I like to hear a good argument from the other side, especially when it is attempting to defend the indefensible. More liberalism is an easy argument to make to the economic and constitutional illiterate. It's a feel-good fairness issue that really resonates with an entitlement culture.
What I can't understand is how one can defend the Orwellian-named Employee Free Choice Act, which actually snatches away an employee's free choice.
The Employee Free Choice Act would eliminate the private ballot method of voting up or down on unionization. Instead, it forces each employee to publicly sign a card stating her intentions. If you have a crowd of angry, intimidating men standing around you as you sign your card, is that choice really free?
Now, on to defending the indefensible. In These Times, an old-school lefty publication, has written the best defense of this bill I have seen so far. They start with the flawed premise that the decline in unions caused America's Decline. One only has to compare the unionized northeast's economic malaise to the relative prosperity of the non-union south. But nevermind that for now...
This great 30-year shift in wealth, power and public priorities coincided with—and was in large part caused by—the decline of a labor movement under assault from corporations and right-wing ideologues.I like their innocuous explanation of Card Check:
Here’s how it would work: When a majority of workers sign union authorization cards, they would gain recognition for their union.No goons knocking on your door at 3am inquiring about your family and "oh, by the way, where's your signed card?" No, the workers happily fill out the forms and put them in a brightly colored shoebox like on Valentines Day. They get counted every day until, BINGO! One day finally, it's 50% + 1, and we have a union!
EFCA would sharply increase penalties against employers who violate labor laws when workers organize. It would provide workers faster relief from violations, such as firing for union activity. And it would provide the option of mediation and arbitration if the employer and union fail to reach a first contract on their own.So if a pain-in-the-ass pro-union agitator is caught haranguing the proletariat instead of driving his forklift like he's paid to, teams of bureaucrats from the liberal Department of Labor will swoop down to shield him from the wrath of his mean overseers. The Federal Government will intrude upon a privately owned business and hijack the HR process that normally kicks in when someone is being disruptive instead of doing what the boss is paying him for.
The most effective part of the article is it's emotional appeal using personal stories of innocent workers being harassed by the man and getting fired for fighting back with union tactics. The author hints darkly at shadowy groups and worker intimidation, filling in the factual voids with ominous tonal shading. (Cue the scary music)
Employer opposition takes its toll, as workers fear for their jobs or economic wellbeing. In the face of employer hostility and long, drawn-out campaigns for union recognition, workers grow cynical or disillusioned, persuaded that collective action is futile, even if they would like a union.Here's the best piece of propaganda in the article. Nevermind the non-sequitur pretzel logic. It is a brilliant rhetorical flourish:
Further, the employer defense of secret ballots is a sham. “Workers without a union don’t vote on anything,” says Tom Woodruff, director of Change to Win’s strategic organizing center. “When was the last time non-union voters voted on a pay raise?” For that matter, when did corporations seek worker secret ballots on executive pay or offshoring jobs?The fact is, employers almost always get the final vote
They move their operations when labor costs or taxes get too high or government regulations become too onerous. Where unions are strong enough to keep the employer from escaping, the consumer is the one administering the final thumbs-down. Just look at high tax, unionized Michigan. According to the Wall Street Journal, it has lost 83,000 manufacturing jobs in the past decade. Where did those jobs go? Mexico, China, Indonesia? No. They went to Texas, the Carolinas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia and Alabama. While Michigan was bleeding out over the past decade, the south picked up 91,000 non-union manufacturing jobs.
I fail to see how unionizing the entire country will do anything other than drive American jobs to cheaper overseas locations.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/4191/ready_to_rumble
http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122126282034130461.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
