Sunday, October 19, 2008
A vote for Barack Obama is a vote against democracy
At least in the workplace.
Barack Obama supports Big Labor's ambition to intimidate American workers into joining unions that they would not join if they were permitted to vote in secret. This is the central idea of "card check," a program that would eliminate the need to have an election -- and the debate that precedes it -- before unionizing an American workplace. Big Labor is trying to accomplish through legislation what it cannot in the marketplace of ideas (in 2007, only 7.5 percent of private sector employees belonged to labor unions). "Card check" is such a naked power grab that even USA Today could not help but editorialize against it:
When citizens go to the polls on Nov. 4, they will be free to vote their conscience — regardless of pressure from relatives, friends or co-workers — after having had a chance to weigh the alternatives. Campaigns and secret ballots are sacrosanct elements of American democracy.
So it's surprising and disturbing that organized labor wants to do away with both these elements when workers decide whether to form a union.
Under the current system, once 30% of a company's workers sign union authorization cards, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administers a confidential vote, typically 39 days after it receives the cards. The union and employer campaign for votes.
Under a major rewrite of U.S. labor law being promoted by unions, when more than 50% of employees sign authorization cards, the NLRB would have to recognize the new union. No campaign. No secret ballot.
This misguided measure passed the House shortly after Democrats took the majority in 2007. But it needs several more votes in the Senate and a president who will sign it. Barack Obama supports it; John McCain does not. It's no surprise, then, that the AFL-CIO plans to spend an eye-popping $200 million this election cycle to support Obama and Democratic candidates for Congress. A win for Obama and big gains for Senate Democrats could remove the remaining obstacles to the euphemistically named "Employee Free Choice Act."
Cajoled choice is more like it. The proposed change would give unions and pro-union employees more incentive to use peer pressure, or worse, to persuade reluctant workers to sign their cards. And without elections, workers who weren't contacted by union organizers would have no say in the final outcome.
Choice in the workplace: Just one of the many freedoms you have today that you may not have tomorrow.
CWCID: Mickey Kaus.
11 Comments:
By 
smitty1e, at
Sun Oct 19, 09:13:00 AM:
Enjoying Senator Obama's latest all-female we-can't-trust Senator McCain ad.
One screen has him voting to privatize Socialist Security about half a dozen times. Because, you know, trying to kill a mindless bureaucratic zombie bent on devouring all we hold dear is somehow...bad.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Oct 19, 09:44:00 AM:
My response as an entrepreneur: Sorry, Americans, I'm putting my new manufacturing operation in another country. Enjoy your low-paying job at Wal-Mart.
By Punditarian, at
Sun Oct 19, 10:02:00 AM:
Just wait till the first "card check" Federal election!
By 
, at
Sun Oct 19, 10:34:00 AM:
meanwhile ... Powell endorses Obambi
"(Oct. 19) - Former Secretary of State Colin Powell announced Sunday that he will be voting for Sen. Barack Obama, citing the Democrat's "ability to inspire" and the "inclusive nature of his campaign." "He has both style and substance. I think he is a transformational figure," Powell said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "Obama displayed a steadiness. Showed intellectual vigor. He has a definitive way of doing business that will do us well," Powell said
My response ... just shows you that generally blacks stick together. But I learned that in high school. Fight one, and you've got another couple dozen to duke it out with.
If Obama wins, and manages to upset American business, then we'll see how well things go. Make more handouts to the "lowly worker", and incentivize the middle and lower to just stand aside and take their government cheese and chicken. That's change I can't believe in.
By pst314, at
Sun Oct 19, 10:40:00 AM:
"Cajoled choice is more like it."
Funny how so much of that Union cajolery involves fists hitting faces and bricks going through car windows.
By , at
Sun Oct 19, 10:56:00 AM:
I commented on this the other day to a colleague in the office who handles HR issues and is in the middle of a union drive situation at an operating location. Reaction? Pretty much "oh well." This person is a Dem.
Meanwhile, the Obama supporters at work who know that I'm voting for McCain look at me and ask me whether I really believe that such a vote is "good for the business." I've given up trying to understand these people. Especially the one who told me that he couldn't understand how an intelligent, well-educated person like me could actually vote Republican.
Mind-boggling.
By TigerHawk, at
Sun Oct 19, 11:08:00 AM:
That, DEC, is of course the obvious response. Then the Dems will declare that "fairness" requires trade barriers.
By SR, at
Sun Oct 19, 11:20:00 AM:
pst,
Your post shows just how educated you actually are.
I don't know many Dems who actually have a clue about economics.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Oct 19, 12:05:00 PM:
TH: "Then the Dems will declare that 'fairness' requires trade barriers."
That would start a trade war. Then Wal-Mart would close, too.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle. The U.S. no longer has the factories*, equipment, skilled employees, or experienced managers to manufacture many kinds of products. Many of the Americans who knew how to do those things either died or retired. It would take a generation to regain the expertise.
It's evening in America.
* How do I know? I sold and shipped some of the factories to buyers in other countries.
By , at
Sun Oct 19, 01:50:00 PM:
This "card check" law is potentially very troublesome, but not only because of the "card check" aspect. The proposed law also would compel both sides to enter into a collective bargaining agreement within 120 days of the commencement of negotiations. If the parties fail, then they submit to binding arbitration. Currently, it takes the parties on average 18 months to hammer out a collective bargaining agreement. Translated, the ramifications could well be that outsiders who have no clue about how competitive your industry is will tell you how much to pay your workers and what the workplace rules will be. And yet companies are supposed to become more competitive.
Obama, in "Audacity of Hope", says that he always takes the unions' calls and that he supports the card check law (you have to look carefully for this statement, because he handwaves by it, knowing, probably, what a lightning rod it is). My guess is that the Democrats' glorification of small businesses is such that they'll okay making all sorts of necessary items in one's garage, because it will become much more difficult to assemble people to do it without having the owners submit to the burdens of laws like this.
If the Dems push this through and/or raise taxes in the midst of a recession, they could well exacerbate the recession and put more people out of work. Many companies, particularly small ones, haven't focused on what the effects of this law could have on their budgets, but those effects could be marked.
One of the first industries targeted is retail, and it will be interesting to see how those authorization drives might go because everyone and her brother is predicting an awful retail season. In addition, it would appear that cards used to authorize a union authorization vote could be used under the "card check" law, which means unions are out there now gathering authorization cards in anticipation of the passage of this law. They'll jump out of the starting gate hard once the law is passed.
You would have thought that the example of Michigan and other pro-union states would temper enthusiasm for this bill, but the Democrats get a ton of money from unions. Many who support Obama haven't considered the potential effect of this bill, but they'll see it soon enough if it passes.
The Democratic Congress needs to be careful. If it swings too far to the left in a polar reaction to the Bush Administration, it might see a similar polar reaction in 2010 and beyond.
The Centrist
By , at
Tue Oct 21, 03:28:00 AM:
Interesting little racist post on the board by John:
My response ... just shows you that generally blacks stick together. But I learned that in hat is a great post to win blachigh school. Fight one, and you've got another couple dozen to duke it out with.
I noticed how many true conservatives here rushed to seperate this ugly racism from conervativism. Lets see - actually none. Now thats a great post to win over blacks or to support black conservatives. Oh I'm sorry - that's right this is a psuedo conservative republican board for whiners who don't know the first thing about conservativism. No wonder the democrats are kicking your assess.
