Employee Free Choice Act (Death by a thousand sources warning)

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Ahem... This is a completely new thread, never done before, nope, especially not by me...

This Act has been under a smear campaign as of late, so I want to give the evidential, reality based side.

The first issue is that of the card check system. This can be used to replace the secret ballot. Now, many are saying that this will lead to union rigging, and that it is undemocratic. However, evidence says otherwise:

Union officials say they do not dislike the secret ballot, but rather the lengthy, expensive, adversarial campaign before the vote in which companies often fire union supporters and use videos, large meetings and one-on-one sessions to pressure employees to vote against unionizing.
“Their focus is maintaining their right to wage an aggressive campaign against the union,” said Mr. Samuel of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. “That’s what we’re trying to protect workers from.”

Linky.

Okay, so now we have a "he said, she said" type of situation. Let's get some real world data in here.

A September 2000 study by Kate Bronfenbrenner, the director of labor education research at Cornell University, examined more than 400 NLRB certification election campaigns in manufacturing plants between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 1999, and found that 25 percent of employers fired at least one worker for union activity and that 51 percent of employers told employees that their plant might close if workers unionized. In a December 2005 study of organizing campaigns in Chicago, Chirag Mehta and Nik Theodore of the Center for Urban Economic Development at the University of Illinois at Chicago wrote: "Aided by a weak labor law system that fails to protect workers' rights under the law, employers manipulate the current process of establishing union representation in a manner that undemocratically gives them the power to significantly influence the outcome of union representation elections. ... The findings of this report suggest that unions were unable to maintain worker support throughout the course of representation campaigns because employer interference eroded that support." Also, a January 2007 report by the Center for Economic and Policy Research explained how the current election process allows employers to exert pressure on workers:

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) makes it illegal for employers to fire workers involved in union-organizing campaigns. The penalties associated with "discriminatory discharges" under the NLRA, however, are small: back pay for illegally fired workers minus [emphasis in the original] any earnings that workers had after they were fired. Given these small penalties for illegal firings, the NLRA, in practice, has given employers a powerful anti-union strategy: fire one or more prominent pro-union employees --typically workers involved in organizing the union -- with the hope of disrupting the internal workings of the union's campaign, while intimidating the rest of the potential bargaining unit in advance of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)-supervised representation election.
​

Moreover, in claiming that "usiness groups" say that the EFCA would result in "union intimidation," while claiming only that "unions contend that the current system leads to unfair pressure from employers before elections," the Post ignored the fact that the NLRB reported that it issued far more complaints of unfair labor practices against employers than against unions in recent years. In its 2007 annual report, the NLRB reported that it received "22,331 charges alleging that employers or labor organizations committed unfair labor practices prohibited by the statute [National Labor Relations Act], which adversely affected employees." According to NLRB protocol, "the great majority of the newly filed cases are resolved in NLRB's national network of field offices by dismissals, withdrawals, agreements, and settlements." Those cases that could not be resolved in this manner resulted in the NLRB issuing 1,099 formal complaints, "88.4 percent were against employers and 10.6 percent against unions." In 2006, "88.1 percent were against employers and 10.7 percent against unions."

Linky.

Does this mean that Americans no longer want to join unions? Not according to the most recent polls. A Peter Hart poll conducted in December 2006 reports that 58% of non-managerial working Americans indicated they would join a union if they could, a record number (Peter D. Hart Research Associates 2007).1​

The yawning gap between the robust demand to join unions and the anemic membership numbers reflects the fact that, for many Americans, joining a union has become a risk rather than a right. In 2005, over 31,000 people—one worker every 17 minutes—were disciplined or even fired for union activity, according to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) annual report, resulting in a big chill on labor's numbers and a "democracy deficit" for the entire society. 2​

Linky.

The problem is that the election process overseen by the National Labor Relations Board has become drawn out and acrimonious, with management campaigning fiercely to deter unionization, sometimes to the extent of violating labor laws. Union sympathizers are routinely threatened or even fired, and they have little effective recourse under the law. Even when workers overcome this pressure and vote for a union, they are unable to obtain contracts one-third of the time due to management resistance.
To remedy this situation, the Congress is considering the Employee Free Choice Act. This act would accomplish three things: It would give workers the choice of using majority sign-up—a simple, established procedure in which workers sign cards to indicate their support for a union – or staging an NLRB election; it triples damages for employers who fire union supporters or break other labor laws; and it creates a process to ensure that newly unionized employees have a fair shot at obtaining a first contract by calling for arbitration after 120 days of unsuccessful bargaining.

Linky.

Getting back to card check: there's one thing Mickey Kaus and I both agree on, and it's this: as he says, "This [i.e., card check] is a much more significant issue than the manufactured debate over a gas tax holiday." Indeed, card check would modify labor law in this country in a significant way: it would require an employer to recognize a union if a majority of employees at the workplace sign cards saying they want a union. Under the current process, under which union elections are overseen by the NLRB, the deck is heavily stacked in favor of management.
Why? For one thing, management has a virtually unlimited right to subject employees to anti-union propaganda. And though it's illegal to fire workers for trying to organize a union, in practice it happens all the time, because employers are rarely held legally accountable. Even when they are, penalties are weak, because literally all the employer has to do is pay back the employee's lost wages, minus whatever she's earned in the interim. From a cost/benefit standpoint, firing an employee who's trying to start a union makes a lot of sense, from management's point of view.
Card check would be an entirely salutary thing for this country, and I hope it passes. It would make it significantly easier to form a union, and that would be a very good thing indeed. Labor law in this country is a disgrace to the human race. Indeed, I think we'd be better off if we just tore up Wagner, Taft-Hartley, and the rest and start all over again.

Linky.

The paper finds that pro-union workers were fired in 26 percent of union election campaigns over the period 2001-2007 (most recent available data). The 26 percent rate is up from about 16 percent in the last half of the 1990s. The share of elections in 2001-2007 with an illegal firing was almost as high as the historical peak for such activity --31 percent during the period 1981-1985.

Linky.

The paper finds that firings of pro-union workers involved in union election campaigns are approaching the peak reached during the 1980s of 1 in 42. The current probability of a pro-union worker being fired – a 1 in 53 chance – is far greater than the rate at the end of the 1990s, when it was only 1 in 87. The paper also finds that the number of successful union elections have significantly declined, partly as a result of the increase in illegal firings. If only ten percent of pro-union workers are active campaign organizers, almost 1 in 5 union activists were fired illegally in 2005.

Linky.

Now, many make a facade of cynicism by saying that Democrats are doing this because they've been bought by unions. However:

Politico's Glenn Thrush touts a Center for Responsive Politics report that "the main Democratic sponsors of the Employee Free Choice Act ... both collected over $1.7 million in union contributions over the last two decades."
But Thrush left this out, from the same CRP report:

Business PACs not only gave nearly five times more in campaign contributions than labor PACs did in the last election cycle ($365.1 million versus $77.9 million, including contributions to leadership PACs) they are backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent $144.4 million on lobbying efforts in the 2007-2008 election cycle, or more than $400,000 for every day Congress was in session. By contrast, the entire labor sector spent less than $84 million on lobbying efforts during those two years.
​

Linky.

Now, we can all recognize the poor quality of the middle class. The median income since 2000 has actually fallen by $2,000. Health care, pensions, and many other benefits are hard to come by. Income inequality has gone through the roof, while the working class has had no gains from all the economic growth. So how will unions help?

Why is this recession so deep, and what can be done to reverse it?

Hint: Go back about 50 years, when America's middle class was expanding and the economy was soaring. Paychecks were big enough to allow us to buy all the goods and services we produced. It was a virtuous circle. Good pay meant more purchases, and more purchases meant more jobs.

At the center of this virtuous circle were unions. In 1955, more than a third of working Americans belonged to one. Unions gave them the bargaining leverage they needed to get the paychecks that kept the economy going. So many Americans were unionized that wage agreements spilled over to nonunionized workplaces as well. Employers knew they had to match union wages to compete for workers and to recruit the best ones.

Fast forward to a new century. Now, fewer than 8% of private-sector workers are unionized. Corporate opponents argue that Americans no longer want unions. But public opinion surveys, such as a comprehensive poll that Peter D. Hart Research Associates conducted in 2006, suggest that a majority of workers would like to have a union to bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions. So there must be some other reason for this dramatic decline. But put that question aside for a moment. One point is clear: Smaller numbers of unionized workers mean less bargaining power, and less bargaining power results in lower wages.

It's no wonder middle-class incomes were dropping even before the recession. As our economy grew between 2001 and the start of 2007, most Americans didn't share in the prosperity. By the time the recession began last year, according to an Economic Policy Institute study, the median income of households headed by those under age 65 was below what it was in 2000.Typical families kept buying only by going into debt. This was possible as long as the housing bubble expanded. Home-equity loans and refinancing made up for declining paychecks.

Linky.

• Unions raise wages of unionized workers by roughly 20% and raise compensation, including both wages and benefits, by about 28%.
• Unions reduce wage inequality because they raise wages more for low- and middle-wage workers than for higher-wage workers, more for blue-collar than for white-collar workers, and more for workers who do not have a college degree.
• Strong unions set a pay standard that nonunion employers follow. For example, a high school graduate whose workplace is not unionized but whose industry is 25% unionized is paid 5% more than similar workers in less unionized industries.
• The impact of unions on total nonunion wages is almost as large as the impact on total union wages.
• The most sweeping advantage for unionized workers is in fringe benefits. Unionized workers are more likely than their nonunionized counterparts to receive paid leave, are approximately 18% to 28% more likely to have employer-provided health insurance, and are 23% to 54% more likely to be in employer-provided pension plans.
• Unionized workers receive more generous health benefits than nonunionized workers. They also pay 18% lower health care deductibles and a smaller share of the costs for family coverage. In retirement, unionized workers are 24% more likely to be covered by health insurance paid for by their employer.
• Unionized workers receive better pension plans. Not only are they more likely to have a guaranteed benefit in retirement, their employers contribute 28% more toward pensions.
• Unionized workers receive 26% more vacation time and 14% more total paid leave (vacations and holidays).
Unions play a pivotal role both in securing legislated labor protections and rights such as safety and health, overtime, and family/medical leave and in enforcing those rights on the job. Because unionized workers are more informed, they are more likely to benefit from social insurance programs such as unemployment insurance and workers compensation. Unions are thus an intermediary institution that provides a necessary complement to legislated benefits and protections.

Linky.

Basically, if you think unions are a good thing, you should support card check. Unions do far more than just provide their employees with better pay, benefits, and working conditions. There's also strong evidence that they help reduce wage inequality in this country (again, see the chapter by Card et al. in this book for a literature review on the subject). Unions strongly support much legislation that helps workers and other non-rich folks, such as the minimum wage and universal health care.

Linky.

Without unions, fewer workers get ahead. Union membership rewards workers for productivity gains they deserve, but do not always receive.

• Declining unionization rates mean that workers are less likely to receive good wages and be rewarded for their increases in productivity. In 1980, 25.7 percent of American workers were either members of a union or represented by a union at their workplace. By 2008, that portion declined to 13.7 percent.
• Throughout the 20th century, American workers have helped our economy grow by becoming more productive. Prior to the 1980s, productivity and workers' wages moved in tandem—as workers produced more per hour, they saw a commensurate increase in their earnings—but this link between economic growth and the well-being of the middle class has broken down.
• From 1980 to 2008, nationwide worker productivity grew by 75 percent, while workers' inflation-adjusted average wages increased by only 22.6 percent—meaning that workers were compensated for only a small share of their productivity gains. Higher union wages reward workers for a larger portion of their productivity gains.[9]

Today, CEOs rather than workers are rewarded for growth in the economy.

• CEO pay has skyrocketed from 27 times more than the average American worker's wages in 1973 to 344 times higher today. Increased unionization will mean that workers rather than CEOs are rewarded for increases in labor productivity. By joining together in unions, workers can help counterbalance the power of CEOs.

Greater unionization will lead to more money circulating in the economy, rather than stagnating in the bank accounts of rich CEOs.

• If union coverage rates were 5 percentage points higher—18.7 percent instead of 13.7 percent—and the union wage premium remained constant —unionized workers earn 11.3 percent ($2.26 dollars per hour) more than their non-union counterparts on average— new union workers nationally would earn an estimated $25.5 billion more in wages and salaries per year.
• Also, new research from the Economic Policy Institute estimates that if 5 million service workers joined unions, these workers would get a $7,000 annual raise on average and $34 billion in total new wages would flow into the economy. These working-class employees would be more likely than CEOs to spend their money during an economic downturn, who can afford to save during lean economic times.

When unions were stronger, the economy thrived.

• From 1947 to 1973, the period when unions were strongest and nearly one-third of workers were organized, nearly tripled in size, growing at an average of 3.8 percent annually. The strength of unions during this period meant workers were rewarded with increasing real wages, and greater American purchasing power produced more profit for U.S. companies, more investment, and increased labor productivity. In the years since 1973, U.S. economic output grew by an average of 2.9 percent annually, and since 2001, output has grown by an average of only 2.2 percent per year.

Linky.

Now, that is all well and good. But what about the negative effects? After all, we all know unions make companies go out of business, increase unemployment, protect lazy workers, etc. However, these claims are based on certain theoretical models. What does the real world have to say?

Even if you didn't know what the economic literature says about this topic, if you stop to consider that the postwar era saw the record high union density in this country as well as unprecedented economic growth and productivity gains, it might give you pause. Indeed, Ezra made just this argument recently. But actually, there have been some good studies looking at the impact of unions on productivity. Overall, the empirical findings have been mixed. About as many studies show a positive impact on productivity as show a negative impact, and in any case the effects that are found tend to be small. Which is why, for example, economist Barry T. Hirsch, in a survey of the literature on this topic (it's in chapter 7 of this excellent book), recently wrote that "[t]he empirical evidence does not allow one to infer a precise estimate of the average union productivity effect, but my assessment of existing evidence is that the average union effect is very close to zero, and as likely to be somewhat negative as somewhat positive."


...


Btw, in case you were wondering, the literature shows that unions don't cause firms to go out of business, either (see, again, chapter 7 in the above-mentioned book for a discussion of the literature on this topic). But unions are associated with lower profits, and those findings are fairly robust (again, see chapter 7 for the evidence of this). I suspect that's what really worries the anti-union folks, except it sounds better to get all concern-trolly about productivity. That makes it sound like you care about the economy as a whole, and not just the interests of the owners of capital.

Linky.

Oh, doubt you this source?

Once again, Megan McArdle is revealing herself to be an ill-informed, intellectually dishonest hack. She takes issue with my post stating that unions do not cause lower productivity. In my post, I cited the economics literature: five papers that were published in peer-reviewed academic journals, plus a well-regarded book published by an academic press.
In her post, McArdle cites -- well, nothing. Zilch. Zero. Nada. Not one book or study. Not even a blog post or Wikipedia entry. Her argument is pure speculation and stands on nothing except her own Deep Thoughts, which as usual are hardly up to the task at hand.

Honest to God, the idea that unions do not cause lower productivity is not something I made up. I wouldn't be stupid enough to make that particular argument if there wasn't substantial evidence to back up that claim. The finding that unions do not cause lower productivity is a widely accepted consensus among labor economists. In the recently revised standard academic book about the economics of unions, What Do Unions Do?: A Twenty-Year Perspective, economist Barry T. Hirsch, who if anything is conservative-leaning and not especially enamored of unions, surveys the literature on unions and productivity. Here are some of the things he says:

Surveys of the unions-productivity literature for the most part have concluded that union effects are highly variable but on average close to zero (p. 205).
​

The empirical evidence does not allow one to infer a precise estimate of the average union productivity effect, but my assessment of the existing evidence is that the average union effect is very close to zero, and as likely to be somewhat negative as somewhat positive (p. 210).
​

There exists no strong evidence that unions have a direct effect on productivity growth (p. 210).
​

Despite the contentiousness surrounding the effects on union productivity, the most comprehensive studies find little effect that can be deemed causal (p. 210).
​

That's what the leading expert in the field says. Another economist quoted in the book, Richard Freeman, says he thinks the evidence overall shows a slightly positive effect on productivity, but I believe Hirsch is probably closer to the mark.

Linky.

In 2006, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) did an exhaustive analysis of the research on this topic and concluded that there was no link between unionization rates and unemployment. It is easy to find examples of countries with very high unionization rates and low levels of unemployment. For example Norway and Denmark have unionization rates near 80 percent. Before the current crisis their unemployment rate was under 3.0 percent.

Of course we don't have to go overseas to prove the case that unions don't lead to unemployment. If we go back 40 years, the unionization rate was over 30 percent. Presently, it is just over 12 percent. In the 60s, the unemployment rate fell as low as 3.0 percent and was below 5.0 percent for most of the decade.

It is possible for economists to produce studies that tie unions to unemployment just as industry funded studies have tied the minimum wage to unemployment, even though a large body of academic research shows the opposite. For this reason, the OECD has performed an extremely valuable service with its careful analysis of the data. Until someone can show cause to question this OECD analysis, there is no reason to accept the employer claims that the Employee Free Choice Act will cost jobs.

Linky.

Now, the media has recently been reporting on a study released that said that the EFCA would create unemployment. However:

On screen, Fox only identified her as an "economist." Other news reports have noted her connection to LECG, but only to say the firm is "non-partisan." But Layne-Farrar and LECG are far from disinterested parties in the battle over the Employee Free Choice Act.

As the press release that came out March 5 announcing Layne-Farrar's report admitted, "Funding for the Study was provided by the Alliance to Save Main Street Jobs." The release goes on to say the alliance

s chaired by HR Policy Association and includes the American Hotel and Lodging Association, the Associated Builders and Contractors, The International Council of Shopping Centers, the Real Estate Roundtable, the Retail Industry Leaders Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
​

All are groups that have invested large amounts of money and effort towards defeating the Employee Free Choice Act; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce alone plans to spend $20-$30 million in opposition.

But back to the report's argument. Layne-Farrar builds her entire claim that the EFCA and resulting rise in union membership will lead to mass unemployment around one set of data -- namely, "a panel dataset of Canadian provinces over the twenty-two year period 1976-1997" (page 20).

Why Canada? Because, she says, their economy is roughly similar to the U.S. Canada is also unique in that labor laws differ between the country's 10 provinces -- some provinces use EFCA-like "card check" and others that don't, and one can compare the results.

But buried in page 20, Layne-Farrar herself admits that the data from which her entire argument is constructed isn't so great after all:

While the Canadian dataset is quite rich, it does have its limitations. For example, out of ten provinces that experienced changes in labor institutions (i.e., card check vs. mandatory voting) between 1976 and 1997, only three had enough variation in the card check rules themselves over time to allow for the reasonable estimation of any direct effects.
​

So instead of comparing 10 provinces, the study is really based on the experience of just three: Alberta, British Columbia and Newfoundland, from which Layne-Farrar proceeds to extrapolate how many jobs will supposedly be lost in the U.S. if EFCA is to pass.

But does even this small sampling of three Canadian provinces tell us much of anything about card check, unions and unemployment?

Not really, given all the other factors that contribute to losing jobs. For example, in Newfoundland, one of Canada's poorest provinces, unemployment has always been high -- but that has more to do with the boom and bust of the oil and fishing industries in the coastal province than anything to do with card check.

Blaming union laws for unemployment in Canada is especially futile given that they're constantly changing within the provinces themselves. Layne-Farrar (page 16) acknowledges that British Columbia changed its card check law "three times" in the period her research covers (1976-1997) -- a fact that would make it nearly impossible to find any long-term proof that card check alone caused jobs to be lost.

Linky.

[SIZE=-1]OBJECTIVE STUDIES FROM REPUTABLE SOURCES HAVE COME TO THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS
OECD Employment Outlook: Union Density Impact on Unemployment "Statistically Insignificant." The 2006 Employment Outlook from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states, "By contrast, the impact of EPL and union density on unemployment are statistically insignificant. These findings are not inconsistent with recent theoretical developments that predict that: i) lay-off regulations tend to affect more the distribution of unemployment rather than its level; and ii) the bargaining power of unions has more to do with the way rents are distributed rather than the level of labour demand."
Top Harvard Labor Market Economist Richard B. Freeman: Change In Union Density "Has No Noticeable Effect On Economic Performance." In his 1988 paper in the European Economic Review, Professor Freeman concludes, "With the sole exception of non-agricultural employment, where density is estimated to raise employment, none of the estimated parameters are significant, implying that variation in union density around its mean within a state has non noticeable effect on economic performance."
Lawrence Mishel: Layne-Farrar Study "Crackpot Economics." Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, said the study amounted to "crackpot economics." "I don't find it credible at all," Mishel said. He said that using the study's logic, the US would have "negative unemployment" as a result of the decrease in union membership over the past 30 years. He said many other countries, including England, Switzerland, Denmark, and Norway, have higher unionization and lower unemployment than the United States.
[/SIZE]

Linky.

Now, you may ask why I hate rational economic thought. Well, I don't. I believe that it is in accordance with skeptical thought that we rely on real world data as opposed to randomly picking our favorite models.

And I'll be damned if I give a summary. If you want to disagree, by God you will have to read this entire thing!

 

[quixotecoyote]

Summary:

Biased moonbat sources promote restricting the rights of employers to engage in at-will employment (in accordance with Marxist philosophy) and allowing organized mobs of the proletariate to dictate wages instead of the free market determining a fair price based on what employers are willing to pay and workers are willing to accept.

They claim this implementation of socialism will have no effect on productivity, rather than driving businesses overseas in search of reasonably priced labor.







(still don't want to put a summary, Tsukasa? )

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Summary:

Biased moonbat sources promote restricting the rights of employers to engage in at-will employment (in accordance with Marxist philosophy) and allowing organized mobs of the proletariate to dictate wages instead of the free market determining a fair price based on what employers are willing to pay and workers are willing to accept.

Ha ha, wait, I have the perfect source for this:

The idea that EFCA would further strangle an already hard-hit job market flies in the face of economic reality and even the opinion of countless mainstream economists--such as New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman.
One of the factors in the deepening economic crisis is a sharp decline in consumer demand. While the credit crunch is causing companies to scale back investments, economically wounded consumers can't afford to buy goods and services, leading businesses to scale back more or move toward bankruptcy, shedding workers and creating more unemployment, which further curtails demand.
Washington's roughly $800 billion stimulus package was supposed to put a check on this vicious cycle.
As Krugman has argued, since unionized workers tend to have greater job security and receive greater wages and benefits, unions are essentially a "stimulus package" that costs taxpayers nothing. A 2007 CEPR study showed this clearly. Median weekly earnings for union members were $886 (prior to the crisis), but just $691 for non-union workers.
Employer opposition to EFCA isn't about the health of the economy or stemming job loss, even though declining demand means they are increasingly unable to sell goods and services.
In truth, companies are caught in an economic "Catch 22." Under capitalist competition, every employer is compelled to extract as much surplus value as possible out of their workers. Failure to do so means that rival companies will benefit at their expense. As a result, corporate executives must try to maintain dictatorial control over production and exploit labor as they see fit. For that reason, unions are anathema to them.

http://socialistworker.org/2009/02/20/enemies-of-unions

They claim this implementation of socialism will have no effect on productivity, rather than driving businesses overseas in search of reasonably priced labor.

Evidence? Oh, wait...

Can deunionization lead to international outsourcing?






References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.


Kjell Erik Lommeruda, , Frode Melanda, and Odd Rune Straumea, b, ,

aDepartment of Economics, University of Bergen, Postboks 7802, 5020 Bergen, Norway
bNIPE, University of Minho, Portugal



Received 25 July 2007;
revised 19 November 2007;
accepted 25 September 2008.
Available online 22 October 2008.

Abstract

We analyze unionized firms' incentives to outsource intermediate goods production to foreign (low-cost) subcontractors. Such outsourcing leads to increased wages for the remaining in-house production. We find that stronger unions, which imply higher domestic wages, reduce incentives for international outsourcing. Though somewhat surprising, this result provides a theoretical reconciliation of the empirically observed trends of deunionization and increased international outsourcing in many countries. We further show that globalization – interpreted as either market integration or increased product market competition – will increase incentives for international outsourcing.

Linky.

(still don't want to put a summary, Tsukasa? )

Did you really read the whole thing that quickly? I am skeptical...

 

[quixotecoyote]

Ha ha, wait, I have the perfect source for this:



http://[B]socialistworker.org[/B]/2009/02/20/enemies-of-unions

Indeed!

Linky.
...

aDepartment of Economics, University of Bergen, Postboks 7802, 5020 Bergen, Norway
bNIPE, University of Minho, Portugal:

Well of course we'd know what the Portuguese would say...

Did you really read the whole thing that quickly? I am skeptical...

All kidding aside, I actually did. I read fast. Slower than the 'speed-readers' but still really quickly.

 

[WildCat]

TB, no matter what the unions claim the only reason they want to eliminate the secret ballot is so they can intimidate workers into signing the card. There really is no other credible explanation for it that I have seen.

People voting in secret vote their conscience, not to please the nice unon thugs members crowding around him on break pressuring him to sign the card.

If people really want to join unions the unions have nothing to fear from a secret ballot.

 

[kallsop]

TB, no matter what the unions claim the only reason they want to eliminate the secret ballot is so they can intimidate workers into signing the card. There really is no other credible explanation for it that I have seen.

People voting in secret vote their conscience, not to please the nice unon thugs members crowding around him on break pressuring him to sign the card.

If people really want to join unions the unions have nothing to fear from a secret ballot.

Darn it, you said it all. Close the thread.

 

[Toke]

Unions work fine in denmark and the rest of europe.
Maybe you are just doing it wrong?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

TB, no matter what the unions claim the only reason they want to eliminate the secret ballot is so they can intimidate workers into signing the card. There really is no other credible explanation for it that I have seen.

People voting in secret vote their conscience, not to please the nice unon thugs members crowding around him on break pressuring him to sign the card.

If people really want to join unions the unions have nothing to fear from a secret ballot.

I note your lack of evidence.

Fiction: "Legal recognition of a union has traditionally been achieved through secret ballot elections…just like how a person votes for a senator or congressman."
– Center for Union Facts
FACT: Current union elections involving "secret ballots" bear no resemblance to political elections. Workers' free speech rights are squelched, employers practice various forms of economic coercion, and labor law allows employers to indefinitely delay recognition through drawn-out appeals. Says >University of Oregon political scientist Gordon Lafer: "The presence of secret ballots can't overcome the corrupt nature of NLRB elections."
Fiction: NLRB elections are "the only way to guarantee worker protection from coercion and intimidation."
– Coalition for a Democratic Workplace
FACT: Workers are more susceptible to coercion in NLRB elections than majority sign-up. Workers in NLRB elections are twice as likely (46 percent vs. 23 percent) as those in majority sign-up campaigns to report that management coerced them to oppose the union. Further, less than one in 20 workers (4.6 percent) who signed a card with a union organizer reported that the presence of the organizer made them feel pressured to sign the card.

Linky.

Yes, it would be silly to ignore union intimidation. But it is ridiculous to ignore management intimidation, which even after being halved by card check is still five times greater than union intimidation.

And it seems you didn't read this bit:

Moreover, in claiming that "usiness groups" say that the EFCA would result in "union intimidation," while claiming only that "unions contend that the current system leads to unfair pressure from employers before elections," the Post ignored the fact that the NLRB reported that it issued far more complaints of unfair labor practices against employers than against unions in recent years. In its 2007 annual report, the NLRB reported that it received "22,331 charges alleging that employers or labor organizations committed unfair labor practices prohibited by the statute [National Labor Relations Act], which adversely affected employees." According to NLRB protocol, "the great majority of the newly filed cases are resolved in NLRB's national network of field offices by dismissals, withdrawals, agreements, and settlements." Those cases that could not be resolved in this manner resulted in the NLRB issuing 1,099 formal complaints, "88.4 percent were against employers and 10.6 percent against unions." In 2006, "88.1 percent were against employers and 10.7 percent against unions."

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Darn it, you said it all. Close the thread.

Yes, bringing up a objection that was already dealt with with statistical facts really closes this thread.

 

[Darat]

Unions work fine in denmark and the rest of europe.
Maybe you are just doing it wrong?

Well (and anyone knows me will know how much this hurts me to say it) but in the UK it did take the reforms under (mainly) government headed by Thatcher to ensure unions did not "exploit" workers. Including ensuring the right to be balloted before strike action (and the ballot to be secret).

 

[Beeyon]

Yes, it would be silly to ignore union intimidation. But it is ridiculous to ignore management intimidation, which even after being halved by card check is still five times greater than union intimidation.

I think we can all agree that there should be no intimidation in these elections.

The current system is ripe for intimidation on the employer's side, Tsukasa has shown that reasonably well.

However, the EFCA doesn't remove all the potential for intimidation either. It just pushes it a bit to the other side.

I don't understand why if we're going to change the law, why we don't just fix the system, instead of giving a bonus to the weaker side.

Why not change the law so that elections have to be held within a week, and very strongly increase the penalties for tampering?

 

[WildCat]

I note your lack of evidence.

Linky.

Yes, it would be silly to ignore union intimidation. But it is ridiculous to ignore management intimidation, which even after being halved by card check is still five times greater than union intimidation.

And it seems you didn't read this bit:

All your argument boils down to is "the employers can intimidate workers therefore the unions should be able to also". Which is a load of steaming bovine excrement.

You can fix the problems without the elimination of secret ballots. But the unions prefer to intimidate their coworkers by making them sign in public, that much is obvious.

 

[Ziggurat]

TB, no matter what the unions claim the only reason they want to eliminate the secret ballot is so they can intimidate workers into signing the card. There really is no other credible explanation for it that I have seen.

Don't underestimate the power of cluelessness and self-delusion.

But it's actually rather beside the point: whether or not they're advocating this bill in order to intimidate workers, that's a likely result. And frankly, it shouldn't even matter: there's a principle here, the principle of the right to a secret ballot, which is being chucked out the window. Whether it's being done out of malevolence or expediency doesn't matter: it's still wrong.

I think it's actually a mistake to try to ascribe particular motives to advocates of programs one opposes (that was one of my big complaints about what many Bush critics did), because motives are irrelevant to the question of whether or not something is right or wrong. Wanting the right thing for selfish, petty reasons doesn't stop it from being the right thing, and wanting the wrong thing for selfless and noble reasons doesn't stop it from being the wrong thing. Eliminating secret ballots for unionization is wrong.

 

[leftysergeant]

Maybe one of you people shrieking about coercion by union organizers can point to a few records of arrests of such organizers for tresspassing or extortion?

We know that there is a history of murder and extortion by business interests in the attempt to prevent unionisation. Such crimes by union organizers is a bit less easily documented, apparently.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

All your argument boils down to is "the employers can intimidate workers therefore the unions should be able to also". Which is a load of steaming bovine excrement.

Strawman.

There really were words in the OP. Just saying.

You can fix the problems without the elimination of secret ballots.

Ah, is that a ever so subtle admittance to management coercion?

Evidence?

But the unions prefer to intimidate their coworkers by making them sign in public, that much is obvious.

The card check system is well established, and is practiced in the rest of the industrialized nations as well.

And you still aren't providing any evidence or countering what has already been offered.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Don't underestimate the power of cluelessness and self-delusion.

Poisoning the well?

But it's actually rather beside the point: whether or not they're advocating this bill in order to intimidate workers, that's a likely result. And frankly, it shouldn't even matter: there's a principle here, the principle of the right to a secret ballot, which is being chucked out the window. Whether it's being done out of malevolence or expediency doesn't matter: it's still wrong.

That's just wrong on the basis of fact.

FACT: The Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish elections or "secret ballots." Under the proposed legislation, workers get to choose the union formation process—elections or majority sign-up. Under current law, the choice to recognize a union rests only with employers.
What the Employee Free Choice Act does prevent is an employer manipulating the flawed system to influence the election outcome. When faced with organizing campaigns: 25 percent of employers illegally fire pro-union workers; 51 percent of employers illegally threaten to close down worksites if the union prevails; and, 34 percent of employers coerce workers into opposing the union with bribes and favoritism.

...

FACT: Majority sign-up is a longstanding and common way to form unions. Since the National Labor Relations Act was passed in 1935, a quarter of the certifications issued by the National Labor Relations Board were based on non-election evidence of majority support.1 Since 2003, more than half a million Americans formed unions through majority sign-up. Even major corporations like AT&T allow their workers to join unions using majority sign-up. The Employee Free Choice Act is necessary today because employers have become increasingly bold in violating employees' rights and the law under the NLRB election process. When that process was developed, employers did not routinely engage in the massive legal and illegal violation of workers’ rights that is commonplace today.

Linky.

I think it's actually a mistake to try to ascribe particular motives to advocates of programs one opposes (that was one of my big complaints about what many Bush critics did), because motives are irrelevant to the question of whether or not something is right or wrong. Wanting the right thing for selfish, petty reasons doesn't stop it from being the right thing, and wanting the wrong thing for selfless and noble reasons doesn't stop it from being the wrong thing.

So is that why you called me clueless and self-deluded?

Eliminating secret ballots for unionization is wrong.

Odd how you as well provide no evidence or discount the evidence already provided...

 

[Ziggurat]

That's just wrong on the basis of fact.

No, actually, it isn't. What's funniest about your citation is that the "fact" it uses in response doesn't actually detail how secret ballots are preserved. It essentially answers a different accusation than the one being made. Yes, secret ballots will still happen in some cases, but the legislation explicitly does away with them in many cases. If the unions can get above 50% employee signatures in these non-secret cards, then employees do not get a secret ballot. That's the fact.

And frankly, if the claim is that the current problem is employers routinely violating the law (which was the justification given in your link), then what on earth makes you (or anyone else) think that new laws, rather than effective enforcement of existing laws, is the proper solution? If old laws aren't being followed, why is the solution more laws?

So is that why you called me clueless and self-deluded?

I didn't. I raised it as one possible reason, aside from malice, for why unions might support this legislation. I have no idea why you support this legislation, I made no claims in that regard, and my point is that ultimately I don't care about your motivations.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

No, actually, it isn't.

Yes, it is. This is fun!

What's funniest about your citation is that the "fact" it uses in response doesn't actually detail how secret ballots are preserved. It essentially answers a different accusation than the one being made. Yes, secret ballots will still happen in some cases, but the legislation explicitly does away with them in many cases. If the unions can get above 50% employee signatures in these non-secret cards, then employees do not get a secret ballot. That's the fact.

The fact is that employees get to choose how to set up their union, instead of the business choosing to have a secret ballot. It hardly stands as abolishment of the secret ballot.

And frankly, if the claim is that the current problem is employers routinely violating the law (which was the justification given in your link), then what on earth makes you (or anyone else) think that new laws, rather than effective enforcement of existing laws, is the proper solution? If old laws aren't being followed, why is the solution more laws?

... I don't think you've read anything. The problem with the current law is that the penalties are so weak it costs less for an employer to fire union "thugs" than it is to allow a union formation. The solution is to increase the penalties so that violating the law isn't just part of standard business procedures.

I didn't. I raised it as one possible reason, aside from malice, for why unions might support this legislation. I have no idea why you support this legislation, I made no claims in that regard, and my point is that ultimately I don't care about your motivations.

Ah, so just general poisoning the well then .

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Here's another source for my last post:

Note: Under current labor law, a secret ballot election is held only when employers request. If passed, EFCA will also allow employees to request a secret ballot election.

But the rub, or at least the rub as the right wing would have it, comes with the card check process, which is not held in secret:

Card check, commonly known as majority sign-up, is a method for employees to organize into a labor union when a majority of employees in a bargaining unit sign authorization forms, or "cards," stating they wish to be represented by the union. Since the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) became law in 1935, majority sign-up has been an alternative for workers to the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) election process and has been approved and endorsed by the NLRB, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. Today, most workers organize their union through a majority sign-up. It has gained increasing support as evidence has mounted of anti-union employers controlling and manipulating NLRB elections.​

In other words, card checking is a long-established process upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court. However, as things stand, employers do not have to recognize the results of a card check and can instead request a secret ballot election. Their claim is that only with a secret ballot can workers indicate their true position, which presumably is against forming a union.

Linky.

One way of looking at this is to compare card checking to voter registration. We register to vote publicly, and in some states voters are even required to declare a party affiliation. But this doesn't affect the secret ballot at all, where you can vote for anyone you want to regardless of party. The card check is no different: A worker signs a card indicating that he or she wants union representation. Who the representatives are remains subject to a secret ballot.

The contract that the union gets is also subject to a secret ballot.

CLAIM: EFCA will take away workers’ right to a secret ballot election.
TRUTH: EFCA protects the right to a secret ballot union recognition election. Any group of workers can still opt for a secret ballot election under EFCA using the same process currently in place. EFCA provides workers the option of forming a union by majority sign up (50% plus one) – currently allowed under federal law, but almost never honored by employers who demand an election in order to gain months to use fear tactics, threats & even firings to persuade workers to vote against unions.

CLAIM: EFCA isn’t needed; federal and state laws already protect workers’ rights.

TRUTH: In the early decades of the 1935 National Labor Relations Board Act, the law worked the way it was intended. Workers organized unions and the result created America’s middle class. Employers routinely recognized majority sign up until the 1960’s. Since then, employers regularly demand an election to intimidate and persuade workers through fear tactics to vote against a Union.

Also, I'd like to take a page from skeptigirl's thread about framing. Note how we all have to worry about union thugs intimidating workers, even when the facts show that management commits more intimidation by a magnitude of multiple factors and commonly illegally fires union activists. What insulting name should we give them?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I think we can all agree that there should be no intimidation in these elections.

The current system is ripe for intimidation on the employer's side, Tsukasa has shown that reasonably well.

However, the EFCA doesn't remove all the potential for intimidation either. It just pushes it a bit to the other side.

I don't understand why if we're going to change the law, why we don't just fix the system, instead of giving a bonus to the weaker side.

Why not change the law so that elections have to be held within a week, and very strongly increase the penalties for tampering?

Um, card checks reduce management intimidate by half because secret ballots are not the same as free elections.

Employees are restricted from openly expressing their opinions: Employers are allowed to enforce a total ban on employees discussing the proposed union outside of the break room. Yet employers enjoy unfettered communication?subjecting employees to mandatory staff meetings and one-on-one meetings with supervisors, often with the intent of intimidating those suspected of supporting union formation. Labor law provides no equal opportunities for pro-union workers to respond or present alternative viewpoints. Employers have greater access to voters: Although pro-union workers and union organizers are permitted to contact workers outside of the workplace, such communication is exceedingly difficult to arrange. Employers have unilateral access to employees within the workplace, and can easily contact them at home. While employers may freely distribute a steady stream of anti-union correspondence through the mail, pro-union workers lack access to employee address information until they can document that 30% of the workforce wants a union. Even then, employers can legally provide lists with incomplete information, such as missing zip codes and telephone and apartment numbers. Open-Ended Delays: In union representation elections workers can face infinite delays in the implementation of election results. Often times these lengthy delays are a result of employers taking full advantage of permissive election guidelines. These guidelines not only allow the appeals process to drag on for years, but mandate that the workplace be governed as if employees voted against organizing for the duration of the appeals process.

Linky.

Studies by economists such as Cornell University's Kate Bronfenbrenner indicate that employers routinely try to intimidate workers--and frequently violate the law--in the run-up to NLRB union elections. Bronfenbrenner's research found high levels of corporate interference and intimidation. In those weeks leading up to the election, employers often use the time to engage in coercive anti-union campaigning to influence workers not to vote for the union. During this period, workers face harassment, intimidation, and the risk of being fired simply for trying to exercise their right to organize.

According to Bronfenbrenner's research:

• 9 in 10 employers facing a union campaign force employees to attend closed-door "captive audience" meetings to hear anti-union propaganda;
• 80 percent train supervisors on how to attack unions and require them to deliver anti-union messages to workers they oversee;
• Half of employers threaten to shut down the plant if workers unionize (only 2 percent actually do);
• 3 out of 4 hire outside consultants to run anti-union campaigns, "often based on mass psychology and distorting the law."

Linky.

You can't solve all of that by just trying to add a short deadline. Though I agree it would help, deadlines have been shown to be largely ineffective.

And it is not about just giving a boost of influence to the other side.