« What’s So Bad About Foreclosure? | Main | The Dow Was Up Nearly 400 Today…Will It Stick? »
Question of the Day – Card Check
By JLP | March 10, 2009
I’ve been reading a lot lately about the labor unions’ desire for something called “Card Check,” which would end secret ballots in unions. In other words, union voting would no longer be private.
I had a conversation about Card Check with a local union member. He HATED the idea.
What’s the point in voting if it’s not secret? I always felt the purpose of voting was to let the majority make the decisions. If the union needs to see how individual people vote, then there’s no point in voting. Right? Am I missing something? Let’s face it, the union only wants to see how people vote as a way to strong-arm people into voting the union’s way.
I would be willing to bet that if the Card Check proposal goes through, we will see an increase of people voting the same way on union issues. All the sudden, the union voice becomes much more united.
So what’s your opinion on this issue? Can you see a legitimate purpose for Card Check? If so, please share because right now, I’m not getting it.
Topics: Question of the Day | 21 Comments »
March 10th, 2009 at 10:35 am
I agree with you. The only way one can choose freely is with privacy.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Card check does not end secret ballots. If you read the actual legislation, you will see that it ADDS the ability to form a union without a secret ballot, but the so called card check does not eliminate the secret ballot. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110rlMTYZ:: and http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/29/usc_sec_29_00000159—-000-.html)
In addition, card check requires a majority of workers, but requesting a secret ballot only requires one third of the workers. So, if workers really want a secret ballot, it is easier for them to get that.
Just as you had a conversation with a single person who hated card check, you could find a single person who is in favor of card check. Argument by anecdote is a fallacy.
The point of adding this method of forming a union (and other changes under the act) is that under the current system, some companies use illegal methods to intimidate workers and prevent them from engaging in collective bargaining, and the existing law provides trivial penalties for those companies. The main reason that corporations want to keep the status quo is that they have more power to prevent employee choice under the existing system.
Also, there are lots of votes that are not secret. Practically every single vote in congress, state legislatures, city councils, school boards, etc., is not secret. Does that mean there is no point in those votes?
Finally, I think you would lose your bet. Card check only applies to the request to form a union, not to all following votes on union issues. So the union members would be just as united or divided on issues as they are today. A union is made up of people with different backgrounds, beliefs, values, etc. Just because they all belong to the same group does not mean they think the same on all issues.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Kevin,
Thanks for the clarity on the issue. That’s why I posed this as a question of the day.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Here’s the real problem. There are penalties for the company trying to intimidate workers, but not for the union. That’s right, no penalties for the union stiff-arming the workers into signing the card. No protection for the workers from the union, zero, zip, zilch, none. What’s more, you can suddenly find yourself in a union without being given the chance to voice your support or dissent. One day you come to work and find out that the union has strong armed half the workers to sign up and you are unionized. You were never asked, never consented, nothing. It is just un-American.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Despite what Kevin said above, the purpose behind card check is clearly to strong arm workers to vote for unionization. Unions want to put a lot of pressure on workers.
If there is a problem with companies strong arming employees, let’s change that law. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
There is nothing wrong with a secret ballot.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
“Card check does not end secret ballots.” is correct. Why make such a blog post by repeating the meme first then reading the facts?
Bosses put a lot of pressure on employees not to vote for unions as well.
And I’m not for unions that get paid for no work and/or crappy work. ie Job Banks.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
How about if there is a problem with unions strong-arming employees, lets change the law. I think that there is a lot greater financial incentive by companies to prevent unions than there is for workers to want to be in one. I think this “strong arming” by the unions is nothing compared to what companies do to prevent them.
Don’t believe me? Then explain why out of all of the Wal-mart stores in the USA, not one of them has unionized. Surely there is one hotbed of socialist radicals somewhere in New England or California or Oregon where there would be enough employees to unionize. But there is not.
When the meat cutters at one store unionized, they phased out in-store meat cutting COMPANY-WIDE. Oh, they get fined, they get sued, they get probed and they get investigated, but they keep at it, because with current law it is a strategy that works for them.
If someone at my job started intimidating me because I wouldn’t pay dues to join their club, I could handle it, even if it meant meeting them in the parking lot. They would learn to fish more productive waters, one way or another. If my employer subtly implies that they might shut where I work down and move it somewhere else I suppose I would just have to keep my mouth shut and take it.
March 10th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
The legislation does not outright ban secret elections, it just circumvents them. The union can keep attempting to get people to sign a petition until they have 51%. Why not just keep the process where you sign a petition and then have a secret ballot election?
Secret Ballot elections guarantee the democratic process for those that do not have any other power. Legislators do not have secret elections in congress because their votes are meant to represent their constituents and are held accountable.
Non union liberals like Walter Mondale and centrist democrats like Warren Buffet have spoken out against EFCA. It should not be construed as anti union to want a secret ballot election.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
U.S. labor law unconstitutionally grants extraordinary & unique powers to labor-union bosses… at the expense of most business owners & workers who prefer to have nothing to do with unions.
Even with those powers union popularity declined sharply in the private sector from 36% unionization in 1953 to under 8% now. Union bosses now eagerly seek more political favors for salvation — they spend heavily to get the falsely titled “Employee Free Choice Act” {Card-Check}.
The 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) passed as a favor to organized labor for its electoral support of FDR & Democratic Party. It illegally wiped out all state laws on unionization in the private sector and imposed a federal “collective bargaining” system… rather than free individual choice. The NLRA feds conduct “fair” unionization elections if enough workers want union control at their location.
In such unionization-elections, eligible workers cast secret ballot– either for representation by a particular union or to have no union representation. The NLRB supervises & counts ballots… if the union gets a majority vote, it is then certified as the ‘exclusive’ bargaining representative for ‘all employees’ in the “bargaining unit.”
All workers ‘must’ accept the union’s representation, even those who don’t want it. The law prohibits individual bargaining between workers and the company. Normal freedom of contract is thus sharply diminished. And company management is unjustly forced to bargain “in good faith” with the new union bosses… erasing the standard principle of American contract law– that no one is ‘compelled’ to bargain with anyone else.
Current NLRA formal, secret-ballot elections at least shield workers from direct union coercion… but union bosses had a better idea — called the “card check” system. If a majority of workers informally sign a card saying they want a union… then that would be enough to fully certify the union there. Naturally, it’s easier for union organizers to privately get signatures on cards – using misrepresentations & harassment – than to get workers to vote for them in a formal, supervised election… with fair airing of arguments for and against the union.
The current NLRA gives employers the right to insist on a secret-ballot election no matter how many cards might be signed. The ‘Card-Check’ proposal destroys that right.
Union bosses luv the idea of using “Card-Check” powers to force thousands of new workers into their dues-paying ranks.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
I’ve never understood the REPUBLICAN argument against unions. Republicans blather non-stop about the free market and the invisible hand so aren’t unions a result of the free market?
It’s the same lame argument Republicans make against minimum wage, “It’s not needed because most businesses pay way above minimum wage…”
Well if that’s true why is there an objection to a minimum wage that most businesses don’t have to worry about because they’re being so generous?
If businesses were fair to their employees, unions wouldn’t exist. Unions form because businesses and employers treat their people like dirt and the “free market” results in a union being created.
If you want to eliminate unions, pay fair wage, offer decent benefits and treat employees well and they’ll disappear off the face of the earth. It’s simple so stop whining.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Rich,
Sorry, I just can’t let this one go without a response.
GIVE ME A BREAK!
First off, I’m a Republican and my argument has NEVER been that we shouldn’t have a minimum wage because most companies pay more than minimum wage.
Wages should be set by supply and demand. Those jobs that require skills should pay more, while those jobs that require virtually no skills and can be done by almost anyone, should pay less. There should be no need for a minimum wage.
Unions are AGAINST the free market so that IS a legitimate argument against unions.
Finally, your comment didn’t address the topic at hand, which is: do you see a legitimate purpose for Card Check.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:41 am
All I know is that after doing a number of union-members’ taxes I’m aghast at the amount of dues they have to pay. Guess that’s one reason why the unions around here have “McMansion” office buildings. So I must ask, Are the unions truly looking out for their constituents or for their own survival/appearance?
PS Rich, why the vitriolic comments? Seems a little heavy-handed. My husband’s company (he’s an employee, not an owner) pays well above minimum wage and they are not union. So stop painting w/such a broad brush. It’s ignorant.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:42 am
phil and driscoll make excellent points. Both the employer and proposed union can be heavy handed but loosing the right to a secret ballot clearly opens either side to put more pressure on non conformers.
Most elections including federal and state are secret for good reasons – why would elections to affirm or not affirm a union be any different???????
March 12th, 2009 at 7:49 am
The bigger issue IMO is the question whether there is THAT big of a shortage in the talent pool to justify such a huge disparity in wages between upper management and your typical worker. Of course upper management would claim “yes”. I would say the majority of the rest would say “not really”.
I believe wholeheartedly in free markets, but the employer really is the one with all the information and power. Without access to wage information etc. (which is changing with glassdoor.com, salary.com, etc.) the employee really is at the mercy of the employer.
I believe in a free market, but to claim that the job market is “free” is deluding yourself.
On card check… I don’t really like unions, but they have a role in scaring businesses into behaving.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:36 am
This card check Nazi/bolshevik garbage is right out of Orwell’s 1984; it is classic Orwellian double-speak.
Unions have been able organize since the 1930s; before the internet, before TV and before a left leaning media.
A union can very easily set up a web site for all to see if they want to unionize a business. Flyers and pro-union “organizers” can display placards outside of business property to advertise their website, their plans, their union. The idea that a business can prevent the workers from access to the union message is a your typical communist – nazi lie.
This card check rubbish would be right at home in Hitler’s Nazi (german socialist worker’s party)Germany and Stalin’s Bolshvik Russia. It is simply a ploy to allow union thugs and criminals to target those workers for beatings and abuse that choose not to join a union.
What do unions have an affinity for coercion, force and blackmail?
These unions should just come clean and wear – in public – their swastika or red-sickle adorned uniforms. They are simply fascist pig Nazi-Boshevik thugs that are attempting, with the assistance of our new communist president and multi-millionaire corrupt commie-nazi politicians demokrats, to impose their will – by force, beatings and blackmail on workers.
Here is an idea; why don’t the unions START THEIR OWN BUSINESSES !!!! Why don’t they really put their money where their fists are? Why is it they are free to tell business owners how to operate but they refuse to fund and operate their own businesses?
Unions spend millions each year paying off the demokratic party and mafia thugs. Why don’t you guys spend that money starting union owned and operated businesses and show the capitalist “pigs” how to do it right.
Why is it you guys have millions for paying off politicians and mafia thugs, but will not spend ONE PENNY funding your own business start-ups ??
Unions are merely thugs, gangsters and out-of-uniform Nazis and communist criminals.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
ARealist, is there any difference between individual employees coming together in association to get better benefits, such as better insurance and someone to lobby government on their behalf and a professional trade organization such as the ones many small businesses join to get better benefits, such as better insurance and someone to lobby government on their behalf?
I mean besides one being a bunch of fascist pig Nazi-Boshevik, out of uniform communist thugs and the other being, I suppose, the Sunday school attending, charity working Boy Scouts who represent the other side of the table?
I don’t belong to a union and don’t want to, but I bet there is more “abuse and beatings” happening to people who want to join a union than to those who don’t.
But I am from a rural area where corporations routinely had union organizers killed and harassed up until not too long ago. I could see where someone from someplace like New Jersey or New York, where supposedly there is this mafia commingling going on might feel different, but I don’t think they are militant fascist for thinking so.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
JLP
It amazes how so many people blame unions for all the problems in business, yet most of them think it is perfectly alright for business to have lobbyists to protect their interests. A union serves the same purpose as a lobbyist, to protect the interests of their members. The only difference is that the lobbyists have much greater influence on legislation. During the Bush administration, many pieces of legislation were written with direct input from lobbyists (an example is the Medicare prescription plan which doesn’t allow the government to negotiate prices with the pharma companies was a direct result of pharma lobbyists assisting in the writing of the bill)
March 13th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Back to Kevin (comment #2), while the Free Choice Act does not ban secret ballots, it does effectively render the secret ballot useless. A union automatically wins if 50% + 1 employee sign a card. Many employees sign the card simply to stop being pressured in the belief that they can always vote against the union in an election. Under the free choice act, that election will NEVER occur because as soon as 50% + 1 sign a card, the union becomes official.
Under current law, unions generally do not pursue an election until they have signatures greater than 60% because anything less generally results in a loss. This law will lower that threshold to the 50% + 1 level.
This is bad legislation.
March 14th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Jagdash Bagwati argues in the New Repulic we should link support for free trade and support for the Employee Free Choice Act. It is an intersting argument to reach more egalitarian wages. Here is the link.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=a4edc34f-7670-4e85-a43d-16f3023f2b35
March 15th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
i am a union supporter who had to go through the secret ballet process. before the vote the employees in our facilty had to go through numerous anti-union films and closed audience meetings with our company. all this did was put fear and intimidation on the employees not to get caught discussing union issues. with the free choice act the employee has the option of signing a card or not signing a card. the cards are handed out by employees that work in the plant with the other employees. union personnel was not allowed inside our plant. the employees are the ones who organized our plant. when all cards was returned the NLRB sat down with a list of employees from the company and verified the employee roster and the signature on the card. when the NLRB finished if the count was 50% + 1 we had won our right to become a union plant. there was no intimidation from our fellow workers. as far no privacy you could take the card and fill it out later and give it back to your co-worker. there was no stiff-arming for someone to sign a card. myself personally voting yes was one of the best things i have ever done.
in solidarity
jimi
UAW Local 5285
March 19th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
It’s funny to see this argument once again that trade unionism is “anti-free market”.
If you actually read Adam Smith, he hammers the point again and again that if employers are allowed to collude on wages (which they did legally in Britain in his era), then why should it be IL-legal for employEEs to form an association and demand better pay?
Marx later formalized this idea by presenting the trade union as the counter party to capital, giving the individual worker, who is a commodity in the labor market, a wedge to receive better conditions.
Adam Smith showed, with very careful data gathering, that commodities are ALWAYS driven below the cost of production, and that includes human beings. He showed that common laborers were paid just barely enough to keep themselves in shelter and food … talk about never getting ahead. His breakdown also showed why children of that class began working at age 12; if they didn’t, they wouldn’t be able to eat.
The prosperity the US experienced in the mid-20th century was partially about our industrial might and partially about the great leveling of wages caused by FDR’s despised tax policy and trade unionism. Higher wages for workers, lower wages for management kept the wealth spread around. And, as one wag pointed out since the current crash, 1,000 people can invest/manage 100,000$ more efficiently than 1 can do the same with $100 millions. There simply aren’t enough hours in the day. Ditto the small business against the big business. When we protect the big business at all costs we cause technological and economic stagnation. When we protect the big fortune at all costs we turn into a Brazil. For years their economy experienced little growth while the US was going gangbusters. 3rd world kleptocracies are a failed paradigm.