News broke earlier that Senate Democrats, seeking to save the
Orwellian-named "Employee Free Choice Act," have agreed to ditch
the provision that would enable unions to rapidly expand their
membership ranks by denying workers a right to a secret ballot on
unionization. However, the new bill would preserve the other
major element of the bill, which would force businesses that
failed to reach a contract agreement with unions to accept terms
imposed by a mediator. The Associated Press
reports that unions are on board with the move. Many
conservatives had predicted that if EFCA was in serious danger,
Democrats would drop the controversial "card check" provision and
settle for binding arbitration. But while the arbitraton
provision has received less attention, it is no less damaging to
the economy or workplace freedom.
Last week, the Wall Street Journal published an
op-ed
by Shikha Dalmia describing the nightmare Michigan got itself
into when it passed a compulsory arbitration measure that saddled
its cities with unsustainable compensation obligations to police
and firefighters. "We now know that compulsory arbitration has
been a failure," Detroit mayor Coleman Young declared in 1969.
But as Dalmia writes, it would have even more damaging
consequences for the private sector:
In a dynamic economy, a business's survival depends upon its
ability to constantly cut costs and innovate. But a company
forced into binding arbitration will be frozen for two years
(the duration of the initial contract) from making any changes
to any aspect of its business that is covered by the contract.
Literally every issue -- from its 401(k) contributions to its
reliance on outside labor -- could potentially become subject
to review by a government panel that has neither the
company-specific knowledge nor the incentive to turn a profit.
Businesses are not the only losers in compulsory arbitration.
Currently, any contract negotiated by union officials has to be
ratified through a vote of rank-and-file members. Under
compulsory arbitration, workers do not get this vote. In other
words, EFCA will take away the right of workers to vote to form
a union, and then binding arbitration will take away their
right to vote on a contract.
The card check legislation would not have gotten rid of the
secret ballot as the employer class has claimed repeatedly.
Employees would still have had the choice to hold a secret
ballot. But it would have been their choice, not the choice of
the employer. Too bad our politicians and many of our citizens
have been taken in by the dirty lies being spread by the US
Chamber of Commerce. Have you ever seen the employer class bend
over backwards to protect the interests of workers? They're
rallying against the card check legislation not to protect
employees but to defend their own greedy self interest.
There's a reason why the decline of the labor movement has
coincided with the decline of the middle class. The two go hand
in hand.
Unions result in higher wages and better benefits. Employers
don't want you to see it that way because they don't want to pay
you higher wages or give you better benefits. Simple.
Check out France. Their standard of living is very good: they
have great health care and plenty of time off. And big surprise,
the country's unions are more powerful than the unions anywhere
else. When the government threatens to make life difficult for
the working-class, they go on strike, shut the society down for a
few days or weeks and the government backs off. France is
arguably the only country on Earth where the People are actually
in control.
And, I'd like to preempt the Fox News disciples who will
predictably encourage me to move to France by reminding them that
by so encouraging me, they're actually committing an ad hominem
fallacy. I'd probably faint if I heard a coherent argument for
the neo-liberal position.
Adam| 7.18.09 @ 1:25AM
Wow, Hilary Smith -- you've obviously never lived in France.
Because to everyone else in the world who actually looks at
things like statistics, we see interesting tidbits like
incredibly high youth unemployment (currently above 25%!)
inflexible industries which are getting pantsed by their
competitors in Germany and Eastern Europe (to say nothing of
India and China), a debt-laden government with a fast-growing
entitlement problem (same as here, I might add) and a workforce
that riots whenever someone suggests that they work more than 35
hours per week. You can draw a straight line between their
immensely powerful unions, particularly pubic sector unions, and
everything I just described. And if you think their economic
outlook over the next 2 decades is any sort of good at all, you
are deluding yourself.
But you're right -- their quality of life is so great, what with
the baguettes and all that. We should definitely try to be more
like them.
Hilary Smith| 7.18.09 @ 3:27PM
Adam, you point to unemployment as a problem in France but then
you turn around and berate their unions for insisting on a 35
hour work week. It sounds like they should be working even fewer
hours. In any case, unemployment isn't the worst thing in the
world when citizens still have food, shelter, medicine and
education. In the US unemployment is a one-way ticket to hunger
and homelessness. How is that preferable?
Adam| 7.18.09 @ 8:59PM
Generational recessions notwithstanding, unemployment in the US
is generally a one-way ticket to a new job. One of the benefits
of a vibrant economy is that certain businesses do poorly and lay
off employees, and other business do well and hire them up.
Widespread unionization is like taking the economy and putting it
in a pile of wet tar. Nothing changes, nothing grows, nothing
shrinks. For now. But then when you look back 10 years down the
line, you find that new businesses aren't being started in Paris
and Lyon, they're being started in Hamburg, Spain, and Poland.
Slowly, more and more people are starting to lean on your vaunted
"social programs", which are being funded with lower and lower
tax revenue and running larger and larger deficits. One day you
go to pass a budget, and you realize the money isn't there. It's
happening in California right now, and when the world's appetite
for sovereign debt dries up, it will happen in France, Italy, and
eventually the United States. Such is life.
It's perfectly fine to believe that governments have an
obligation to tax the daylights out of its population to provide
for its less privileged. It's even perfectly fine to believe that
unions are desirable, because they frequently (though not always)
benefit its members in the short term. But the world is different
than it used to be -- just like Barnes and Noble can't only carry
hardcovers at $35 because people will just go to Amazon.com and
buy the softcover for $12, auto unions can't insist on working
for $75/hr in total compensation (give or take a buck or two)
when non-union workers in other states are willing to do the same
job for a Japanese company for $40. There are very real, very
serious, and very unavoidable consequences to unionization,
particularly when coupled with statutes that force employers to
enter into undesirable pay agreements against their will (the
non-binding arbitration that this was supposed to be about).
Ignore them at your own peril.
PS: I forgot to mention this yesterday, but derisively referring
to your hypothetical critics as "Fox News Disciples" is in fact
the definition of an ad hominem attack.
Tenn Slim| 7.19.09 @ 10:13AM
"Have you ever seen the employer class bend over backwards to
protect the interests of workers? They're rallying against the
card check legislation not to protect employees but to defend
their own greedy self interest."
Yep. I used to work for these folks, and the Unions, Non Union
folks and Free Enterprise folks ALL got treated decently.
McDonald aircraft, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Northrup,
Grumman, and a host of other DOD oriented companies. Most, if not
all, treat their folks decently, pay well, and offer a host of
Bennies, the IAW, IBEW, CIO , AFL and the other unions never
dreamed up.
end
Iowegian| 7.24.09 @ 3:07PM
IF you have desirable skills THEN the Big employers treat you
decently. Otherwise they will work you till you're too sick to
keep up then toss you out ontot he garbage heap. I've seen it
from both sides.
Unions sometimes get power hungry, but how can it be good for
working class folk if there's nothing keeping those "cut costs
and innovate" businesses from sending all our good jobs overseas
?
I agree-Strong unions=strong middle class. If the folks in China
could they'd probably be unionizing right Now.
Hilary Smith| 7.17.09 @ 10:19PM
The card check legislation would not have gotten rid of the secret ballot as the employer class has claimed repeatedly. Employees would still have had the choice to hold a secret ballot. But it would have been their choice, not the choice of the employer. Too bad our politicians and many of our citizens have been taken in by the dirty lies being spread by the US Chamber of Commerce. Have you ever seen the employer class bend over backwards to protect the interests of workers? They're rallying against the card check legislation not to protect employees but to defend their own greedy self interest.
There's a reason why the decline of the labor movement has coincided with the decline of the middle class. The two go hand in hand.
Unions result in higher wages and better benefits. Employers don't want you to see it that way because they don't want to pay you higher wages or give you better benefits. Simple.
Check out France. Their standard of living is very good: they have great health care and plenty of time off. And big surprise, the country's unions are more powerful than the unions anywhere else. When the government threatens to make life difficult for the working-class, they go on strike, shut the society down for a few days or weeks and the government backs off. France is arguably the only country on Earth where the People are actually in control.
And, I'd like to preempt the Fox News disciples who will predictably encourage me to move to France by reminding them that by so encouraging me, they're actually committing an ad hominem fallacy. I'd probably faint if I heard a coherent argument for the neo-liberal position.
Adam| 7.18.09 @ 1:25AM
Wow, Hilary Smith -- you've obviously never lived in France. Because to everyone else in the world who actually looks at things like statistics, we see interesting tidbits like incredibly high youth unemployment (currently above 25%!) inflexible industries which are getting pantsed by their competitors in Germany and Eastern Europe (to say nothing of India and China), a debt-laden government with a fast-growing entitlement problem (same as here, I might add) and a workforce that riots whenever someone suggests that they work more than 35 hours per week. You can draw a straight line between their immensely powerful unions, particularly pubic sector unions, and everything I just described. And if you think their economic outlook over the next 2 decades is any sort of good at all, you are deluding yourself.
But you're right -- their quality of life is so great, what with the baguettes and all that. We should definitely try to be more like them.
Hilary Smith| 7.18.09 @ 3:27PM
Adam, you point to unemployment as a problem in France but then you turn around and berate their unions for insisting on a 35 hour work week. It sounds like they should be working even fewer hours. In any case, unemployment isn't the worst thing in the world when citizens still have food, shelter, medicine and education. In the US unemployment is a one-way ticket to hunger and homelessness. How is that preferable?
Adam| 7.18.09 @ 8:59PM
Generational recessions notwithstanding, unemployment in the US is generally a one-way ticket to a new job. One of the benefits of a vibrant economy is that certain businesses do poorly and lay off employees, and other business do well and hire them up. Widespread unionization is like taking the economy and putting it in a pile of wet tar. Nothing changes, nothing grows, nothing shrinks. For now. But then when you look back 10 years down the line, you find that new businesses aren't being started in Paris and Lyon, they're being started in Hamburg, Spain, and Poland. Slowly, more and more people are starting to lean on your vaunted "social programs", which are being funded with lower and lower tax revenue and running larger and larger deficits. One day you go to pass a budget, and you realize the money isn't there. It's happening in California right now, and when the world's appetite for sovereign debt dries up, it will happen in France, Italy, and eventually the United States. Such is life.
It's perfectly fine to believe that governments have an obligation to tax the daylights out of its population to provide for its less privileged. It's even perfectly fine to believe that unions are desirable, because they frequently (though not always) benefit its members in the short term. But the world is different than it used to be -- just like Barnes and Noble can't only carry hardcovers at $35 because people will just go to Amazon.com and buy the softcover for $12, auto unions can't insist on working for $75/hr in total compensation (give or take a buck or two) when non-union workers in other states are willing to do the same job for a Japanese company for $40. There are very real, very serious, and very unavoidable consequences to unionization, particularly when coupled with statutes that force employers to enter into undesirable pay agreements against their will (the non-binding arbitration that this was supposed to be about). Ignore them at your own peril.
PS: I forgot to mention this yesterday, but derisively referring to your hypothetical critics as "Fox News Disciples" is in fact the definition of an ad hominem attack.
Tenn Slim| 7.19.09 @ 10:13AM
"Have you ever seen the employer class bend over backwards to protect the interests of workers? They're rallying against the card check legislation not to protect employees but to defend their own greedy self interest."
Yep. I used to work for these folks, and the Unions, Non Union folks and Free Enterprise folks ALL got treated decently.
McDonald aircraft, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Northrup, Grumman, and a host of other DOD oriented companies. Most, if not all, treat their folks decently, pay well, and offer a host of Bennies, the IAW, IBEW, CIO , AFL and the other unions never dreamed up.
end
Iowegian| 7.24.09 @ 3:07PM
IF you have desirable skills THEN the Big employers treat you decently. Otherwise they will work you till you're too sick to keep up then toss you out ontot he garbage heap. I've seen it from both sides.
Unions sometimes get power hungry, but how can it be good for working class folk if there's nothing keeping those "cut costs and innovate" businesses from sending all our good jobs overseas ?
I agree-Strong unions=strong middle class. If the folks in China could they'd probably be unionizing right Now.
Hilary| 7.25.09 @ 12:09PM
Touché Adam!
ki| 8.21.09 @ 12:19PM
airmax
I bookmarked this site, Thank you for good job! Thank you! I would now go on this blog every day!
passer| 10.6.09 @ 1:22AM
you may also be interested in slippers