Still Hating America.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
But anyone who says unions were unecessary, or were/are all bad is either a fool or woefully ignorant of our history.

They definitely served an important purpose once. When economies of scale made strong barriers to entry into many markets, trusts and other anti competitive organizations thrived in many industries, and there were no minimum wage and worker safety regulations.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The world has changed, but anyone who loves America and loves freedom should recognize that employees should still have the right to organize and bargain collectively if they can. That said, the devil is in the millions of details, and there are plenty of abuses on both sides. So, we try to check the abuses and avoid having the corrupt bastards from either side completely control the policy, and we move forward somewhere along a middle line.

S_A_M

What is it, like twelve percent of the non governmental populatoin is in Unions? And they generally are in old industries were competition is getting tough. They just seem to make certain industries less competitive, not get more money for their employees.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by andViolins
Would you be bothered if, in order to help convince you to sign an union authorization card, a couple of union organizers showed up at your wife's workplace to tell her that it sure would be a great idea if Ty signed a card?

Quite possibly.

It's not like it's impossible to distinguish between persuasion and undue threats. The problem is with enforcement.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Why can't we answer "Yes" to both questions?

You can answer "Yes" to any question you want. Free speech baby!

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Look, my firm's labor group made its reputation helping employers bust unions back in the old days (they don't like us to put it that way but its the truth) -- and we still have a general prohibition on representing employees in disputes with employers. But anyone who says unions were unecessary, or were/are all bad is either a fool or woefully ignorant of our history.

I don't recall ever saying that I thought that unions were either unnecessary or bad. And I believe that I know a few things about labor law and labor history.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The world has changed, but anyone who loves America and loves freedom should recognize that employees should still have the right to organize and bargain collectively if they can. That said, the devil is in the millions of details, and there are plenty of abuses on both sides. So, we try to check the abuses and avoid having the corrupt bastards from either side completely control the policy, and we move forward somewhere along a middle line.

Fixing the problem of employers prohibiting employees from joining unions, threatening employees, intimidating employees, etc. is not accomplished by card checks. If you want to discourage employers from firing employees who engage in union organizing then put more teeth into the penalties for employers who violate the Act.

aV

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Quite possibly.

It's not like it's impossible to distinguish between persuasion and undue threats. The problem is with enforcement.

How many union organizing drives have you been involved in? If you really believe that there is a bright line between persuasion and threats in regard to what union organizers will do or say during a campaign, then I have to assume that the answer would be zero.

aV

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by andViolins
How many union organizing drives have you been involved in? If you really believe that there is a bright line between persuasion and threats in regard to what union organizers will do or say during a campaign, then I have to assume that the answer would be zero.

Not as many as you. But surely you know that employees who support union drives get fired over and over and over again, and there isn't effective enforcement. I'm willing to agree that card checks aren't the best solution, but they may be better than the point we've been pushed under the current regime, inasmuch as many workers want unions and aren't able to join them. That's a form of coercion, too, and it's much more widespread than the cases of union organizers who show up at a spouse's door.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Not as many as you. But surely you know that employees who support union drives get fired over and over and over again, and there isn't effective enforcement. I'm willing to agree that card checks aren't the best solution, but they may be better than the point we've been pushed under the current regime, inasmuch as many workers want unions and aren't able to join them. That's a form of coercion, too, and it's much more widespread than the cases of union organizers who show up at a spouse's door.

Again, I don't disagree that the NLRA, in its current form, is not very effective at punishing employers who choose to violate Section 7 rights of employees attempting to organize in the workplace. But the solution is not to eliminate the secret ballot election. The solution is to make it more painful for employers who violate the law.

I have been involved in quite a few organizing drives under Neutrality Agreements. I won't bore anyone with the details, but basically they allow employees to organize using card check recognition. Once the union organizers know that there is no election at the end of the road, the coercion increases almost exponentially. Whether it is visiting spouses or children at workplaces, leaving cards in windshield of cars, in mailboxes, in home doorways, approaching people in lunchrooms to "talk," or using veiled threats ["if you don't sign a card now, you're gonna be left out when the union gets in"] the intimidation is real and its not pretty.

I don't even have that much of a problem with binding arbitration if the parties can't get to a contract within a specified time frame [i.e. 1 year]. But I have a real problem with any attempts to eliminate a secret ballot election.

aV

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
What is it, like twelve percent of the non governmental populatoin is in Unions? And they generally are in old industries were competition is getting tough. They just seem to make certain industries less competitive, not get more money for their employees.

The old union contracts have certainly contributed to the demise of The Big Three. But no one on either side could conceive of that as a possibility back in the 1970s.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by andViolins
I don't recall ever saying that I thought that unions were either unnecessary or bad. And I believe that I know a few things about labor law and labor history.

Then you know I wasn't talking about you and that what I said is true. Kumbaya, my lord . . .

Originally posted by andViolins
Fixing the problem of employers prohibiting employees from joining unions, threatening employees, intimidating employees, etc. is not accomplished by card checks. If you want to discourage employers from firing employees who engage in union organizing then put more teeth into the penalties for employers who violate the Act.

I agree that public/open card checks seems like a bad policy -- because it makes it too easy to impose improper pressure from the union side.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
It’s a secret ballot. Why would they not express their wants in a secret ballot? This is just people deciding they know what is good for people, rather than letting people decide for themselves.

Now you're fighting the premise of my question (that many fewer workers are in unions than would like to be in unions). That's not answer.

Secret ballots, by themselves, are not the problem. The problem is that when you try to organize a union, the company gets to do all sorts of things before and after the moment when the employee fills out the ballot that tend to undermine the point of having elections. In particular, companies fire people who support unions.

The people can't look out for themselves, so we will treat them like children and decide what is best for them.

That's exactly what you're doing when you suggest that workers shouldn't be permitted to unionize, regardless of their preferences.

I am concerned with everyone’s "right" to free speech. When the government comes and tries to prevent people from speaking their mind, I don't like it. But I don't see the government infringing on anyone’s right to free speech in this case. Do you?

You're the one who posted a column from George Will bitching about free speech and union elections, right?

The best way to improve the lot of the worker is to increase the demand for jobs. The United Auto Workers don't need a union; they need a CEO that can figure out how to sell cars. So if Unions are going under, don't expect me to care.

If workers want to be in unions, they should get joint unions, not have Republicans fundraisers tell them that they should want something else.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by andViolins
Again, I don't disagree that the NLRA, in its current form, is not very effective at punishing employers who choose to violate Section 7 rights of employees attempting to organize in the workplace. But the solution is not to eliminate the secret ballot election. The solution is to make it more painful for employers who violate the law.

I have been involved in quite a few organizing drives under Neutrality Agreements. I won't bore anyone with the details, but basically they allow employees to organize using card check recognition. Once the union organizers know that there is no election at the end of the road, the coercion increases almost exponentially. Whether it is visiting spouses or children at workplaces, leaving cards in windshield of cars, in mailboxes, in home doorways, approaching people in lunchrooms to "talk," or using veiled threats ["if you don't sign a card now, you're gonna be left out when the union gets in"] the intimidation is real and its not pretty.

I don't even have that much of a problem with binding arbitration if the parties can't get to a contract within a specified time frame [i.e. 1 year]. But I have a real problem with any attempts to eliminate a secret ballot election.

I don't know that card-check is the best way to go, but I do know that the right to organize has been whittled away and whittled away over the years to the point where the playing field is heavily, heavily tilted against unions. So maybe card-check makes a crappy situation better.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't know that card-check is the best way to go, but I do know that the right to organize has been whittled away and whittled away over the years to the point where the playing field is heavily, heavily tilted against unions. So maybe card-check makes a crappy situation better.

I don't understand why you want to push a crappy solution to a crappy situation, rather than pushing a better solution. Usually crappy solutions to crappy situations make crappy situations even crappier, and you end up net worse off.

It's not even like this is a part of, but not the whole of, a good solution to a crappy situation, and it's a battle over not getting a comprehensive fix. Card checks don't seem like they have a good position in any situation; it will just fuck people over more. Either they might get fired (and I don't think this will make it much, if at all, easier to bring cases for such terminations) or they might get beat up. Whooo, baby, makes me want to be an employee in a unionizable workplace.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I don't understand why you want to push a crappy solution to a crappy situation, rather than pushing a better solution. Usually crappy solutions to crappy situations make crappy situations even crappier, and you end up net worse off.

It's not even like this is a part of, but not the whole of, a good solution to a crappy situation, and it's a battle over not getting a comprehensive fix. Card checks don't seem like they have a good position in any situation; it will just fuck people over more. Either they might get fired (and I don't think this will make it much, if at all, easier to bring cases for such terminations) or they might get beat up. Whooo, baby, makes me want to be an employee in a unionizable workplace.

I started posting on the subject to point how crappy things are for workers -- in terms of their free speech, Spanky's nominal concern, and in terms of their chances to unionize -- not because I think card-check is awesome. If I were a legislator, maybe I'd vote for it, but I'd rather have better options.

[Spanky]

I am meeting with the heads of NARAL California and the Sierra club tomorrow, and I am going to try and help them reach out to Republicans. They have large Republican membership bases, but every time they reach out to them (mailing, fundraising event); they anger a lot of them and end up losing more members and not raising money. So I am going to try and help them milk their membership base.

Anyone have any suggestions? Sarcastic zingers would also be appreciated. I am procrastinating and I need to laugh.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I started posting on the subject to point how crappy things are for workers -- in terms of their free speech, Spanky's nominal concern, and in terms of their chances to unionize -- not because I think card-check is awesome. If I were a legislator, maybe I'd vote for it, but I'd rather have better options.

Unfortunately, if you were a legislator you would have no other options. Either yes or no. So even if it is not the best solution, if you think it would make things better (if you were a legislator) you should vote for it. As I tell the legislators I know, you can wait for your whole career for the perfect bill and it never comes. Even if you think a bill improves the situation just a little bit (and doesn't make it worse) then I tell legislators to vote for it.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am meeting with the heads of NARAL California and the Sierra club tomorrow, and I am going to try and help them reach out to Republicans. They have large Republican membership bases, but every time they reach out to them (mailing, fundraising event); they anger a lot of them and end up losing more members and not raising money. So I am going to try and help them milk their membership base.

Anyone have any suggestions? Sarcastic zingers would also be appreciated. I am procrastinating and I need to laugh.

I was in Austin on Wednesday lobbying with Planned Parenthood for a bill that we're hoping will get more bipartisan support than usual. The push was to associate family planning with fiscal conservatism (more than 1 in 2 pregnancies in Texas are footed by Medicaid. A year on pregnancy related health services costs the state of Texas $8,800. A year of family planning costs $170. And federal matching for family planning is at the highest level of 9-1, so it really just costs the state $22).

There's also a pro-parent aspect to the bill we were pushing, since it emphasizes Abstinence plus education in school, and it also makes the schools tell parents what sort of education their kids are getting. We find that a lot of parents don't know that the sex ed classes aren't really about sex ed but telling the kids not to have sex.

(As an aside, I was riding on the bus with a friend of mine who is a adolescent pediatrician. She told a story about seeing a 15 year old girl with the worst case of herpes she'd ever seen. The kid needed a morphine drip because the outbreak was so bad. She asked the kid why she didn't use a condom. Kid's reply: "They told me condoms don't work.")

Anyhow, here's a copy of the bill, if it makes any sense in California, swipe it. I can't imagine that this sort of thing doesn't already exist there,though.

I thought though that the idea of meeting a middle ground of trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies would go farther than digging in one's feet and insisting on being right on the prochoice debate. This is the NARAL Texas page on the bill.