"This piece of legislation will cost us 600,000 jobs"

As Nick Gillespie noted earlier, the future of the pro-union Employee Free Choice Act, or "Card Check," isn't looking so bright at the moment. But as Fox News reports, that isn't stopping the National Black Chamber of Commerce and other minority business groups from speaking out against it:

Speaking at the National Press Club, the group said the bill, which will eliminate secret ballots for workers voting on organizing union shops, will cause job losses and is "un-American."

"This piece of legislation will cost us 600,000 jobs," said Andy Ingraham of the National Association of Black Hotel Owners….

"It is extremely wrong for a government-appointed arbitrator to decide how an American runs his business," added Ash Patel of the Asian American Hotel Owners Association.

Harry Alford of the National Black Chamber of Commerce said the business leaders are not going to rest despite claims that the bill does not have the support it needs to pass on Capitol Hill.

Read the rest here. Reason's Card Check coverage here.

[Thanks to Nick Manning for the tip]

Comments

[Nick]

I wanna see how MNG rationalizes this.

[Xeones]

Probably something about omelets and eggs, Nick.

[B]

Who knows how he will rationalize it, but whatever his argument I am sure it will have something in it about how horrible the Jews are.

[ChicagoTom]

What is there to rationalize?

Hotel owners are against unions?

And they are predicting doomsday scenarios if it's easier for their employees to unionize?

You don't say?! That's about as odd as a dog biting a man.

It's not like these folks have any type of financial interest in keeping out unions, right?

[Nooge]

It's not like it's any of your goddamn business how I vote one way or the other, right?

[Nooge]

Who knows how he will rationalize it, but whatever his argument I am sure it will have something in it about how horrible the Jews are.

Oh, dear.

[spambot]

Leave the secret ballot in place and you can sign it into law tomorrow as far as I am concerned. But the whole point of the law is to get rid of secret ballot so they can smash the windows of those who vote no.

It is so ironic given how years ago Unions fought the good fight to get the secret ballot put in place to protect workers. Now that it they think it would help them they want it taken out.

Spare me all the bullshit about how this helps the workers. You might as well just name it the secret ballot removal law. Even the supporters know the truth on it. Those that defend it just stop fucking lying and come out and say it.

[on behalf of MNG]

Blacks and Asians -- no real americans involved.

[J sub D]

It's not like it's any of your goddamn business how I vote one way or the other, right?

Right. For cryin' out loud, we have secret ballots for homecoming queen at Podunk High.

[Tony]

But as Fox News reports

Is it technically "reporting" when they refuse to characterize the legislation as it is in reality instead of in the faux-paranoid minds of corporate propagandists?

[PETE]

"the group said the bill, which will eliminate secret ballots for workers voting on organizing union shops."

Pretty much all you need to know right there. Fox News is willfully misrepresenting the legislation still.

Again - and not like the think this is going to change anything because people have been screaming about this ever since the "eliminate the secret ballot" canard got traction - the EFCA

DOES NOT
I REPEAT, DOES NOT
I REPEAT, DOES NOT
I REPEAT, DOES NOT

eliminate the secret ballot. It gives the employees the right to chose how they form their union. They can still choose secret ballot if they want. They can choose card check if they want. Right now, the employers get that choice.

Also, to the person above who said the windows would be broken for people who vote no, have a lot of experience with organizing unions, then? Do you? If you don't want to sign the unionization card, you don't have to. You don't write down "no." Why don't you go ahead and find me an instance of pro-union workers "breaking the windows" of union detractors and I'll counter with 100 instances of corporations retaliating against pro-union employees.

If EFCA is really terrible for business, people should be able to argue that on its merits. The fact that the main argument trotted out against EFCA - that it will "eliminate" the secret ballot - is a straight-up lie, that tells me they had nothing better.

[J sub D]

DOES NOT
I REPEAT, DOES NOT
I REPEAT, DOES NOT
I REPEAT, DOES NOT

eliminate the secret ballot. It gives the employees the right to chose how they form their union. They can still choose secret ballot if they want. They can choose card check if they want. Right now, the employers get that choice.

You must think people who frequent this site are really stupid.

NEWS FLASH, they are not.

[B]

"Oh, dear."

I don't know why you are "oh, dear"ing, but MNG is an anti-Jew bigot, pure and simple. He is also an ignorant dumbfuck douchebag, but that is for another post.

[SugarFree]

That they all want it so much confirms that it's a bad idea. If it was just some small change they wouldn't all be jumping up down about it.

Why don't you go ahead and find me an instance of pro-union workers "breaking the windows" of union detractors and I'll counter with 100 instances of corporations retaliating against pro-union employees.

Two wrongs make a right, eh? Interesting.

[crimethink]

PETE,

How do the employees decide between card check and secret ballot? Is there a secret ballot to determine whether there will be a secret ballot?

[Hugh Akston]

the EFCA

DOES NOT
I REPEAT, DOES NOT
I REPEAT, DOES NOT
I REPEAT, DOES NOT

eliminate the secret ballot.

HR1409 Section 2 '6:

If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).

In other words, a majority of signatures on a public petition is sufficient to form a union.

[J sub D]

PETE,

Told ya.
Maybe you shoiuld go peddle your dissembling bullshit elsewhere.

;-|

[none]

Crimethink, the current process is that a union must get enough signatures (currently 30%) to then submit to the NLRB for an election process.

EFCA would stipulate that if these signatures were over 50% of workers, the unionization would be automatic, and therefore the moral, righteous, and just capitalist system would instantly collapse.

[PETE]

>"You must think people who frequent this site are really stupid."

Nope. Lots of smart people on this site. ON the whole, probably some of the most reasoned and intelligent comment threads anywhere. Some of them are misinformed though. You, for instance.

>"Two wrongs make a right, eh? Interesting."

Nope. Still waiting for that instance though. Try to keep it more recent than 1960.

Here's just one of many studies on anti-union intimidation: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/unions_2007_01.pdf

Another link: http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/03/worker-suppression.html

That is going on right now, and it is widespread. I obviously don't support unions intimidating employees any more than I think it's right that employers do it. There should be equally stiff penalties for either practice. The problem right now, however, is not unions intimidating people. It's employers. Unions can't fire people and take away their livelihoods. Employers can, and do, all the time.

>"In other words, a majority of signatures on a public petition is sufficient to form a union."

Sort of, but that's possible now IF - and this is the problem - IF the employer CHOOSES to recognize it. If they don't, then the employees MUST have an election. But they only need 30% of employees to sign a petition to hold an election, as opposed to 50% plus one for card check.

What EFCA would do, then, is take away the option of employers to not recognize a 50% plus 1 petition in lieu of an election.

So for crimethink, I hope that answers your question as well. If organizers collect 30%, they can have an election. They can choose at that point to stop collecting signatures. But if they want to continue and try to get 50% plus one, they can. Right now there s no incentive for getting 50% over 30% - or 99% for that matter - because the employer can just say, "I see on this petition that 99% of our employees would like to join a union. Great. Let's have an election. You could've stopped at 30%."

[PETE]

I'm curious, J sub D, what's it like being an intellectual titan?

You've obviously had a lot of first-hand experience with union organizing. Please, tell me, how, exactly, does EFCA ELIMINATE the secret ballot?

Tell us all, how, if EFCA passes, employees will not have the option of holding an election.

[BakedPenguin]

Nope. Still waiting for that instance though. Try to keep it more recent than 1960.

Wow. That was tough.

[BakedPenguin]

Some more reading for Pete.

FYI, from the last article "Since 1975, the National Institute for Labor Relations Research has collected more than 9,000 reports of union violence."

[PETE]

Wow. Good work, soldier. I am impressed. A whole 8 instances between 1985 and now. And from such an unbiased source with such solid, truthful information everywhere I look!

This is truly an epidemic.

I never said you couldn't find one, BakedPenguin. I was also clear that it's wrong. And I was clear that as far as which side engages in more unfair labor practices, it's no contest. Read my studies. Do you think employers should be free to run roughshod over teh desires of their employees? If you do, thanks for the intellectual honest and we can move on.

[Hugh Akston]

Do you think employers should be free to run roughshod over teh desires of their employees?

Only if employees are free to leave and find teh better job.

[BakedPenguin]

PETE: 9,000 > 8, just in case you're unaware. Try again, if you like.

And we can both play the "biased" game.

[J sub D]

I'm curious, J sub D, what's it like being an intellectual titan?

Nice of you to ask. It's wearying but satisfying. How 'bout you? What's it like to spew bullshit for a living?

[PETE]

Oh, what part of teh country do you live in Hugh? Just jobs everywhere you look, huh? So the choice there is between a job, and a better job? Not like, any job and losing your home? Any job and teh government dole? Any job and bankruptcy?

Look, the point is, EFCA will not eliminate the secret ballot. And also, employers (and Unions) engage in unfair labor practices and the penalties need to be stiffer (more stiff?). I'm not some union cheerleader, but if we want to argue about EFCA, let's all be clear on what it proposes to do.

Aside from that, we'll have to agree to disagree on choosing to live in a fantastical paradise where if employees don't like getting their pay docked for advocating unionization, they can just find a better job with a huge salary, a solid gold house and a rocket car!

[PETE]

Still waiting, J sub D.

[PETE]

9,000 reports.

Resulting in 258 convictions.

Like I said, I never said it didn't happen.

However, I find this, from that same link, hilarious: "In addition to the powerlessness of local law enforcement, federal authorities are also hamstrung by the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous Enmons decision. In the 1973 ruling, the High Court held that union officials may destroy property, assault employees, and even murder them, while escaping prosecution under federal extortion laws, so long as such violence is undertaken to secure what the Supreme Court called "legitimate" objectives, such as wage increases. Meanwhile, an increasing number of states have enacted extortion laws exempting union officials from prosecution for the so-called "legitimate" objectives cited in Enmons."

Oh yeah? The US Supreme Court ruled that Unions can murder people in the name of wage increases?

So you believe that then? This source is on the up-and-up?

Still waiting for you to comment on those studies.

[J sub D]

The union can decide whether to have a secret ballot to gain what they already have achieved without one, i.e. receive union certification throiugh intimidation and then decide against an election.

Hold on for a second while I'll get something else for you.

[J sub D]

In case you missed it from the morning links thread. I posted this

From the good people of C-SPAN

August 29, 2001.
...
We understand that the secret ballot is allowed for, but not required, by Mexican labor law. However, we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.

We respect Mexico as an important neighbor and trading partner, and we feel that the increased use of the secret ballot in union recognition elections will help bring real democracy to the Mexican workplace.

Sincerely,

George Miller, Marcy Kaptur, Bernard Sanders, William J. Coyne, Lane Evans, Bob Filner, Martin Olav Sabo, Barney Frank, Joe Baca, Zoe Lofgren, Dennis J. Kucinich, Calvin M. Dooley, Fortney Pete Stark, Barbara Lee, James P. McGovern, Lloyd Doggett.

For the record, that is Rep. George Miller (D - CA), Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D - OH), Sen. Bernard Sanders (I - VT), Rep. William J. Coyne (D - PA retired), Rep. Lane Evans (D - IL retired), Rep. Bob Filner (D - CA), Rep. Martin Olav Sabo (DFL - MN retired), Rep. Barney Frank (D - MA), Rep. Joe Baca (D - CA), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D - CA), Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D - OH), Rep Calvin M. Dooley (D - CA retired), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D - CA), Rep. Barbara Lee (D - CA), Rep. James P. McGovern (D - MA), Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D - TX).

I guess that would only apply to Spanish speaking workers, huh?

[PETE]

J sub D, what bullshit, exactly, am I spewing?

I don't recall saying your girlfriend was attractive.

(See, I can do the insult with no substance comment too. You don't have to be an intellectual titan.)

Unfortunately, I must leave you now. I'm off to gaze lovingly at a painting of BHO for a few hours. It's been real everyone.

[BakedPenguin]

PETE - before you go, I already commented on the studies - they're from organizations at least as political as the ones I linked to. Also, they reference "intimidation" by potential job loss, not by having your head bashed in.

And perhaps you should bone up on your reading comprehension. They said the Emmons decision only stopped Federal extortion prosecutions, not local murder prosecutions.

[J sub D]

Oh PETE,
Since it appears to matter to you where one lives, just so you know. I live in that bastion of union power Detroit, Michigan.

Unemployment for the city - 22%.
Unemployment for the Metro area - 13.2%.
Economic outlook for our union dominated major industry - Fucking horrific.

Feel free to come and organize the folks in line for unemployment benefits. The unionized business model seems to have left them behind.

BTW, calling you out for spewing bullshit wasn't an insult. My insults are filled to overflowing with obscene and blasphemous verbs nouns and modifiers. Frankly, you are not worthy of the creative effort.

[engineer]

Who the hell is is PETE?

[Eric Haskell]

I'll counter with 100 instances of corporations retaliating against pro-union employees.

Sounds like a good argument for keeping the secret ballot.

[economist]

Damn, we have trolls dumping all over the threads.

[PETE]

I am TEH CONCERNED OBSERVER!

[Hugh Akston]

Look, the point is, EFCA will not eliminate the secret ballot...I'm not some union cheerleader, but if we want to argue about EFCA, let's all be clear on what it proposes to do.

PETE, I posted the relevant text of the bill in question. It changes the law so that secret ballot elections are no longer necessary to unionize a shop.

In the sense that it stops short of making secret ballot elections a capitol offense, you are correct to say that it does not eliminate the secret ballot.

However, in the sense that records of who voted for unionization and who declined to do so are no longer protected by the DOL, but the results of those proceedings are enforced by the DOL, the workers in question lose the protections of the secret ballot under the bill.

[brotherben]

What? Not one comment about the

NabHo and the AaHoa? slackers.

[R C Dean]

Right now, there is no way for union to organize a workplace without a secret ballot unless the employer agrees.

EFCA provides a way for unions to organize a workplace without a secret ballot or the employer's agreement.

The workers have no choice, none at all, under EFCA as to whether there will be a secret ballot election. It is up to the union to try and hold an election with 30% card checks, or continue collecting card checks until they hit 50% plus one.