There Is Power In A Union. Hint, Hint.

A chat with a staffer at Union Facts yesterday reminded me: "Hey, what's going on at CPAC is far less important than what's happening in Congress at the moment." Indeed, what happened yesterday was that Democrats pushed the most impactful reform of union rights since, arguably, Taft-Hartley.

The House voted 241-185 for the Employee Free Choice Act, which would allow workers to unionize by simply signing a card or petition stating their interest in joining a union, as opposed to the long-standing practice of secret-ballot elections.

In other words it hands unions more power to coerce people into joining - an idea that's danced across the labor movement's dreams for years. In the WSJ, Kimberley Strassel argues that this tremendously unpopular idea represents the end of the Democrats' honeymoon and a new beginning for the beat-down, divided GOP.

Labor explained that any union support they received in their tight races in GOP-leaning districts would be entirely conditioned on their later vote for card check. Most of them signed up for this devil's bargain, since, as one Democratic aide admitted: "We didn't have a choice."

The business community this week made sure that those Democratic moderates felt the burn. The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace--a group of more than 300 business outfits against the card check--earlier this week laid out a six-figure radio buy for just three House districts, targeting North Carolina's Heath Shuler, Florida's Tim Mahoney and Kansas's Nancy Boyda. All three ran as conservative Democrats, and have only tenuous grips on their seats. The Chamber of Commerce spent another $400,000 on radio ads targeting 51 Republicans and Democrats who are also vulnerable next year. The ads had an effect. Card-check supporters had been hoping to get as many as 290 votes; instead they mustered just 241.

After breaking down to support most of the Democrats' "100 Hours" bills, the GOP caucus is cohering again, and getting noticeably more aggressive in the process. Grist for the idea that they needed to lose one election to regain their bearings. (And if you think "Yeah, but until they do, we've got card check," this isn't going to pass the Senate.)

Comments

Lost_In_Translation | March 2, 2007, 9:32am | #

If the Senate knows whats good for them, they'll not pass this stupidity.

Lamar | March 2, 2007, 9:41am | #

Unions are a great idea......on paper. I can't support the Democratic party as long as they continue to bolster organized crime, er, organized labor. Perhaps this country wouldn't be nearly as great as it is without the security and power provided by unions, but that seems to be history. In my lifetime, all I have seen is (1) corrupt union leaders at the local level, (2) ineffectual unions that don't even bother to unite the workers, and (3) significant contribution to the destruction of entire industries.

dhex | March 2, 2007, 9:43am | #

i haven't had my coffee yet; what's wrong with this particular piece of legislation (outside of the fact that it involves unions)?

R C Dean | March 2, 2007, 9:46am | #

I can think of absolutely no reason for Bush to not veto this, if it should clear the Senate.

dhex, what's wrong with this legislation is that it does away with secret ballots in union elections, opening the door for all sorts of shenanigans by unions, ranging from packing the "card check" process with ringers to highly credible threats of violence against anyone who doesn't vote for the union.

val | March 2, 2007, 9:49am | #

I haven't had my coffee yet; what's wrong with this particular piece of legislation (outside of the fact that it involves unions)?

Well if I had to guess, and correct me if Im wrong, by doing away with SECRET ballots, the pro-union would now who to pressure to either vote their way or to fuck off and find another job.

Warren | March 2, 2007, 9:52am | #

"We didn't have a choice."

It was an offer they couldn't refuse.

D.A. Ridgely | March 2, 2007, 9:57am | #

FRIDAY UNION HUMOR:

A plumber and member of the local plumber's union was called to woman's apartment in New York to repair a leaking pipe. When he arrived he was pleased to discover that the woman was quite beautiful. During the course of the afternoon the two became extremely "friendly."

About 5:30 p.m. the phone rang, disturbing the bedroom shenanigans. "That was my husband," she said, putting down the phone. "He's on his way home, but is going back to the office around 8. Come back then and we can take up where we left off."

The plumber looked at the woman in disbelief. "What? On my own time?"

Bill Pope | March 2, 2007, 10:01am | #

Actually, the problem with the present system is that it allows employers free reign to intimidate workers into not joining a union. The voting process is drawn out by the company to allow them plenty of time to illegally fire organizers and let the lesson sink in for the rest. The employer notion of a democratic workplace is a sick joke when they strive to keep the typical nonunion company the very antithesis of democracy, or even basic rights.

MP | March 2, 2007, 10:02am | #

I simply don't understand why government is in the business of regulating unions anymore. Maybe in made sense 75 years ago when union organizers would be taken out behind the woodshed and beaten senseless by company thugs, but is that really such a concern nowadays that any government regulation of unions is warranted?

D.A. Ridgely | March 2, 2007, 10:04am | #

UNION HUMOR, PART II

A dedicated union member was attending a convention in Las Vegas and decided to check out the local brothels. When he got to the first one, he asked the Madame, "Is this a union house?"

"No," she replied, "I'm sorry it isn't."

"Well, if I pay you $100, what cut do the girls get?"

"The house gets $80, and the girls get $20." Offended at such unfair dealings, the man stomped off in search of a unionized shop.

His search continued until finally he reached a brothel where the Madame responded, "Why, yes sir, this is a union house."

The man asked, "And if I pay you $100, what cut do the girls get?" The Madame replied, "The girls get $80, and the house gets $20."

"That's more like it!" the union man said. He looked around the room and pointed to a stunning attractive blonde. "I'd like her for the night."

"I'm sure you would sir," said the Madame, then, gesturing to an obese seventy-five year old woman in the corner, "but Ethel here has seniority."

Warty | March 2, 2007, 10:07am | #

UNION HUMOR, PART III

Heath Shuler

AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

joe | March 2, 2007, 10:09am | #

An organization of corporations seeking to minimize the influence of workers in decisions effecting how workplaces operate?

Why, "The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace," of course.

joe | March 2, 2007, 10:10am | #

R C Dean,

Are you a professional union buster?

Al | March 2, 2007, 10:15am | #

A bill intended to take away from the workers the right to cast a secret ballot during a unionization vote, making them more susceptible to intimidation from BOTH their employers and the union organizers. What is it called?

Why, "The Employee Free Choice Act," of course.

steveintheknow | March 2, 2007, 10:18am | #

I agree with Lamar, in theory why not? If people want to negotiate as a group they should, and if someone doesn't want to they should be excluded no matter how many people vote in favor. I for one would not want to involuntarily give a cut of what I make in order to support a particular political party. Nor would I want to be bullied one way or the other. Nor would I want to be forced to join as a new employee just because the previous group of employees voted to do so.

joe | March 2, 2007, 10:20am | #

Al,

Horse shit. They become more suceptible to being intimidated by their employers by not given those employers several weeks to fire all the "trouble makers?"

Andy | March 2, 2007, 10:24am | #

Nothing about this act makes firing the "troublemakers" and more illegal or difficult, it just means you can identify every single person signing yes on the union with little to no effort, not just the "noisy troublemakers."

sage | March 2, 2007, 10:25am | #

Yawn. Private-Sector labor unions, slipping to an all-time low of 7.4% of the labor force last year, have truly outlived their usefulness. This is simply a fight to stay relevant.

Al | March 2, 2007, 10:26am | #

OK, joe, I will concede that you're right here. This bill ONLY makes them more susceptible to intimidation by the union organizers, not by their employers.

joe | March 2, 2007, 10:28am | #

Andy,

As a matter of fact, providing workers will union protections faster once they choose to go union does quite a bit to protect union supporters from retaliation.

joe | March 2, 2007, 10:29am | #

Al,

Ever been in a union?

Ever?

Or do you just believe everything you read by people paid to run them down?

steveintheknow | March 2, 2007, 10:32am | #

joe

Curious…. You've thrown that question out there a few times, so I have to ask - have you ever been in a union? If so could you give up the goods? If would be so kind.

joe | March 2, 2007, 10:32am | #

R C Dean, pleae tell Al and Andy what you do for a living, and how in demand your services are.

Sandy | March 2, 2007, 10:35am | #

Sounds like joe's problems could be solved by regulating the secret ballot process, instead of doing away with it. If you shorten the time and automatically review any firings during that reduced time, you could achieve those goals without having, say, rocks through joe's window because joe didn't sign the sheet unionizing the city planners because the union was anti-New Urbanist.

Al | March 2, 2007, 10:35am | #

Joe:

No, never. Ever. And no, I don't believe everything I read by people paid to run them down, either.

But why is it a good idea to take away the right to a secret ballot? Why?

I like secret ballots. I think they are good things, not bad things. There is currently a rule requiring them during votes for unionization, and the rule was (I understand) instituted to protect the workers doing the voting. Now either the workers no longer need protection (which I think we all agree isn't true), or the people supporting this bill don't like the fact that the workers have that protection. This seems very undemocratic to me.

dhex | March 2, 2007, 10:40am | #

it would seem like this would go in both directions in terms of the intimidation factor. then again, how much of a factor is that?

bring on the anecdotes!

naw, i mean, my dad was a shop steward for a long time; i've heard plenty. though nothing coming up on "intimidation" beyond the usual company writing up people for petty nonsense because of union activity; company throwing bullshit pizza parties to convince people to stay out of the union; the usual cajoling and arm-waving from reps on both sides, etc.

Lamar | March 2, 2007, 10:42am | #

I've been in two unions. One of them was selected because the owner and the union rep were childhood buddies and current racquetball pals. Worst doormat of a union ever. I was in a position where I couldn't negotiate my own pay/benefits/duties because the union did that, but the union wasn't doing that at all. Thank god I work in an industry where unions are a rare exception.

Fluffy | March 2, 2007, 10:44am | #

The bill also contains an extremely offensive provision stating that if an employer doesn't sign a new union formed under the bill to a contract within a couple of months, the union gets to ask the NLRB to impose a 2 year contract on the employer using binding arbitration, the methodology of which is "to be determined later".

Dan T. | March 2, 2007, 10:50am | #

The fact that the ruling class has more or less convinced the workers than unions are a bad thing is one of the great acts of propaganda in US history.

Meanwhile, the economy grows, unions lose influence, and guess what? Wages stagnate. How much longer will people not be able to put 2 and 2 together?

Captain Holly | March 2, 2007, 10:52am | #

Are you a professional union buster?

One of my high school teachers left the profession and became a private consultant in the mid-80's. His specialty? Advising companies on labor relations, ie, Union Buster.

I saw him a few years later, and when I teased him about his profession he said "Any company that has a union deserves what it gets." His selling point was: Treat your employees well, and they won't want to join one.

joe | March 2, 2007, 10:52am | #

Al,

"But why is it a good idea to take away the right to a secret ballot? Why?"

Because the existing system leaves employees extremely vulnerable to intimidation and coercion by employers seeking to prevent them from unionizing, by giving them an opportunity to fire and threaten employees, before the vote occurs and they gain union protection.

steveintheknow,

I was in an AFSCME local for a few years. I was actually treasurer for a couple. Never got to break nobody's legs, though.

Andy | March 2, 2007, 10:53am | #

Whoa, whoa, whoa Tex. (And by Tex I mean Al.) I'm not anti-union by any means. In fact, to be honest, I don't really care one way or the other. The embarrassing advantage of someone who works white-collar, I know. I know they were important to my dad and my grandfather, and while it seems to me that they're not nearly as important now, it's not for me to argue for it as a policy position.

HOWEVER, my point was that if companies take illegal measures to suppress unions now, nothing about this bill is likely to change that, and I stand by it. I'm with Sandy and Al one hundred percent on the argument that my first instinct will always be that secret ballots are better. End of story, and you'd have to do some mighty fine tap dancing to even start to win me over from that.

I think Al sums it up best, this was originally instituted to protect individual workers. I don't care whether changing this specific aspect benefits unions or The Man, it definitely disadvantages individuals. And so I'm agin' it. It's also agin' privacy, so again, I'm agin' it. I don't see any reason that this protection is less valid now than it was then, so I don't think it should be taken away. If there are problems with the system they should be attacked with repairs within the secret ballot system.

sage | March 2, 2007, 10:55am | #

"the economy grows, unions lose influence, and guess what? Wages stagnate. How much longer will people not be able to put 2 and 2 together?"

I'd like to buy your rock.

joe | March 2, 2007, 10:56am | #

Uh, yeah, employees' losing bargaining power, employers keeping an ever-larger share of the pie - that's pretty much the same thing as a rock keeping away tigers.

Andy | March 2, 2007, 10:56am | #

Sorry, by Tex, I meant Joe. And Joe, your argument continues to about timeline, not about secrecy.

Also, this whole "do you belong to a union" thing is crap. Joe, you've pontificated on the Iraq War, education, and a billion other things in the time you've been here. Are you a soldier? A foreign policy planner? A teacher? People can intellectually analyze and contribute regardless of status, and to waive the "you can't understand this world" flag is a cheap trick.

VM | March 2, 2007, 10:57am | #

"bring on the anecdotes!"

you got it. And the usual over-the-top (DEMAND CURVE) styles in yet another facet of the culture war.

(also add something along the lines of what sage said!)

toodles.

steveintheknow | March 2, 2007, 10:59am | #

Thanks joe.

-Dan

I gotta say..

"ruling class"

That’s just funny, and when you go on to use thw word "propaganda", well that’s just irony.

Warren | March 2, 2007, 11:03am | #

joe,
I've been in a Union, and have worked with them in many places and environments.

Big Labor = organized crime.

Big unions prey upon their membership. Union dues are protection money paid directly to the mob. No employer (save the USN) ever took as much advantage of me as did the UAW.

Small shops are not as bad. They are still problematic for both the membership and the employer. But they are not 100% criminal.

John | March 2, 2007, 11:04am | #

"The House voted 241-185 for the Employee Free Choice Act, which would allow workers to unionize by simply signing a card or petition stating their interest in joining a union, as opposed to the long-standing practice of secret-ballot elections"

I suppose if every state were a right to work state, this might not be so bad. Since many states are not it is terrible. The majority of workers can sign a petition where I work and I am screwed and stuck in a union I never wanted to join paying protection money in the form of union dues to keep my job. That is BS. Further, I have to publicly come out against the union and tell the union thugs to fuck off and face the consiquences of being anti-union if the union gets enough signatures.

In many states, a shop unionizing means everyone must join the union and give up some of their salary to support the union if they want to work. To coerce people like that, you ought to have to have a full election where everyone's ballot is secret.

Dan T. | March 2, 2007, 11:05am | #

steve, forgive me. I sometimes forget there is no such thing as social class in America.

John | March 2, 2007, 11:06am | #

Joe,

If you like unions so much, what kind of car do you drive? Do you drive an American car and support he UAW or do you drive a Japanese car like a Toyota that is primarily built in the United States in non union factories? Just curious.

joe | March 2, 2007, 11:06am | #

Andy,

"Also, this whole "do you belong to a union" thing is crap. Joe, you've pontificated on the Iraq War, education, and a billion other things in the time you've been here. Are you a soldier? A foreign policy planner? A teacher? People can intellectually analyze and contribute regardless of status, and to waive the "you can't understand this world" flag is a cheap trick."

When "pontificating" on those subjects, I don't make factual assertions about the conditions experienced by those in those situations. That's a pretty big difference, compared to the assertions about the alleged violence and intimidation experienced by union workers.

Al | March 2, 2007, 11:09am | #

joe:

It sounds like we agree that of course intimidation from either side during a unionization movement is a bad thing. The reason intimidation is a concern is that, given the amounts of money involved, there will be people on both sides of a unionization battle with vested interests that might not coincide with the best interests of the employees doing the voting.

It seems to me that there must be a way of protecting workers from intimidation and/or reprisals from their employers for unionization activity while preserving their fundamental right to a secret ballot.

joe | March 2, 2007, 11:10am | #

John,

I drive a Civic. I don't know or care about the union status of the factory where it was built.

If I were one of those advocates of universal unionization, this would provide you with a good opportunity for you to call me hypocrite. However, since I'm not, and my only interest is in the right of employees to unionize their workplaces if they collectively choose to do so, it's irrelevant.

Show me where Honda factories are facing pressure from their employees to unionize and are squashing them, you might get me to buy a different car next time. But if those factories are full of happy workers who have no interest in unionizing, what do I care?

Andy | March 2, 2007, 11:12am | #

Joe,

That's odd, because you called Al out on his union membership, and he'd exclusively discussed whether this bill could make people more susceptible to union intimidation. At no point did he try to tell some story about being intimidated by unions.

VM | March 2, 2007, 11:13am | #

"joe | March 2, 2007, 11:10am | #
John,

I drive a Civic. "

Wow. John drives a DODGE STRATUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

keed keed.

Fluffy | March 2, 2007, 11:13am | #

Joe - are you saying that it's your position that no union member, organizer, or supporter has ever sought to intimidate an employee into supporting a union?

Just so we're clear - has no replacement worker ever been subject to intimidation, either?

I just want to make sure how bright you want the union halo to be here.

I'd also be interested in your take on the basic fairness of allowing a contract to be imposed on an employer by bureaucratic fiat. How is that "bargaining"?

steveintheknow | March 2, 2007, 11:14am | #

Dan

Sorry :)

I consider myself to be full of it, so I don't have many hang-ups about poking at others. I do consider "war on the middle class" language to be pretty funny though.

joe | March 2, 2007, 11:16am | #

Andy,

It's not odd at all. Assertions about union intimidation almost always come from people whose experience with unions consists of reading about them.

Fluffy,

No, I don't make absolute statments like that.

'I'd also be interested in your take on the basic fairness of allowing a contract to be imposed on an employer by bureaucratic fiat. How is that "bargaining"?'

Federal mediation is not "fiat." It is a process of reconciling both sides' positions in case the bargaining is unsuccessful.

grylliade | March 2, 2007, 11:17am | #

Ever been in a union?

Ever?

Or do you just believe everything you read by people paid to run them down?

I've never been in one, but I've worked security at a couple places that had unions. UPS wasn't so bad, but the GE plant where I worked who had Teamsters representation was awful. When the Teamsters guys came to the plant to talk to the management, they were total assholes. Everyone who worked there was overpaid; even the guys who bussed the tables in the breakroom made twelve bucks an hour, twice as much as the security guys made, and they still stole our food from the fridge if we were dumb enough to leave it there. Because of the contract, everyone had ungodly amounts of vacation and sick time, and by God they used it. Most people came in three days out of the five they were scheduled for the week, meaning the warehouse was continually understaffed and the people who did come in were overworked.

My favorite part of that particular contract was the yard tractor job. The person who drove the yard tractor had to have a full trucking driver's license (not sure if this is a bullshit state requirement or a bullshit union requirement). The guy who had had the job left. According to the union contract, the company had to pay for the replacement to get the training. Since this was a several thousand dollar value offered for free, three or four people took advantage of it. They got the training, and immediately quit to go work as a commercial truck driver, making much more money. Finally they found someone who stayed, but because of the union rules they couldn't make someone who had received training at company expense stay to repay their investment.

Another place I worked (can't remember where now) had a strike because the workers wanted seven weeks of vacation a year instead of six. A strike.

I think unions can be a good thing. I think that the present regime of regulation in the US, combined with increased standards of living, means that unions are fighting for improvements at the margin in 90 % of cases, rather than the important safety and fairness improvements they fought for a century ago. Remove some of the heavy regulation of the way that companies and unions are allowed to interact, and I think that you might see some sort of increased relevance of unions.

Meanwhile, the economy grows, unions lose influence, and guess what? Wages stagnate. How much longer will people not be able to put 2 and 2 together?

Come out from under the bridge, Dan.

Ken | March 2, 2007, 11:17am | #

If it's one thing that can make the GOP cohere and stand up its the rights of businesses to stick it to their workers. Its what that party is all about...

Grant Gould | March 2, 2007, 11:18am | #

A big part of this debate is the fundamental question of who unions exist to fight against. The union rhetoric is generally unions-versus-management. But from the bottom, it often looks like unions exist mainly to fight other, nonunionized workers. Abolishing secret ballots would certainly clarify which of these is the real fight, but is that really what unions ought to be about?

John | March 2, 2007, 11:19am | #

"But if those factories are full of happy workers who have no interest in unionizing, what do I care?"

You shouldn't Joe, but of course if they are truly being oppressed, it ought to take more than a secret ballot to keep them from unionizing.

For the record, I only drive American cars, becaus the European ones I like are too expensive and I think Japanese cars are boring I just can't get over my love of the American car.

You should really read a history of the American Auto industry. The UAW did not do its workers or the industry any favors. It was incredibly short sighted and greedy. Going back to the 40s and 50s when companies like Studabaker and Packard were in trouble, the UAW refused to re-negotiate contracts and expected those companies to pay the same wages as the Big Three and did nothing to save the companies or the workers jobs as they went bankrupt. Had the UAW been more flexible, those companies might have survived and we would have a better U.S. auto industry. Instead, those workers lost their jobs and those companies died partially so the big three wouldn't get any ideas.

A.B. | March 2, 2007, 11:19am | #

Via Kevin Drum and Ezra Klein, some data

Research shows that, when threatened with a union, 30% of employers fire pro-union workers, 49% threaten to close down, 51% use bribery or favoritism to tilt the election, and 82% hire unionbusting consultants. Now that's what I call morally abhorrent.

Today I found some interesting data with strong bearing on the argument. A poll commissioned by American Rights at Work (a pro-union org), Rutgers University, and Jesuit Wheeling University surveyed 430 randomly-selected workers from worksites where employees had sought unions either through the NLRB election process or card-check. The survey included workers who voted both for and against the union, and included campaigns in which the unions both won and lost. The Eagleton Research Center and Rutgers conducted the calls over a couple of weeks in 2005.

The results were telling: 22% of workers surveyed said management "coerced them a great deal.' 6% said the same for unions. During the NLRB election, 46% of workers complained of management pressure. During card check elections, 14% complained of union pressure. Workers in NLRB elections were twice as likely as workers in card check elections to report that management coerced them to oppose (it's worth noting that in card-check elections, 23% of workers complained of management coercion -- more than complained of union coercion). Workers in NLRB elections were more than 53% as likely to report that management threatened to eliminate their jobs.

Even more interesting, fewer workers in card check campaigns said coworkers pressured them to join the union (17% to 22%). Workers in card check elections were more than twice as likely to report the employer took a neutral stance and let the workers decide. So, in fairness to Megan, neither options is perfect. But these results show that one is decidedly less perfect than the other.


From

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/10/post_1713.html#014061

joe | March 2, 2007, 11:20am | #

Al, Andy,

I think you might be a little confused about what this legislation does. It does not replace the secret ballot with a card check.

Right now, employees who want to unionize have to get their coworkers to sign union cards, and then present them to the employer, and schedule an election. The employer then gets a few weeks to hire a "consultant" like R C Dean to tell them how to threaten and fire troublemakers without going outside the letter of the law. At the end of the waiting period, the remaining employees vote, and if the proposal passes, they gain union rights.

This bill will eliminate the second step, and allow the workers to gain union protection once a majority of them have expressed their desire to do so.

Marcvs | March 2, 2007, 11:22am | #

When did we decide companies were supposed to be "democracies"? I must of missed that.

R C Dean | March 2, 2007, 11:24am | #

Are you a professional union buster?

No, but I have plenty of direct experience with union organizing, thanks.

I know from first-hand experience that unions will not shy away from placing ringers in organizations who quit once the election is over and and will use threats of violence against those they percieve as anti-union employee leaders.

I have never seen an employer behave as badly as the unions routinely do during organizing campaigns.

Assertions about union intimidation almost always come from people whose experience with unions consists of reading about them.

As if the record of violence and criminal behavior by unions isn't amply documented.

It seems to me that there must be a way of protecting workers from intimidation and/or reprisals from their employers for unionization activity while preserving their fundamental right to a secret ballot.

You'd think so. But I can think of no way to protect workers from either side that doesn't involve a secret ballot. Ergo, those who want to do away with the secret ballot must not be very interested in protecting workers.

Rimfax | March 2, 2007, 11:26am | #

My understanding of unions from my personal experiences and those of my close friends:

- nonunion employee's get better pay and benefits than union employee's, EXCEPT when the union employee's are working for a declining company and/or a government enforced monopoly

- unions obstruct work done by nonunion entities wherever possible with the threat of force

- unions intimidate employees who vocally oppose unionization with insults at first and the threat of force later

- unions do not tolerate "mixed" shops; the nonunion employees always make the unionized employees look too ineffective by comparison

- union employees are substantially less effective than even minimally experienced and minimally trained nonunion employees

Modern unions are a middle man between employers and employees that bears no responsibility for the effectiveness of their negotiations for employees and no responsibility for the effectiveness of the workforce for the employers. This is not to say that the idea of employee unionization isn't a potentially valid and useful idea, but the modern incarnation is a pure leech to both employees and employers.

joe | March 2, 2007, 11:27am | #

Read, in grylliade's comment, "...but because of the union rules..." as "...but because of the contract the employer agreed to sign afte negotiating with his employees..."

Unions don't get to impose "rules" on their own. They contract their services.

John,

"if they are truly being oppressed, it ought to take more than a secret ballot to keep them from unionizing." It doesn't. It usually takes several weeks of pressure, firings, intimidation and propaganda.

And if you'd like, I can provide examples of corporations that "didn't do themselves any favors" with their business decisions, but I'm certainly not going to present that as evidence for why it should be made difficult to form a corporation.

Lamar | March 2, 2007, 11:27am | #

Whoa, let's stop this crap before it gets going. Driving a car not made by the labor unions does not make one a hypocrite for being in favor of unions. It just means you drive a car that's right for you.

R C Dean | March 2, 2007, 11:28am | #

Research shows that, when threatened with a union, 30% of employers fire pro-union workers,

And why shouldn't an employer get to hire and fire who they want?

49% threaten to close down

And why shouldn't an employer get to decide whether or not to stay open or close?

51% use bribery or favoritism to tilt the election

Seeing as that may be a crime, you'd think there would be more prosecutions, if this were true in any meaningful way.

82% hire unionbusting consultants.

And why shouldn't an employer be free to hire who they want to advise them on how to run their business.

Sorry, but I just can't see any of this (except the dubious charges of "bribery and favoritism") as morally abhorrent.

Andy | March 2, 2007, 11:28am | #

Joe,

Sorry, I call shenanigans. You had no right to question his membership, it has nothing to do with anything he's asserted.

I think that disbanding the military would make America more susceptible to an invasion. Am I a soldier? Do I have proof America was ever invaded? Do I have proof that anyone WANTS to invade America? No, but I can damn sure make my own call about that. It's the exact same thing here. Al pointed out that aspects of this bill could actually increase susceptibility to intimidation. He did so in the kind of polite, couched language you almost NEVER see in the sorts of form, including both a conditional (could) and the limiting susceptible.

You clearly called out his union membership in an attempt to discredit him, and you were wrong to do so. Both because its irrelevant to the nature of his argument, and because if you take away someone's right to explore ideas without first-hand experience you remove the entire point of intellectual discussion.

joe | March 2, 2007, 11:30am | #

RC Dean tells us, "I have never seen an employer behave as badly as the unions routinely do during organizing campaigns."

Which looks a lot less convincing coming after the statistical research A.B. points us to.

joe | March 2, 2007, 11:31am | #

Andy,

Al wasn't talking about the public policy effects (ie, being more subject to invasion). He was talking about the experience of union members.

Grotius | March 2, 2007, 11:32am | #

I'm with MP.

joe,

Yes, I was in a union, for about a year. Is it appropriate for me to discuss this issue now?

Ammonium | March 2, 2007, 11:33am | #

Some of my coworkers are in a union, but the majority aren't even though all the jobs are quite similar.

Most of my coworkers are very left-wing, but respect for the union can be predicted almost perfectly by whether they've ever been in that union. Most who have ever been in the union hates unions, while those who have never been in the union still think that unions are great and protect workers, yadda yadda yadda.

Since the unionization the union's great success was getting the workers $100 off their insurance. However, the union has failed to get the regular pay raises that the nonunionized employees get. Union and nonunion employees used to be paid the same, now the union employees are paid less. This loss of income has come at a price for the union employees: they have to pay 2 or 3% of their income to the union. Where this money goes, nobody has a clue.

R C Dean | March 2, 2007, 11:34am | #

This bill will eliminate the second step, and allow the workers to gain union protection once a majority of them have expressed their desire to do so.

When faced with peer pressure and potential violence, lots of people who don't really want a union will sign the card.

When given the protection of a secret ballot, you are more likely to find out what they really want.

Andy | March 2, 2007, 11:35am | #

Joe,

So why can't a shortened time line resolve this issue? And are you saying that the majority of employees have to sign the union cards just to schedule the election?

And I don't know why you keep saying "companies hiring union busting consultants" like its some nefarious action. Hopefully, the union is more than willing to help workers agitate for a union and take full advantage of it to maximize their own benefits. Why shouldn't a company get someone who knows what they're doing? This seems like being upset that defendants are allowed to hire lawyers?

pedant | March 2, 2007, 11:35am | #

"Democrats pushed the most impactful reform of union rights since, arguably, Taft-Hartley"

"impactful"? Seriously? I expect better from Reason.

D.A. Ridgely | March 2, 2007, 11:35am | #

As others above have noted, private sector unionization continues to be a less and less significant segment of the labor force in the U.S., so the stakes here ain't exactly all that great.

Ignoring, as union supporters perforce cannot do, the inherent unfairness of the very notion of the "right to bargain collectively" without the reciprocal right of employers to refuse and to fire collectively, automation and outsourcing continue apace to undermine the usefulness of unionization among all but the most skilled, who arguably don't need the power of the collective in the first place.

The result? If you're a professional athlete, unions are a sweet deal, though even then the handful of real superstars could do just as well without the unions. If, by contrast, you're a day laborer or working a job requiring few skills and little training, a union won't increase your job security or raise your income above its free market price all that much.

Oh, sure, there are a few exceptions and, yes, state power continues to keep some unions artificially strong and valuable to their membership; but for the most part, worrying about whether secret ballots should be required is a bit like worrying whether VCR machines should be required to be HDTV compatible.

Robert | March 2, 2007, 11:35am | #

I don't understand why the main advertised provision of this is a big deal. Are the cards or petitions to be held by the prospective organizers? Then what's the difference between that and proxy voting?

Or is the petition displayed openly to all at all times? In that case, it becomes visible to both a prospective organizer and the employer, so I don't see how it tips the balance.

I agree that unions of any considerable size tend to become either bosses' unions or Mafia unions (or become their own little Mafia). That tendency is certainly furthered by secret negotiations. I've seen where a union did nothing but get in the way of a contract, playing off their membership vs. the employer, and taking credit to both when they finally got out of the way.

Rand 4VER | March 2, 2007, 11:35am | #

Unions are the scummiest organizations in this country. The worst thing to ever happen to a superior businessman was organized labor. Disgusting. I'm all for free-association but I'll fire anyone on the basis of talking about a union.

joe | March 2, 2007, 11:35am | #

Grotius,

Not only can you discuss the issue, which anyone can legitimately do, but you can also legitimately discuss the experience of being in a union. Heck, you could evern extrapolate from your own experience to make broad statements about union employess in general.

R C Dean | March 2, 2007, 11:36am | #

joe, I'm shocked to discover that a pro-union organization, conducting a telephone survey with a less than optimal number of responders, is publishing results critical of their enemies. Color me unimpressed.

Al | March 2, 2007, 11:38am | #

joe:

Unless I am mistaken, I don't believe I ever mentioned union members; I mentioned employees who were deciding whether or not to join a union.

If you had asked me if I have ever cast a ballot in a vote on whether or not to join a union, I would have been able to say "yes." I won't tell you how I voted, though; it was a secret ballot.

joe | March 2, 2007, 11:38am | #

Andy,

"So why can't a shortened time line resolve this issue?" Because there needs to be some time frame to confirm the cards and take care of the logistics, under any scenario.

"And are you saying that the majority of employees have to sign the union cards just to schedule the election?" I'm not sure of what the cutoff is everywhere.

lurker | March 2, 2007, 11:39am | #

Here's my question: why does the card have to be signed by a majority of the workers, if you're then going to have an election? That's not how it works if you're petitioning your local government for an election. You turn in a petition signed by like 10 or 20 % of the voters, and that's enough to force an election.

Why not have a requirement that 1/3 of the workers sign the card, and then have a secret ballot where you need a majority? Does that just make too much sense?

steveintheknow | March 2, 2007, 11:39am | #

Ammonium

Where this money goes, nobody has a clue.

It goes here

joe | March 2, 2007, 11:40am | #

"joe, I'm shocked to discover that a pro-union organization, conducting a telephone survey with a less than optimal number of responders, is publishing results critical of their enemies. Color me unimpressed."

...whereas we're all supposed to credit your biased, financially-interested sample of one so very highly.

Andy | March 2, 2007, 11:40am | #

Joe,

At this point you're either being willfully ignorant or just dishonest. Go read Al's posts prior to your union question. In fact, don't bother, I'll quote them both here.

-"A bill intended to take away from the workers the right to cast a secret ballot during a unionization vote, making them more susceptible to intimidation from BOTH their employers and the union organizers. What is it called?

Why, "The Employee Free Choice Act," of course."-

That comment actually says it makes them more susceptible to intimidation from both. And again, it's just talking about possibilities, at no point is he drawing on experience.

-"OK, joe, I will concede that you're right here. This bill ONLY makes them more susceptible to intimidation by the union organizers, not by their employers."-

That came in response to your claim that employers already intimidate the unions. By virtue of conceding the point of bad behavior on their point, he arrives at the conclusion that the increased susceptibility for the unions still stands. Again, no experiential claims.

And that's it. And then, BAM, rather than answer, you play the "what right do you have to question me" card.

Grotius | March 2, 2007, 11:41am | #

joe,

I'll be blunt. I have no idea what the union did for me during that year. I paid them dues. I can't remember them doing anything to keep me abreast of their activities.

_________________________________

Anyway, I gotta say, on its face doing away with the secret ballot sounds problematic. Then again, aside from issues of fraud and the like, I don't see why the government is involved in regulating the interactions between unions and businesses.

Fluffy | March 2, 2007, 11:43am | #

Joe -

Binding arbitration absolutely IS fiat.

If the government can present me with a labor contract that does not reflect terms I have directly negotiated and say, "This is your contract for the next two years," that absolutely, positively is a fiat contract.

Robert:

The reason it's a big deal is because right now if an employee is being subjected to pressure from pro-union employees, he can just sign their card and then vote against the union later. The organizers have no way of knowing, under the secret ballot system, which employees are definitely the ones who opposed the union. If the card system is the end all and be all, then anyone who refuses the card is obviously a "union enemy".

Dan T. | March 2, 2007, 11:43am | #

When faced with peer pressure and potential violence, lots of people who don't really want a union will sign the card.

When given the protection of a secret ballot, you are more likely to find out what they really want.

So basically you're in favor of the nanny state "protecting" people from, gasp, peer pressure?

heh

joe | March 2, 2007, 11:43am | #

Grotius,

Most likely, what the union did for you that year was keep your employer from going back on the commitments he made to the union during the most recent bargaining session.

Andy | March 2, 2007, 11:44am | #

Joe,

Well, then, is the cutoff over 50% anywhere? Because in that case, I'll concede that it does just seem to be "getting rid of an extra step." If you already have majority approval, the election COULD be seen as superfluous, though an argument that the company should be given some amount of time to make its own case would be an appealing one to me.

So, they manage to count the votes for an entire national election (essentially) in 24? 48 hours? You can't come up with a reasonable time line for this that resolves some of your concerns?

joe | March 2, 2007, 11:46am | #

Andy,

I know that a 30% sign-off schedules an election, while an 85% sign-off...schedules an election.

This provides the opportunity for a greater than 50% sign-off to count as majority approval.

Andy | March 2, 2007, 11:46am | #

Dan T.,

The central basis of libertarian philosophy is that there should only be enough intervention to prevent people from infringing on each other's liberty. "Peer pressure" - when it can come in the form of concern for one's welfare or physical violence - is very much the concern of the state. Just giving the use of force and intimidation to remove liberty a cute little pet name doesn't make it any less insidious or any less of a central concern.

joshua corning | March 2, 2007, 11:47am | #

I sometimes think i feel sorry for unions...then I realize unions are the same ideology that put Hitler in power.

joe | March 2, 2007, 11:48am | #

And joshua loses the thread.

(In addition to not realizing that Hitler banned unions and murdered their leaders and supporters.)

Andy | March 2, 2007, 11:49am | #

Joe,

Sorry, but the argument that we have to remove the step of the election because occasionally more than 50% sign the cards and are then forced to wait for an election isn't enough to win me over. Not even close. Especially when you've declined to address the possibility of time line changes.

R C Dean | March 2, 2007, 11:50am | #

Because in that case, I'll concede that it does just seem to be "getting rid of an extra step."

This assumes that signing a card in the presence of its proponents is the equivalent of casting a secret ballot. We all know its not, so lets not pretend it is.

C'mon, people. How can anyone seriously say they are trying to "protect" workers while simultaneously doing away with the foundation for any such protection - the anonymity of a secret ballot.

Fluffy | March 2, 2007, 11:53am | #

RC -

Well, let's remember that, ultimately, union organizers are salespeople.

And there's nothing a salesperson hates more than a busted sale.

So if you're a union organizer and you get someone's signature on a card, you feel like you've made the sale. The idea that that person then gets a chance to renege on the sale during the secret ballot process must be very galling to this particular sales force.

Dan T. | March 2, 2007, 11:53am | #

"Peer pressure" - when it can come in the form of concern for one's welfare or physical violence - is very much the concern of the state

I agree, but there are already laws that make threats and other forms of coercion illegal. But there's nothing wrong with trying to convince another person to follow a course of action if those illegal tactics aren't used.

But people don't need to be protected ahead of time from what others might do to them - that's where the nanny statism comes in.

It's mostly just interesting how when the topic is unions suddenly "personal responsiblity" goes out the window and people need the state to make sure there's no chance of something bad happening.

Lamar | March 2, 2007, 11:54am | #

Joshua Corning:

Unions are an ideology? All this time I thought a union was an organizion of workers.

Andy | March 2, 2007, 11:54am | #

You know, actually, R C Dean is right. I wouldn't accept a ballot signed "no" in a room with your boss, I'm not going to accept a ballot signed "yes" in a room full of union reps.

I take it back.

Grotius | March 2, 2007, 11:56am | #

joe,

More accurate to state that the Nazi regime did away with independent labor unions. Like the USSR and eastern bloc nations the Nazis had official, state sponsored labor unions. One big one with many divisions.

B. | March 2, 2007, 11:57am | #

I am a member of two unions: Screen Actors Guild and AFTRA, the TV/Radio professionals guild.

Prior to joining, I was a producer - and I absolutely hated dealing with the unions. They complicate things. They create huge amounts of paperwork. They're filled with otherwise unemployable idiots - especially unions with actors in them. They spend most of their time trying to justify their existence.

When I became an actor I had to join. As expected, it's a bunch of people who feel that they're entitled to X. They bitch if a shoot is 5 minutes late with lunch. They bitch if the on-set catering isn't exactly what the union rules demand. They bitch exactly 30 seconds into overtime. Yadda yadda.

Sure, the union does serve a purpose. It keeps folks from getting totally taken advantage of - but the fact is, there are plenty of people who would do what I do for a pittance.

SAG in particular is plagued with infighting. It shot itself in the foot with the ill-advised 2000 strike. It's repeatedly refused to merge with AFTRA which would be the smartest thing it could do. It really has no teeth, but at least it knows that now.

On the bright side I made over $32,000 saying five words on a national TV commercial. Fifteen minutes of work in an air-conditioned booth. Behold, the power of a union.

Absurd, I know.

steveintheknow | March 2, 2007, 11:59am | #

Either way these laws stink. When it comes to protection. As long as any individual is subject to a majority, there is NO PROTECTION.

Should it really matter if 99% want to unionize? Why should anyone be forced to give up their right to negotiate on his or her own?

Andy | March 2, 2007, 11:59am | #

Dan T.,

This has nothing to do with unions. It's the same reason I wouldn't want a political election to be a hand count in the city square. After the threats have been made and the measure has passed, its too late to go back and press charges.

Furthermore, intimidation cases are almost impossible to prove and almost never brought up because, wait for it, wait for it, the person is intimidated! If I'm going to vote in a political election, and a guy leans on the table where I'm voting wearing a Democrat sticker wearing a gun watches me, it might change my decision.

That's an invasion of liberty, even though there were no threats made. Same situation here.

steveintheknow | March 2, 2007, 12:03pm | #

-B

You got SAG card? Isn’t there a catch 22 on those puppies? From what I’ve heard its like trying to get a liquor license in Utah.

joe | March 2, 2007, 12:07pm | #

Fluffy,

"Binding arbitration absolutely IS fiat." It was the "bureaucratic" part I was objecting to. This is not a case of the government imposing the outcome that it deems best, but of finding a reasonable middle ground based on what the two sides bring to the table.

Grotius,

A union is an orgainization among workers, not one imposed on them by an outside force like the government. The self-directed element is a necessary element of the definition.

Robert | March 2, 2007, 12:08pm | #

The reason it's a big deal is because right now if an employee is being subjected to pressure from pro-union employees, he can just sign their card and then vote against the union later. The organizers have no way of knowing, under the secret ballot system, which employees are definitely the ones who opposed the union. If the card system is the end all and be all, then anyone who refuses the card is obviously a "union enemy".

But anyone who does sign the card is obviously a "union friend", so I don't see how it tips the balance.

This assumes that signing a card in the presence of its proponents is the equivalent of casting a secret ballot. We all know its not, so lets not pretend it is.

C'mon, people. How can anyone seriously say they are trying to "protect" workers while simultaneously doing away with the foundation for any such protection - the anonymity of a secret ballot

RC Dean, have you ever participated in voting by proxy? I've done so, and I've also personally solicited proxies. Is it any less fair than a secret individual ballot?

Someone seeks to represent you. You decide OK, so you sign that person's proxy card. Anyone can offer to be your proxy. Maybe you mail it in, maybe you get a personal solicitation and sign on the spot. What's the big deal?

For that matter, what about meetings where the vote is by show of hands, whether proxies are included or not?

joe | March 2, 2007, 12:13pm | #

Andy,

Every day you are working while your employer works to intimidate you to vote the way he wants is a day you have a man with a gun standing over you. When someone holds you livelihood in his hands, you can't pretend that it is the union introducing coercion into the equation.

If it weren't for coercion by employers, this wouldn't be necessary, but as we all know, there are plenty of people with plenty of money to buy the serices of union busters, and who have no problem firing "troublemakers."

dhex | March 2, 2007, 12:15pm | #

"I sometimes think i feel sorry for unions...then I realize unions are the same ideology that put Hitler in power."

AND HE BUILT HIGHWAYS TOO!

YOU'RE DRIVING WITH HITLER POWER!

Andy | March 2, 2007, 12:15pm | #

Joe,

But what about this policy changes ANY of what you described to me? You haven't explained to me why eliminating the election changes any of that.

Furthermore, can I assume you've conceded you were wrong to challenge Al on the grounds of union membership?

JasonL | March 2, 2007, 12:15pm | #

A reasonable deal would be you can unionize whenever you want and employers can choose not to deal with a union whenever they want. If your union has enough clout you get all your stupid demands and drag the country down with you. If not, oh well.

I just can't let it go. Longshoremen cost this country nearly a half percent of GDP because of their crap, the docks were forced under the hilariously named 'fair labor' laws to deal only with the unions, and yet people are somehow shocked at the animosity unions generate.

Workplaces are better in non perpetual struggle. It isn't obviously true that unions help a majority of their members, but they do destroy jobs all the time. Adults shouldn't be sitting around all day trying to figure out how to minimize their productivity - and that is what unions do. All day every day.

Warren | March 2, 2007, 12:21pm | #

Forms of Union coercion I've witnessed:
Men walking a picket line with ax handles.
Broken windshields and slashed tiers.
Anonymous 1am phone calls "Stay home tomorrow or else"

Forms of Employer coercion I've witnessed:
All employee meetings held on the clock with Power Point slides.

joe | March 2, 2007, 12:22pm | #

Andy,

First, I ceased to care about your touching rescue of Al a long time ago. Assume whatever you want.

Second, "You haven't explained to me why eliminating the election changes any of that." It eliminates the employers' opportunity to coerce and fire employees before they gain union rights.

A.B. | March 2, 2007, 12:23pm | #

Research shows that, when threatened with a union, 30% of employers fire pro-union workers,

And why shouldn't an employer get to hire and fire who they want?

--Because it's against the law to fire people for favoring a union.

51% use bribery or favoritism to tilt the election

Seeing as that may be a crime, you'd think there would be more prosecutions, if this were true in any meaningful way.

No, given that especially under anti-union administrations like the last four companies rarely get into trouble even for firing workers I would be very surprised if lesser crimes were punished.

Sorry, but I just can't see any of this (except the dubious charges of "bribery and favoritism") as morally abhorrent.

Robert | March 2, 2007, 12:23pm | #

"This has nothing to do with unions. It's the same reason I wouldn't want a political election to be a hand count in the city square. After the threats have been made and the measure has passed, its too late to go back and press charges."

Robert LeFevre objected to secret ballots as a way of escaping reponsibility. Doesn't it ever disturb you that people can affect the outcome of an election without your ever being able to know who they are, and without ever being able to do perfectly legal things in retaliation, such as boycotting, shunning, or shaming?

Arguing that the potential of violence against somebody on the basis of knowing something about them is also an argument against all freedom of communication. Why should the press ever be allowed to publicize anything bad or unpopular about someone, if it means they might become a target of violence?

Grotius | March 2, 2007, 12:24pm | #

dhex,

What's so terribly ironic about Hitler's roads is that they were very sparingly used during his time in power and were more of benefit to Allied troops than anything. Roads are neutral when it comes to their military usage.

Andy | March 2, 2007, 12:25pm | #

Ouch, joe gets SORE when he's losing.

And joe, I ceased caring about that line when you kept ignoring the time line response. Draw your own conclusion.

Al | March 2, 2007, 12:26pm | #

It seems to me that there are 4 groups of people:
(1) People who sign the card intending to vote "yes."
(2) People who don't sign the card and intend to vote "no."
(3) People who don't sign the card, perhaps afraid of employer reprisals, but intend to vote "yes."
(4) People who sign the card for whatever reason but intend to vote "no."

I think it would be somewhat naive to argue that either group (3) or group (4) would have no members. The solution would obviously be to set the requirement for having a ballot very low--say 10 percent of the workers at a site, or even less--but to continue the secret ballot. Perhaps an added layer of protection for employee organizers, such as submitting the cards to an independent board rather than the employer, would serve to further reduce the possibility of employer reprisals.

If I were running for mayor and had signatures from 100 of the 183 residents of my town on my petition, I can't imagine that anybody would say that I should immediately be declared elected. I also can't imagine that anybody would argue that the system should be set up to declare me elected in a case like that.

Grotius | March 2, 2007, 12:27pm | #

Come on folks. It is a Friday. Let's be civil before we start partying this weekend. :)

Robert | March 2, 2007, 12:29pm | #

"Every day you are working while your employer works to intimidate you to vote the way he wants is a day you have a man with a gun standing over you. When someone holds you livelihood in his hands,"

That would be true only if you had to work for that person.

VM | March 2, 2007, 12:33pm | #

Gro:

Wouldn't it be fun to see the two sides in this (and other, typical left v right) arguments go at it on MXC (now playing on Spike)

BLS Union Stats


In 2006, 12.0 percent of employed wage and salary workers were union
members, down from 12.5 percent a year earlier, the U.S. Department of
Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The number of persons
belonging to a union fell by 326,000 in 2006 to 15.4 million.

--Workers in the public sector had a union membership rate nearly
five times that of private sector employees.

--Education, training, and library occupations had the highest
unionization rate among all occupations, at 37 percent.

--The unionization rate was higher for men than for women.

--Black workers were more likely to be union members than were white,
Asian, or Hispanic workers.

joe | March 2, 2007, 12:35pm | #

JasonL,

"Workplaces are better in non perpetual struggle." Shutting up workers, making them fear for their well-being, can certainly stop them from struggling, if done ruthlessly enough, but it probably won't last long. Not all peaces are equal - I'd have thought your foreign policy views would have taught you that.

"Adults shouldn't be sitting around all day trying to figure out how to minimize their productivity - and that is what unions do. All day every day." Actually, what I did all day every day when I was in the union was my job. Every couple of weeks, I'd take a check to deposit in the bank during my lunch hour. Let's not get shrieking hysterical here.

steveintheknow | March 2, 2007, 12:38pm | #

Robert

I find it pretty interesting that people use the proverbial "gun to your head" argument against either a private or public entity depending on their idea of liberty. Something private by its very nature involves a freedom of association, so like you I don’t see where this gun is coming from.

But it is an interesting debate I think.

Ken | March 2, 2007, 12:38pm | #

" Adults shouldn't be sitting around all day trying to figure out how to minimize their productivity - and that is what unions do. All day every day."
And companies don't do this? What company would not try to give as little as they could get away with for as much as they could get? That's what bargaining is for...Union rules may promote inefficiency, but plenty of employer practices do the same (nepotism for example). One difference is that union rules make life better, more free for thousands while employer practices make life better, more free for hundreds....

joe | March 2, 2007, 12:38pm | #

Andy, I'm going to conclude that I should talk directly to Al, if I'm looking for a useful discussion.

Al, I like the idea of submitting the cards to an independent party. But as for your mayoral election analogy - if you want to mandate a regular schedule for union balloting, comparable to the regular schedule for mayoral elections, then we could do away with the cards altogether.

joe | March 2, 2007, 12:40pm | #

Robert,

"That would be true only if you had to work for that person." And thus endeth the conversation. You either believe that employers have power over their employees - that there are no costs associated with having to find a new job - or you don't. You either believe that you have as much power as your boss, or you don't.

Al | March 2, 2007, 12:51pm | #

Joe:

You may not want to talk to me once I tell you what I really think--that any group of employees should be allowed to bond together to bargain collectively at any time, and that any employee should be allowed to bargain either as part of a group or as an individual. There will obviously be advantages and disadvantages to both.

Since politics is "the art of the possible," however, I will just continue supporting secret ballots as the best substitute for true individual autonomy.

steveintheknow | March 2, 2007, 12:51pm | #

joe

Yes I agree there is cost to finding a job, but there is also cost in creating and running a business. Which do you feel is the greater cost?

JasonL | March 2, 2007, 12:53pm | #

"Workplaces are better in non perpetual struggle." Shutting up workers, making them fear for their well-being, can certainly stop them from struggling, if done ruthlessly enough, but it probably won't last long. Not all peaces are equal - I'd have thought your foreign policy views would have taught you that."

But that just isn't reality joe. Union membership and participation has been on the decline for decades and I've not heard of any increase in workplace slavery and intimidation. Unionization is nothing more than formally saying "my interests as a laborer will never align with yours, we are at war forever." From that moment on, every decision is made in the context of hostile negotiation. Paying well for hard work, incentive compensation and the like, just makes a lot more sense for everyone.

"Actually, what I did all day every day when I was in the union was my job. Every couple of weeks, I'd take a check to deposit in the bank during my lunch hour. Let's not get shrieking hysterical here."

What about actual union officeholders? They may be employees, but by defninition they wear a union first hat. Every minute that hat is on, their sole purpose for the last 30 years has been to minimize overall productivity - though they don't call it that. They say they are maximizing benefits - by resisting automation of process, by resisting portable retirements and saddling companies with cradle to grave payouts, by increasingly formalizing when they won't work under any circumstances facts on the ground be damned, by convincing thousands of people that physically moving that box is all they will ever be able to do, and so on.

Workforce modernization and education? Nope. This has to be resisted because you are entitled to EXACTLY THIS JOB FOR LIFE.

Planning to increase work productivity per hour? Nope. Not their concern. There is no connection between productivity and compensation. It is based only on clout. Can't have the riff raff thinking that all they need to do is go to management with a way to help productivity and they will instantly be one of the most valuable employees. Just shut up, take your break, and don't do anything 'extra'.

I did it for a while in the UFCW and was neighbors with the steward. I see benefits negotiations all the time in my current job.

Unions are toxic.

D.A. Ridgely | March 2, 2007, 12:56pm | #

You either believe that you have as much power as your boss, or you don't.

Huh? BTW and regardless, (1) so what? and (2) what about the consumer?

Fluffy | March 2, 2007, 1:04pm | #

""Binding arbitration absolutely IS fiat." It was the "bureaucratic" part I was objecting to. This is not a case of the government imposing the outcome that it deems best, but of finding a reasonable middle ground based on what the two sides bring to the table."

So I take it you would not object if I offered you $1 for your house, and if you declined I had the right to force you to accept binding arbitration to find a "middle ground"?

How on earth is it not oppressive to tell me I can't set a drop-dead price in negotiations? If you don't like my final offer, strike.

JasonL | March 2, 2007, 1:05pm | #

"And companies don't do this? What company would not try to give as little as they could get away with for as much as they could get? "

This may be shocking, but I come to work every day trying to figure out how I can improve operating efficiency and increase productivity for myself and those around me. Because I'm an adult. Because I see very clearly that I'd have no right to cry about losing my job if I'd come in every day trying to do as little as possible while costing as much as possible.

Sure, there are practices on both sides that don't follow this line of thinking, but it strikes me as supreme idiocy to formalize things so that those practices are the only ones that can ever be implemented.

Lincoln | March 2, 2007, 1:10pm | #

that there are no costs associated with having to find a new job

Joe, there are costs associated with having to find a new job. That is not the question. The question is why you or I should have to pay under threat of force for someone else failing to prepare for those costs.

You're also failing to realize the employer is taking on most of the risk. So yes "gasp" he or she is entitled to most of the profit.

dhex | March 2, 2007, 1:14pm | #

"What's so terribly ironic about Hitler's roads is that they were very sparingly used during his time in power and were more of benefit to Allied troops than anything. Roads are neutral when it comes to their military usage."

it's a cosmic joke on par with kim il sung's neck tumor.

but at the same time "YOU'RE DRIVING WITH HITLER POWER" sounds pretty awesome.

dude also ate vegetables, and we all know what that means...

Number 6 | March 2, 2007, 1:16pm | #

Perhaps I'm duller than usual today. Could someone explain how a secret ballot makes employees more vulnerable to intimidation by employers?

That's a serious question, btw, and mostly aimed at Joe. I suspect I'm missing something important here.

joe | March 2, 2007, 1:22pm | #

Jason L,

"Union membership and participation has been on the decline for decades and I've not heard of any increase in workplace slavery and intimidation." OK, you haven't heard of it. The declining share of the pie going to workers, and the increasing pay differential between workers and employers, have been thoroughly documented going back three decades. No, it's not chattel slavery, but some of us aim higher than that.

"What about actual union officeholders?" I was the Treasurer. That's why I got to spend lunch every othe Wednesday at the bank.

The rest of your post is just stereotypoing. Homebuilders certainly don't go out of their way to use union labor becuase their productivity declines.

Finkelstein | March 2,