates Harkin’s trying to save some of the (hated by business) arbitration provisions. As usual. Jennifer Rubin isn’t buying the threat.  … P.S.: What, exactly, did labor spinners gain by their now-discredited braggadocio (“100% confident”)? … 11:55 A.M.

He follows with an interesting, theoretical piece about the Employee Free Choice Act’s binding arbitration provisions being a repudiation of Wagner Act unionization. Why not just have government impose a contract all the time?

In other union dissembling news with a California tilt, there’s this news release from the U.S. Teamsters, “Blue Ribbon Commission Panel Findings Show that FedEx Has Eroded Its Workers’ Living Standards Substantially.”

WASHINGTON, March 26, 2009 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ —-A Blue Ribbon Commission panel has found that FedEx has systematically eroded the living standards of its employees to the point where its workers find themselves on the brink of falling out of the middle class.

Without good middle class jobs, the economy cannot recover, according to the report “Blue Ribbon Commission on Keeping FedEx Jobs in the Middle Class,” released today. The commissioners, Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-CA., Los Angeles City Councilman Bill Rosendahl and United Methodist Church Bishop Mary Ann Swenson heard testimony from economic experts, FedEx workers, clergy and community members at a hearing in Los Angeles in December 2008.

Wow! A Blue Ribbon Commission, with all that title implies — august thinkers, economic experts, impartial arbiters.

Phhpt. It’s a panel formed by the Teamsters, other union groups, and the social justice crowd in Los Angeles. An accurate headline would have been, “Teamsters Find Teamsters to be Right, Urge Opponents to Adopt Teamsters Recommendation.”

Or in SAT terms: The Blue Ribbon Commission is to commissions as the Employee Free Choice Act is to employee free choice.

The Oregonian, “Mexico’s new tariffs could cost Oregon millions”

Mexico, angered by a ban on its trucks entering the United States, slapped tariffs on 90 U.S. products — a move effective today that could cost Oregon exporters tens of millions of dollars.

The duties include 20 percent tariffs on Christmas trees, pears and frozen potatoes, all of which Oregon sells to Mexico. A Mexican official confirmed his government chose the $2.4 billion worth of products partly to target states with powerful Democratic politicians….[snip]

“The vote was to save jobs for the unions, but it’s going to cause problems for several other industries,” said Bill Brewer, executive director of the Oregon Potato Commission.

He said the United States could lose its entire $80 million in annual french-fry exports to Mexico, for example, because Canadian competitors won’t have to pay $16 million in tariffs.

Exports of fresh grapes get hit the hardest (45 percent), and as the Oregonian reports, the focus is on agricultural products. But there are still plenty of manufactured goods that will suffer from the new tariffs. As Bloomberg reports, Procter & Gamble is assessing the impact on its household products like shampoos and deodorants.

The National Association of Manufacturers in Washington sent a note to members asking them to identify any impact.

“We need our members’ input to know how you will be affected by these new tariffs,” the memo said. “The NAM will be working with the administration and Congress to try to resolve this dispute quickly.”

All this said, it would be a mistake to say a trade war is here or on its way. Many trade observers say Mexico was relatively restrained, and the Obama Administration has been conciliatory on the Mexican truck issue, saying they want to work with the Mexican government to resolve the conflict. President Obama is apparently traveling to Mexico next month (CNN reports), which is an important diplomatic gesture.

So welcome to the post of U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Ron Kirk. The former mayor of Dallas has many things to work on.

Dallas Morning News, “Kirk easily confirmed as trade rep, now faces pressing challenges“:

We all know this must be solved,” said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who strongly supported the nomination. “I will say that the person who understands it best is Ron Kirk. He lives in Texas. He knows how important free trade is with Mexico.”

From Bloomberg:

March 18 (Bloomberg) — Mexico will apply tariffs of 10 percent to 45 percent on at least 90 products from the U.S. in retaliation for the U.S. scrapping a test program allowing Mexican trucks to deliver goods beyond a U.S. border zone.

The products include some fruit and vegetables, wine, juices and sunglasses, according to the online version of the State Gazette. Most tariffs are 10 percent to 20 percent, with unspecified fresh products subject to a 45 percent tariff. The tariffs, which will apply to $2.4 billion of goods, take effect tomorrow, Economy Minister Gerardo Ruiz Mateos said yesterday.

Talks to diffuse the first trade spat of President Barack Obama’s administration can’t begin until the U.S. has a Commerce Secretary, Ruiz Mateos said. Discussions to resolve the dispute will start once his counterpart is ratified, he said. Ruiz Mateos said that the trade dispute with the U.S. is hurting the region and giving an advantage to other parts of the world.

“We’re waiting to begin work,” Ruiz Mateos said. “Unfortunately, the U.S. Senate hasn’t designated our counterparts yet.”

The list of goods is here, in Spanish. We’ll post the English version as soon as it’s available. [UPDATE: Here it is.] Most do seem to be agricultural products, but there are plenty of manufactured goods too: “Rotuladores y marcadores con punta de fieltro u otra punta porosa.” Take that, Congress says to U.S. felt-tipped pen manufacturers.

Congress killed the border truck program in the omnibus appropriations bill, signed into law by President Obama.

Columnist Charles Krauthammer assessed the provisions in comments yesterday on Fox News:

There are over 6.5 million trucks in the United States. This program allows 98 Mexican trucks to roam among them. And over that, they are willing to risk a trade war with Mexico.

If you wanted to do protectionism, do it competently. Go the full Smoot-Hawley. But over 98 to enrage Mexico, to threaten to destroy NAFTA, and to show the world that the American Congress is willing to impose protectionism over trivialities at a time when the economy is hanging by a thread, where every other country is looking to see if American is going to turn protectionist.

In an editorial, the National Review notes exports to Mexico have already fallen 17.5 year-to-year, and, “The tariffs would deliver another crushing blow to exporters at the worst possible time. “