Matthew Yglesias » How (Not) to Form a Union

May 6th, 2009 at 9:13 am

How (Not) to Form a Union

Some CAPAF colleagues have put together this informative animation on how incredibly difficult it is to form a union under the current anti-worker, anti-organizing rules:

This is why we need serious labor law reform.

Comments
47

Filed under: EFCA, Unions,

47 Responses to “How (Not) to Form a Union”

Bryan in Miami Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Thank you for the clip.

I intend to spread it around as much as I can.
shooter242 Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Oh boo frickin’ hoo. You want all the inhibitions management can induce and NO secret ballot? What pussies. Obviously the fervor for unionization isn’t really there.
Bryan in Miami Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 9:52 am
shooter242 Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Oh boo frickin’ hoo. You want all the inhibitions management can induce and NO secret ballot? What pussies. Obviously the fervor for unionization isn’t really there.

Um. . . no. We want the penalties for breaking the law to actually discourage people from breaking the law.

We don’t want our employers to restrict our rights to speech while they constantly whisper their propaganda in our ear.

We want our secret ballot, if we choose to go that route, to actually be secret.

And we want wages that don’t make us economic slaves to our bosses.
Mike Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 9:54 am
This video actually makes union organizers look like a bunch of whiny babies.

The boss and others talk to the employee about how bad unions are. So? the union organizers are telling them how great the unions are. Is the video suggesting it should just be a one-sided conversation?

You can only talk to an employee on breaks! OMG! That’s so oppressive. Imagine an employer wanting their employees to work when they are supposed to instead of spreading the good word on organized labor!

Let’s all repeat this together, “A secret ballot is the best protection workers have from BOTH sides.” If unions are this desperate for new members (i.e. new union dues)then maybe they should blame improved labor laws and not big, bad corporations.
joe from Lowell Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 9:56 am
You want all the inhibitions management can induce

So…….have you actually seen anyone proposing that unions be given the power to fire and discipline people for having the wrong opinion, or did you pull that completely out of your butt?
Al Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Is CAPAF unionized?
soullite Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Mike, either you’re an idiot or a hack.

nobody who actually looked into this issue could come away saying what you’re saying unless they were paid to. So either you don’t actually know what you’re talking about, or someone is paying you to astroturf this place.

I mean, I see no mention of employers firing organizers, holding them captive for a 6 hour ‘we’re going to have to fire everyone and stop running our business if you unionize’ BS sessions.

Also no mention of the current situation of workers: getting shorted hours by bosses who deny they worked the hours they worked, Bosses refusing to pay overtime pay. Clearly, you don’t give a flying fuck that employers are outright stealing from their employees.

You’re too busy bitching that unions have it too good. That’s a pretty strong indication that you’re just a douchebag republican.
harold Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 10:33 am
We ought to repeal Taft-Hartley and let supervisors join Unions as well.
matt e Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 10:39 am
This clip is informative but some data pertaining to the various points would make it much more credible.
AB Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 11:32 am
And we want wages that don’t make us economic slaves to our bosses.

That’s the dumbest goddamn thing I’ve ever heard in support of unionization. Cry me a freaking river.

We don’t want our employers to restrict our rights to speech

You don’t have free speech at work. What is this “right” that you speak of?
Bryan in Miami Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 11:38 am
That’s the dumbest goddamn thing I’ve ever heard in support of unionization. Cry me a freaking river.
Really? It’s a dumb thing? I’m sure the hundreds of thousands of people who work at Walmart enjoy having to depend on their employee discount to stock their refrigerators.

You don’t have free speech at work. What is this “right” that you speak of?

God job cropping my quote, Troll. Did looking at the complete sentence hurt your head?
Realist Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 11:49 am
It should be easy to form a union. If you can’t get 50% support, you should still be able to unionize with the 20% who do support it! But it’s not a good idea to legally enshrine the idea that, in the middle of a contract to pay you $10/hr, you should be able to demand $15/hr for the same job instead and the company has no option to find someone else willing to work for $10/hr (or $12/hr). That’s just silly–why should we give primacy to the company that just happens to be hiring you now? If you want $15/hr, fine, but take it evenly from all the rich people in society, don’t take it arbitrarily from whoever happened to hire you in the first place.
Denis Drew Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Union leader: “San Francisco should beware,
Union member : Hotel Marriot is unfair.
Hotel Marriot you’re no good,
sign that contract like you should.”

This was the chant I heard all week while staying on 4th Street in San Francisco in the early 2000s. Don’t know if the hotel has negotiated with the union to this day.

A concierge from another hotel told me that part of the political deal for allowing the Marriot to be built on 4th was that the hotel would allow a union. Even that was not enough apparently.
bryan in Miami Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 11:54 am
If you can’t get 50% support, you should still be able to unionize with the 20% who do support it!
There are some organizations who do a version of this, but the benefits earned by negotiations between labor and management go to everyone in the building and the non-union members still pay some union dues.

But it’s not a good idea to legally enshrine the idea that, in the middle of a contract to pay you $10/hr, you should be able to demand $15/hr for the same job instead and the company has no option to find someone else willing to work for $10/hr (or $12/hr).

Why not? The reverse is true. Owners see nothing wrong with taking away benefits, suspending 401 K contributions, and cutting bonuses and pay rates without so much as a warning, as happened at my wife’s job recently.
Realist Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Yes, but you’re allowed to quit and find another job. Similarly, the owner should be allowed to fire you and find another worker to replace you.
AB Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Really? It’s a dumb thing? I’m sure the hundreds of thousands of people who work at Walmart enjoy having to depend on their employee discount to stock their refrigerators

Yes, it is quite dumb. No has twisted anyone’s arm and forced them to take a job at Walmart. If so many people were not willing to work for those wages maybe Walmart would have to pay more.

God job cropping my quote, Troll. Did looking at the complete sentence hurt your head?

The second sentence is irrelevant. You do not have a right to free speech at work, nor do you have a right to not have your employer whisper propaganda in your ear. I would like my employer to buy me a helicopter so I could avoid traffic getting to to work, but I have about as much right to that as you do to your wishes.
StevenAttewell Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Mike:

The video actually needs a bit of work. The boss can actually bar you from company property – the boss can and does bar the union from attending mandatory “captive audience” and one-on-one meetings. It is a one-sided conversation. Moreover, the kind of things the boss can say during the campaign are pretty terrifying – he can threaten to fire everybody at the plant, to rip up the pension plan or the health care plan, or to shut down the factory.

AB:

“Employees shall have the right of self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.”

Those rights.

Realist:

Minority unionization hasn’t been the law in the U.S pretty much ever; it certainly has been the law in the U.K and some other countries at points in time. It’s generally not a good idea, because it allows bosses to divide-and-rule, by offering wage increases and things to people who don’t join.

However, you can’t actually demand wage increases in the middle of the contract – that’s a violation of labor law and a breach of contract. Under current U.S labor law, you have to wait until the next contract. But as for why you should ask for wages increases from the person hiring you as opposed to society – well, it’s your labor that creates revenue for the corporation; the corporation generally turns a profit on your labor, and it’s only fair to ask for a larger share of the value you created.
StevenAttewell Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
AB:

Moreover, “It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer-

(1) To interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7.
(2) To dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it…
(3) By discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization…
(4) To discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because he has filed charges or given testimony under this Act.
(5) To refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees.”
bryan in Miami Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Was getting ready to reply to ABject failure, but I see someone beat me to it. Thank you Steven.

Do yourself a favor AB. Know what the hell you’re talking about before you call other people dumb.
Lupita Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
According to the clip, the purpose of unions is to procure higher wages and better benefits for their members. Period. No mention of social rights, like public health care, for all. No questioning of the economic system, though it is too late for that now. No mention of questioning an agricultural system based on exploiting foreign, semi-literate illegals. They seem to be OK with occupations, coups, and invasions.

Unions lost their soul when they reneged of their responsibility to society and sold out to the neoliberal, “society does not exist” frame of mind.
AB Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Steven, please explain how those rights are in conflict with anything I’ve said. If we’re just going to cite laws that have nothing to with what someone said you might as well post some traffic laws or zoning restrictions. Your employer cannot restrict you from participating in organizing activities, but they don’t have to allow you to do those things while you’re supposed to be working, anymore then they would be required to let you stand around talking about American Idol while you’re supposed to be working.

Bryan, you ought to just stick to your juvenile “wage slave” arguments, because you don’t have much else.
StevenAttewell Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
AB:

“You do not have a right to free speech at work, nor do you have a right to not have your employer whisper propaganda in your ear.” The right to speak to fellow workers in the bargaining unit is an inherent part of “forming, joining” a union, as well as engaging in “concerted activity.”

Similarly, provisions making it illegal to “interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees” apply directly to the principle of propaganda and threats. The purpose of captive audience and one-on-one meetings is to coerce employees through intimidation, and the purpose of banning pro-union speech, materials, and activists on company property is to interfere and restrain employees from freely engaging in the union election.
AB Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Again you’re ignoring the point, there is nothing illegal about employers requiring you to you know, actually work. The complaint was that you’re only allowed to do it on your break, but why should the employer allow you to do anything while you’re being paid besides the work they are paying you to do?

apply directly to the principle of propaganda and threats

There is quite a big difference between propaganda and threats, and to casually place them together and imply I’ve suggested the latter is OK is dishonest.

So are you suggesting that workers should be allowed to spend time they’re supposed to be working doing union organizing instead, and that employers should not be allowed to say anything about the possible negative aspects of the employees forming a union?
Adam Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
No has twisted anyone’s arm and forced them to take a job at Walmart. If so many people were not willing to work for those wages maybe Walmart would have to pay more.

I’d like to point out how much I love this piece of logic. It’s not WalMart’s fault that 1/3 of their employees are on food stamps, it’s the employees’ fault that they’re willing to accept $7 an hour! If only they were more greedy and held out for better wages (in a recession with 10% unemployment coming) then maybe they’d get paid more!

Gee, if only there were some way all the employees in a store could stand up with one voice and say they’re not willing to work for those wages, then WalMart would have to pay more. I bet you’d be in favor of something like that, right?
Adam Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
employers should not be allowed to say anything about the possible negative aspects of the employees forming a union?

Enough with the terminology. What the employers (say WalMart in this case since they’re actually doing it) are doing is telling them flat-out that if they form a union the store’s going to be closed. And then they close stores that do, since hey there’s thousands more. And magically no more unions form. I suppose that’s just “talking about the possible negative aspects”, just like consistently firing the people leading the organizing campaign is nothing more than a possible negative aspect to organizing.
Mike Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
From Adam:

I’d like to point out how much I love this piece of logic. It’s not WalMart’s fault that 1/3 of their employees are on food stamps, it’s the employees’ fault that they’re willing to accept $7 an hour!

It’s a low-skilled job. I would suggest if people are adults or worse, have a family to support, they gain some skills and make themselves more marketable. Anyone who wants to make a full-time career out of working at WalMart needs some career counseling.
AB Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
I’d like to point out how much I love this piece of logic.

Well you should, because it’s impeccable

It’s not WalMart’s fault that 1/3 of their employees are on food stamps, it’s the employees’ fault that they’re willing to accept $7 an hour!

Ahh of course, there is a villain at work here. It is someone’s “fault” that not everyone makes a lot of money. The person making low wages has nothing to do with it and no power over it, it is some nefarious evildoer conspiring to keep him/her poor. Everyone, no matter how unskilled, unmotivated, or lacking in work ethic, should make $20/hour. How is that $20 determined? By Adam of course, because he knows what the “right” amount of wages should be.

Gee, if only there were some way all the employees in a store could stand up with one voice and say they’re not willing to work for those wages, then WalMart would have to pay more. I bet you’d be in favor of something like that, right?

I sure would, provided Walmart has the right to tell them where to shove their demands and hire new employees. Why is it you think the union ought to have monopoly power but employers should not? We have anti-trust laws preventing businesses from doing exactly what you suggest unions should be able to do.
AB Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
What the employers (say WalMart in this case since they’re actually doing it) are doing is telling them flat-out that if they form a union the store’s going to be closed. And then they close stores that do, since hey there’s thousands more.

Wow! This was the guy criticizing people’s logic?!?!

So do you think Walmart is just biting off its nose to spite its face? You think they have some obligation to keep a store open even if it means raising their costs above what they consider an acceptable level? So if you start a business tomorrow, hire three employees, those employees form their own union and demand higher wages, you should not be allowed to shut down your business if those wages would make the business not worth your while anymore?

I think you need to learn some very basic facts about running a business. Walmart has an obligation to their shareholders, and if they do not feel they can meet those obligations paying above-market wages due to unionization, then they will close the unionized stores and focus elsewhere. The pro-union commenters before called it “propaganda”, and suggested that threats of going out of business were just to scare people, but you’re willing to concede that yes, someone might actually shut down a business because of it, with the implication that somehow that is unethical and wrong. The mind boggles at the incomprehensible ignorance.
Realist Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
But as for why you should ask for wages increases from the person hiring you as opposed to society – well, it’s your labor that creates revenue for the corporation; the corporation generally turns a profit on your labor, and it’s only fair to ask for a larger share of the value you created.

You should be able to ask for it. But if someone else wants to provide that value for the corporation for a smaller price, the corporation should be able to hire them in your place. Since they can provide the value just as well as you, why should you be the one to get all the union profits?
Billare Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Anyone who is not already sympathetic to unions knows that removing the protection of secret ballot voting to “balance the playing field” is a hackish argument. Even if we pretend that there’s no thuggery like some pretend (I worked at a long-haul mover, so I know what BS that is), why would you remove a protection that doesn’t possibly hurt anyone? How does secret ballot voting HELP the employer?
Nathan Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
This looks like an exercise in the use of subjective words and statements:

“Your boss can make it very hard for unions to form.”

What fantastic insight.

“The laws against this are very weak.”

I’m sorry, but how can anyone conclude that this isn’t useless?
Sonic Charmer Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
As I said at Ezra’s (do you guys just have a pact to post all the same hacky links now?), I heartily agree with the idea that it should be far far easier for strangers to band together to garnish my paycheck.
Sonic Charmer Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
P.S. Also, this “video” is nearly as impressive as the six-page “study” you guys were bandying about the other day. I’ll just assume someone will be banging out a “study” or “video” on this stuff at least once a day.
Bryan in Miami Says:
May 7th, 2009 at 12:20 am
You should be able to ask for it. But if someone else wants to provide that value for the corporation for a smaller price, the corporation should be able to hire them in your place. Since they can provide the value just as well as you, why should you be the one to get all the union profits?

I hope you’ll be okay with it when your job goes to an undocumented worker, because that’s how your philosophy works out in practice in broad swaths of the country.

And these people aren’t necessarily out there trying to, “provide the value just as well as you.” For the most part, they’re desperate for a paycheck. And thus, we’re back to that, “goddamn dumb” concept of being an economic slave.
bryan in Miami Says:
May 7th, 2009 at 12:24 am
The pro-union commenters before called it “propaganda”, and suggested that threats of going out of business were just to scare people, but you’re willing to concede that yes, someone might actually shut down a business because of it, with the implication that somehow that is unethical and wrong.

It IS unethical and wrong. . . and I-L-L-E-G-A-L. Except, as has been pointed out to you multiple times, the penalties are meager enough to just shrug off.

Oh, and I’ll point this out too:

Unionization Has No Causal Effect on Firm Closures
AB Says:
May 7th, 2009 at 1:54 am
I hope you’ll be okay with it when your job goes to an undocumented worker, because that’s how your philosophy works out in practice in broad swaths of the country.

If someone can come along and do the same work that I do, and they’ll do it cheaper, then yes, my employer should fire me and hire them. Nobody owes you jack, and your entitlement mentality is disgusting.

And these people aren’t necessarily out there trying to, “provide the value just as well as you.” For the most part, they’re desperate for a paycheck. And thus, we’re back to that, “goddamn dumb” concept of being an economic slave.

Boo-fucking-hoo. We’re all slaves. We all need food to eat and a roof over our heads, so we all need to work and produce something of value so we can provide those things for ourselves and our families. If you want more than someone is wiling to give you then work for it, don’t expect a government sanctioned monopoly to get you more than the value you’re producing.
AB Says:
May 7th, 2009 at 1:58 am
It IS unethical and wrong. . . and I-L-L-E-G-A-L. Except, as has been pointed out to you multiple times, the penalties are meager enough to just shrug off.

Christ this is like fish in a barrel. So it’s illegal to close a business? Once you open a business you’re legally obligated to keep it open even if you can’t earn the profits you need to make it worth your while? So when I gave the example before your about your small business, you should be legally barred from shutting it down when your employees decided to unionize and you couldn’t make as much money as you wanted from your business. That is an interesting view on ethics and law you have there.

Oh, and I’ll point this out too:

Unionization Has No Causal Effect on Firm Closures

So first you said Walmart will close stores if they unionize, now you say it doesn’t happen.
Realist Says:
May 7th, 2009 at 3:07 am
And these people aren’t necessarily out there trying to, “provide the value just as well as you.” For the most part, they’re desperate for a paycheck.

Obviously. The point remains–why should you in particular be guaranteed a higher than market wage from you employer in particular just because at this point in time you are in their hire? Why shouldn’t someone else who is willing to do the job be able to compete for it with you? I have no problem with giving you gobs of free money, but it’s entirely arbitrary to take that money from your employer rather than the wealthy as a class.
Anarcho Says:
May 7th, 2009 at 6:55 am
“You don’t have free speech at work. What is this “right” that you speak of?”

And that is one of the key problems — that, and some people thinking that it is fine that freedom stops at the workplace door!

If the government had the powers bosses had, you would have no problem in realising what it was — a dictatorship!
bryan in miami Says:
May 7th, 2009 at 7:56 am
If someone can come along and do the same work that I do, and they’ll do it cheaper, then yes, my employer should fire me and hire them. Nobody owes you jack, and your entitlement mentality is disgusting.

At least one conservative is finally being honest that they don’t mind selling out american workers cheaper foreign labor.

Boo-fucking-hoo. We’re all slaves. We all need food to eat and a roof over our heads, so we all need to work and produce something of value so we can provide those things for ourselves and our families. If you want more than someone is wiling to give you then work for it, don’t expect a government sanctioned monopoly to get you more than the value you’re producing.
Good to know. Hope your job never gets shipped off, or your employer never gives your job to a desperate foreigner. Although, given your attitude, I can’t imagine that you’ve ever had any experience at an actual job.
bryan in miami Says:
May 7th, 2009 at 8:07 am
Christ this is like fish in a barrel. So it’s illegal to close a business? Once you open a business you’re legally obligated to keep it open even if you can’t earn the profits you need to make it worth your while? So when I gave the example before your about your small business, you should be legally barred from shutting it down when your employees decided to unionize and you couldn’t make as much money as you wanted from your business. That is an interesting view on ethics and law you have there.

Wow, you just twist yourself into a knot making things up, don’t you? It is illegal to close a business in response to employees attempting to form a union. It’s not an, “interesting view.” It. Is. The. Law.

So first you said Walmart will close stores if they unionize, now you say it doesn’t happen.

Again, you should try to keep up. Start by reading the report. There IS a difference between a business intentionally shutting their doors in order to punish the workers that want to form a union (and then reopening after they’ve been weeded out), and a business shutting down because of costs related to having unionized workers. For the first, you need only look at the reports the NLRB releases every year to find thousands of cases of businesses shutting down and reopening to eliminate union supporters. The report talks about the latter; which is the type of propaganda that employers should have no right to peddle without an opposing view point to clean up the mess.

And. . . try to watch the language. I know that for teenagers, the anonymity of a message board makes it tempting to swear and say all sorts of nasty things, but try to contain yourself when you’re a guest on someone else’s board.
Halfdan Says:
May 7th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
The point remains–why should you in particular be guaranteed a higher than market wage from you employer in particular just because at this point in time you are in their hire? Why shouldn’t someone else who is willing to do the job be able to compete for it with you?

Because the labor market is constrained by large employers that use ruthless tactics to drive competing employers out of business. Local wages are subsequently depressed, which means that residents don’t spend very much money, which forces other local businesses to close and further depresses the economy. Wal-Mart doesn’t care because even the poorest people can buy groceries and toilet paper. Plus, the people making the strategic decisions don’t live in the town and thus are not affected by the downward economic spiral.

Now if an *actual* labor market were in play, I might understand your willingness to fall on the sword of ideological purity. But since that market is being manipulated to its advantage by the world’s largest corporation, headquartered thousands of miles away, your principled stance is less than compelling.

(Your rationale reminds me of nothing less than that of Sheikh Issa of Abu Dhabi, who made a deal with his torture victim to handle their business dispute privately.)
AB Says:
May 7th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
At least one conservative

Well see, there’s your first mistake, assuming that anyone who does not toe the party line on unions is a right wing ideologue.

don’t mind selling out american workers cheaper foreign labor.

Yes, you have no more right to your job than a foreigner just because you were lucky enough to be born on the correct side of an arbitrary line.

Hope your job never gets shipped off, or your employer never gives your job to a desperate foreigner.

Yes, I hope that I am able to keep my job as well. But that is not up to me to decide, nor is it up to the government, nor do I deserve protection from a union. I will continue to work hard and provide value to my employer, enough value that they think I am the right choice for the role, and that someone who did it for less would not do it as well. It’s called the real world, where there are no magic job-saving unicorns, and no one gets a lifetime employment contract with a pony. The fantasy land where everyone always gets the job they want at the salary they want and never has to worry about losing it is just that, a fantasy. Grow up.

Although, given your attitude, I can’t imagine that you’ve ever had any experience at an actual job.

Yes, that must be it.
AB Says:
May 7th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Wow, you just twist yourself into a knot making things up, don’t you? It is illegal to close a business in response to employees attempting to form a union.

No it isn’t. The government cannot force an employer to keep a business open.
bryan in Miami Says:
May 7th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Yes, that must be it.

Yes, it is.

Now go do your reading homework and go to bed, and dream up more strawmen arguments to keep this going. It’s actually kinda fun slapping you around, especially now that all you have left is rambling stupidity about unicorns and ponies.

Have a job and responsibilities for a few years,and you’ll figure it out.
AB Says:
May 8th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Ahh, the old fallback to “you must be a child”, made all the more ironic by the expressed childish fantasy about how it’s so unfair that sometimes people lose their jobs or don’t get paid as much as they want to.
bryan in Miami Says:
May 8th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Get a job, and you’ll understand. Or just ask your dad what it would mean to you and your family if tomorrow morning he found out that he lost his job to someone who’ll take minimum wage to do it.

Matt Yglesias

How (Not) to Form a Union

47 Responses to “How (Not) to Form a Union”

Blogroll