Economists for an Employee Free Choice Act
Conservatives have two main arguments about the Employee Free Choice Act. One is that it would “eliminate the secret ballot,” which is false. It would put the decision about what election method to use in a unionization process in the hands of workers, rather than in the hands of corporate executives. Their other argument, which is true, is that it would lead to more union organizing. This, they think, is a terrible ill destined to wreck the economy. I would beg to differ, and the Economic Policy Institute has put together a group of economists who likewise beg to differ, including some blogosphere favorites, Nobel prize winners (but not Paul Krugman?), and even Jagdish Bhagwati who some people think is a conservative.
For my part, I’ll link back to my previous posts on unions and growth and how even the Heritage Foundation’s list of most economically awesome countries is full of high levels of unionization.
UPDATE: Apparently the Times doesn’t permit its writers to sign petitions, which would of course explain why Krugman didn’t sign. I can see why you would apply that rule to news reporters, but it’s a little odd for columnists.
81 Responses to “Economists for an Employee Free Choice Act”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 26th, 2009 at 9:00 am
As humanity becomes more holistic, more integrated into their Souls or higher being, attributes of light (wisdom) and love (fairness, sharing), the Party which represents these attributes, will dominate and lead to the dismay of the other party who stays separative, materialistic, critical, individualistic instead of group conscious. The Soul is group conscious and knows no separation from each other. This will be our future state. Constant conflict will end and love and goodwill will abide. It is not so far off as you may think, because there will be on Earth more enlightened Souls and less of those separative egos who cannot love their brothers as theirselves, and these egos who will represent the phase-out party, will find themselves on the wrong side of destiny and evolution.
“At the center of all love I stand. From that center I the Soul will outward move. From that center I the one who serves will work. May the love of my Divine Self be shed abroad, in my heart, through my group, and throughout the world.”
February 26th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Uh, weird. Anyway…
I’m not going to go to the effort to back this up with numbers, but periods of increasing real median wage correlate to increasing unionization rates; decreases in real median wage correlate to decreases in unionization.
Unions are the surest way to open the door to the middle class; expanding the middle class is the surest way to correct our economy.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Unions are the surest way to open the door to the middle class; expanding the middle class is the surest way to correct our economy.
“Yes, but unless employers are free to push wages down to the absolute minimum the market will bear, they’ll have incentive to ship jobs overseas. The “middle class” is toast anyway.” That’s the Republican argument. I’m presenting it in it’s condensed and non-sneering form, but I’m sure certain other commenters will be along any minute to repeat it at greater length.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Of course, this is an outright lie by Matthew.
Of course, it’s not, and the language of the NLRA allowing certification via either ballots or signed cards is federal law, and will remain such after EFCA passes.
On the other hand, workers in a unionized shop can get their union decertified without a secret ballot if they so choose. All it takes is a majority of them submitting their signatures on a petition to management, and it no longer has to negotiate with the bargaining unit.
I trust Al will be along to denounce that process, and insist that decertification only be carried out by a secret ballot. Yeah, right. I’ll just sit here and wait for that.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:01 am
This is the dumbest most phony bill I’ve ever seen.
Either you guys are naiive to think that getting rid of secret ballots won’t dramatically increase union intimidation, or you’re stupid, or you’re just scoundrels with a political agenda.
That being said, it is clear that business has not carried itself well either. That’s the reality…both sides are unfortunately greedy.
But the answer is not to get rid of secret ballots. It’s to ensure that people have an avenue to expose when business runs afowl of the law and then is properly punished.
Do us all a favor and drop the politics. Lying about this does nothing to help your cause, or your reputation in the eyes of your readers.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Guys…When you sign cards and someone from the UNION COLLECTS THEM…What is secret about that?
Signing a petition? Do you really think that we’re that stupid to believe that one can just sign something like that and they won’t be exposed.
Honestly, if you guys want to ram this down our throats…BE HONEST.
Don’t insult our intelligence by coming up with a bunch of Orwellian talking points.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:07 am
gets a bunch of union bought-and-paid-for economists
Nobel Prize winner Robert Solow–author of the Solow model taught in all macroeconomic textbooks–is not paid and bought for by anyone.
And to call Bhagwati, author of In Defense of Globalization, bought by Unions is absurd. Absurd.
and even Jagdish Bhagwati who some people think is a conservative.
Bhagwati is a passionate, very passionate, free-trader, but he has more complicated views on things like capital flows and regulation.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:08 am
“Either you guys are naiive to think that getting rid of secret ballots won’t dramatically increase union intimidation, or you’re stupid, or you’re just scoundrels with a political agenda.”
The problem with this line is that “union intimidation”, which I assume means pressuring workers to favor the creation of a union, is actually good for the middle class, as it transfers money from the executives of a company to its workers.
On the other hand, “anti-union intimidation”, which goes on regularly via paid third-party firms who specialize in doing exactly that, results in a further concentration of wealth in the executives and away from its workers.
So you do realize, I’m sure, that one of those ends is in line with liberal thinking, and one of them in line with conservative thinking. There’s not really much of a debate to be had here since we pretty much completely disagree on the optimal distribution of wealth.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:10 am
And Al, my neocon sense is telling me to hit you down on your democracy point.
It’s not like the Republicans have supported democracy around the world…and FOR GOOD REASON.
Did we really support democracy in the Palestinian territories? Did we really support democracy in Iraq with Khalializad walking around on the floor of the Iraqi parliament cutting deals?
Supporting democracy for the sake of democracy is idiotic. Moreover, this is a Republic…We’re not a democracy (AND THANK GOD FOR THAT).
You’re right on this point…But don’t ruin your argument by going down the path of the darkside.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:11 am
But the answer is not to get rid of secret ballots. It’s to ensure that people have an avenue to expose when business runs afowl of the law and then is properly punished.
OK, then. What kind of avenue are you proposing?
February 26th, 2009 at 10:11 am
“Guys…When you sign cards and someone from the UNION COLLECTS THEM…What is secret about that?”
I know you’re being disingenuous, but I’ll respond anyway.
The reason the secret ballot as the only process is bad is not because we hate secrecy and democracy. It’s because currently businesses that really, really don’t want unions delay the secret ballot as long as possible. In that time period, they spend a lot of time, money, and energy bombarding the workers with anti-union propaganda, often including bringing in consultants specializing in anti-union propaganda. They often intimate that their stores will be closed or lots of jobs lost if the secret ballot succeeds, even if this isn’t remotely accurate. It’s a pure example of scare tactics used by people in authority to keep their underlings from getting any authority.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Adam, you’re wrong.
A conservative believes in liberty. He doesn’t believe in intimidation either way. You could argue that Republicans might believe that, but as a Conservative, I do not.
So there is a debate here. Do you think that people ought to have a REAL CHOICE, or do you think that might makes right…the end justifies the means. From a thinking perspective, we’ve been having this debate since the dawn of time.
I respect you for admitting though that you believe its good for someone to be intimidated to make a decision that they don’t want to make. I suppose that makes you a supporter of programs like extraordinary rendition and torture. I just hope that the next time some buffon Republican like GWB comes into power with Congress under his control, you’ll roll over…because of course…might makes right.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Adam,
Looking above, you’ll see that I accept that and denounced it. But the answer is not to give unions the ability to bully people.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:17 am
But the answer is not to get rid of secret ballots.
Good thing the law doesn’t get rid of secret ballots, then.
I believe you are arguing in good faith, Ed. I think you believe what you have been told, that the EFCA would eliminate the secret ballot, but you have been mislead.
Currently, workers can win recognition of their union by signing cards, or by holding an election. If the workers choose to go the card route, upon receiving signed cards from a majority of workers and a statement indicating that they wish to no be recognized as having formed a union, the company can either recognize them, or insist on an election. If they insist on an election, they don’t have to recognize the union until the election is held.
The EFCA will change the law so that the workers, not the company, will decide if they want to hold an election, or just use the signed cards. The right to a secret ballot remains in effect – if the workers want one, they can have one. The only change in this area that EFCA would make would be to take the decision – cards vs. elections – away from management, and give it to workers.
I support workers’ right to decide how they want to organize their union. Don’t you?
February 26th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Joe,
Many thanks. The problem is in your last paragraph:
“if the workers want one, they can have one.” Just how do workers demand one? Do they show up to the union or to business in person to demand one? Do they write a secret letter?
I think this answers my question. Nothing in the process is secret, therefore it opens workers up to intimidation.
In the Soviet parliament, you could, if you wanted to, stop clapping when Stalin entered the room. Ever wonder why he used to get 30 minute ovations?
February 26th, 2009 at 10:20 am
“Looking above, you’ll see that I accept that and denounced it. But the answer is not to give unions the ability to bully people.”
Again, you’re being disingenuous. Do you really think less than 50% of employees at any WalMart store don’t want to be part of collective bargaining? Exactly what kind of “bullying” does it take to convince someone that if they sign up, they can bargain for better wages and benefits?
I mean, yes, this is theoretically possible. But I’m betting if it passed the ratio would still be something like 99% executive anti-union bullying, 1% union bullying. And since I’m not Ron Paul, I’m ok with cutting down that 99% even if it’s not a 100% perfect law.
And besides, what is your answer? If it’s not this, then it has to be a LOT of new regulations on corporate anti-union activity. Do you want to make it illegal for WalMart to close any store that tries to form a union? For corporations to fire the leaders of union-forming efforts before the secret ballot in order to intimidate anyone else? Because that’s the kind of thing we’re talking about here to restore “liberty” to the workers. And those don’t sound very conservative either.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Yeah, the certification by ballot will remain law only for situations that will never, ever occur.
Shrug. It’s not up to you or me to tell workers what method to use to organize their shop. If you’re so confident they don’t want to hold elections, why are you insisting on the right of management to demand them.
Oh, right – because you’re happy to tamp down the self-determination of the little people in order to make sure the wealthy have the upper hand over them.
Al loves democracy so much that he doesn’t want people to decide for themselves how to organize. Their betters in the corner office will tell them, and they know best.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:27 am
I completely agree with you – decertification should take place by secret ballot in the same way as certification should.
Of course, there is zero effort being made by the newly-self-appointed defenders of union democracy to make that happen. Just as there is zero effort being made to require elections for all certifications, rather than just maintaining the status quo, which is elections only when demanded by management.
But hey, in a blog comment thread, conservatives are willing to say that they’re not hypocrites. Impressive.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Moreover, this is a Republic…We’re not a democracy
…Both systems have a Senate, but in a Republic the Senate will never block your attempts to declare war. Military units out of their home cities in a Republic produce only one unhappy citizen rather than two in a Democracy; this makes a Republic a better choice for a player who plans to follow an aggressive policy. However, Corruption levels will be significantly higher under a Republic than under a Democracy.
…sounds about right.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Adam, that’s what the ballots are for. You seem to believe that collective bargaining is always a good thing. Many workers don’t…especially when a portion of their wages goes to support activities such as rallies for people they don’t want for, and corruption as far as the eye can see.
And where do you get your numbers from? Those same economists? Me, I don’t have numbers because my argument is predicated on the reality of human greed. I don’t give the unions that power BECAUSE I TRUST THEM TO ABUSE IT. In the same way that I don’t give businesses the power either. You seem to have concluded that businesses are more greedy (99%) than unions? Why is that? Are they not both composed of human beings? Are you really so utopian to think that a union is without such basic human tendencies?
A real secret ballot takes care of that.
As to solutions…I don’t know. You guys love tougher regulations, why not pass some. Stiff fines, good enforcement — provided of course that you can prove it in a court of law.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:31 am
ajay,
do me a favor and read some history. corruption is wide-spread across human history. but some of the most corrupt governments have been democracies…why?
because the people eventually figure out that they can have a share of the public treasuries through the ballot…money, no…that never ever has anything to do with corruption.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:55 am
As to solutions…I don’t know. You guys love tougher regulations, why not pass some. Stiff fines, good enforcement — provided of course that you can prove it in a court of law.
I agree with this – the problem is supposedly that the corporation can intimidate or even fire organizing employees – so address that problem! EFCA tries to address potential coercion from one party by adding a second potentially coercive element to the process, which strikes me as misguided. In fact, I expect that supplanting the secret ballot with card check would increase the likelihood of employer coercion as a counter to the expected union coercion. Feedback ensues… It would be better, I think, to increase the fines for firing union supporters by an order of magnitude or more.
But I don’t think EFCA will have a huge effect if it’s passed – a moderate increase in unionization at most, mostly in borderline cases where unionization won’t affect the average worker all that much. The biggest shift will be in power and cash from CEOs to union bosses, neither of whom have my sympathies.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:06 am
EFCA tries to address potential coercion from one party by adding a second potentially coercive element to the process
Both parts of this sentence are false. EFCA isn’t intended to address some theoretical, potential coercion, but the very real, existing coercion that is so common for management to employ unionization drives;
And EFCT doesn’t add a single thing to the process. Workers already sign cards to express their desire to join a union. They already present them to management and request recognition. The only the EFCA does is REMOVE a source of intimidation – the weeks or months between the submission of cards and the election, during which management frequently engaged in firings, propaganda, and other forms of intimidation, which they can engage in by demanding an election against the will of the workers.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Ed,
Guys…When you sign cards and someone from the UNION COLLECTS THEM…What is secret about that?
Signing a petition? Do you really think that we’re that stupid to believe that one can just sign something like that and they won’t be exposed.
I assume you realize that workers already sign these cards and ballots in 100% of union elections under the status quo. That’s the only way to get the NLRB to hold an election. So if you think that that process is a terrible, undemocratic violation of workers’ privacy, you really should have been railing against the NLRA ever since it was passed 70 years ago, because every single Board election since then has constituted a terrible violation of privacy and opportunity for worker intimidation by unions. That horse left the barn during FDR’s first term.
Also, anyone who associates the current system of Board elections with privacy is living in fantasyland. Everyone knows where 95% of the workers stand on the union by the time the ballots are cast. You are not keeping your secret, anti-union feelings hidden from your coworkers, or your secret, pro-union feelings from your boss, unless you’re an incredibly dedicated and accomplished liar.
Thirdly, on the question of worker intimidation: employers have tons of leverage to use against their own employees. Union organizers have none. If a worker refuses to attend a union organizing meeting, he might get a phone call or — gasp! — a house visit. If that same worker refuses to attend a captive-audience meeting at work, he’ll get fired for insubordination, and that firing will be deemed 100% legal by the Board. Employers also threaten to fire workers (and actually do so); threaten to change their shifts (which is a very big deal if you work 2 jobs or have kids), and actually do so; threaten to give people shittier/more dangerous job assignments (and actually do so); threaten to take away their overtime (and actually do so). All of that is technically illegal, but involves no legal consequences at all for the manager who actually breaks the law, and virtually no consequences for the company — no fines, no penalties. Just restoring the situation to the status quo ante, making the employee whole (in some cases), and posting a notice saying, “Sorry, we won’t do that again.”
In comparison, what kind of threat could a union organizer deliver to a worker that isn’t already a felony? If a manager fires a worker for wearing a union button — which is 100% illegal — and that worker calls the cops to report a crime, they’ll blow him off. It’s not a crime, just an unfair labor practice. If an organizer threatens, what, to break someone’s kneecaps for not wearing a union button, and that worker calls the cops, the organizer will get arrested, likely tried and face serious punishment — and the campaign will essentially be over, too.
If you want a “clean” election process, with no intimidation by bosses, you’ll need to introduce incredibly severe penalties for ULPs — not treble damages to the company, but personal penalties for managers who bully workers. And you’ll probably need to establish a Labor Police Force that workers can call to come arrest managers when they break the law. Does that sound like a good idea to you? It doesn’t to me.
Let the workers make up their own minds. Some groups of workers will want to join an established union. Others won’t. Still others might want to set up their own, independent union — an option which is essentially unavailable under the status quo, given the incredible costs of winning a union organizing campaign and winning a contract under the current system. In any event, it should be up to the workers to decide whether and how to organize and certify their own union, if they want one at all.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Conservatives just love this psycho-sexual ‘ram it down our throats’ metaphor, don’t they? I thought it was limited to their anti-gay marriage arguments, but I guess not. It’s kind of disturbing.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:41 am
“One is that it would “eliminate the secret ballot,” which is false. It would put the decision about what election method to use in a unionization process in the hands of workers, rather than in the hands of corporate executives.”
No, I’m pretty sure you’re wrong unless you are deliberately obscuring the timeline.
Unless you are talking about something else (and I’m not an expert so I could be confused) this is the full text of the bill. It doesn’t require anything like part of the card to offer a secret ballot option which then 30% of the people can choose.
You may be talking about Section 159(e) which would then mandate a separate election if on a separate petition 30% of the employees request it. That seems like a recipe for a mess. Union focuses on high-pressure, short-time period card check with at least the potential for misleading information. It gets certified. Now any employee who wants to make an objection get his *first chance* to have a voice by agitating for a vote while the newly ‘formed’ union is right in the middle of its first contract negotiations under Section 3 of the EFCA.
The closest thing to what you are talking about is Section 159(e) which says:
(1) Upon the filing with the Board, by 30 per centum or more of the employees in a bargaining unit covered by an agreement between their employer and a labor organization made pursuant to section 158 (a)(3) of this title, of a petition alleging they desire that such authority be rescinded, the Board shall take a secret ballot of the employees in such unit and certify the results thereof to such labor organization and to the employer.
(2) No election shall be conducted pursuant to this subsection in any bargaining unit or any subdivision within which, in the preceding twelve-month period, a valid election shall have been held.
It looks to me like this would play out as follows:
1) Union gets card check. It may or may not have been candid in the process, you don’t seem worried about it. Dissenting workers have no say at this point. Depending on how the union is playing the game, they may not even be aware there is an ‘election’ going on until it is almost over.
2) Union has mandatory first contract negotiations under Section 3 of the EFCA. At this point there is no right under Section 159(e) because there is no “bargaining unit covered by an agreement between their employer and a labor organization”.
Dissenting workers have still not had any chance whatsoever for input.
3) Contract is completed within 90 days (unless it goes to arbitration, if it goes to arbitration dissenting employees STILL have no input). Dissenting employees are bound under the contract.
4) only now can they request a secret ballot. And they are going to have to do it publically and immediately after what may have been very nasty initial contract negotiations with a newly formed union bargaining unit.
That strikes me as a situation ripe for intimidation. Furthermore it is nothing at all like the blase “One is that it would “eliminate the secret ballot,” which is false.”
It does take away the secret ballot until after the ‘election’. You can months later THEN have a secret ballot election.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Also the effect of section 2 “No election shall be conducted pursuant to this subsection in any bargaining unit or any subdivision within which, in the preceding twelve-month period, a valid election shall have been held.” seems to be even uglier.
If you count the non-secret ballot ‘election’ as a ‘valid election’ under this subsection, then the secret ballot election is not available until at least a full year later.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Going back to the Nobel-prize winners thing here: I was glad to see my former advisor Kenneth Arrow signing this. His name may not ring a bell for most here, but he is a living legend among economists. For reasons to bizarre and technical to explain here, some people tag him as a conservative when in fact he is a life-long Democrat who worked for Kennedy´s CEA. Tell any economist worth his or her salt that Arrow was bought by unions and you will be at the receiving end of an F-bomb. By the way, I spotted another Nobel-no-show that surprised me: Joseph Stiglitz.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
I’m see correlation, not causation… Isn’t socialism 100% unionization?
What I also see are on a whole much more free countries that have employees less dependent on the government to make their lives perfect. A well functioning union is a natural market phenomena, especially where people are less used to the government fucking up their lives. I would be interested to see the percentage of wages siphoned off to the union organizers in Singapore and America. Actually, I wouldn’t really be that interested because the answer is obvious, but just to prove a point.
I assume you realize that workers already sign these cards and ballots in 100% of union elections under the status quo. That’s the only way to get the NLRB to hold an election. So if you think that that process is a terrible, undemocratic violation of workers’ privacy, you really should have been railing against the NLRA ever since it was passed 70 years ago, because every single Board election since then has constituted a terrible violation of privacy and opportunity for worker intimidation by unions. That horse left the barn during FDR’s first term.
The nature of government is not open to rolling back of laws. To waste resources on trying to remove old unfair laws while your opponents insert new even more oppressive ones is absolutely valid and rational.
employers have tons of leverage to use against their own employees. Union organizers have none/em>
This is an outright lie. Union organizers have all sorts of bargaining chips at their disposal. There have been MANY cases of unions doing that is best for the union, rather than what is best for the employees. I know your brain can’t imagine a system where they are not synonymous, but it is a common misconception. An employee can quit a job where they are treated unfairly, and you can be sure, if enough employees leave such a company it’s prospects of receiving a government bailout increase dramatically. Quiting a union can be a much more complicated process. If every job in your sector (ex. Auto Workers) is controlled by one union structure it is nearly impossible to find a job that doesn’t require your membership. For Democrats to endorse such a clearly undemocratic process boggles the mind, until you see the size of their union organized donations.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Sebastian, workers right now have 2 mechanisms for showing proof of interest in petitioning for an election: they can sign cards/petitions stating their choice of XYZ union as their exclusive bargaining agent for purposes of representation and bargaining with the employer over wages, hours, and working conditions (a “recognition” card/petition); or, alternately, they can sign cards/petitions demanding an election to determine whether they want XYZ union to serve as their representative (an “election” card/petition).
When I was an organizer, the workers almost always insisted on election cards — they were RNs, and the organizing committee felt the election demand was more legitimate. Now, under the status quo that’s a sleeves-off-by-vest decision, since the boss wasn’t going to respect recognition cards anyway. But even under Employee Free Choice, if the workers want to do it that way, that’s what they’ll do. If they don’t, they won’t. It’ll be. their. choice.
If a majority of the workers think, for whatever reason, that an election is more appropriate, then they can circulate election cards/petitions. If they talk amongst themselves and discover only 40% or so want to organize, but they figure that they can persuade the rest during the campaign (which I’d consider a dumb decision but it’s theirs to make), then they can file for an election. If 80% of the workers want a union, but 44% of them want XYZ and 36% want ABC, then they can file for an election to figure out which one will be certified (and that election ballot, incidentally, will include a “No Representative” option). And, incidentally, the NLRA has always allowed employers to petition the Board for an election when they’re faced with contradictory demands for recognition from 2 or more unions. Employee Free Choice won’t change that, either.
If you count the non-secret ballot ‘election’ as a ‘valid election’ under this subsection, then the secret ballot election is not available until at least a full year later.
If a majority of the workers decide to organize a union, then they’ve made that decision. Why should a minority of the workers get to undermine the entire group immediately after certification?
February 26th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
“Union intimidation” is always the bogeyman here, but what is it supposed to consist of? When my friend was working for SEIU, her job was just finding people and asking them to sign—annoying them, basically, like MoveOn but in person instead of e-mail. If that’s intimidation, you guys are wimps. If you have something else in mind, then what? Are you picturing “On the Waterfront” or something?
February 26th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Alright, Nathan, I’ll try to take this slowly.
The nature of government is not open to rolling back of laws. To waste resources on trying to remove old unfair laws while your opponents insert new even more oppressive ones is absolutely valid and rational.
I assume this obtuse comment means that, yes, you’d like to repeal the Wagner Act (and probably the RLA, as well). Either that, or you favor some alternative method of petitioning the Board for union elections that you haven’t revealed here. So what we learn from your comments is that, if you want to eliminate workers’ legal right to engage in concerted activity and to form unions…then you oppose Employee Free Choice.
Thanks for clearing that up.
This is an outright lie. Union organizers have all sorts of bargaining chips at their disposal. There have been MANY cases of unions doing that is best for the union, rather than what is best for the employees.
You do know understand that the union organizer, in a union recognition campaign, is working for a union that doesn’t represent the workers in question, right? So, again, what does Jane Worker rely on me for when I’m a union organizer talking to her on the phone, or knocking at her door, to discuss her position on organizing a union? What can I do to her? Seriously, play out the scenario and tell me what I, the union organizer, am supposed to say to intimidate Jane into signing a card. I’ve already explained exactly what employers do all the time. What are these secret-squirrel “bargaining chips” that a union organizer can unleash on poor Jane?
Now, after a majority or workers decide to form a union, yes, there’s no guarantee that each worker will get exactly what she wants. Federal law requires that unions be structured democratically, with elected leaders and membership-approved by-laws that are legally enforceable. Still, some unions do a shitty job, either deliberately or through incompetence/laziness/stupidity. Generally, I trust workers to make the decisions that make sense for them, as long as they’re able to make the decision for themselves. If they don’t like the union’s priorities, they can run for office to change them, or even decertify the union or organize another union. Employee Free Choice will actually make it easier for workers to switch unions — it won’t affect decertification because you only need a card-check for that now, in effect.
But again, if you consider it a horrible mistake that workers have the right to self-organization in the first place, none of this will make a difference to you.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
I guess I should chime in again, as someone who actually does union organizing.
Ed at 7: as I’ve stated before, union intimidation is a horribly self-defeating strategy that no union in its right mind engages in. Why? Because union organizing doesn’t end at certification. You need that worker you’ve just signed up to help negotiate and ratify a contract or go out on strike and walk a picket, or just show up for membership meetings and inform local leaders about work conditions and potential grievances. An intimidated member is a paper member – and workers can always send in a form de-signing their names to the NLRB or management, which means it’s a stupid idea.
Pesto is quite right that union organizers have virtually no power over workers, especially compared to their bosses.
Second, the problem is much more than exposing law-breaking. Most of the abusive things that management does – holding one-on-one meetings, captive audience meetings, forcing line managers to spy on their workers, threatening to close the plant/tear up pension plans, barring the union from the premises during election campaigns – all of that is legal under current labor law. Even when they do things that are patently illegal – like firing people for being pro-union – the process takes years and years, and in the end the most penalty that the law allows is back wages minus what the worker earned in the years since. Corporations routinely fire people illegally and consider any potential fine as the cost of doing business.
That’s why we want to move beyond the current NLRB election system – it’s fundamentally broken, not just because the employers are breaking the law and not being caught, but because the legal boundaries of the election system are so fundamentally rigged that winning in the face of employer opposition is virtually impossible.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Petitioning for an election and counting the petition AS the election are two very different things. Is there anyone who would argue for example that the California initiative process would be improved by allowing the petitions to count as actual votes rather than a request to put something on the ballot?
Would you be ok with having a county collect votes for representation based on door-to-door signed voter cards? Even if a majority thought that was ok? Votes for representation where the person being voted for gets to know with absolute certainty whether or not you personally voted for him, just aren’t good.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
“You do know understand that the union organizer, in a union recognition campaign, is working for a union that doesn’t represent the workers in question, right?”
Which is precisely why letting him set the terms of the election isn’t really ‘giving the choice to the workers’.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
The thing worth keeping in mind about unions is they tend to work best in situations which are bad for the economy as a whole. That is, if you have a monopolistic industry or just one with little competition, unions can gain a good share of monopoly profits without allowing invasion by non-union competitors. Unions can act as a partial solution to this problem by taking at least some money away from the owners of the monopolies. Really, though, it would be better to break up the monopolies and stop the top players from colluding, which would get rid of the unions as a side product (since you can’t pay your workers above market wage in a competitive industry). The spoils from redistributing monopolistic profits would be more widely distributed amongst all workers than the union system can accomplish.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
“Again, there are lots of historical and contemporary examples of direct democracy without secret ballots.”
A) The contention made by MATT is that the EFCA does not take away secret ballots. So far as I can tell, that contention is wrong. But we don’t even get to your statement until we admit that the EFCA takes away secret ballots–which it does.
B) There are lots of cases where secret ballots exist, and lots where they don’t. It isn’t universal, but generally you see open ballots in situations where representatives are voting for or against something. They are open so that their constituents can hold them accountable. In direct representation situations (say voting for a union to represent you, or voting for a Senator to represent you, or voting for a President to represent you) we have secret ballots so that the representative can’t pressure you to vote for him because in the end he doesn’t really know for sure that you did.
Now if you want, you can argue that secret ballot protections are pretty much just useless. Or you can try to sharply distinguish between representation votes and votes *of representatives doing their official functions* in such a way that voting for a union somehow sounds more like the latter. But we can’t do that until we are honest about the fact that we are talking about removing or sharply limiting secret ballots in this case.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Realist,
Perhaps that’s what a simple model straight from an economics textbook would predict, but of course the real world is far messier. For one thing, unions might succeed in moving some compensation from management to the workers, which doesn’t change the overall profitability of the firm. For another, a unionized workforce can be more productive and more efficient than a non-unionized one–a worker who feels he’s fairly compensated for his work and has a framework for resolving grievances will usually work harder and take more pride in what he does.
Of course, sometimes unions make things more inefficient–context matters. But economic theory isn’t as predictive as it pretends to be.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Sebastian,
Petitioning for an election and counting the petition AS the election are two very different things.
Where the rubber hits the road on privacy and alleged intimidation, though, they’re not. They have the same effects on privacy — coworkers or organizers might know who signed cards in either scenario, and workers would be exposed to intimidation — still waiting for even a hypothetical example of this, BTW — in either case.
Is there anyone who would argue for example that the California initiative process would be improved by allowing the petitions to count as actual votes rather than a request to put something on the ballot?
Comparing a vote among 6 or 7 million voters on whether to adopt a law or constitutional amendment to a vote among a few dozen or hundred workers on whether to organize a union isn’t particularly useful. And when was the last time that anyone filed a ballot initiative in California with a majority of California’s registered voters on the petition? The requirement is 8% (constitutional amendment) or 5% (ordinary law) of the number of votes in the last gubernatorial election.
The Employee Free Choice Act, needless to say, doesn’t allow a union to be certified with only 5% or 8% of the workers signing recognition cards.
Beyond that, union elections are very, very different from ballot initiatives or elections for elective office. In an elective-office election, there’s a seat that’s going to be filled on a specific day, and there’s going to be an election to decide who fills it on a specific day — the only question is, who will end up in that seat? That’s completely different from a union election, in which case the question is whether there’s going to be a seat at all. And remember that creating that seat — certifying a union — directly takes power away from the employer, who right now has the power to set most rules and to act unilaterally.
Imagine a delegate to the 2nd Continental Congress in 1776 saying, “I don’t think we should just declare independence. Let’s petition King George for a vote, and then spend a few months arguing with him over the rules of the vote, and letting him and his soldiers and agents discuss the merits of rebellion with all of us in this room. Then, all of us (at least the ones that haven’t been exiled or imprisoned!) will go into buildings owned by the crown and vote by secret ballot! I’m sure that’s a much better way to determine our position on Independence than this privacy-destroying, illegitimate, public ‘Declaration of Independence’ thing!”
We date our nation’s birth from that Declaration, and consider it a legitimate statement of our collective decision to organize our own nation and the state to govern it. When workers get together and make their own statement about self-organization, we should respect that, too.
Me: “You do know understand that the union organizer, in a union recognition campaign, is working for a union that doesn’t represent the workers in question, right?”
Sebastian: Which is precisely why letting him set the terms of the election isn’t really ‘giving the choice to the workers’.
You’re going to have to explain how the organizer sets those terms. A group of workers could get together and decide to pursue organizing a union, and contact the union. The union might send an organizer to meet with those workers.
Workers: We want to organize, but we insist on filing for an election.
Organizer: Okay.
OR…
Workers: We want to organize, but we insist on filing for an election.
Organizer: I think that’s a mistake, blah blah blah…
(Workers talk amongst themselves)
Workers: No, we still want to have the election.
Organizer: Okay. Bye.
And then the workers can either contact another union, or more than one, until they find one that is willing to file for an election, or they can file for one themselves — a process that will be much easier once Employee Free Choice is enacted. Or they can decide to go for a card-check majority, or drop the whole thing.
Organizers can’t force workers to organize, and workers can’t force unions to represent them. Until there’s a certification, until those folks are legally represented by the union and/or members of the union, neither one has much leverage, if any at all, over the other.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Those mean ol’ union organizers! Always firing people that don’t want to join the union!
Sebastian– you DO realize that there are take-backs, right? Aside from the widespread fraud in petition signatures, a petition with takebacks would probably be better conceptual direct democracy.
The conservatives have clearly never had shitty jobs.
Realist, the times that unions work most effectively are also the times that real median income rises. Why? BECAUSE UNIONS RAISE THE REAL MEDIAN INCOME. Maybe not in your “I’m-so-smart-I-figured-it-out-in-my-head” world, but that’s been the case throughout American history.
The decline of the American middle class IS the decline of the American union.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Al,
First, please give an example of a union organizer intimidating a worker. I’d like to know the kind of behavior you’re concerned about.
But this is exactly the point – if some of these things are issues, it makes more sense to change these things, rather than eliminate the secret ballot.
Fine, Al. Put something on the table. I, and other people on this side of the debate, have put our proposal out there. It’s the Employee Free Choice Act — which, of course, doesn’t eliminate the secret ballot. You want something else on the table? You draft some ideas and put them out there. We’re not bargaining against ourselves here.
One thing you’ve put out there is “equal time”. Is your proposal — or part of it — that you want to require all employers to allow union organizers on the company’s private property in order to talk to the employees about organizing? Since the boss can call a captive audience whenever they want, I assume “equal access” means that any union can do that whenever they want, too, right?
On the plant closing/pension thing, there’s a really fine legal line here. Saying, “If you vote in the union we’re tearing up the pension” is illegal. Saying, “ABC company voted in the union and now the workers don’t have a pension” isn’t illegal. It’s very, very hard to police this kind of stuff.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
“Sometimes I wonder whether the supporters of EFCA don’t really care about strengthening unions but rather just enjoy the idea of beating the crap out of workers who don’t want to join unions…”
Do you really think that people get the crap beaten out of them for being anti-union? Really.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
I see we are kind of devolving into a litnany of nasty things that companies can do to workers. But that doesn’t justify taking away one of the few voting protections the employee has. If the problem is that the company can have anti-union meetings, atack that problem. Don’t take away the already pushed around worker by giving other people the opportunity to push him around.
“A group of workers could get together and decide to pursue organizing a union, and contact the union. The union might send an organizer to meet with those workers.”
Yes this *could* happen. But that isn’t how it actually tends to happen.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
jonstock,
Economic theory of some sort or another is the only thing you can use to predict economic outcomes, and indeed you propose one in your own post. I accept that reality is more complicated but we have to work with what we have. Note that disparaging economic theory in general cannot, logically, serve to advance any particular economic policy.
In a competitive market, unions can’t move compensation from management to workers because if they do, management will flee to firms which pay them better, so unionized firms will have worse management and fail disproportionately.
As for unions being more productive and efficient, this may actually be the case sometimes, but if it is unions surely don’t need government help–they will thrive in a free market on their own.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
“A group of workers could get together and decide to pursue organizing a union, and contact the union. The union might send an organizer to meet with those workers.”
Yes this *could* happen. But that isn’t how it actually tends to happen.
No, Sebastian, this is exactly how it tends to happen. A few unions have the resources and strategic determination to embark on long-range planning and targeting, but not many can do that. When things are really, really slow, an organizing director might send his/her staff out to just scare up some leads. But in my experience as an organizer, and in that of the many organizer I knew and continue to know, most campaigns start with a worker contacting the union one way or another (calling the office, talking to a friend who’s in the union) and things either evolve from there or don’t. And Employee Free Choice would make this much more common than it is already, since it would tend to deter ULPs and put more power in the hands of the workers.
I worked as a union organizer for 7 years, about half that time as an external organizer working on union recognition elections. My wife is a VP with a union local. I’m basing my sense of how organizing campaigns work largely on being around the labor movement for about a decade and a half. On what do you base your “this isn’t how it actually tends to happen” assertion?
I see we are kind of devolving into a litany of nasty things that companies can do to workers. But that doesn’t justify taking away one of the few voting protections the employee has. If the problem is that the company can have anti-union meetings, atack that problem. Don’t take away the already pushed around worker by giving other people the opportunity to push him around.
1) The NLRB election process is in no way a “protection” for workers. It’s evolved into an opportunity for almost unlimited abuse of workers by employers. No one on this thread has even bothered challenging that fact. And, in fact, the Employee Free Choice Act wouldn’t even get rid of the election process — it just allows the workers to decide whether to file for an election or to file for recognition. I gave lots of examples above of scenarios in which workers might well choose to file for an election, even after Employee Free Choice is enacted.
2) As I said to Al above, Sebastian, if you want to put some other proposal on the table, I’m all ears. But I’m not going to bargain against myself by proposing hypothetical, alternative ways to get employers to stop abusing employees and breaking the law. If you have some suggestions as to how to accomplish this without Employee Free Choice, please offer them so we can discuss it.
3) Neither you, nor Al, nor Nathan, nor anyone else, has offered even one example of a worker being “intimidated” by a union organizer. Not. One. I gave clear examples of the ways bosses can and do abuse employees. This post went up 7 hours ago. If union intimidation is The Big Problem with Employee Free Choice, could you possibly give an example of what you’re talking about?
February 26th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Al:
Certainly you could “change these things.” You’d have to draft a law that repeals virtually all of Taft-Hartley, plus a generous amount of NLRB decisions and Federal Court decisions of the last forty or so years. Or you could just allow people to join the union via card check, as is does in virtually all of the rest of the world.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
I’d just like to ask the union cheerleaders here how they feel about monopolies?
February 26th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
I LOVE Monopoly! But only when I’m the scottie dog.
Yes, unionization can be seen as forming a monopoly on the labor force; that monopoly then “collectively” “bargains” for better compensation for the labor force. So, yeah, if you want human capital to be worth relatively less than other forms of capital, such a monopoly is bad.
However, those of us who like humans probably want human capital to be worth a somewhat inflated price.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
If the problem is that the NLRB doesn’t enforce already existing laws enough, why don’t we do THAT instead of take away workers ability to have secret ballot elections. Or why don’t we beef up penalties for lack of compliance if you think the penalties are too light? Both of those strategies attack the entity you have trouble with (the company) rather than the people you allegedly have in mind to protect (the workers).
“A few unions have the resources and strategic determination to embark on long-range planning and targeting, but not many can do that. When things are really, really slow, an organizing director might send his/her staff out to just scare up some leads. But in my experience as an organizer, and in that of the many organizer I knew and continue to know, most campaigns start with a worker contacting the union one way or another (calling the office, talking to a friend who’s in the union) and things either evolve from there or don’t. ”
Please notice the bolded words. ‘A worker’ isn’t a majority of workers. If ‘a worker’ or ‘a small group of workers’ decides to drum up interest in the union, that isn’t a valid excuse to take away all of the rest of the worker’s secret ballots. You were arguing as if “the workers” had chosen to give up their secret ballots. Now you are admitting that it is really ‘a worker’ or a few workers. So your original argument makes no sense in light of this clarification. Of course the worker who seeks you out doesn’t feel pressure from card check. He sought you out. That doesn’t make him in the majority. That is a classic self selection problem.
Does Eddie York getting shot and Rod Carter getting stabbed count as the kind of union violence that you believe doesn’t ever happen? Or do you somehow feel that organizing employees feeling oppressed to create union bargaining power are less emotionally involved than those trying to organize strikes to increase union bargaining power.
And isn’t the fact that so many elections start with card check but end without an affirmative vote for a union at least evidence that potentially some of the card check votes aren’t completely legit? I mean I know a union rep is going to say that it is ALL due to company pressure at that point, but does anyone else at least conceed that it might be possible evidence that some people signed cards under pressure who didn’t vote for the union when they could do so secretly?
February 26th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Yes, unionization can be seen as forming a monopoly on the labor force; that monopoly then “collectively” “bargains” for better compensation for the labor force. So, yeah, if you want human capital to be worth relatively less than other forms of capital, such a monopoly is bad.
However, those of us who like humans probably want human capital to be worth a somewhat inflated price.
============================================================
Thanks for admitting unions are a monopoly.
Saying that it’s “different” because it’s “human capital” doesn’t make the monopoly effect any different.
Paying more for crappy “human capital” with no opportunity to look for alternative “human capital” is the reason most business owners don’t like unions.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
“Rather, it is a step prior to that, because they are deciding whether or not to even organize themselves as a bargaining unit–in that sense, it is more like a constitutional convention than voting for President.”
But if that is a good analogy, shouldn’t you be advocating a super-majority to organize? Which by the way is the opinion of most CURRENT union members according to Zogby
Question 18: Which of the following percentages of workers do you feel should have to vote for a union before that union represents all the workers? 51% said 2/3, 11% said ALL!
Question 12: Do you believe workers should have the right or should not have the right to vote on whether they wish to belong to a union? Yes 84%
Question 13: I’m going to describe two ways that workers might be asked to decide if they want to become part of a union and ask you which of the two ways is most fair. In the first way, a union organizer would ask workers to sign their name on a card if they wanted to be part of a union. The worker would sign his or her name on the card if he or she wanted a union, or the worker would tell the union organizer he or she would not sign the card if he or she did not want a union. In the second way, the government would hold an election in the workplace where every worker would get to vote by secret ballot whether he or she wanted a union. Which way is more fair?
53% said more fair.
14. Currently, the government is responsible for holding secret-ballot elections for workers who are deciding whether to form a union, and for making sure workers can cast their votes in a fair and impartial manner. Do you agree or disagree that the current secret-ballot process is fair?
71% said Agree
15. Do you agree or disagree that stronger laws are needed to protect the existing secret-ballot election process and to make sure workers can make their decisions about union membership in private, without the union, their employer or anyone else knowing how they vote?
63% Agree
17. Should Congress keep the existing secret-ballot election process for union membership, or should Congress replace it with another process that is less private?
78% said keep the existing secret-ballot.
Please note that this is a survey of people who are *already in unions*.
February 26th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Ah, polls. The Hart poll, which wasn’t taken in 2004 but in December, 2008, says this:
“A poll by Peter Hart Research, one of the nation’s most reputable polling outfits, shows that Americans now support passage of the Employee Free Choice act by a whopping 78 to 22 percent margin, a record level of backing for the measure, which would level the playing field between workers and bosses in union organizing and bargaining.
The Employee Free Choice Act would make it easier to organize unions and bargain for first contracts by requiring company recognition of a union when a majority of workers at a worksite sign cards indicating that they want to be represented by the union. The law would also require binding arbitration of first contracts when the two sides can’t agree on one within 120 days after union recognition.”
Interestingly, rightwing sites are crammed with the zogby poll. It is an interesting example of how wording can change responses. On the wiki debate site about this topic, the anti site is, at least, pretty clear about why this is being opposed:
“With secret ballots, unions win just over 50% of their elections. With card authorizations, however, unions win more than 80% of the time. And that could spell big trouble for Manufacturers.”
The latter is the bottom line. The concern trolling about the rights of the workers is just windowdressing – it is the trouble for the businesses, i.e., making businesses fairly share the revenues that are otherwise sucked up by the management and the shareholers, which is at stake.
February 26th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
“The latter is the bottom line. The concern trolling about the rights of the workers is just windowdressing – it is the trouble for the businesses…”
That is an interesting conclusion to draw from a poll of union workers in Michigan.
February 26th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
And it would be helpful to link all the questions as I did if we are to judge the validity of the polling, espeically since you are alluding to differences in poll wording.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Campesino:
I think that unions are a necessary countervailing force, given that employers often act as a monopsony in the labor market. Hence, the existence of unions, in my mind, actually removes an imperfection or failure in the market, by rebalancing power. Ironically, this didn’t use to be a controversial element of economics – as Adam Smith noted:
February 26th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Sebastian,
Here’s what I originally wrote:
A group of workers could get together and decide to pursue organizing a union, and contact the union. The union might send an organizer to meet with those workers.
I didn’t say, “A majority of workers gets together…” I guess you inferred that, for whatever reason.
If ‘a worker’ or ‘a small group of workers’ decides to drum up interest in the union, that isn’t a valid excuse to take away all of the rest of the worker’s secret ballots.
How does one worker “take away” anyone else’s right to a secret ballot? If those workers don’t want a union, or don’t want that particular union, they won’t sign cards. If they specifically want a Board election, then they won’t sign recognition cards. If a majority of workers deciding to organize their own union through majority sign-up is “a self-selection problem” then it’s clear you just don’t think a majority of workers should be allowed to form a union.
Now, you finally went and tried to find some examples of union organizers intimidating workers during organizing drives. What you found, instead, was 2 examples — on the National Right to Work Committee website, of course — in which workers were attacked for crossing picket lines. Just to be clear, shooting or stabbing workers for being scabs is wrong, terrible, and criminal. If things went down the way that the National Right to Work Committee claims, then the folks who committed those crimes deserve to have the book thrown at them.
Way back at 11:15 this morning, I wrote the following:
“In comparison, what kind of threat could a union organizer deliver to a worker that isn’t already a felony? If a manager fires a worker for wearing a union button — which is 100% illegal — and that worker calls the cops to report a crime, they’ll blow him off. It’s not a crime, just an unfair labor practice. If an organizer threatens, what, to break someone’s kneecaps for not wearing a union button, and that worker calls the cops, the organizer will get arrested, likely tried and face serious punishment — and the campaign will essentially be over, too.”
This is exactly what I’m talking about. There are assholes and nuts everywhere — some of them are in unions. And twice in the last 15 years, that you’ve found, a couple of these nuts and assholes have evidently committed disgusting, violent felonies in the middle of strikes. Probably there’s been some much less dramatic violence, as well, during that time. But (a) those examples didn’t happen during organizing campaigns, which is what we’re talking about, and more importantly, (b) folks who do that stuff will be punished by the law and spend lots and lots of time in prison.
So, once again, despite going over to read the scurrilous, worker-hating propaganda produced by the National Right to Work Committee, you still haven’t described how an organizer intimidates workers in an organizing campaign. Are you really claiming that passing Employee Free Choice will lead to a wave of murders and stabbings? That organizers are going to risk spending years in prison (and having a certification or election overturned by the Board, obviously) in order to get a card signed — a card that a worker can later disclaim? I’m sorry, that’s utterly idiotic.
And isn’t the fact that so many elections start with card check but end without an affirmative vote for a union at least evidence that potentially some of the card check votes aren’t completely legit?
It can be really hard to tell sometimes what a group of workers want by the time you get to the Board election — the boss’s campaign isn’t an effort to persuade people through rational argumentation that union representation is unnecessary. It’s an effort to destroy the workers’ nascent organization and terrorize the workers into giving up any hope of organizing in the future. Some people who sign cards to get an election definitely end up voting “No” — that’s one reason that unions rarely file with less than 55% on cards, usually upwards of 60%. That doesn’t mean they weren’t “legit” — it means they changed their minds, for whatever reason.
But workers sometimes regret how they vote in the Board election, too, whether they voted for or against organizing a union. That’s life. That’s why unions get decertified, and also why they win elections the second or third time around. I don’t think that kind of regret is unique to either elections or card-check. What is unique to NLRB elections is the boss’s one-sided ability to intimidate and abuse their workers.
If the problem is that the NLRB doesn’t enforce already existing laws enough, why don’t we do THAT instead of take away workers ability to have secret ballot elections. Or why don’t we beef up penalties for lack of compliance if you think the penalties are too light?
Employee Free Choice does that, too. I assume you support passing a law to establish treble damages for ULPs, as the Employee Free Choice Act does, right?
But the reason that this kind of deterrent is insufficient by itself is that the only thing the Board can do is to try to put Humpty Dumpty back together once the boss has smashed him on the ground. Once a bunch of workers on the organizing committee have been fired, and the election has been delayed by 4 months, during which time the boss has been holding captive audience meetings, even if the Board finds that a bunch of ULPs have been committed, the boss may well have successfully destroyed the ability of that group of workers to form a union.
But, as I’ve said to you and Al, if you want to propose some kind of law to accomplish this (like, how exactly do you want to improve enforcement — establishing the NLRB Police Force?), I’ll be happy to read what you say and tell you whether I think it would successfully get bosses to leave workers alone to make this decision themselves. But I won’t do your work for you on this: if you want a different legal remedy to solve this problem, you come up with it. I’m not bargaining against myself.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Actually, Zogby did several polls for various Anti-union organizations. They are quite interesting. The questions are often very, very hard to understand, and when he stumbles upon a pro-union result, he buries it by framing it differently. It is quite interesting, even though, of course, it is 4 years old. Also, if you want to look at Hart’s questions, the best thing is to go to this link – thus taking up less comment space.Here is is: http://www.aflcio.org/mediacenter/prsptm/pr010809a.cfm
The Zogby polls are quite funny. I love his recent poll showing – contrary to the other polls I’ve seen – that the public overwhelming rejects the stimulus package. The first question goes – I kid you not – “Some people say that the nearly one trillion dollars in debt and subsequent interest incurred by the stimulus bill during an economic downturn will make the recovery hard to achieve. Do you agree or disagree?”"
Why not just say, “Socialist leader Hussein Obama is adding a trillion dollars in debt to the U.S., which some say will destroy us, while others say that is precisely the point. Which side do you agree with?”
So, if you go back to your questions, you can see the way the mark is set up. Look at question 14, for instance. It goes: “Currently, the government is responsible for holding secret-ballot elections for workers who are deciding whether to form a union, and for making sure workers can cast their votes in a fair and impartial manner. Do you agree or disagree that the current secret-ballot process is fair?”
That is insane. There is no reason to say more than: the government is responsible for hold secret ballot elections. There is no need for the clause about “making sure workers…” You want tilt, you will get tilt. Really, responsible just means – currently, the law requires secret ballot elections. The way the question is phrased makes it strongly seem like the government sets up the polling.
Sorry, that is candy ass work.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:32 am
Unions did such wonders for Detroit, let’s have more of them.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:39 am
One is that it would “eliminate the secret ballot,” which is false.
Ummmm…have you read the bill? There is absolutely no incentive for unions to hold secret elections under the proposed changes. Secret ballots will disappear from the organized labor landscape.
I’m finding it really hard to imagine a scenario where even the possibility of taking away secret ballots in such a charged climate is a good thing? In the card-check scenario, anyone who declines to sign is an immediate outcast if the union gets in and everyone will know how they voted? How is that possibily a good thing?
I really feel like the people supporting this bill are either just union flunkies or they are so naive about what will happen that they really shouldn’t comment on these issues at all.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Hi Matt.
If you’re interested in what Paul Krugman has to say about EFCA, he mentioned it in the article he wrote for Rolling Stone in January.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Ummmm…have you read the bill? There is absolutely no incentive for unions to hold secret elections under the proposed changes. Secret ballots will disappear from the organized labor landscape.
False. If 30 percent of workers at a unit want an election, there’ll be one. For the 800th time, unions don’t decide what organizing method to use. Workers do.
I’m finding it really hard to imagine a scenario where even the possibility of taking away secret ballots in such a charged climate is a good thing? In the card-check scenario, anyone who declines to sign is an immediate outcast if the union gets in and everyone will know how they voted? How is that possibily a good thing?
False. Unions are required by law to represent all workers at a bargaining unit, even ones who are not union members. Again, for the 800th time, there is nothing that unions can do to intimidate workers that is not already illegal.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
StevenAttewell Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Campesino:
I think that unions are a necessary countervailing force, given that employers often act as a monopsony in the labor market. Hence, the existence of unions, in my mind, actually removes an imperfection or failure in the market, by rebalancing power. Ironically, this didn’t use to be a controversial element of economics – as Adam Smith noted:
============================================================
Your assertion that employers are acting as monopsonies is unfortunately largely theoretical. The fact that you are quoting Adam Smith underlines that.
The situations where most of the population lives gives them a wide variety of employment options. The days of the “company town” and “company store”, a true monopsony are far gone for 99.9%+ of the labor force. Whereas a union shop is an actual monopoly, no theory about it.
*Real* monopolies pretty much blow away *theoretical* monopsonistic *tendendies* every time
February 27th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Campesino says:
“The situations where most of the population lives gives them a wide variety of employment options. The days of the “company town” and “company store”, a true monopsony are far gone for 99.9%+ of the labor force. Whereas a union shop is an actual monopoly, no theory about it.”
—————
What a bunch of utter baloney. At the height of Union membership in the United States, union-represented workers were about 1/4 of the total workforce, which obviously means unions had no monopoly of who was hired.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
“If 30 percent of workers at a unit want an election, there’ll be one. ”
No. That doesn’t appear to be the case. I quoted the law upthread and the related law. I outlined how it works such that they don’t get a secret ballot election for at least a year. If you disagree with my reading of the law please explain what I have missed. See comments 29 and 31.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Sebastian-You’re talking about after a union has already been certified. I’m talking about the certification process itself. Under current law, if 30 percent of employees submit a petition requesting an election, the NLRB will direct one. EFCA does nothing to change that.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
I agree. People should have a choice as to which method they will use to decide whether they will form a union or not.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
“Sebastian-You’re talking about after a union has already been certified. I’m talking about the certification process itself. Under current law, if 30 percent of employees submit a petition requesting an election, the NLRB will direct one. EFCA does nothing to change that.”
Can you please show me what law you are talking about?
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:32 am
If there is any real reason for eliminating the secret ballot, other than intimidation, I don’t know what it is. The proponents can talk all they want about the difficulties of the working stiff. But, in this context, that’s just smoke.
Yes, we as a country are going through hard times, but the proponents of the act are just jumping on that situation to sell their goods. Make no mistake about it, the loss of a secret ballot is so repugnant to the basic principles of our society that nothing can justify it.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Buy Propecia Online…
http://www.folkd.com/user/buypropeciaonline Buy Propecia Online…
April 6th, 2009 at 1:52 am
xcfj shgprlju kvjd xhojadv ztcua kfrj nxfmhb