Oct 23rd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Vulgar Marxism
It’s very strange, when you think about it, that all these groups talking about how EFCA will deny workers their rights seem to be getting their money from business interests rather than broad-based groups of concerned citizens. It’s almost as if the right to a rigged election in which your employer makes it all-but-impossible for unionization efforts to succeed is more important to bosses than to workers.
But who’s to say, right?
48 Responses to “Vulgar Marxism”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
Environment
EU
Finance
Football
Gender
Health Care
History
Inequality
Infrastructure
Intellectual Property
International Law
International Relations
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
Sweden
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
The weirdest thing is that it’s not necessarily bad for a plant owner to have a union. When you have a union, the union pays for health insurance, not the plant owner. And the union handles the personnel matters, not the plant owner. Done right, a union can actually benefit the plant owner. This isn’t some crazy liberal idea, I read this about a decade ago in Fortune magazine. And it was written by an owner of a plant that had recently gone union. It worked for him.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Matthew:
So I see you have drunk the EFCA cool-aid? I am a left of center Obama-voter, but I am already hoping that he comes to his senses on this one.
Look, I don’t deny that management is driving the campaign against eliminating secret ballot elections, but is that really either surprising or dispositive of the merits of the bill. The reality is that (A) unions do just fine in secret ballot elections (their win rate is over 50%); and (B) when they do lose, it is overwhelmingly because they don’t have a very good product to sell and they sell it poorly. Forcing the entire workforce into mandatory unionization because 51% of the employees were eventually pressured into signing cards is undemonocratic and unworthy of your support. The only legitimate beef unions have that I can see is that it takes too long to get a remedy in those cases where employers go nuclear and fire the organizers. This requires a fix to the NLRB (or a whole new system to adjudicate these cases), but we are talking about a VERY small minority of cases where that is even alleged much less proven. The elections simply aren’t “rigged” to favor anyone — the employees who vote “No” are doing so because they have been convinced it is in their company’s best interests (including them) to stay non-union.
And on top of all that EFCA would allow arbitrators to impose a contract on the parties if no CBA was reached within 90 days — for all the bull about democratic tax proposals being socialistic, this law would truly be a radical departure from the American concept of mutual agreement on a contract. There has been no evidence at all that parties’ relative economic strength (i.e., the ability of unions to withhold labor, or the ability of company’s to weather a strike) is insufficient to lead to a fair contract. Having an arbitrator set wages and benefits based on some academic analysis of what is competitive sounds nothing short of ruinous to business. And for all the GOP bs about “small business,” we do need businesses to employ people and be competitive.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:55 pm
King:
So I see you have drunk the EFCA cool-aid? I am a left of center Obama-voter, but I am already hoping that he comes to his senses on this one.
Left of center? For me at least, if you are anti-union, you are right of center. What are you liberal about, cultural issues and/or war?
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:56 pm
“Forcing the entire workforce into mandatory unionization because 51% of the employees were eventually pressured into signing cards is undemonocratic”
I don’t think those words mean what you think they do
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:56 pm
The elections simply aren’t “rigged” to favor anyone — the employees who vote “No” are doing so because they have been convinced it is in their company’s best interests (including them) to stay non-union.
“Have been convinced” assumes they’ve been convinced of it by legitimate means. There certainly is evidence that far more workers feel they have been coerced by management in an NLRB election than feel they have been coerced by unions in a card check election. Now that’s an old poll, maybe there’s new evidence, but absent that I find that evidence decisive.
On another matter, I’m considering going Petey-style crazy and bringing up your support for the (now-passed) Bloomberg Regime extension act in unrelated posts.
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Why is a secret ballot election “rigged?” This is a serious question. I understand you want to change the rules in favor of unions, but calling a secret ballot “rigged” seems odd. Am I missing something?
And it’s not surprising that businesses are funding the efforts. Have you heard of Mancur Olson?
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:03 pm
washerdryer, how can you be “coerced” in a secret ballot election? That seems logically impossible to me. You can’t punish someone for their vote if you can’t observe their vote. Am I missing something?
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:10 pm
The idea that the decision to unionize should be a “secret ballot” akin to a congressional election is retarded.
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Am I missing something?
Yes, you are missing that, for fascists like the supporters of EFCA, the only fair election is an election where the voters must vote for the option supported by the thugs wielding baseball bats.
But let’s face it, the supporters of EFCA hate democracy and love fascism. That’s why they are pushing this bill. They want to make sure that, when they can’t get the result they want in a free and fair secret ballot election, they can get that result through violence.
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Voter-intimidation and bribery by management are easier to maintain in the short term leading up to a secret ballot election than over a longer period of time for card check.
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:36 pm
There are no “broad-based groups of concerned citizens” on either side of this. There are unions on one side and management on the other. Nobody’s an angel here.
“Bribery by management” cracks me up. It’s actually illegal for a business to give employees better wages and benefits to convince them not to unionize. Isn’t that the point of unionization — better wages and benefits?
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:48 pm
“When you have a union, the union pays for health insurance, not the plant owner.”
Someone tell my boss… This just ain’t true. Professional jobs, such as at counties or non-profits, can be union shops too. We don’t get our insurance through unions.
October 23rd, 2008 at 7:01 pm
washerdryer, you didn’t answer my question: how can you credibly threaten, intimidate, or bribe someone about their vote, if their vote is secret? I honestly don’t get it.
October 23rd, 2008 at 7:03 pm
That’s ridiculous. I watch Fox News, and so I have been properly informed that the EFCA would allow union bosses to stand over employees with a six shooter and unless the employee voted to unionize the union boss can put a single bullet in the chamber, spin it, and then fire the gun at the employee’s head. True, this gives the employee a five in six chance of surviving and getting to work without the onerous burdens of higher wages with job protection, but who would want to take the chance? And, at any rate, the union bosses will find out where you live and track you down to finish the job if you aren’t immediately killed after voting union no.
Of course I’m exaggerating the FNC reporting on this, but not by much.
October 23rd, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Coercion.
I mean, you can hold a secret ballot vote where the workers actually vote to unionize, and the company can still fire any known union sympathizers, force the rest of the workers watch management-produced videos on how bad unions are, and if that doesn’t work, close the branch down. Sure, it’s illegal, but the penalty is a slap on the wrist years later.
October 23rd, 2008 at 7:25 pm
fostert. #1: You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, or else you are just talking out your ass. I have worked in about 6 different union shops, with different unions. None of them covered or paid for benefits. Some, like the Teamsters administer pension plans for their members, but it is the companies that pay for the benefits, not the unions.
October 23rd, 2008 at 7:37 pm
“The reality is that (A) unions do just fine in secret ballot elections (their win rate is over 50%); and (B) when they do lose, it is overwhelmingly because they don’t have a very good product to sell and they sell it poorly.”
I can’t believe I’m hearing anyone left of center say this. Unions, in the U.S., fail because workers don’t want to get fired, or because they’ve been forced to listen to anti-union propaganda from aggressive union busting goons, or because they’ve been told that their employer will ship off to China if the plant goes union. The “product” doesn’t sell, very often, because the people selling to you it got fired, and your boss is telling you that you’ll be next.
EFCA does not eliminate secret ballot elections. It merely allows unions to form through petition (”card-check”) drives over a long term, or through secret ballot, if the employees want to do it that way. Right now it’s the employers’ choice.
Unfortunately, some of the best liberal bloggers have done a weak job of explaining all this. I’ve read a half dozen conservative columnists give their take on it, but none from the liberal side (the side I read more). People like Yglesias or Klein who know some other policy areas backwards and forwards may have the right view on the issue, but haven’t done that much to knock down basic myths about EFCA.
http://www.seiu.org/a/frequently-asked-questions-about-employee-free-choice.php
October 23rd, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Ed asks:
You’re missing two things:
1) The “election” is typically held on company property, so even if management can’t see how you voted, they can see that you voted; and
2) A worker who doesn’t vote is the same as a worker who votes “no” (since without a majority of “yes” votes the status quo, i.e no union, remains).
So it’s entirely possible for management to create an atmosphere where workers feel that simply approaching the voting place is tantamount to putting a sticker on your forehead reading “I’m for the union”.
October 23rd, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Thanks, Jason, that makes sense.
That’s the first time I’ve heard that explanation. Is there anyone else who has experience with union elections who can confirm that voting (as opposed to abstaining) is seen as a sign of support?
October 23rd, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Ed, if you want some more info, I recommend this report, which details all the ways management can apply pressure on workers in an NLRB “election”.
October 23rd, 2008 at 8:16 pm
You’re missing two things:
1) The “election” is typically held on company property, so even if management can’t see how you voted, they can see that you voted; and
2) A worker who doesn’t vote is the same as a worker who votes “no” (since without a majority of “yes” votes the status quo, i.e no union, remains).
Two thoughts:
(1)Wouldn’t it be better then to reform the law so that only votes are counted, not abstentions? That is, only “yes” vs. “no” votes. If only three people show up, then their votes are the ones that count.
(2) Wouldn’t those who wanted a union pressure everyone to show up and vote under the current situation, seeing as getting a “no” voter to vote doesn’t cost them anything and getting a “yes” voter to vote benefits them?
EFCA does not eliminate secret ballot elections. It merely allows unions to form through petition (”card-check”) drives over a long term, or through secret ballot, if the employees want to do it that way. Right now it’s the employers’ choice.
I think the assumption of those arguing against the EFCA is that each worker ought to have the right to a secret ballot – whether other employees want to give it to him or not.
October 23rd, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Jason, I now believe you are mistaken when you write “a worker who doesn’t vote is the same as a worker who votes “no” (since without a majority of “yes” votes the status quo.”
In an NLRB election, certification only requires a simple majority *of votes cast*. See for example here:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/a1841511p1m65182/
In contrast, a *decertification* requires a majority of workers in the unit. So decertifying is harder than certifying…the rules in this case favor the union.
October 23rd, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Glaivester: As I said in my last comment, I believe your proposed “reform” is already in place. It appears Jason is mistaken about NLRB election rules.
Which is odd, because he seems to have a blog devoted to union issues. I’m starting to wonder if Jason is to be trusted.
Here’s another reference:
http://publicsafety.syr.edu/union/Archive/faqs.html
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Yep, I did overstate the case in my original comment – apologies about that. That’s what I get for dashing a comment off quickly before sitting down to eat. Note to self: next time, engage brain before engaging keyboard
However, even given this correction, the rules as currently structured are tilted massively in favor of management. There are multiple opportunities for coercion. I would still encourage you to read the report I linked to above, which goes into them in great detail.
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Former union organizer here. On the voting issue: under the National Labor Relations Act, the vote count is a count of valid votes cast. A bargaining representative is certified if it wins 50% +1 of valid votes cast. So if there are 100 people in the bargaining unit, and the vote ends up 40 for ABC Union and 35 for No Union, then ANC Union is certified.
Under the Railway Labor Act, which is older than the NLRA and which governs transportation employers (e.g., railways, airlines), the Board needs a majority of all voters to vote for the representative.
But virtually everyone we’re discussing here is covered by the NLRA, not the RLA.
On the basic issue of card-check vs. Board elections…the problem with Board elections is that the workers are under the boss’s control all during the election, and the boss’s basic strategy is to attack the visibly pro-union workers (firings, demotions, public dressings-down, rotating shifts, etc) to terrify everyone else, to propagandize the workers 24/7, and to poison the atmosphere at work — deliberately making all the workers miserable so that they’ll blame the union election and want it all to just go away. The boss might also spy on people, spread lies and rumors about personal lives, etc.
At the same time, management will fire a few managers, give people raises, and ask for a “second chance”. A good deal of this is illegal, but the punishment is to force the boss to post a notice at work promising not to do it again. If the boss breaks the law and the union loses the election, the union can file objections to the election and, after a few months or a year, the Board can order a new election, and the process starts all over again.
It’s very important to note that this isn’t just a matter of undermining an election — it’s about destroying the workers as a coherent group. Even if workers win an election and organize the union, the boss’s campaign has traumatized people, torn apart trust, forced out respected, senior workers, etc. Union busters don’t just want to win an election — they want to demoralize and terrorize the workers.
What it boils down to is this: it’s none of the boss’s business if the workers want to form a union. The boss has no role in the decision, and should butt the fuck out. Workers should have a right to form a union without being subjected to this bullshit. Could bosses in theory behave themselves in an election-based system? Yes, in theory. But bosses have had their chance to treat workers like human beings, and have blown it.
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Pesto,
Isn’t all of that a reason to put more teeth in the punishments for employer interference with the right to organize? Why would card check stop employers from employing any of the tactics you’ve mentioned? Also, why do you lump in wage increases with much more objectionable tactics (and, again, what would card check help avoid this).
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
“the rules as currently structured are tilted massively in favor of management.”
I question this. Many of the tactics you’ve mentioned are against the current rules. Maybe they should be enforced better, and with stronger penalties, but the rules are there.
That said, I don’t have any personal experience with a union organizing effort (although I have been represented by a union). But as a worker, I’d like to have the chance to vote in secret.
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:53 pm
EFCA does put more teeth into the process. But frankly, too much of this stuff is subject to the whims of the NLRB and the administration that happens to be in power. Workers naturally want stable, reliable guarantees that they’ll be left alone to make their own decisions. And unless you went beyond even EFCA’s improved penalties — say, criminal charges against individual managers — the boss’s incentive to attack the workers is too great, and the Board would just end up picking up the pieces after the irreversible damage to the workers has been done.
Why would card check stop employers from employing any of the tactics you’ve mentioned?
It doesn’t stop them completely. Frankly, I think that, should EFCA pass, many bosses will be persuaded to go into 24/7/365 anti-union campaign mode. Certainly, anti-worker law firms and union busters will advise them to do just that. Still, it’s a lot of effort to mount that kind of war, and a lot of money. What the workers are talking about on their own time, amongst themselves, and at their own pace, is harder for the boss to campaign against than a clearly-defined Board election.
Also, why do you lump in wage increases with much more objectionable tactics (and, again, what would card check help avoid this).
To point out that bosses can and do use lots of tactics to shut down organizing campaigns. It’s illegal for the boss to change wages, hours, or working conditions during a union campaign, for the worse or the better. Unions will file unfair labor practice (ULP) charges when the boss makes things worse, but obviously don’t when the workers get a raise.
This is only possible in the context of an election campaign with a distinct start and stop. Card check is an ongoing process. So if the possibility that workers might be signing cards makes the boss serious about giving a regular, annual raise, then that just proves the power of workers organizing, and all workers will be better off because bosses can’t take them for granted as easily.
Again, to return to the basic issue: workers have a right to organize. Bosses should have absolutely no say in the matter whatsoever. Bosses in the US have proven utterly incapable of butting out when an election is involved, so we need to use a different method of determining whether a group of workers wants to organize, and, if so, with what union. Card-check has been used in the US for decades, is used in Canada and many European countries, and has succeeded.
October 24th, 2008 at 1:31 am
Here’s a thought experiment.
Imagine you live in a country. There is a government. There are no fixed election dates. The only elections that occur is when at least 35% of the population request one in writing. If 100% of the population signs the petition, there will still be an election. It is illegal, however, to discuss signing such a petition while you are residing in the country. The opposition party is not allowed in the country. Should the government find out that you are likely to, or have signed such a petition, you will be expelled from the country, and your only recourse is to a third party which, even if they find against the government, will not return you until either the election is over or the drive for an election has ended.
During the election campaign both parties are allowed to seek to convince the voters that they should be supported. However, once again, the opposition party is not allowed into the country to campaign.
Regardless of the outcome of the election, the government will remain in power.
Now, if you lived in this country, do you honestly think you would say “we have lost our democratic rights by losing the secret ballot”?
October 24th, 2008 at 4:10 am
Again, many people are seeing the unions here as an unalloyed good.
Direct, ongoing real world example: one of my company’s divisions is undergoing a unionization drive, and has been for over a year. The union produced the requisite number of signed cards, so we held some meeting pointing out that our penison plan was 100% funded while the Teamsters central states pension fund was nowhere hear that, that our non-union plant was paying them more than the unionized workers were getting at the nearby plants, that our benefits options offered more coverage than the ones the Teamsters were offering. Everyone already knew that we had terminated and replaced the division president for ethical reasons before the card signing process had even started.
In the lead up to this, we received several complaints from associates that they were being pressured – as in teamsters blocking their trucks on the way back into the plant and haranging them about signing cards, or going door to door to every associate’s house for months, even when told to go away.
The Teamsters lost. They filed roughly a dozen Unfair Labor Practices complaints to the NLRB. All of them were overturned on investigation, but the NLRB did say we had to re-do the election. So we set a new date.
By this point the division management culture had changed under the new DP. And the scheduled annual increase date had passed, but we are barred under the NLRB to give any sort of pay or benfits changes while the union effort is going on. So all the associates in the election are still without their raises for 2008, which should have gone through July 1.
Given these factors, the teamsters did a quick nose count, realized they were going to lose and unilaterally called off the vote, filing a new round of ULP charges. A few months later, those too were all overturned and the NLRB told them to have the election already. We offered a date of 3 weeks after that; the teamsters said no, not enough time to prepare. They’d need a couple of months.
So now, 13 months into the process we have a labor force with the highest pay rate in their immediate area, a solid benefits package and a fully funded pension plan where the management responsible for the associate’s unhappiness was replaced before the process even begain who haven’t gotten a raise in 16 months because the Teamsters are repeatedly dragging out a losing vote. Bear in mind that at this point if the Teamsters had just accepted the original losing vote they would be in a legal position to try to orgnaize the plant again in another 11 months. There’s nothing stopping them from making their case again in the future if they think they have a winning argument.
As I said before, I’m not anti-union. But I am in an industry that is heavily unionized and relies in part on a skilled, in demand labor force (you try to hire a lot of people with Class A drivers licenses, see how hard that is), and that has a beneficial effect on the non-union plants because companies will increase workers pay and benefits to exceed what the local union shops are offering. There’s nothing illegal and immoral about this – working with a union takes time and money a company would rather spend elsewhere. And if the goal of the unions is to improve the lot of workers in their industry they should see that as a net win because their very presence is providing a better wage even if they aren’t in all the plants.
The problem with the EFCA as it stands is not that it makes it easier to unionize, but that it affects companies in established industries like ours as much as it does places that are not following the rules. You want to put more teeth in the NLRB? Fine. You want to make sure the laws as written are enforced. Go for it. Those of us who are following the rules got no problem with that. There are a lot of companies out there who do a lot of unfair things. But the changes as proposed will affect even the industries that are following the rules and override the legitimate decisions of the workers.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:25 am
And the scheduled annual increase date had passed, but we are barred under the NLRB to give any sort of pay or benfits changes while the union effort is going on. So all the associates in the election are still without their raises for 2008, which should have gone through July 1.
This is absolutely not what the law says, and if your lawyers are telling you this they are idiots or lying to you. The Act doesn’t forbid regularly-scheduled raises from going forward during a Board-supervised election campaign. If you give everyone a turkey for Thanksgiving every year, then you can do so during an organizing campaign with no worries. Same as if you give everyone an across-the-board raise every year, or do annual evaluations.
In fact, if you’ve canceled the normal raise because of the organizing campaign, or said to even a single worker that they’ve missed out on their raise because of the union campaign, then you are in fact violating the law — you are deciding not to give the regular raise to the workforce and blaming it on the organizing drive, which is utterly illegal. “We’d love to give you the normal raise, and as soon as all this union nonsense ends we’ll be able to, but…” If anyone at that Teamsters local has half a brain they’ll file a ULP over this, and the Board should, eventually, force your company to give everyone back pay.
I have no idea what your intentions were in this, but to me the lesson here, again, is that none of this is any of your business. It is the employees’ decision, not yours. You shouldn’t have meetings, you shouldn’t offer an opinion, any more than if people were asking you whether to join a church. If the workers want to organize with the Teamsters, it’s up to them. If they want to organize with the IWW, or form their own, independent union, or not organize at all, it’s up too them.
This is the kind of b.s. that happens in Board supervised elections, and even bosses who don’t see themselves as attacking the workers end up sticking their noses in something that’s none of their business. Either the workers will organize or they won’t — either way, keep your mouth shut about it and leave them alone to make up their own minds.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Sorry about not closing that bold tag. Matt, please add a preview function!!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:43 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:25 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
xanax
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:22 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:15 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:12 am
Thanks for the review! viagra