Partisan politics aside, I think we can all agree that left wing politicians -- especially those who have filled their coffers with union donations -- are bad for Spend Management. For those Obama and Billary fanatics reading Spend Matters who take issue with my perspective, I would remind you all that I've strongly criticized the Bush administration's trade, sourcing and other policies in the past. Many times, in fact. But more important, proof of my current statement comes from Supply Chain Digest, which recently ran an article commenting on how the Democratic House was expecting to pass a bill that "would allow workers to organize as soon as a majority of employees sign a card in favor of a union." Why does this matter? "Because the 'card check' process is not private, critics say it will force employees not in favor of the union to sign the cards as a result of pressure from union organizing leaders and co-workers."
Why is this dangerous for Spend Management? Union influence in manufacturing and services will not only drive up labor costs, but will restrict outsourcing and 'buy' options for companies currently looking at all of their sourcing possibilities. Need further proof at the nefarious nature of the bill? Consider how it is "strongly opposed by the National Association of Manufacturers, which says it will further erode the competitive capabilities of American manufacturers," according to Supply Chain Digest. SCDigest further opines that “there are special risks to companies running distribution centers -- still largely un-unionized -- from passage of such a bill, as even relatively small operations could be unionized almost over night."
Of course if socialist "I love you, you love me, let's all work for free" Barney nirvana is what we're after, we could always head down the path of France, whose left wing candidates are trying to "abolish a flexible work contract for small companies". In practice, this means, as I've written before, any manufacturer or services firm owner who is debating whether or not to make a new hire would essentially have to sign over the rights to their first-born should they choose to extend the job offer. Scary indeed, and further proof that Spend Management needs to get political when it comes to the union issue.