On Fox News, Gingrich echoed distortion that EFCA "tak[es] away your right to a secret-ballot vote before being forced to join a union"

fried,

If nothing will change, why is it being pushed by the unions?

Yes there is a difference between someone who endorses you and someone who's a friend. Even in conservative circles. The two sets are not exclusive of each other nor totaly enclusive of each other.

   I think you should read some of the posts, also. What are you talking about? No one is discussing opposing unionizing. The discussion is about being able to privately vote. Are you against that, too?

I like the McGovern analogy, AA.

Conservatives always seem to do that.  They point to something a liberal said as though that's suppose to change someone's mind.  McGovern has an opinion and I totally disagree with it.

fried,

Yes it does. Powell affirmed for some, their voting for Obama. He chose race over political parties and made a persuasive case for doing so. No doubt many took that into account.

McGovern, who is a populist, but not seeking office, sees the danger in the act passing, so his opinion also counts for a lot.  If you disagree, that is also fine.

I am not taking any jobs anywhere nor am I threatening to do so, so there is no fear tactic. It is a sad reality that businesses have moved operations to where the cost of manufacturing is lower. Unions, even though they do some good, in many cases raise the cost of manufacturing, so their very existance in many cases works against them.

Thanks Pete,

I did sort of switch to talke about the relative unpopularity of unions.

However I never argued that the unions were not subject to the ULP regulations.  It is not the regulations that worries me, but the intimidation that might occur regardless of the regulations.

Link works fine.

That's a neat way to avoid losing a point...

For the very same reason that employees will be subject to intimidation to approve of card check.

What do you see is the advantage for the worker by dropping the secret ballot?

First, are unions scapegoating businesses?  My answer to this question would be no.  “According to new data on employer anti-union behavior released by American Rights at Work, an organization devoted to investigating workers’ rights violations, 82 percent of employers hire union busting consultants to fight organizing drives, and 91 percent of employers force employees to attend one-on-one anti-union meetings with supervisors.”  The anti-union consulting business has become a multi-billion dollar industry and their success rate has been phenomenal.  These consulting firms have managed to thwart unionization efforts all across America even though a majority of Americans in recent polls support unions.   There are also employers who threaten to close places of employment and relocate if workers organize.  And the firing, demotion and other forms of punishment of one employee can be enough to frighten everyone in a workplace.  How should an employee take a statement like “I think it would be in your best interest not to organize” from an employer?  A statement like that coming from the person who essentially is the key to your livelihood is probably enough to make one think twice about the decision they were making (it happened to me).  The employer has too much power in these instances and the Employee Free Choice Act will attempt to level the playing field.

The next focal point is the reason(s) for changing the current law.  Reading through the “Union Math, Union Myth” report one gets the impression that the only reason presented by those advocating for the Employee Free Choice Act is the firings that occur when unions attempt to organize.  There are several reasons for the proposed change in law.  The election process by which only approximately 20 percent of unions are formed (80% percent are formed through an employer approved card check method) has been a tool to thwart unionization efforts.  Employers use that time to coerce workers into voting against unionization by the tactics mentioned previously.  A majority sign up of employees for union representation (card check) will be all that is needed for an employer to recognize a union if the law is changed.  The Act will also dramatically increase the penalties for the firing and discrimination of workers during the organizing campaigns.  “The penalties [currently in place] are so minor [possible reinstatement and back pay] that employers write them off as just another cost of doing business.”   And by the time a judgment is issued by the NRLB, the employer has most likely succeeded in frightening enough workers to shutdown an organizing campaign.  In my opinion, the Act does not go far enough in regards to penalties.  A provision should be included that would allow workers to sue a company in a court of law.  Lastly, the Act allows for mediation and arbitration of the first contract if an agreement is not reached by the employer and his employees within 90 days of the formation of the union.  Right now there is no time limit on this process and this has become another tool to thwart organizing campaigns.

Another aspect of the report is its complete dismissal of research by union-affiliated researchers.  Even though these types of analyses should be approached with some skepticism, this is not a legitimate reason to dismiss them outright.  The “Union Math, Union, Myths” report essentially becomes a hit-job instead of research when discussing opposing research.  The report criticizes the research by Cornell University professor Kate Bronfenbrenner by pointing out that she was a former union organizer.  The report also criticizes her for surveying union organizers.  I’m going to go out on a limb here and say who better to survey to find out what goes on during a union organizing campaign then union organizers.  The report also attacks the research of another group: American Rights at Work Organization (ARAW) because of union funding and because they had the audacity to use extrapolation which the report quotes another report describing it as “’a crude “probability” that a pro-union worker will be fired,’ originally derived from data collected in the early 1980s.”  The report then goes on to use data from what they think is completely unimpeachable data from the NLRB.

The final point of contention in the executive summary is the use of data from the NLRB.  While there is no reason to dispute the numbers provided by the board, the numbers a wholly incomplete.  As mentioned earlier, the vast majority of organizing campaigns are done through card check.  The NLRB has no way of tracking what is done to employees when this method is employed.  The only way to obtain those numbers would be to survey workers who organized through this method but the “Union Math, Union Facts” report says you can’t do that.  Another thing to consider when looking at the NLRB data is that the numbers come from people who actually filed a grievance with the board about an illegal firing.  How many people would actually file a grievance with the board for reinstatement to a company that would fire them over wanting to organize?  I don’t think there’s too many who would do that.  Most people would just move on.  And while reading a report entitled “Worker’s Rights Under Attack by Bush Administration: President Bush’s National Labor Relations Board Rolls back labor protections” by Representative George Miller, it’s obvious that the Board has become just another tool of the anti-labor/corporatist Bush Administration.  The board has issued numerous rulings during Bush’s tenure which found legitimate tactics employed by pro-union workers to be coercive or illegal while ruling that suspect activities of anti-union employers to be perfectly legal (i.e., a pro-union worker passing out union cards was found to be coercive act by the board but an employer posting signs of an imminent plant shutdown a week before an election was found not to be coercive).  The NLRB can no longer be trusted to do what’s in the best interest of labor.

Conclusion

I chose to focus on the executive summary of the report because it encompassed all the talking points of the report in a short and attackable manner.  The authors of this report seem to put the blame for union declination solely at the feet of the unions but a combination of anti-union tactics carried out by employers and a highly politicized NRLB is largely to blame.  The authors use incomplete data about firings from the NRLB (the board’s numbers do not include people who were discriminated against) and use it to justify their assumption.  And the report never addresses the proposed change in the law (the Employee Free Choice Act) just that a change is not necessary.  So I guess the authors wouldn’t mind if we go and change the law anyway.  Apparently there’s nothing wrong it.

round,

I personally do not like polls myself, so we do have some common ground. However, some polls are more biased than others. The AFL-CIO poll you cited, because of the lack of transparency, looks to me to be very biased. 

Your argument that I don't understand cut and paste is way out there. You forget that business is in business to produce products and services at a profit. There has always been, and always will be, automation replacing workers when automation is cheaper and more efficient. That fact has nothing to do with worker's rights.  It is unfortunate that unions, through trade agreements, have priced many of their jobs right out of the job market.

My opposition to the card check is not that I am opposed to making it easier to form unions. It is because I see the downside, which I think you refuse to admit, that workers will be coerced by pro-union activists to sign the card check when they are in reality against unionization.  Nobody has proved to me that there is any benefit for the worker under this system. Benefits for the unions, yes. Worker, no.

Your last two responses are laughable. Apparently people are finding the door as uinion membership has been and continues to decline.

I love it when you provide unsuported "facts" and accuse me of laziness when you won't support those facts.  Nice projection.