Kollman

Last week, I was responsible for the firm’s quick clips. I think I did one, although I scanned the labor reports for news each day. My failure to do more than one was the result of writer’s block, writer’s fatigue, and a lack of interesting news warranting a quick clip.

In addition to this blog, I write articles for the National Clothesline, the Air Conditioning Contractors of America, the Steel Erectors Association of America, the Maryland Association of Roofing Contractors, this website, and a variety of other organizations. I now understand why politicians give the same stump speech over and over again. It is difficult to come up with interesting new material every day, week, or month.

So, if you are interested in reading new, original material from me, I suggest you check out the websites of the organizations listed in the previous paragraph. I will still blog, but I will reserve my blogging for more personal pieces. If you want more labor substance from me, you will have to work for it with your browser.

After spending several hours at the office today, I went home to set up my portable hammock for the first time. I have always wanted a hammock, but there are no trees in my yard that would accommodate a traditional one, and the stand alone hammocks are an eyesore when not in use. I found a good one for 100 bucks online.

I found some nice shade and put my iPod in my Bose player. I took my iPhone and one of the portable phones, in case my wife called from a craft show she was working, and I read a couple of magazines: The Economist and Consumer Reports. Yes, Barack Obama has nothing on me when it comes to elitism. I borrowed money to move when I graduated from law school, but I have embraced the American Dream with both arms. I work hard, and I use that money to buy stuff, sometimes expensive stuff.

I especially love reading The Economist. It is the best written magazine (though they call it a newspaper) I have ever seen. I have learned more about the United States from this British newspaper than I could from reading Newsweek, Time, Forbes, and The New York Times combined. What I especially like is that it is so well written that I find myself reading more articles about the rest of the world that I would otherwise. It never hurts to learn about other cultures. This week, in addition, I learned that a negotiator is more likely to reach an agreement with an opponent by trying to understand his position than trying to appreciate his emotional state (science section); the section on Reverend Wright and Obama was dead on.

It is impossible to run a business these days without understanding globalization and multi-culturalism. The Economist is not a bad place to start.

Oh yeah, the title of this blog is related to the last page of Consumer Reports. There is a two seat toilet being sold, called the TwoDaLoo, at wiserep.com. At $1,400, it seems a bargain. I had to wonder if this is a reflection on American culture or some other phenomenon (like incredible bad taste). Even Consumer Reports had the bad taste to caption the segment: “matching gas masks optional". Jeez.

Twenty years ago today, I walked into the Sun Life Building to open up the law firm of Kollman & Sheehan. My partner would join me seven days later, but for all intents and purposes, today is the anniversary of the firm. We had two computers, one printer, four telephones, and one employee.

Five years later, my best friend - Pete Saucier - joined the firm. In 2001, the firm changed its name to Kollman & Saucier. Let’s just say there was a firm realignment that year. For me, that 13th year of the firm was a lucky year. In 2006, we bought a building in Timonium, and left the Sun Life Building’s rich history behind.

Yesterday, I perused the old personnel files, twenty year’s worth. I chuckled at many of the names, some of which took me awhile to connect with a face. A few of the departures were sad, some were a relief, and several were ugly. I guess a management labor law firm has problems just like any other company. Human resources and labor relations are difficult issues, as many of our clients know.

I wish I had something profound to say on the firm’s twentieth anniversary, but today is another work day. There are two balloons in my office that say “Happy Anniversary,” but I will have to wait 5 years to have balloons with a specific number on them. So, the anniversary of Kollman & Saucier, P.A., is duly noted, this 2nd day of May, 2008. Thanks to all the clients, employees, vendors, opposing counsel and their clients, and the other people who made this possible.

I believe in diversity, and I believe in tolerance. While I may favor columnists, politicians, authors, and other commentators because they share my views, I am far from certain I would personally like any of them. In fact, I do not necessarily share the same political views and values of my closest friends and family, but I get along with them fine. I guess personality for some people is the result of forces different from views and values.

It is always interesting to me to watch people who once shared the same beliefs become bitter enemies. They may continue to share the same beliefs, but they begin to doubt the purity of the other’s commitment. Earlier this week, a fist fight broke out between two unions - the SEIU and the California Nurses Association - because they both want to represent the same group of employees. Shiites and Sunni’s are both committed to Islam, and apparently mutual annihilation. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson became bitter enemies over issues relating to France and England, though they had been close friends for many years.

I suspect that many of the problems of the workplace are not related to differing views, but extremism and intolerance. Where there is mutual respect, grievances, charges, and lawsuits tend to be less frequent. Where there is distrust, extremism, and intolerance, there is strife. Yes, there will be fundamental disagreements at times, but fistfights, mutual annihilation, a complete breakdown in communications, and revenge are rarely the correct response.

I am a dyed-in-the-wool management guy, and I may not always understand employees, unions, and government employees. I will, however, continue to try to understand and respond, when I can, with tolerance. Good managers should do the same.

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal had an opinion piece on Big Labor and the Democratic Party’s quest for the White House. The author stated that labor unions are hoping for three things: a Democrat in the White House, a continuing Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, and a filibuster proof Democratic majority in the Senate. Then, the federal government will revamp the National Labor Relations Act, eliminate state right-to-work laws, and abolish, for all intents and purposes, the secret ballot election.

When I first started practicing, about 20 percent of the workforce was unionized. Today, the figure is about 7 percent. Union representation has increased dramatically among government employees during that time, but apparently not enough to make unions stop worrying about their future.

There are plenty of theories about why labor unions are losing membership. The one theory I do not buy is that the labor laws have become obsolete. That is a little like blaming federal law for the decline in dedicated car phones, railroad travel, and telegrams. If union representation is a good thing and still relevant, why would unions need the kind of bailout they are seeking from the federal government? At least with the bailouts of Chrysler and Bear Stearns, it was a money thing. In this case, the bailout big labor is seeking is a change in the law that would eliminate many of the rights employees now enjoy.

Politicians are constantly criticizing “special interests,” while taking their money. Oil companies are a special interest, but so is big labor. Oil companies need to be allowed to explore for oil, but we need to protect the environment and prevent price gouging. But there is a universal need for gasoline and oil. The same cannot be said for union representation.

Union representation is protected by current law. I see no reason to remove those protections. Unions, if they can convince workers to select them to represent them in dealings with their employers, should be able to rely on those protections. I do not, however, see a compelling need for labor unions that overrides the virtues of free choice. I dare say that our problems with the economy today are more the result of oil scarcity than the decline of union representation in the private sector.