Thread: Democrats vote to bar secret union ballots.

Walter Reuther's Ghost
Democrats vote to bar secret union ballots.

Thursday, March 1, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST


The House of Representatives has scheduled a vote as early as today on a bill that strips 140 million U.S. workers of the right to decide in private whether to unionize. Naturally, it's called the Employee Free Choice Act.
Big Labor has been agitating to ease union-formation requirements for more than a decade. And prior to last year's election, the AFL-CIO, AFSCME and their allies made it clear to Democrats that this vote would be the most important return they expected on their investment in a Nancy Pelosi Speakership. This is payback day.

The union claim is that employers are engaging in rampant unfair labor practices to prevent employees from exercising their right to organize. But data from the National Labor Relations Board, which oversees union elections, show no rise in such activities. The reality is that union membership has been in decline for decades, and labor leaders are desperate to rig the rules in order to reverse the trend. In the 1950s, 35% of private-sector workers were unionized. By the early 1980s the number had fallen to 20%, and today it stands at just 7.4%.

The reason for this decline isn't illegal management meddling in organizing efforts. The problem is that unions haven't been able to persuade the workers themselves. Our own, longstanding position is that when a company is organized it is almost always the company's fault. But workers of all classes and skills can also read the news and understand that unions no longer provide job security, if they ever did. The most heavily unionized industries--such as airlines and Detroit carmakers--are typically those that are financially beleaguered and shedding jobs. Workers know that unions often provide short-term wage gains at the cost of longer-term job insecurity.




All of which explains the drive to rewrite the rules and do away with secret-ballot elections administered by the NLRB, a procedure in place since the 1935 Wagner Act. Under current rules, once 30% of employees at a workplace express interest in unionizing by signing an authorization card, organizers can go to management and demand voluntary "card-check" recognition. The employer then has the option of recognizing the union or demanding an election.


It shouldn't be surprising that many workers who sign these cards later have second thoughts after getting the employer's side of the story. Workers sign cards for all kinds of reasons, including peer pressure and intimidation. It's not uncommon for an organizer to approach an employer with cards that show 90% of the workforce wants to unionize, only to have the percentage plummet once employees hear about the downside of a union shop and have a chance to vote by secret ballot. So Big Labor wants to dispense with these petty elections and make union recognition mandatory as soon as a simple majority of workers sign a card.

Notably, nearly every American business group is united in opposing this affront to worker freedom. They understand this will make organizing that much easier, thus making their own businesses that much less competitive. One business response would surely be to hire fewer workers--the opposite of what the unions claim to want.

The bill nonetheless has 234 co-sponsors, including seven Republicans, mostly from blue Northeast states such as New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. Because the Senate is expected to filibuster the bill and the White House is threatening a veto, these Republicans may figure they can have it both ways: Score points with the unions by supporting a measure that isn't going anywhere. But Members who go on record opposing secret-ballot elections will also have some explaining to do the next time they ask for business support.

So far this Congress, Democrats have been trying to present themselves as "moderates" who won't return to their bad special-interest selves pre-1994. But this union-enabling bill strips away that mask and exposes an anti-business animus out of the 1970s, if not the 1930s. Even if it fails this Congress, this week's vote is a warning about what could become law if Democrats and their union backers hold all the levers of power after 2008.

"Used with permission from OpinionJournal.com, a web site from
Dow Jones & Company, Inc."

This JOB KILLING bill should never see the light of day. One thing you can be certain of is that this new and improved Congress will be playing the political payback game for some time to come.

Thank goodness they don't have the majorities they need or the Whitehouse to pass such nonsense legislation.

I have worked on union sites, as a non-union worker, many times. One of the places I worked at also went through an unsuccessful attempt to unionize, and lastly, my wife works in a union environment now.

In my wife's situation there is no doubt that the union does create higher wages for workers. She works as a school teacher and she is paid pretty well. By manipulating the amount of schooling she has taken we have managed to put her at almost the top of the pay scale and I have been able to quit work myself to stay home with our children and handle all the yard and home maintenance.

That being said she complains about the inane rules that the union inserts into the workplace. Everyone she works with is a reasonable person but they have to do unreasonable things because of the union rules. Still this is just stupidity and not a major hassle.

The real problem that I have observed in all the cased mentioned in the first paragraph is that the union has an agenda other than helping workers. One only needs to read their newsletters to understand that the unions main goal is to suck up more power for the unions. (they are by no means the only organization that does this)

One of the ways they do this is through a strong alliance with the democratic party. The unions support the democrats to the exclusion of any other cause. This is unbalanced and unhealthy for America, but totally legal and I would defend their right to do it as a matter of free speech. The democrats, in return, support the unions through a series of unbalanced and unhealthy legislation. If they are able to get this biased legislation through congress this is their right too under our system of goverment. (though I would like to see some rules limiting pork in legislation) The democratic party would be better off without the unions. Initially they would loose a few members but the healthier platforms would attract a larger number of new members. I don't really want the democratic party to increase it's membership but if it were a healthier party that would mitigate some of my concern.

Unions also have an agenda that is almost a carbon copy of liberals on a range of issues. Why should a food service worker worker at the local grocer be subjected to propaganda for planned parenthood? What concern is it to a school teacher (in her professional capacity) if Wal-Mart sets a limit on the wholesale price they will pay for their products? Sounds like good capitalism to me and lower prices for you.

The example of poor legislation starting this thread is just one among many. This one isn't even all that blantant. The unions have outlived their usefullness: we are no longer living in the industrial revolution. It is time to let the industrial dinosaurs die.

Unions can help, but all too often they only hurt the worker, and hurt the consumer. I've seen rampant signs of this in IBEW, the Teamsters (the UPS fiasco is prime example of this) and the UAW. I'd say the NEA is the worse of the bunch, however, because of the scope and content of their agenda, especially as it pertains to what is taught to kids and how. The NEA is doing all it can to create a nation of dependants, not independants, and thats dangerous...and wrong.

Originally Posted by lakeman

One of the ways they do this is through a strong alliance with the democratic party. The unions support the democrats to the exclusion of any other cause. This is unbalanced and unhealthy for America, but totally legal and I would defend their right to do it as a matter of free speech.

Your comments are all right on, but I would like to focus on this issue.

My problem is that Corporations cannot openly or directly support any candidates, it is illegal. Why is it legal for Unions, which are in form, a corporation, to support with as much of their members dues as they want any candidates they want to openly support?

If this nation laws regarding campaign contributions were truly fair and balanced, UNIONS would be placed under the same strict campaign rules for contributions as corporations are.

The unions wield incredible political influence for being such a small part of the work force.

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

Your comments are all right on, but I would like to focus on this issue.

My problem is that Corporations cannot openly or directly support any candidates, it is illegal. Why is it legal for Unions, which are in form, a corporation, to support with as much of their members dues as they want any candidates they want to openly support?

If this nation laws regarding campaign contributions were truly fair and balanced, UNIONS would be placed under the same strict campaign rules for contributions as corporations are.

The unions wield incredible political influence for being such a small part of the work force.

The simple fact is unions are not for profit like the corporations, ideally they are for the workers. That is the difference between the two.

In 1980 20% of the workforce belonged to unions. Now 12.5% of the workforce belong to unions. While that is not a majority that is enough to sway an election.

Carry on.

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

If this nation laws regarding campaign contributions were truly fair and balanced, UNIONS would be placed under the same strict campaign rules for contributions as corporations are.

The campaign laws have been written by politicians. I'm sure that they do it 1) to appear to be doing something to correct a problem, while correcting nothing at all, and 2) to alter the balance of power between various members of congress.

If the campaign laws were fair and balanced we would recognize that making a donation is free speech and should have no restrictions on the people with plenty of restrictions on the politicians.

Originally Posted by Think for myself

The simple fact is unions are not for profit like the corporations, ideally they are for the workers. That is the difference between the two.

In 1980 20% of the workforce belonged to unions. Now 12.5% of the workforce belong to unions. While that is not a majority that is enough to sway an election.

Carry on.

Unions started out helping workers, now they're nothing more (for the most part) than legalized thiefs. (Some of their theft isn't so legal either)

Originally Posted by Migi e!

Unions started out helping workers, now they're nothing more (for the most part) than legalized thiefs. (Some of their theft isn't so legal either)

Yes, I remember the first time I applied for a job in a union shop. I was young and naive. When the interviewer told me about the union dues I said I would rather stay out of the union and keep the dues. Boy was I surprised when he told me I could not choose to opt out of the union.

Originally Posted by lakeman

Yes, I remember the first time I applied for a job in a union shop. I was young and naive. When the interviewer told me about the union dues I said I would rather stay out of the union and keep the dues. Boy was I surprised when he told me I could not choose to opt out of the union.

Yeah, i remember when we were stationed in Il, I ran into that problem. First time I ever knew that in some places workers were forced to join a union or not work. I remember thinking, how is that American? But I also found out that the teamsters had a lot of political pull in Chicago.