The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Bad Day for Card Check

Text Size

After lots of bluster, Harry Reid was forced to acknowledge that he may have to delay card check legislation as even Democrat Ben Nelson came out against it (at least in its current form). When it came to the stimulus package, Democrats could pass lousy legislation by arguing that there was an urgent need to do something about the economy. But card check is such a transparently bad bill that would not only be undemocratic by denying workers a secret ballot, but it would actually increase unemployment at a time when the Obama administration has allegedly made job creation its top priority. It's hard to see how anybody would support this unless they're either a member of a union or receiving money from unions.

View all comments (11) | Leave a comment

WendyG| 3.11.09 @ 10:51AM

Things are looking up! Resistance is not futile. :)

Bob| 3.11.09 @ 12:23PM

I don't understand why all of you are against the "Employee Free Choice Act". While unions had a important purpose when they were first formed, they no longer have a real need. The market is taking care of the unions in that respect. As our businesses continue to become more global, unions make us less competitive. I don't need to tell you all that because on this item, I think we all agree. However, I want to make it easier for unions to form. If they make businesses go under because of their cost, then they will lose their jobs. This is the way the market takes care of inefficiencies. It is not the government's job to make businesses profitable (although through bailouts we are trying). So let the unions form, let the wages rise, let the businesses be less competitive, and let's take care of this issue once and for all.

Angel| 3.11.09 @ 2:29PM

Bob, if you want union goons to force you to join a union--go for it, but don't take the secret ballot away from others. You are such a moron.

Bob| 3.11.09 @ 2:37PM

I see, Angel, as usual, you didn't understand what I said. Unions only represent about 13% of all workers. This percentage will drop with, or without, a secret ballot. By the way, the legislation does not take away a secret ballot -- they can still ask for it. Did you know that there is no secret ballot for dissolving a union? Don't you want a secret ballot there?

Big J| 3.11.09 @ 2:43PM

Good Lord, Bob. Your ignorance is mind-numbing!

You obviously do not have a horse in this race (or any race that I can tell, judging by the content of your posts). As a small business owner (electrical contractor), I will personally hang my hat up, so to speak, if this legislation passes. With every day that passes in this administration, there is less incentive to actually produce. I am not writing the following to try and change your mind - I am almost completely convinced you do not have one. I take that back. You have a mind, it must just be consumed with some sort of liberal disease that came over the bulk of the electorate on November 4th, 2008. I will explain only for the purposes of those who wish to understand the legislation and the impact it will have (as you have implied).

As the system stands now, when the union turns it's eye to a business to "organize", they plant what they call a "salt". They are either self-proclaimed or not, and can cause quite a bit of trouble for a little guy like myself. After a period of employment, they start talking to the other employees about all of the benefits in joining the union. At this point, they can call for a vote. THIS IS A PRIVATE BALLOT, AS IT SHOULD BE. Not that any union member would ever intimidate an employee in order to coerce them into joining, NO WAY! If over 50% of the employees vote to unionize, the company is now a "union shop". The fact that the OWNER (you know, the guy that takes all the risks, pays the bills, signs the paychecks - that guy) did not want to unionize is irrelevant. The insignificant "caller of the shots" is now forced to pick from a labor pool (called "the hall") dictated to him by "union bosses", and must pay the workers based on a scale that someone else chooses, not their merits (that is one reason why we call my shop a "merit shop" - we pay based on performance, not length of time in the trade).

The misnamed Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the private ballot. I might be wrong, but I would venture to guess that even a liberal like yourself wouldn't appreciate having someone look over your shoulder in the ballot box.

Here are a couple of other gems that go along with this ridiculous legislation: The employer no longer has the right to talk to his own employees about the pro's or con's of joining a union, the dues structure, the forced picketing, or the fact that a percentage of dues go to a PAC fund, regardless of whether you agree with the candidate's positions or not. Also, the bill introduces increased fines for expanded "unfair labor practices". I personally know of 2 electrical contractors that have been put out of business due to lengthy NLRB lawsuits that were just plain wrong.

Bob, you are correct. Unions were necessary many years ago. Pay was low, workplace conditions were horrible and the common working man was treated very badly. You are also correct that they are unnecessary in today's time. The fact that you think passing this legislation and organizing every American company is the solution is a true indication of your monumental stupidity.

And that's just the way it is.

Angel| 3.11.09 @ 2:59PM

Who is going to request a secret ballot with a union thug standing right there? No thinking American, let alone a 'fiscal Conservative', would support the abolishment of the secret ballot. As I said before, Bob, you are a moron; a liberal moron at that.

Big J| 3.11.09 @ 3:23PM

Bob,

If you truly want to understand this legislation, I would direct you to www.heritage.org. There are excellent articles there, based on REAL statistics, not pipe dreams about unions just going away with the passage of EFCA.

ps - Right on, Angel.

Bob| 3.11.09 @ 4:30PM

Big J -- because the data is important to me, I read the detailed bill. I was unaware of the restrictions on employers to argue for their point of view since the financial arguments on company health are important. For that reason, you guys have convinced me that the bill goes too far. My belief is that unions cause global companies to fail at a higher rate and that setting examples of these failing companies would, in the longer term, do more to get rid of unions than trying to keep unionization down. However, the restriction of information is far to radical for me because information/transparency is an essential of a strong democracy.

You guys win, on this one. My idea is going directly into the round file at the end of my desk.

ruth| 3.11.09 @ 4:46PM

Takes a BIG man to admit he's wrong, Bob. Must be a first for you. :)

Bob| 3.11.09 @ 5:16PM

Ruth, I am not ideological. If the facts lead to a different conclusion, I'll go there. Big J stuck primarily to the facts and had a better argument. That's good. I've learned something.