Why the ‘Employee Free Choice Act’ Is Anything But
My uncle required a police escort to walk the 20 feet from the garage to his car door. He was 17-years-old, a good student living in a well-manicured suburb of St Louis West County. But he was a volunteer campaign worker for “Right to Work” in the summer of ’76, and there were union goons waiting for him at the end of the driveway. One sunny morning on his way out the door, one of the thugs asked him menacingly, “How’s your little nephew Stevie enjoying day camp?” I was seven at the time and didn’t even know what a union was.
“Nothing personal, just business,” I suppose.
Welcome to the charming world of union intimidation. It could be coming to your workplace, as early as this summer. It might even come to your front door in the dead of night.
Workforce.com reports the latest developments on the so-called “employee free-choice”:
Simmering labor legislation reached a boiling point on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, February 4.
Hundreds of union workers and other supporters of a bill that would make it easier for employees to establish bargaining units gathered in a rally across the street from the Senate.
The event marked the launch of an aggressive effort by organized labor to gain congressional approval — and a presidential signature — for the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that will be introduced soon.
“Free choice” is the worst kind of Orwellian language. If EFCA becomes law, then the secret ballot traditionally used to determine unionization votes in this country would be replaced by “card checks.” When the union comes to your business, asking you to join, you’ll be asked to check “Yes” or “No” on a card. In public. And if union history is any guide, the man holding the card under your nose might be large, threatening, and unlikely to take kindly to a “No.”
The funniest thing I’ve heard recently is that card check is used in Canada, and they’ve got no problems. They also have unions everywhere, and of course a political process with a party devoted to the interests of just those unions. Here in the states, we’re supposedly represented by a Democratic party which claims to represent everyone. I think it likely the party will say that, and then do what the union wishes.
Initial here, and sign here… or else! It’s not complicated.
Of course, conservatives warned about this last year. All the criticisms we had of Obama and the Dems have proven prescient. Wasn’t hard to prophesy. It’s not like they were hiding it or anything. It was all Hope and Change, and Bush sucks!
I doubt very much if the “employee free choice” will become law. The Obama administration is already starting to lose favor with the majority of Americans. Congress will not dare try and pass this highly detested piece of legislation. The last time I noticed the polling data indicated that at least 60% of all voters were against such tyranny. This makes it a non-starter. It is unlikely that the bill will be voted on by the entire House of Representatives. The U.S. Senate won’t even touch it. At this very moment, a number of our elected national representatives are daring to say no to Obama. They are finding out that there is little risk in doing so. This will soon turn into an avalanche.
We won, you lost.
Get with the program.
Praise HIM!
Praise The ONE!
Praise OBAMA!
ALLAHU AKBAR!
It would be absolutely wonderful, if Hilda Solis’ confirmation gets derailed by her husband’s tax problems. 16 years of avoiding the problem and she had no idea?
I don’t think so.
My son is a union ironworker and for the last ten years I have worked for a credit union whose membership is open only to the local labor unions. Trust me, I know how these guys operate. Intimidation is central. Card check, once in place, will be a nightmare.
Here’s thin slice of the 411 on Nancy Pelosi:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00007360&cycle=Career
I’d draw your attention to the bottom of the list of her career contributors, the Seafarers International Union. Here’s their website:
http://www.seafarers.org/about/
estimated membership of 67,000 members:
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Seafarers-International-Union-of-North-America
One of the SIU’s afiiliated unions, The American Maritime Officers:
http://www.amo-union.org/Default~Page~AboutAMO.html
You’ll note that the affiliation is mentioned nowhere on either site…that’s because here is what the AMO union’s leadership, while affiliated with Mike Sacco’s SIU, (who has given more to Nancy Pelosi over her career than a little Mom n’ Pop operation like AT&T) treated it’s members:
http://www.nlpc.org/view.asp?action=viewArticle&aid=1860
a quote:
“The McKay brothers, respectively, AMO president and secretary-treasurer, had been accused by the Justice Department of rigging elections, stealing benefit plan funds and obstructing justice. The jury convicted the pair on a variety of charges, including racketeering conspiracy, mail fraud and record forgery.”
Yeah, huh?
Real friend of the workingman and workingwoman is Ms. Pelosi.
Card-check makes it easier for her REAL friends to exploit and steal from the workere that they CLAIM to represent.
I wonder what kind of history of screwing the membership one could dig up on Pelosi’s OTHER buddies…the Teamsters and the Laborers.
From this day forward, I will look for the Union Label. However, my dollars, [Ameros?], will go elsewhere. After 40 years in manufacturing, I have seen the detrimental effects unions have, but supported American workers. NO MORE!
The very people that say they were losing their personal liberties under Pres. Bush are pushing a plan that forces people to give up their right to a private ballot. What’s next, we vote for president that same way? Oh wait that’s what Acorn was doing with absentee ballots wasn’t it.
The tyranny of the left. How long until Obama bring Chavez and Putin to the White House for the advanced course in socialism.
In Canada, especially in bloated government,
unions take on a political life of their own.
They pursue radical politics and agendas that
don’t represent the general membership. With
intimidation and obstacles placed in the way
they can’t really be held responsible. This
includes spending.
A recent example were some government unions
supporting Hamas. Some have threatened to
possibly cut service to Israeli customers
and businesses.
Mandatory union membership is also going to
drive up taxes as well. Local governments
in liberal climes will pass laws that only
allow unionized personnel to do contract
work for them.
There is so much Orwellian language: “freedom” of choice,”fairness” doctrine,the “stimulus” bill, “militants,” and the “Peoples” Republic of China to name just a few. Our world seems to be turning into a parallel universe of “new speak.”
One thing which might just drive a stake through the heart of this monster is for someone to step up and insist that “card check” procedures can also be used for “decertification” and “deauthorization” of the unions as well. I mean, if they want to simplify one process why not the others?
As a practical matter this would scare the unions to death, but proponents of EFCA might have a hard time of giving a credible public explanation as to why it should only work one way.
#12 Tcobb:
“As a practical matter this would scare the unions to death, but proponents of EFCA might have a hard time of giving a credible public explanation as to why it should only work one way”
Exactly.
In fact, with the usual greedy stupidity and corrupt incompetence which has been my personal experience of the Labor Movement, they might just hand Management the “tire-iron” with which to beat them in their kneecaps.
“Sign this decertification card… or go pack yer gear and hit the bricks! It’s LAYOFF time”
This isn’t a surprise, since the Union is little more than Management’s front stooge, anyway.
Outlived their usefulness and time to move on…
I live in CA. My neighbor owns a medium-sized construction firm. He will not allow a union at his business. He told me he would disband the business here in CA and move it to a Right to Work state. In a Right to Work state, the union can get into the shop, but no one can be forced to pay dues; therefore almost no one does. (See how “effective” the unions are in TX, etc).
The Lefties out here are even talking about unionizing small businesses with as few as 5 workers. Solution to that is easy: refuse their “demands”, let them walk out on strike, and then hire replacements.
I was raised in a union family – my father was actually a union organizer during most of my childhood. Eventually he took a management position in a manufacturing plant.
Every time the contract came up for renegotiation there was a strike, regardless of the terms of the contract. Why? Well, one could not advance to the national level with the AFL-CIO without having run a successful strike.
What happened during a strike? To start off, there was NO secret ballot. It was all open and intimidation was rampant for those not wishing to strike.
Once the strike was called my parents and younger brother and sister were essentially moved to a “witness protection program” sort of status, immured in a hotel in another city with armed security guards present at all times. There were also armed guards at the house to prevent it from being burned down. This was in response to past union violence, including fire bombs and rattlesnakes in the mailbox.
At the plant mobs of union workers attacked any vehicle entering or leaving the facility. One of the line supervisors had his small car totally rolled. I’ll never forget news footage of my dad’s truck trying to get out of the facility with workers rocking it from side to side and rocks being thrown at the windows.
The strike went on for months. What were the issues? Why, the company wanted to standardize health insurance so that management and workers would have the exact same coverage. (This involved a co-pay increasing from $10 to $20) and they wanted to “senorize” the lines so that when time for layoffs came they could layoff lines instead of having to retrain tons of workers to new jobs on the lines, slowing up production.
Result of strike:
Months of lost wages for workers.
Plant was owned by Japanese, who finally had enough and signed the contract – then moved the plant to Mexico within a year, causing several thousand jobs to disappear.
So now the Democrats want to unionize companies without secret ballot protection? You think the unemployment rate is bad now, just watch what happens…
Card check just levels the playing field, making it more difficult for Management to fire union organizers. Intimidation runs both ways.
Card check would not be necessary if “Right to Work” was not written into law. This type of anti-union legislation is part of what has led to our current economic crisis.
Unions build and maintain prosperity for their members and the economy. Without collective bargaining, labor is in wage slavery.
Peace.
DS
Interestingly, I was at a meeting this morning where the speaker was a labor lawyer. He extolled on the rules that governed hourly workers versus salaried workers. The upshot of his talk was to be sure that if you call salaried workers as such to be sure that they actually are under the law. Otherwise, they could sue claiming to be hourly employees and you then owe overtime plus any penalties, lawyers fees, etc. All of this, and the various stories he presented were interesting. But, the most interesting statement was that from the 1930s there was a conscious decision to tilt the laws in favor of labor over management. This has been growing ever since in one form or another.
@17. HT:
Interesting that you mentino labor law. I had a little spat with my employer over that same issue. Employees who are exempt from overtime have to meet some very specific criteria, and their compensation needs to pass a set of tests.
My employer was foolish enough to make an illegal deduction from my salary, and I called them on it. Unfortunately, most employees don’t even know their rights, much less stand up and defend them.
That’s why unions are so important. Management is organized – labor must also be organized to secure fairness.
Laws have been changing to reduce the power of unions and labor – under Obama, we should expect that trend to be halted, and potentially at least partially reversed.
Peace.
DS
Unions are so pathetic. Wait to see what happens when these pussbags attempt to force themselves into the foreign auto plants in the US.
They will pack up and leave. More unemployed!
The Democrats have a flawed leftist philosophy. They are short term thinkers.
Unions build and maintain prosperity for their members and the economy.
I guess that’s why GM and Toyota need a bailout–oh, whoops, the non-union Toyota plants don’t. So much for unionization maintaining prosperity for the economy.
Without collective bargaining, labor is in wage slavery. Damn, Peter S., your ability to pull out buzz phrases from Das Kapital is impressive.
Peace to you too—
David S.:
“Unions build and maintain prosperity for their members and the economy. Without collective bargaining, labor is in wage slavery.”
Tell that to the AMO members who watched their pension monies stolen by their Preznit and his brother the Secretatry-Treasurer.
I gave myself at least a $100 a day raise by walking away from the union.
And which union do YOU belong to, Mr. Collective-Bargainer?
David S…You are seriously uninformed on unions in general and on the card check act. Unions have the power to…… (wait for it, wait for it)……. STRIKE. That’s it. No other power. None. Nada. Well besides collect dues that is. Sound like Utopia to you does it?
ThinkingPerson: David S…You are seriously uninformed on unions in general and on the card check act. Unions have the power to…… (wait for it, wait for it)……. STRIKE. That’s it. No other power. None. Nada. Well besides collect dues that is. Sound like Utopia to you does it?
I’m sure you understand that unions strike in order to pressure management to negotiate and not just for the heck of it? Why is the concensus here that groups of individuals should not be able to organize in order to negotiate for better wages? If I am a rationally self-interested person who is being told by my management that I cannot receive a higher wage that I believe I deserve, why should I not form a group of likeminded individuals in order to lobby for what I believe I deserve?
A lot of the arguments here are not against unions specifically, but are rather against straw men such as the union leader, lazy employee, labor lawyer, etc. who are gaming the system. Anyone could easily counter those arguments with similar straw man arguments about greedy, dishonest CEOs who hire illegals, exploit their workers and don’t pay them enough to support a family.
Corruption, laziness and dishonesty are not union traits or management traits. They are human traits, and are characteristic of any power structure or organization that lacks oversight, regulation and accountability.
One of the most instinctual human behaviors is to form groups to provide protection and elevate status. I’d love to hear a clear, cogent, non-strawman argument as to why workers should be discouraged from forming goups that promote their interests.
@20-22
You can’t blame labor for the failures of management. With union employment at a historical low, you also can’t blame unions for the declining economy. Strong unions make for a strong economy. Weakened unions make for a weakened economy. Pretty simple.
One bad actor does not make all unions criminal. Historically, management is where you find the bigger criminals.
Unions have the power to bargain for a contract, strike in case that contract is violated or expired, and generally set standards for compensation, discipline and pay. They can collect dues, although in right-to-work states, they cannot make them mandatory.
I’m not betting on Utopia here, just a modest improvement. Progress, you might call it.
Peace.
DS
It’s a basic truism that an employer will not pay a living wage unless forced to. The purpose of unions is to bring balance to wage negotiations, where an employer has huge advantages over individual workers and every incentive to cheat them (yes, I know, historically this isn’t true–unions were originally to protect skilled workers from competition, but over the years that has changed quite a bit).
But was it Samuel Gompers or Eugene Debs who once said that the greatest crime a company can commit against its workers it to fail to turn a profit? I forget, but it was one of them.
As a practical matter, the union that uses its power to destroy the company (whether intentionally or not is immaterial) betrays its own members. That is what we’ve seen with the Big Three automakers.
Every workplace should have the option of unionizing if its workers think it’s needed. But every workplace should have the option of rejecting the union if they feel it’s not. That’s where card check comes in–by removing the secret ballot, it denies the worker the right to vote his own conscience, denies him the ability to do what he thinks is best for himself, for his co-workers, for his company.
@25. tim maguire:
I totally agree on the balance in wage negotiations.
But I don’t see a reason to blame the unions for the troubles faced by the so-called Big Three. Depending on credit for operations is a management issue. The marketing, management and sales channels are not unionized – just the manufacturing. A company doing as much sales volume as these over the length of time they have been in business should be swimming in cash. If they are not making a profit, that is a management issue.
Accounting gimmicks allowed managers to get away with unfunded liabilities, and to reward themselves lavishly. Eventually you have to pay the piper.
I see card check as a leverage against ‘right-to-work’ states, where union organizing is tremendously difficult. I believe ‘right-to-work’ is inherently unfair to labor, because it destroys the basic funding mechanism that supports and represents union members. Joining a unionized workplace should entail paying dues to the union – if you don’t like that, you should work somewhere else.
Dues are not unreasonable – anybody with a union job can easily afford them without a second thought. Card check just makes forming a union less dangerous to organizers, who often face dismissal while organizing.
Peace.
DS
Has this any relation to the Congressional Free Choice Act?
I have a Nissan Frontier pickup. It was made in a plant in Tennessee. The UAW has tried three times to unionize that plant, and has failed all three times. If this union-goon bill passes, the UAW will try again, and again they will fail. Nissan pays well, with benefits. All the UAW has to “offer” is high union dues, thuddingly stupid work rules that stifle productivity, and the threat of strikes. What Nirvana.
@27. Cybergeezer:
It is the “Employee Free Choice Act”.
TCDP
I really hate to post the whole thing, but that last line convinced me.
Peace.
DS
#29
The part that convinced you was “don’t let them get away with it”?
So… was that due to paranoia or vindictiveness?
One of the most instinctual human behaviors is to form groups to provide protection and elevate status. I’d love to hear a clear, cogent, non-strawman argument as to why workers should be discouraged from forming goups that promote their interests.
There is no reason why workers should be discouraged from forming groups that promote their own interests. Your own illicit assumption is that unions, as they as structured today by law and actual practice, are indeed groups that promote the interests of the actual workers. For the most part it seems that the current structure of unions seems to benefit an entrenched union leadership that, as a group, seem to be highly correlated with organized crime and political fat cats.
And how is it that the UAW, for example, has really looked after the rank and file when they pursue policies that bankrupt the companies that provide their paychecks? Oh well, stupid is as stupid does.
@30. malclave:
No, the part that convinced me was “Has this any relation to the Congressional Free Choice Act?”
Peace.
DS
29. David S:
The main criticism of this law is simply about the reinstatement of the authorization cards. Sure union organizers can choose between a secret or open ballot, but which one makes their job easier? Its quite obvious who has signed an authorization card and who as not.
So I don’t see how that article deflects criticism of the law. Even if the rest of the law perfectly guaranteed eternal happiness for babies and puppies I would still oppose it on this one point.
socialist hate every which way! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ie37ciAOOQ0
http://hateonme.com
Of course a company isn’t doing right by its workers if it fails to turn a profit. Unprofitable companies can’t exist very long, so those workers will wind up jobless if the trends don’t turn around.
As for right to work, is it not a worker’s right to refuse representation he doesn’t want? Why should anyone be forced to pay for representation they believe to be overpriced or contrary to their own interests. No one forces you to have a lawyer when you walk into the court of law, so why should a worker be forced to join a union when he does not believe it to be in his best interests?
Mr. Tambourine Man and his merry travelers have to make some pay off to the union thugs. What better way besides bailing out Detroit, which only takes care of the UAW.
I for one will not be buying a Big 3 product in the future. If this helps sink them, then even as an indirect shareholder – taxpayer – some times it is just best to cut your loses.
More on Obama and his policies, including the Card Check.
This also brings up the dirty little trick of getting Sen. Gregg to resign his seat and THEN taking the census away from sec commerce. Dirty, dirty, dirty.
http://www.johntreed.com/outlawopposition.html
It’s not a blind plug for the site, but I think ol’ John T has some good things to say, and I don’t want to copy/paste his bits.
Unions would be fine if they didn’t have undue power over employees or businesses. But thanks to union-friendly laws it still does. Right-to-work was a great idea and it should be built on. In fact, the status quo seems to be working all right for most states EXCEPT the ones where unions are entrenched, like Michigan.
#25 Tim Maguire:
“It’s a basic truism that an employer will not pay a living wage unless forced to.”
But they ARE forced to, bud, and not necessarily by unions either, but rather by the dictates of the economy.
See, before any employer can pay ANY wages, he has to have a product or a service that he can sell.
This presumes that there are people with enough income to make up a market for his product.
If your “basic truism” was actually true, then there would be no market…there would be no sale, there would be no workers, and there would be no economy.
Henry Ford rocked the automobile industry by paying his workers the unheard of sum,(at the time) of 5 dollars a day.
This scandalized his competitors until he pointed out to them that those workers would be buying the very “Tin Lizzies” that they were making and that he was selling.
This isn’t to say that wages don’t oscillate, they do. But what lags behind can also leap forward.
Not 10 years ago in the Offshore Supply Vessel industry, wages were abysmal…laughably low compared to other sectors of the maritime world, and then something altogether predictable happenned.
One of the giants in that field, a company called Edison Chouest launched a new boat…and couldn’t find anyone to crew it.
Old Man Chouest, (as Cajun as etoufee), increased the day rate of pay on his vessels and soon had the crews lining up to sail his boats.
David S:
“One bad actor does not make all unions criminal.”
ONE bad apple, huh? Well, here’s a whole orchard for you to pick from. Peruse at your leisure:
http://www.nlpc.org/artindx.asp
You will note that the great and good friends of Nancy Pelosi are well represented there.
“Historically, Management is where you find the biggest criminals.”
That may or may not be so, but given that you haven’t copped to whether you are a union member or not, I don’t see where your opinion has much validity.
But let’s suppose that your assertion is acuurate.
Explain how giving yet ANOTHER set of crooks license to put their mitts in your wallet is supposed to enrich the worker?
Steve P…You paint such an eloquent picture of the struggle of a working man Steve! All combining together in unison to fight against THE MAN. Yeah. Right. Problem is…that’s just not reality in 2009. The union is a business unto itself for purely monetary gain. It provides no service to it’s members nor to the business it is a barnacle on. It’s job is to collect dues from uneducated workers and then when trouble in the workplace arises use the power of STRIKING!! Of course the aforementioned company with the union barnacle on it’s arse can choose to 1)negotiate with the union bosses or 2) hire scabs to fill in the gaps until the union members realize that they DO need a paycheck after all, 3) Hire an entire new workforce or 4) (This will happen more often under a FORCED unionization under card check) close up shop for good or to move across a border somewhere else. I’m guessing you don’t work in any sort of Fortune 500 job or you’d know what a union can do to progress. I’m guessing you work as a laborer and if I’m right I need only point to what the unions have done to the steel industry in PA. Wake up. The unions want your MONEY Steve.
David S….Enjoyed the lengthy post. I guess you’ve proven yourself to be easily distracted. You must be the type that sits up nights buying crap off of infomercials. Are you truly that gullible? I guess you are a perfect candidate to back the “Free-Choice” Act. Never scratch below the surface. Always ready to accept the status quo. Always follow the leader. Never stand up for your own convictions. Gee David. What a sad, boring existence you must lead. Imagine how light would shine into your life if you did a little research on the bill itself and realized that if passed it takes away a workers right to a PRIVATE vote. You did realize that the bill writers deliberately left out the words “strong-armed tactics” on purpose right? Are you all for taking away an uneducated workers right to vote yes or no? Not sure how you operate in your daily life there bub but if you never scratch below the surface to find out the truth on anything, I can only guess. Not a pretty picture. Step out of that box and think about the workers this will affect not to mention the companies that will close up shop here and move overseas. Don’t be a simpleton.
It really is this simple; “why are pro-union advocates afraid of a secret ballot?” …. Why?
Steven,
We met last night (Saturday night)at the blogger’s bash @ the Wyncoop. I guess I assumed that your e-mail contact info would be readily available on the PJM site, but I do not see it. If I’ve missed it, my apologies.
If you would, when you get a moment, please drop me a line to let me know how to reach you privately.
Warm Regards,
Dan Murphy
AuditCongress.com
@40,41,42:
My credibility has nothing to do with my membership or lack thereof in a union. Just bringing a little bit of truth to the comment thread.
Giving employers the right to reject a legally formed union is wrong, and that is all that EFCA will change.
Peace.
DS
David S….The problem is you’re not bring a “little bit of truth” to the thread. You’re listening to the union bosses side of the argument and have bought it hook, line and sinker. What about standing up for the working man? Ever thought of that? Is intimidation okay in your world? You have to earn credibility David. The only thing that would differ under the EFCA will be that the employees will have a PUBLIC vote not a PRIVATE one. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
Peace through a free vote NOT intimidation friend.
Hey all you folks that are against this bill. Stop. Let ‘em do it! Especially if you live in the South. If this bill is passed, we’re going to hear, as Ross Perot said, “a loud sucking sound to the south.” But in this case, it will be the southern part of the US. All of the southern states (and a large portion of the western states) have right-to-work laws. So all those businesses that are up in the northeast and on the left coast will move south in a hurry and possibly teach the libs in the north a real good lesson! And it’ll be good for all of us good old boys and rednecks who cling to our guns and Bibles.
Here’s the list:
The following 22 states are right-to-work states:
* Alabama
* Arizona — (established by state’s Constitution, not by statute)
* Arkansas — (established by state’s Constitution, not by statute)
* Florida — (established by state’s Constitution, not by statute)
* Georgia
* Idaho
* Iowa
* Kansas
* Louisiana
* Mississippi
* Nebraska
* Nevada
* North Carolina
* North Dakota
* Oklahoma — (established by state’s constitution, not by statute)
* South Carolina
* South Dakota
* Tennessee
* Texas
* Utah
* Virginia
* Wyoming
There’s also a map of those states on this Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
If you take a look at the states on that map, notice the color. Ironic, huh?
#45 David S:
“My credibility has nothing to do with my membership or lack thereof in a union.” Just bringing a little bit of truth to the comment thread.”
It has quite a lot to do with it from where i sit, chum. I’ve been rank and file with SIU for over twenty years, and did my bit in two organizing campaigns,(one succesful and one not), so I’ve been “digested” through the system.
The practice is so far removed from the theory that it’s a sick joke to hear these thieves,(and as I linked you to, I mean that literally),even TRY to tell me that they’re “on my side”.
The only reason that they are on my side would be that it makes it easier for them to put their hands in my wallet.
The proof of te pudding is in Article 20 of the AFL-CIO merger agreement,(known as the “No Raiding Clause”) which basically says that once you vote in one union, a bargaining unit cannot vote in another union without first decertifying union representation altogether.
Unions want a monopoly on the workers that they capture…and that SHOULD, to any rational person, be a red flag.
“Just bringing a little bit of truth to the comment thread.”
You’re rather a peculiar one, ain’t you?
You don’t claim to be in an outfit, but you parrot the labor bosses’ propaganda.
You deny being Gay, but what comes out of your soup-cooler is what the Gay Lobby puts inside of it.
And without batting an eye, you assert that you’re a “truth-bringer”.
Then why are you hauling that manure-spreader behind you?
David, if you’re still revisiting this thread, am I misunderstanding what all this is about? My impression has been that the main tool or change in the card-check bill is that it allows unions to force public votes. We’ve done public voting and found that democracy works best when your vote is known only to you and your maker. Public voting is an invitation to intimidation.
If I’m wrong about how card-check affects voting–but everyone I’ve read left and right thinks I’m not–then I’ll look again (not that my opinion means a damn thing in the grand scheme of things).
#49 Tim Maguire:
If you don’t mind my interjecting. the way an organizing campaign works at the nuts and bolts level is that the workers are asked/cajoled/persuaded/threatened/whathaveyou to sign Pledge Cards that express an interest in seeking a collective bargaining agreement,(contract). Usually. this is done at the instigation of the Union which wishes to “represent”,(I use the term VERY loosely),those workers in performing this bargaining.
If enough Pledge Cards are signed and validated by the National Labor Relations Board, it then calls for a secret ballot election.
(It is a violation of the law to fire or otherwise harrass an employee who signs such a Pledge Card…although it happens, law enforcement in the Labor world is as disinterested, corrupt and clueless as it is on Wall Street).
But if Managment is on the up and up, then the NLRB sets the election day
Basically, the Union gets it’s innings to make it’s pitch to the workers, and Management gets it’s innings to convince the workers why they should keep the Union out,(but not always…and this is the sure-as-shootin’ sign that the workers are going to get reamed because the Union and the Company are in bed together).
Come election day, the votes are tallied and the union is either defeated or certified as the representative for the workers.
Then begin contract negotiations…and the strikes and the lock-outs, and the negotiation over what and who constitutes the bargaining unit, and more crap than any three fools could swing a stick at.
The Card-Check Act basically wants to do away with the NLRB Secret Ballot Election and accept the Pledge Cards AS the election.
The only way to accept Card-Check into law is to make the entire nation Right-to-Work, (which bans the “closed shop”, (i.e. forced unionization in order to be employed at a workplace).
Union bosses HATE and DETEST Right to Work, since it makes Union bosses actually DO what they promise to do, or watch the workforce tell them to go and pound sand without losing their jobs.
(In fact, in a R2W state, you save yourself your Union dues by deep-sixing the goons).
The Employee Free Choice Act (card check) is costing jobs now. Many employers are facing the difficult task of what to do with their excess workforce in these slow economic times. Many are choosing to have a traditional layoff. My own company has been forced to have a layoff. However, fear of passage of the Employee Free Choice Act is forcing some companies to make the difficult decision to permanently fire employees. These fired employees will not have recall rights. If they are rehired, they will have to start all over for wages and benefits. Why is this? Fired employees can not be a part of a unionization campaign. If they have signed cards or sign cards in the future, these cards will not count under the EFCA. Most employers believe the ‘card check’ legislation will pass this year. President Obama supports this legislation and democrats control both houses of Congress. The House of Representatives has already passed this legislation. Employers are terrified of how easy it will be to unionize their workforces when this law passes. They are taking every step possible to prevent this from occurring. Unfortunately, this has a bad effect on employees who are being downsized.
The Lefties out here are even talking about unionizing small businesses with as few as 5 workers. Solution to that is easy: refuse their “demands”, let them walk out on strike, and then hire replacements.
An easier solution that will fall into the “that which is not seen” category, will be people who decide to stick to businesses that don’t require any employees at all.