wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

@ #5

An interesting idea. If the election were supervised I think it would need to be by the American Arbitration Association, which runs union elections to keep them free of corruption.

How long are companies going to get away with threatening "job loss" if their employees unionize? The main job loss would occur if the unionized workforce were so efficient that fewer workers were needed, which would help the company in the long run. This is a similar argument to the one that providing decent benefits to low-paid workers will price the company out of the market, which is despicable. GM is not in trouble because their workers are unionized, they are in trouble because in good times the lazy management gave away the shop.

On the other hand, it should not be quite so easy for the union to get recognition by mere signatures on cards. There are credible stories of unions holding organizing meetings where they hand out cards at the door when the workers arrive, as though it were a registration for the meeting, only for the attendees to discover later that they have signed on with the union. Maybe a reasonable compromise could be that there is a supervised election if the signatures represent less than 75% or 80% of the potential bargaining unit.

Sorry, a bit heavy on the word "conflated." I'll edit better next time.

nat #30:
It is fascinating isn't it? How the conflating of unions and Soviets became conflated to be this nebulous "creeping socialism." And most of us still swallow it. Of course, some of the unions have not helped themselves in this area by expecting their members to toe a party line. I have had this happen myself. However, in my mind the main function of a union is to have the opportunity to have collective bargaining with an employer who is almost always better placed than any individual worker to get a good deal for itself.

Opponents to the New Deal did not give pensions and benefits to stick it to the Roosevelt administration because they believed industry should provide the safety net. They did it because the government imposed salary caps, and they had to find ways to entice qualified people particularly during the labor shortages caused by World War II.

True, they did generally oppose socialized medicine. And true, government healthcare would've removed any need for them to provide it, but the actual incentive for them to provide healthcare came as a result of more government involvement rather than less.

Karen, first of, I agree with mc. That does sound like major scapegoating. But remember, that contract was negotiated. He agreed to that contract, knowing full well, he had to pay for it. It's not the union's fault. Think about it this way. Don't you want to highest salary you can get? You're out of work. Would you take a job that pays less by choice? What if your new job has poor benefits. Are you not going to try and get better ones?

The last question about the union history of GM being a cautionary tale is interesting, because looking at the history the caution is pro-union, pro-New Deal.

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) has been the first business group to speak out against anything union (or other types of "creeping socialism") for the last century. It was NAM that was key in the development of the business reaction to the New Deal. This reaction was centered around the idea that it was the job of industry, not government, to provide the social safety net. This is what gave us employer based pensions, and health care.

If you look at the crises in GM now, the primary costs are the legacy benefits. You can blame this on the union contracts, as anti-union groups love to do. However, if you actually look at the history of the decades before the contract you'll see that the member companies of NAM are really the ones who have saddled themselves with that cost by fighting against FDR's plan for universal health care, and a more progressive Social Security.

And were it not for the unions pushing industry, GM workers would not have had health care, or pensions for the last fifty years. I can't say that this would have built a better society.

Karen from NJ #28:
Sounds like some scapegoating to me. Union contracts are among the few that offer defined benefit pensions and decent health care. If we could ever get our arms around health care reform in this country (not holding my breath) those expenses might not fall on municipalities.

I don't know much about unions but the Mayor of our town was here the other day saying that he needs a 9% tax increase this year. Why? Because of union contracts and salaries and benefits that were previously negotiated. Many of us don't have any more to give - I for one am currently unemployed.

David from Harrison #17:
You might be right. However, it also may be easy for you to say if you are not directly hurt by antiunion activity.

The Heritage Foundation? Come on. Since when do they care about workers?

I can't believe you're talking to a conservative about union tights!! The very idea is so anathema to s/o whose philosophy is NOT about workers, fair salaries, job security, etc.
I work for the PSC - the CUNY union. I went 3 years without a contract. We couldn't do anything about it. What's the point of having a union if the members are restricted from striking??Ask your panelist about the Taylor Law!

Why can't James Sherk those folks that oppose the EFCA just be honest about why they oppose the act? It makes it easier to join a union. Period. The idea that they are trying to save workers from the big bad unions (we want to represent you, make your workplace safer, make sure you have a decent wage...) is so lame.

The bottom line is, employers fire people who try to unionize. Remember when aircraft controllers went on strike in 1982. Reagan simply fired them. Employers, bug union leaders phones, refuse to give peoper information of all eligible workers. In a capitalist society, the worker is at the mercy of the employer. They make a ruckus, they're out of a job. workers are exploited, not treated with fiarness. Look at Wal-mart. They're paid so low, they have to go on medicare. A union would give them liveable wages and health care like people deserve. And they're the largest private employer in the country

When I was trying to form a union, I had arguments with my organizer about how things would work, but in the end, my choices were mine. When my boss decided to argue with me, it was my job at stake. I saw other folks get fired around me, but the union didn't do that, my employer did.

The point of the act is that an employer can intimidate you with the loss of your job or a demotion or by making your life at work pretty hellish. The union has no control over that, so if you want to join, it should be between you and the union, and your employer should have no say over your choice.

Hilarious--comparisons to the Soviet Union! Pulling out an argument from 1950. Hey, can I have my bank bailout money back? No? Then I think you've got to tone down the anti-socialist rhetoric...

Your guest has completely failed to make the case that a public ballot is going to end employer intimidation. Everything he listed had nothing to do with the actually casting of votes itself. I think the Heritage representative made a great case for why it's a bad idea. I would also suggest that preventing employees from voting anonymously would allow employers as well as unions to intimidate the employees. If an employee votes in favor of a union and the vote fails, the employer knows who they have to fire. Personally, I would be more afraid of angering my employer than the union, and casting my vote openly would simply paint a target on my back. It seems like a bad idea regardlessof whether you're pro-labor or sympathetic to the companies.

Thank you Mr. Dorsey for your comments about the auto industry. The failure of the American auto industry is related to the fact that their products SUCK, not because they are unionized.

I want to know which Democrats are backing away.

The "end of civilization". HA! Next will have James Sherk and his ilk comparing unions to Nazis (if they haven't already).

Unemployment is going up without strong unionization. Wages have suffered, benefits in many cases have been completely eliminated without unions.

It is no accident that government workers and auto workers have some of the best pay and benefit packages.

The auto industry has suffered -- provably -- from grossly bad strategic decisions by management.

Anywhere but the US, James Sherk would be laughed off the stage.

This is just not the time for Congress and the new administration to exhaust political capital on this issue at this time. This is not a salve for the economy. This issue has nothing to do with our ailing economy -- and it's turning into a divisive sideshow.

Arbitration only happens when one or both parties refuse to bargain in good faith. This guy is unbelievable!

Oh, please Mr. Sherk. I don't believe you care about what is bad for workers.

you can't think about these issues outside of the context of all the union busting going on.

i'm a musician and i've been amazed by how pervasive the anti-union sentiment is whenever i work for a corporate entity. it's stunning.

when i score a commecial, they'll spend literally millions on a production, but they'll want to do the music as a non-union buyout so they can avoice 2-5 thousand dollars in residual payments

Does anyone else find the sudden concern on the part of the employers for the workers' right to a secret ballot a bit unbelievable?

Hello!!! Arbitration can go either way. Sometimes the decision is bad for the union. Not a very convincing argument from the employers.

By the way, votes in Congress are not secret. There are times when a ballot _should not_ be secret -- when people have a right to know.

Workers in the US have seen little or no _real_ increase in wages since the early 1970s (even taking into account the economic boom from the 90s through to 2007). The single greatest reason James Sherk and other union-busters oppose unions is their fear that organized labor might demand fair wages (as opposed to the monstrous kickbacks to executives that the current economic disaster has highlighted).

Under current law, there are two steps to forming a union.
1) Employees hand in a card when they want one. Half of them have to turn in cards.

2) There will be a vote with a secret ballot.

************************

Why have the second step, if over half the employees have already turned in cards? That's the question.

Step 1 has never been a secret ballot, so this is not entirely about secret ballots. This is about whether a second step should be needed or not.

The honest argument in favor of the secret ballot is the threats and intimidation thing. The second step allows someone to turn in their card, but later privately/secretly vote against. The converse is also true, with employee intimidation and worries about retaliation by employers.

But there are other reasons why people want a second step. One, the possibility of employers trying to convince employees to vote against after they've already voted for -- including all kinds of threats and intimidation. Two, a simple delaying tactic on union formation. It's really all about giving those against the formation of the union more time to work against the union formation.

Two sides:
A) "We should only need one step."
B) "Preserve the secret ballot."

As we hear on the show, side A is allowing a secret ballot, but side B is not willing to have just a single secret ballot step. If side B was really worried about the secret ballot, they'd simply insist that the first step be a secret ballot. But that's not their goal.

From what I can tell, opposition to EPCA is 99% about slowing things down. Slower certification, slower negotiations. Make it take longer to get any benefits to workers.

This is probably an imperfect solution to a widespread problem. The Heritage guy mentioned the change in our economy to less manufacturing and more service. Those are exactly the types of employers who are using intimidation and "company meetings," firings of organizers (yes it's illegal, but try recovering your job when it happens). Walmart and a few other actors come to mind.

I'm concerned about the effect that globalization will have on a potential worker's movement. Outsourcing takes a lot of bodies off the ground, and it also leaves those left standing more reluctant to protest unfair conditions.

Jimmy Hoffa is rolling in his grave (concrete tomb). Sadly there is much corruption on both sides of the negotiating table.

NAMA and Large Corporate Shareholders have had an abject war on any unionization of there members/companies' workforces for 40 years. The sum total of these efforts is the destruction of the manufacturing sector of the economy, ruinous outsourcing, employment instability for the vast majority of workers, and the shrinking of the middle class.
This act is a start on organically regrowing the middle class and economic stability from the ground up. NAMA and Large stockholders want those resources to waste on their foolish investment schemes (giving their profits to the Madoff's of the world)

There is a lot to be said for secret ballots, but there are many voting scenarios in place which do not include secret balloting. The caucusing process still widely used in US primaries is one example.

The fact of the matter is -- contrary to the propaganda of James Sherk -- is that unions have faced decades of ruthless suppression at the hands of money-hungry employers. Harlan County was not all that long ago (26 years).

Frankly, the Heritage Foundation offers nothing more than a pack of lies about union history. The balance of oppression -- up to an including murder of union organizers -- is glaringly on the side of the union busting employers.

James Sherk clearly represents the corporate point of view. A lot of workers now are freelance workers because there has been a deep erosion of worker's rights. Unions represent the worker's interest rather than that of the interests of corporations. The corporations have a vested interest in seeing that the unions never emerge again.

Oh, and that card check to get a union? Workers can check they WANT a secret ballot -- or just majority of checks to go union.

What protections will workers have from harassment by these Jimmy Hoffa, I mean union rep wannabes if star performers don't want to be part of a union.

In a lot of work places you try to build a rapor with your boss. I had a friend who treated one of the workers under him very well and stood up for him when he was under fire. Several years later that employee became a big shot at his firm and hired my friend for a specific opportunity.

If you create an adversarial environment between management and labor, how can an individual grow his/her career?

Interestingly, while anti-union businesses are purported aghast at the idea of a "card check" for allowing workers to unionize, they support -- and use -- card check to de-unionize!

Yes! Elections a must for getting a union into a location, but businesses just luuuuuv card check to get them out.

Funny how that works.