Making Unionization Easier is Popular
Whatever reason “centrist” politicians may have for being made queasy by the idea of reforming labor law in a more union-friendly direction, please do keep in mind that public opinion isn’t the issue:
Meanwhile, to state the obvious, whatever the merits of the Employee Free Choice Act may be, nobody can deny that increasing union membership would be beneficial to the Democratic Party from the standpoint of narrow partisan self-interest. It’s worth asking yourself if you can imagine a scenario in which Republicans would vote against a bill that enjoys majority support and would serve the GOP’s electoral interests. The answer is that you can’t.
But while it should surprise nobody to learn that some Democrats put their own self-interest ahead of the broader public interest, the really striking fact about certain elements of the Democratic Party is that they actually put the welfare of corporate executives ahead of their own self-interest and the public interest at the same time.
41 Responses to “Making Unionization Easier is Popular”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 17th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Jeeze louise. *I* internalized that notion in the 90s, but it didn’t take me long to figure out that the last eight years have changed the state of play.
Nope, I’m afraid Matt is right on this one. It’s not Clintonism we’re dealing with; it’s a combination of business-class solidarity and good-ol-fashioned “access.” I’d like to kick some of these conservative Dem. senators in the butt. Failing that, I’m signing up for DNC/OFA activities.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Show us the poll results with a different wording, e.g., do you favor doing away with the secret ballot for union elections?
And by the way, it’s not just “centrists” who oppose card check. So does George McGovern, for example.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:31 am
You might even be able to mislead the elderly.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:32 am
DaveinHackensack’s got it.
When faced with a popular idea, lie about it.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Tell it to the “centrist” McGovern, Joe from Lowell.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:36 am
How does having Republicans voting for a bill that will channel more money and power to unions who will then use the money and power to elect more Democrats help the “GOP’s electoral interests?”
Also, how does making it harder to create private sector jobs in the U.S. help the “GOP’s electoral interests?”
March 17th, 2009 at 10:41 am
There is a very sectional cast to opinion about unions – they are disfavored among working people in the South because industry is drawn to the South by lack of unions. In this respect the material interests of Southern Republican workers and the domininant plutocratic wing of the party are similar. Southern Republican politicians don’t care what the national opinion is and this block will continue to be anti-union for the foreseeable future.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:41 am
McGovern
And Ralph Nader has spent a decade trying to put Republicans in power. Up is down! Down is up! Who cares?
How does having Republicans voting for a bill that will channel more money and power to unions who will then use the money and power to elect more Democrats help the “GOP’s electoral interests?”
That paragraph was about a hypothetical situation, not the current situation. Read it again.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:43 am
I wouldn’t want to wake the old gent up from his nap. Congratulations, you fooled an old man. You must be so proud.
superdestroyer,
How does having Republicans voting for a bill that will channel more money and power to unions who will then use the money and power to elect more Democrats help the “GOP’s electoral interests?”
I think you misunderstood. Matt wrote that voting for this bill is in Democrats’ electoral interest, and then noted that some of them were voting against it anyway. He then brought up the GOP by way of pointing out that they would never act like that. He didn’t say that allowing workers to sign up for unions was in the GOP’s interests, but that they could be counted on to support, in lockstep unity, any proposal that was in their interest to a similar degree.
Also, how does making it harder to create private sector jobs in the U.S. help the “GOP’s electoral interests?” I never understood this point either, but I see Republicans make it often. They claim that a Democratic proposal will lead to massive economic harm among wide swathes of the country, then turn around and say that it’s a trick by the Democrats to pick up political support. Sometimes, I really don’t think they get this whole electoral politics thing.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:47 am
There really has been an internalization of the whacked notion that corporate interests must always be served. I mean, you see it now with this whole AIG thing.
It’s most vivid here when you compare the way we treated UAW workers with the bonus babies at AIG. The idea that we should treat the finance guys’ contracts like we treated the auto workers’ contracts is utterly foreign to the people who run companies and our government.
And the NYT piece today that abrogating these contracts would mark the collapse of modern finance because contracts are sacred borders on the absurd. Uh, 2 months ago we busted the contract with the auto workers, and there was no sturm und drang from Andrew Ross Sorkin. So, WTF, when it’s rich people who destroyed the economy, doing the same thing to them would be the end of the world? Seriously?
If the problem is, as Sorkin puts it, that AIG’s people are threatening that they will leave and let the economy collapse unless we bribe them, well, then we have a word for that kind of behavior. It’s extortion. It’s a form of economic terrorism. And we have a protocol for that sort of thing.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:56 am
That seems to be the only thing that matters to the left, not whether it will be good for America.
I doubt that any Democratic politician would put the welfare of corporate execs ahead of their self-interests. Those self-interests show up in their campaign coffers from the corporate execs funding them.
March 17th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Joe,
Since the people who are in the union get personal benefits, they are happy and reward the Democrats. However, since no one can say that they lost their job because of a union (except for a few groups like former Eastern Airlines employees, or former International Harvester employees) no one person can claim that they were harmed.
However, if the unions increase the costs of doing business in the U.S., there will be less business and more business would have to think about moving.
March 17th, 2009 at 11:14 am
George McGovern was a centrist. Back then even centrists were against the war.
March 17th, 2009 at 11:20 am
superdestroyer,
Since the people who are in the union get personal benefits, they are happy and reward the Democrats. However, since no one can say that they lost their job because of a union (except for a few groups like former Eastern Airlines employees, or former International Harvester employees) no one person can claim that they were harmed.
This makes sense, because the voting public doesn’t ever blame the party and president in power for widespread economic harms.
Um…
March 17th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Joe,
Why do you think unions always support the idea of a 10% layoff instead of a 10% reduction in everyone’s pay. With a 10% layoff, 90% of the people are still happy and they are still in the union whereas the 10% who are laid off are no longer in the union. With a 10% pay cut everyone is mad and they are all still in the union.
It is impossible to find someone who did not get a job because of a union but it is easy to find people who are happy because they are getting above market wages because of a union.
March 17th, 2009 at 11:53 am
“Why do you think unions always support the idea of a 10% layoff instead of a 10% reduction in everyone’s pay.”
That’s the way democracy works. The alternative is having an employer dictate what the terms and conditions of work are.
March 17th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Daveinhackensack- you can see the results of polling done for SOSB, an anti-EFCA organization here.
Indeed, you are correct. It’s all about how you frame the issue… but to be clear, EFCA wouldn’t do away with the secret ballot. It would allow workers, not their employers, to choose either method in their attempts to form a union.
March 17th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Why do you think unions always support the idea of a 10% layoff instead of a 10% reduction in everyone’s pay.
Because you just made that up. The unions in my city just agreed to accept unpaid furloughs in exchange for no layoffs.
Seriously, you don’t have any actual experience with unions, do you? You’re just repeating things you’ve read about them, from people paid to denounce them.
March 17th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
NickM:
You are confusing apples and oranges. A workplace is not a democracy; an employee has a boss, and the boss tells the employee what is to be done. That includes many of the terms and conditions of work (although not all).
NG:
Employers don’t have a say in the method used to form a union now; current law set up by the government does. What EFCA will do is give unions more of an ability to intimidate workers into joining a union they may not want to join. Then the EFCA, through the arbitration language within, will give unions more of an ability to intimidate employers via judicial fiat.
By the way, this statement, missing from Yglesias’ dubious “analysis”, is key:
The left better hope people don’t find out about the EFCA because the only people who support it are those who are ignorant of its provisions.
It’s telling that the left would deliberately avoid mentioning this part of the poll.
March 17th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
If Matt thinks this polling result shows majority support for EFCA, well, I’ve overestimated him
March 17th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
If Democrats are going into battle with this shitty poll question as ammo, they are going to get annihilated. You might as well ask, “Do you like sunshine?” or “In general, in your opinion, are puppies cute?”
March 17th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Joe,
You should look at the teachers unions. They almost always support layoffs instead of pay cuts.
March 17th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Maybe my statement was poorly worded. It was intended to address the fact that current law allows employers to choose to waive the secret election requirement if >50% of employees sign cards in support of unionization. Of course, they can also choose not to waive the secret ballot election requirement. So, in essence, the law does give employers the opportunity to “have a say” in whether card check can be considered a valid method of election for union representation.
March 17th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Employers don’t have a say in the method used to form a union now; current law set up by the government does.
This is some Mixner-level obfuscation. Current law gives employers the ability to say that only one method of union formation is legitimate.
What EFCA will do is give unions more of an ability to intimidate workers into joining a union they may not want to join.
What can unions do to intimidate workers that is not already illegal?
By the way, this statement, missing from Yglesias’ dubious “analysis”, is key:
Come again? “Not closely following news about a bill’s passage” != “ignorant of a bill’s provisions.” And it seems pretty self-evident to me that the people most likely to closely follow news about the EFCA are people with a vested interest in keeping unionization rates low. It should come as no surprise that they would be opposed to it.
March 17th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
It’s worth asking yourself if you can imagine a scenario in which Republicans would vote against a bill that enjoys majority support and would serve the GOP’s electoral interests. The answer is that you can’t.
I think LoneWacko would point to opposition by many congressional Republicans to immigration restrictions — depending on how the question was phrased some of those proposals got significant (55%+) polling support and they would have benefitted Republicans’ electoral interests since immigrants disproportionately become Democrats after getting citizenship.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
NG:
That’s what the new law states. Current law says that 1/3 of workers of a company can sign cards to call for a secret ballot election to determine if the workers can unionize, backed up by the NLRB.
EFCA changes that by allowing more than 50% of workers sign the cards without the benefit of a secret vote.
Chris D:
It’s only illegal if it’s reported. The whole point of intimidation is to keep the illegality from being reported.
That would include many 40 hour/week workers like me (let me add that I’m not in management) who have no interest in seeing unionization where I work.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
With a legislature that has as many chokepoints as ours, a 53% majority is NOT a sweeping mandate, and often inadequate to overcome the status quo on a controversial issue. More than 55% of Americans favor at least same-sex civil unions, and the opposition is a lot less moneyed than the opposition to EFCA, but I don’t think many folks think of a statute mandating universal access to marriage-equivalent civil unions would go very far today without a really hard fight. Allowing equal service in the military for gays is a proposition that commands 75%+ support in the country, and apparently even that isn’t going anywhere yet. I don’t see how EFCA could be considered anything but dead in the water with numbers like this.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
SteveIL-
Current law requires a minimum of 30% of employees to sign cards to call for a secret election (which is what you said). However, current law also allows employers to waive the secret ballot election if >50% sign cards.
That is the provision I was referencing. The new law would eliminate the management decision and make union formation automatic if >50% sign cards. Under EFCA, secret ballot elections would still take place if 30%-50% of employees signed cards. We agree on what EFCA would do, right?
Still, you assert that EFCA mandates that with >50% signing cards, employees can override the secret ballot and deny its benefits to other workers. I am not trying to deny you this point. It just seemed silly to me that you’re pushing this “elimination” of the secret ballot as something “the unions” want to do when the employers already have the power to override the secret ballot.
I would, however, like you to explain something:
Basically, I’m assuming what you’re saying here is that when employees are put in the position of having to openly voice their desire to not form a union, there is a potential for initimidation or harassment from pro-labor employees. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
An open and public card check vote causes the potential for harassment from employers as well, right?
So please explain to me why you, a proponent of the “secret ballot,” aren’t taking issue with the fact that employees have to publicly sign cards to even initiate a vote for representation in the first place. If the secret ballot and employee privacy are so important, and “card check” practices violate employee privacy, how can you not take issue with the fact that we currently require a method of calling an election (card check) that opens the door for harassment and intimidation from both management and other employees?
March 17th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
It’s only illegal if it’s reported. The whole point of intimidation is to keep the illegality from being reported.
This is a non sequitur. You said that EFCA would make it easier for unions to intimidate workers. I asked what unions could to to intimidate workers that wasn’t already illegal. Now you’re saying that the purpose of intimidation is to cover up illegal activity. So let me ask you now:
1. What illegal activities are unions engaging in?
2. How would EFCA make it easier to cover these activities up?
March 17th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Unions carved this B on face. I swear to God.
March 17th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
NG:
You are correct.
Yes it would. All EFCA ends up doing is screwing workers.
First off, you don’t need 50% to sign the cards to petition for an election; only 30% need sign. Second, the cards don’t actually authorize the formation of a union; a secret ballot election does. Lastly, some process is needed to prove that some workers do in fact want to be represented by a union, enough (the 30%) who agree to allow the NLRB to take the matter seriously and start the election process. Besides, the same process is used to certify as well as to decertify representation by a union. The EFCA changes the certification process to the benefit of the union, but doesn’t change the decertification process.
Chris D:
My answer was not a non sequiter. The unions could very well commit an illegal act of intimidation, which by design is meant to keep the person being intimidated from reporting the union to law enforcement.
1. What illegal activities, in regards to keeping workers from organizing, are corporations engaging in?
2. How would not passing the EFCA make it easier to cover these activities up?
Two can play this game.
March 17th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
“1. What illegal activities, in regards to keeping workers from organizing, are corporations engaging in?”
Threatening employees with termination if they join a union; actually firing union sympathizers. Both extremely difficult to enforce, and even harder to remunerate.
“2. How would not passing the EFCA make it easier to cover these activities up?”
It wouldn’t “make it easier,” obviously—it would preserve the status quo, in which only the employer is able to give employees advice and opinions on unionization; the election takes place at the workplace, where no union reps or union materials are allowed; and the employees have nowhere else to go to form a union.
“Two can play this game.”
But not equally well.
March 17th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Yes, I know, I thought I made that clear in my post… I was taking issue with the fact that “card check” or “30% signup” is necessary to authorize an election.
Wouldn’t secret ballot election results prove whether or not workers want to be represented by a union? I understand that elections are a costly and time-consuming process for the NLRB (I don’t have actual numbers), but if that’s your only argument, then are you telling me that money is more important than a right to privacy? If the “Save Our Secret Ballot” crowd was actually concerned about a right to privacy, they’d be focusing on a way to guarantee privacy for workers in the call for an election as well.
***
Also, the following thought is not intended to prove a point or “win” the discussion, but just an idea… Think about a system of government in which elections could be held only if 30% of the citizens of a country signed a public petition demanding an election. Do you think that might cause problems? Intimidation? Harassment? Violence?
March 17th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
My answer was not a non sequiter. The unions could very well commit an illegal act of intimidation, which by design is meant to keep the person being intimidated from reporting the union to law enforcement.
Really? What exactly is supposed to prevent workers from reporting the union? It’s one thing to corner a worker and say something like “Sign this card or I’ll rearrange your face.” It’s another thing entirely to keep an eye on a worker at all times to keep him from going to the cops. Believe it or not, there’s no union secret police running around.
1. What illegal activities, in regards to keeping workers from organizing, are corporations engaging in?
2. How would not passing the EFCA make it easier to cover these activities up?
1. Well, about 25 percent of the time, companies illegally fire workers for union activity during organizing campaigns. But the questions misses the point because companies can do plenty to interfere with campaigns that are perfectly legal. They can force workers to attend anti-union meetings, they can restrict pro-union activity to designated break times in designated break areas, and they can make veiled threats. Saying “If you form a union, we will shut the plant down” is illegal. But saying “The workers at Plant X formed a union, and look what happened to them” is A-OK.
2. This question doesn’t make sense because I never said anything about companies covering up illegal anti-union activity. Besides, they don’t need to cover it up because current penalties amount to a slap on the wrist. That’s one of the things EFCA does-it stiffens penalties for unfair labor practices.
March 17th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
NG:
I agree. But it doesn’t happen with a twitch of the nose. And making the law beneficial only to big unions (not workers, but the unions), as is the case with the EFCA, isn’t the solution.
I’d call it anarchy. But there is a difference between a government and a company. A company has to follow the laws set up by a government. A government can change the laws in order to benefit itself.
tomemos:
Termination? When I talk of union intimidation I’m talking about threats of physical violence to employees and their families.
Oh please. This isn’t the 1880s or even the 1930s.
March 17th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Steve:
I like how you accuse me of being histrionic (for discussing employee intimidation that is going on right now, with plenty of documentation), right after alleging that unions threaten employees or their families with violence. This isn’t On the Waterfront, and I’d like you to give some examples of unions threatening violence if employees don’t join a union. Or will those appear out of nowhere if we pass this bill?
I know it’s not the 1880s or 1930s. If it were, we’d be seeing police and security guards cracking union heads, or else just shooting them. If you think that employee intimidation is a thing of the past, and never amounted to more than threats of termination, then I can see why you don’t think unions are necessary. Unfortunately, you are mistaken.
March 17th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Then, when he saw the Cato Institute sticker on my car…sob, sob…he came back, and said “You’re going to be a Right to Work” supporter…I can’t go on…and he touched me where my bathing suit goes, and made me sign this little green card, and carved this B on my face.
March 17th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
tomemos:
And since those days, we’ve seen unions get infiltrated by the mob. You’re mistaken if you think they’ve gone away. It may not be like in the movies, but when were the movies an all that accurate depiction of real life?
Chris D:
Do you have any idea what kind of intimidation I’m talking about? I gave a hint of it to tomemos.
My company forces me to do all kinds of stupid things, like take diversity training every year. I have to go because if I don’t, I’ll get fired. Fortunately, I have every right to complain about the training (provided my complaints are in a civil and respectful manner) and there is nothing the company can do about it. If enough workers want to be represented by a union, they’ll get it done, and there is nothing the company can do about it, at least without getting stuck with a lawsuit.
So? Maybe the increased labor cost due to Plant X being unionized caused the company that owns Plant X to lose money. The first rule of business is to make a profit, its income.
That is a non sequiter. Establishing harsher penalties against businesses that violate fair labor practices have nothing to do with making it easier for workers to bring a union into a company, nor with the binding arbitration provisions within the EFCA. Congress can fix that at any time if they have the will to.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:24 am
SteveIL: Interesting that you haven’t provided that evidence that physical intimidation is ever employed by American unions these days. Just an oversight on your part, I’m sure.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
As far as I can tell it is indeed true that the EFCA takes away the secret ballot. I’ve posted this before, but it has been ignored. If my interpretation is incorrect, please let me know.
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.
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.
So again, it is perfectly fine that people in the US are interested in making forming unions easier. But that isn’t the same at all as saying that ANYTHING, including denying workers the secret ballot in the first year of elections, is ok.