Pajamas Media

65 Comments

1. John the Libertarian:

Sounds like somebody wants to keep his job.

Mar 24, 2009 - 1:04 pm 2. wancow:

Well, okay, I’ll give Specter his cudos, but I still hate him for the RINO he is!

Even so, this is pretty good news.

Mar 24, 2009 - 1:07 pm 3. Self-hating Boomer:

Translation: this would sink Pennsylvania for good.

Mar 24, 2009 - 1:31 pm 4. WR Jonas:

Don’t get all excited , he has changed his mind and his vote before.

Mar 24, 2009 - 1:43 pm 5. always right:

Don’t trust him.

He’s done enough damage (with other RINOs) as is.

Mar 24, 2009 - 1:50 pm 6. Commentary » Blog Archive » No is not Enough when You are in a Primary:

[...] Specter didn’t exactly say that. Yes, he left a crack open for EFCA, but it is a very conditional crack: The problems of the recession make this a particularly bad time to enact Employees Free Choice [...]

Mar 24, 2009 - 1:55 pm 7. Pres:

Yes, he is not in favor right now. That means that it will take the slightest of adjusting to get him on board. You can’t trust this man to be a Republican.

Mar 24, 2009 - 3:03 pm 8. stevent12x:

I can’t believe you guys are still preaching that this act would take away the option of a secret ballot from workers when time and time again that has been proven to be a complete LIE!

Mar 24, 2009 - 3:10 pm 9. G:

I’ll believe it when I see it. Specter is a worm.

Mar 24, 2009 - 3:10 pm 10. Samizdat:

Chris Richards analysis of the negative impact of the arbitration provision is right on the money.
As well, a cornerstone of our republican form of government is the secret ballot. The civil rights movement advanced ballot access to a previously disenfranchised African American community which had a transformative effect on our nations political and economic culture. Allowing card check to become law would eviscerate the importance of the secret ballot and one person, one vote.
If card check became law it would skyrocket unemployment. Many business enterprises would either cease doing business here or would relocate to other markets.The transaction cost of operation would be prohibitive to many small and medium sized companies.
Specter is a horse’s ass and a RINO, but he got this decision right. Too bad he couldn’t see how stupid it was to support the “Porkulus” legislation. He, Snow and Collins demonstrated a severe misunderstanding of stimulus economics with their support for that bill.

Mar 24, 2009 - 3:18 pm 11. gk1:

steven12x where are you coming from? That is the least defensible provision of this bill. Please cite your evidence with a link. Even the proponent of this bill concede secret ballotting will no longer be needed. Just sign the “I don’t want to get my faced pushed in” card in front of Guido, and no one gets hurt. Yeah, real democracy there.

Mar 24, 2009 - 3:26 pm 12. Samizdat:

Hey Stevent12x,
Why don’t you explain why this legislation is such a good idea if you support it. Voting would not have to be by secret ballot under the bill. The arbitation provision would severely damage an owners ability to manage cost as market conditions fluctuate. If this legislation became law I would take every step necessary to protect my capital, including relocation or shuting my doors. How does unemployment help labor?

Mar 24, 2009 - 3:28 pm 13. fear Obama:

There has been widespread intimidation on both sides.
Testimony shows union officials visit workers’ homes with strong-arm tactics and refuse to leave until cards are signed.
Similarly, employees have complained about being captives in employers’ meetings with threats of being fired and other strong-arm tactics.

Is it just me?-

Or would a well placed strike from a baseball bat, upside a strong arm union officials head,
in my home,
cause him/her to adjust his/her attitude before I kicked their teeth and their a$$ out?

So many girly Americans-

God have mercy on us.

Mar 24, 2009 - 3:33 pm 14. T:

Reminds me of something my [astor used to say: “Beware of deathbed conversions: sometimes they get better.”

Having failed to get the PA state congress to make the repub primary open to all voters, and knowing that the law prevents him from losing that primary and running as an independent, the little varmint is scurrying around trying to protect his phony-baloney job. I think he is gonna be replaced, meaning we will either have a real conservative (Toomey) or a real democrat in his seat come 2011.

At a minimum, it will be a victory for “Truth in Labeling.”

Mar 24, 2009 - 3:38 pm 15. T:

make that “Pastor”

Mar 24, 2009 - 3:39 pm 16. tommyd:

“Specter is a horse’s ass”

that’s the best description of him I have ever heard….

I hope the conservative voters of Penn. REMEMBER what this idiot did.

VOTE NO on Arlen Specter!

Mar 24, 2009 - 3:43 pm 17. David:

Just think for a moment what it says about the country now that we’re excited to see a US senator actually standing up to protect democracy.

Mar 24, 2009 - 3:44 pm 18. mwl:

stevent12x:

I can’t believe you guys are still preaching that this act would take away the option of a secret ballot from workers when time and time again that has been proven to be a complete LIE!

“Proven”, stevent12x? Let’s look at the relevant language in the bill, shall we?

If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a)

What part of “shall not direct an election” do you fail to understand? If organizers can browbeat 50%+1 of the employees to sign cards, then the union is certified without an election.

Mar 24, 2009 - 3:46 pm 19. kcom:

“On the merits, the issue which has emerged at the top of the list for me is the elimination of the secret ballot which is the cornerstone of how contests are decided in a democratic society.”

“If efforts are unsuccessful to give Labor sufficient bargaining power through amendments to the NLRA, then I would be willing to reconsider Employees’ Free Choice legislation when the economy returns to normalcy.”

So let me get this straight. He says he’s against this unprincipled legislation because it eliminates one of the cornerstones of a democratic society. Yet, if other changes don’t get the desired benefit, he’d be willing to reconsider the legislation when the economy gets better.

What does the economy have to do with it? The whole concept goes against democratic principles, long-standing American mores and the standards of any sort of free choice. So the economy is good, what of it? It’s no more right to eliminate a cornerstone of democracy in a good economy than a bad. Does that mean that if the DOW quadruples to 24,000 points and and the economy grows 10% a year he’d be willing to eliminate freedom of speech and association. And if the economy grows 20% why not get rid of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure. And hey, then we could legislate mandatory atheism. After all, with the economy humming along, who needs fundamental democratic human rights?

And this line is not particularly encouraging either (RINO alert): “First, on the merits, it is a close call..” It’s not close at all on any merits. And this is just as scary: “The problems of the recession make this a particularly bad time to enact Employees Free Choice legislation.” Reiterating my point above, you could rewrite that line to say (without changing the accuracy at all), “The problems of the recession make this a particularly bad time to take away fundamental American rights.” That sentence makes no sense now and there should never, ever be a day in the history of America that it does.

Mar 24, 2009 - 3:46 pm 20. zenpig:

“I can’t believe you guys are still preaching that this act would take away the option of a secret ballot from workers when time and time again that has been proven to be a complete LIE!”

Perhaps you don’t understand. It specifically states that in the creation of a union there is no secret ballot amongst employees. This is not a lie, it hasn’t been proven otherwise, and this is what is being heavily objected to…and rightly so.

btw, I agree with most of ya…don’t trust the RINO.

Mar 24, 2009 - 3:47 pm 21. Hogarth:

Mooting the secret ballot (which it clearly does) has the same net result of removing the secret ballot. What kind of rabid idiot contends that making the secret ballot optional at the same time that it makes winning the vote without a secret ballot as easy as finding corruption in union leadership is a good thing?

Saying that a secret ballot would ever be the chosen option may not be a complete LIE, but it would take a complete moron to think that a secret ballot would ever be the option of choice.

Mar 24, 2009 - 3:53 pm 22. rmono:

steven12x did you read the article? this has always been about the arbitration clause. talking about the secret ballot and its demise is sexy and something everyone can identify with. ask professional baseball how well arbitration has worked for them. they would desperately love to get rid of it. its a win win for the player. if businesses have this foisted on them they lose big time.

Mar 24, 2009 - 3:57 pm 23. fear Obama:

FedEx Corp. says it might hold off buying 30 new cargo planes if Congress passes a law that would make it easier to unionize the company.
A bill pending in Congress would change the way FedEx is regulated by placing the company under the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. Currently FedEx is governed by the Railway Labor Act, under which it is generally more difficult for workers to establish union representation.
The proposed change would potentially “strangle” the company, FedEx spokesman Maury Lane said.
“It’s difficult to make large-scale capital investments like airplanes if you are unsure if you are going to be able to fully utilize them,” Mr. Lane said Tuesday, arguing that the pending legislation could be “detrimental to the way we operate our company.”

No sweat!

We can always bail them out.

Mar 24, 2009 - 4:03 pm 24. David S:

It sounds to me like Specter needs a little tweak to the arbitration provisions to get on board EFCA. That may not be necessary for passage, but if it is, I would not be surprised to see such a compromise happen.

There are many ways to skin this cat.

Peace.

DS

Mar 24, 2009 - 4:03 pm 25. Wellspring:

Specter is trying to thread the needle by supporting massive increases in the national debt to fund democrat political payoffs. While it’s great to hear that (despite it being a “close call” and with great reluctance) he supports the secret ballot (for now), how is that enough for this guy to get a legislative license to kill for another six years?

Putting collegiality and media fawning above principle is part of how a Republican congress and President couldn’t get the votes to roll back our bloated government, or even simply reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (despite multibillion dollar scandals that could easily have justified it). That last vote to make the senate fillibuster-proof is painful to lose, but the price of keeping it is hearing “President Obama’s latest bill passed with broad bipartisan support as two whole republicans voted for it.” We don’t have a firewall against bad policy, we have the bad policy plus the pork used to buy off that one last senator the bill needs.

The times call for steadfastness. Specter simply isn’t the man for the job.

Mar 24, 2009 - 4:15 pm 26. Samizdat:

David at 17,
Good point about where we are in our democratic evolution that we are cheering Specter for protecting a democratic tradition. James Madison must be spinning in his grave about now. I also think others make a good point that Specter is unreliable. Boy am I glad I don’t live in the Keystone state.

Mar 24, 2009 - 4:30 pm 27. Common Sense:

Stevent12x,

Don’t be naive or disingenous. By allowing card check, the secret ballot, and its protection for workers, would go the way of the Dinosaur. In the words of the Wall Street Journal:

“The bill doesn’t remove the secret-ballot option from the National Labor Relations Act but in practice makes it a dead letter. The bill allows a union to automatically organize a worksite if more than 50% of workers simply sign an authorization card, so pressure for employees to sign in public view would be enormous.”

The secret ballot would be “dead letter” because unions would no longer need to hold elections in secret when they can use threats, coercion and reprisals to force signatures in public. Still not sure how the union organizing effort would play out? Here is a favorite movie quote to help you visualize the conversation when the union goon squad shows up on an employee’s doorstep:

“My father made him an offer he couldn’t refuse… Luca Brasi held a gun to his head, and my father assured him that either his brains, or his signature would be on the contract”.
- Michael Corleone, “The Godfather”, 1972

Mar 24, 2009 - 4:44 pm 28. LeighB:

Love and kisses to Arlen. I like everything about his statement.

Mar 24, 2009 - 5:25 pm 29. Samizdat:

I notice that Stevent12x hasn’t defended his accusation that we are liars about the termination of the secret ballot. The truth is an incovenient thing isn’t it? Hey Stevent12x, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. I know how much liberal thinkers hate that. Notice the emotive nature of his post. It speaks volumns.

Mar 24, 2009 - 5:31 pm 30. Meryl:

It’s people like stevent12X who are going to be the specific cause for this nation going down the tubes: incapable of reading and understanding English.

Of course, there’s that other very special group that wants to live all day every day on other people’s money.

Our population has been dumbed down and so infected with a welfare mentality (and yes, that includes union-dependent-welfare types) that we are almost to the point where they will indeed consistently outvote us.

Mar 24, 2009 - 5:32 pm 31. David S:

@27. Common Sense:

By allowing card check, the secret ballot, and its protection for workers, would go the way of the Dinosaur.

There is much more to protecting workers than secret ballots in union drives. EFCA is designed to somewhat level a playing field that has been demonstrably tilted against labor. Bringing back card check is not the end of protection for workers – it is the beginning.

The “threats, coercion and reprisals” you speak of are tried and true management tactics in breaking union drives and unions. You offer no reason to believe that card check would lead to intimidation of workers by organizers.

Of course, the whole idea behind all attacks on EFCA is to scare workers into submitting to management’s desires, while ignoring their own interests. Fear is the enemy of freedom.

Peace.

DS

Mar 24, 2009 - 6:04 pm 32. Samizdat:

David S,
Unemployment is the enemy of workers. We will all be equally miserable without jobs. There are hundreds of thousands of nonunion employers out there who pay well and offer workers more than acceptable benefits. That would include my employer. I notice that you don’t attack criticism of any particular aspects of opponents to the bill’s argument, you just offer a generic condemnation. Lets hear your specific defense of EFCA. No more generalizing.Come out and defend yourself, we want to hear it.Do you have a bigger pair than Stevent12X?

Mar 24, 2009 - 6:42 pm 33. Carol:

My thanks to Sen. Specter for giving notice that yet another monstrous bill won’t be rammed through by the power-drunk sots of Payola Hill.

And to David S. #31, my experience of union drives is very different. As a middle manager in a company targeted by a union, the owners had us attend a half-day session making clear our responsibility to foster an even-handed and open process. It’s not an easy time for a manager, needing to enforce the labor laws — what union soliciting can be done during shifts, and where, and what must be done off the clock — while encouraging a freely-chosen outcome, takes a gentle, careful hand. I am glad to have experienced it I’m proud of my work with my staff through that time. Your aspersions sound like some old movie script, nothing like management I’ve known.

Mar 24, 2009 - 7:31 pm 34. Kevin:

Specter is trying to straddle the fence AND say “Look at me, I can be conservative.” Expect more of this as the elections draw nearer. Notice how RINO’s start to find “religion” once election time draws near? Beware people. Beware.

Mar 24, 2009 - 7:35 pm 35. David S:

@32. Samizdat:

Unemployment is the enemy of workers. We will all be equally miserable without jobs.

True enough as far as it goes.

There are hundreds of thousands of nonunion employers out there who pay well and offer workers more than acceptable benefits. That would include my employer.

And assuming that most of your coworkers also feel that they are paid well and receive more than acceptable benefits, they will probably not feel compelled to organize. Seems fair enough to me.

I notice that you don’t attack criticism of any particular aspects of opponents to the bill’s argument, you just offer a generic condemnation. Lets hear your specific defense of EFCA. No more generalizing.Come out and defend yourself, we want to hear it.Do you have a bigger pair than Stevent12X?

Okay – here’s a very brief defense of EFCA. Tens of millions of American workers have expressed an interest in belonging to a union. The vast majority believe they would probably be terminated for trying to form one. EFCA provides a means to prevent management from launching a coordinated attack on the right to organize, by making card check an alternative to lengthy elections, providing for enhanced penalties on employers who interfere with organizers, and preventing endless negotiations through binding arbitration. Any questions?

@33. Carol:

… my experience of union drives is very different.

Yes, indeed, it does require uncommonly competent management to face union organization with an even-handed and open process. It’s not easy to proceed without unduly influencing labor – and I commend you for your efforts to do so.

Your aspersions sound like some old movie script, nothing like management I’ve known.

Ham-handed management is not universal – but your experience is not the only one. Many laborers have suffered under management that is not so respectful, intelligent and disciplined. Retaliatory firings, adversarial relations between labor and management, and intimidation are all too common. When employers can lie with impunity, bribe and threaten, knowing that the penalty for violating labor law is insignificant – well, let me just say that your company is not necessarily typical. If all employers treated organizing drives fairly, EFCA might not be needed. Sadly, that is not the reality on the ground.

Peace.

DS

Mar 24, 2009 - 8:08 pm 36. Robert:

If he actually keeps his word at least the conservatives will be able to stop something. Maybe he is suffering from buyers remorse over the porkulus package he helped pass. Who know. We can only pray.

Mar 24, 2009 - 8:23 pm 37. Cat Ballou:

“It took a couple of days because I like to know what I’m talking about before I speak.” – Obama at tonight’s press fest.

So why did Specter vote for and Obama sign the Payola Bill without reading it?

Mar 24, 2009 - 8:45 pm 38. Dave (the rational Dave):

Penn. can do much better than a Senator that does the right thing only when it is politically opportune. It should be a no brainer to oppose card check and forced arbitration by an arbitration system rigged by leftist Democrats.

Card check and other anti-democratic (small d democratic) mean that labor would get to organize via propoganda and intimidation before a company knew what hit them. Both sides should have the ability to make their case.

Current unions have crushed too many jobs, companies, and industries and done too little to actually help their members once the damage was done. Their corrupt leadership should not be rewarded with the tools to continue on their path of destruction through our economy.

Mar 24, 2009 - 8:53 pm 39. Joshua:

Without Specter’s support the bill is dead at least for now. And unless a Republican unexpectedly vanishes from the Senate, Big Labor is headed for a shocking and crushing blow.

Does this statement account for Minnesota’s still-vacant Senate seat? If (as I sadly expect) Al Franken ends up being awarded the seat, this victory may be only a temporary reprieve.

Mar 24, 2009 - 9:06 pm 40. TexEd:

NONSENSE!!! Sphincter is simply emphasizing the deal he made with Chimpy the Kenya to get the next open seat of the United States Supreme Court!!!
The PA rino supported the porkulus bill as his bribe to get the doofus to appoint him to the next open Supreme Court seat.
Chimpy is paying off the folks who stole/bought his present job and needs to making unions extorting dues from ALL of us the law. Sphincter is simply reminding Chimpy that unless he pays offf on the original bribe, Shpinctor will block the Chimpy pimps on the billion dollars extortion pay off.

Mar 24, 2009 - 9:34 pm 41. John Calomiris:

What the BO party wants is an electorate that will do as it is told.The next thing BO will do is to have the Acorns do the solicitations
.You know,Mark all the cards back at the Union Hall

Mar 24, 2009 - 10:06 pm 42. Bilgeman:

#18 mwl:
“If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a)”

I’d like to point out, as a twenty year Seafarers rank and filer, with two organizing campaigns participated in, what a stinking rotten little clause THIS is:

“…and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit”

See, if you’re captive to a shitty union, you cannot use the “Card Check” to throw the bums out and get yourself a REAL union.

Nope, like despots everywhere, you get to vote all the time, until you vote for the result that they approve of…and then your voting days are done.

This legislation directly mirrors the language in Article 20 of the AFL-CIO charter, (which is the rule against unions “raiding” each others’ shops).

This Card Check thing is a big fat turd that shouldn’t float.

Mar 24, 2009 - 10:09 pm 43. Common Sense:

David S –

History is not kind to your position that unions would never bully workers in the absence of a secret ballot.

Secret ballots for union representation elections in the United States date back to 1935. Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §159, in its original lan­guage stated that the National Labor Relations Board could certify a union through “a secret ballot of employees, or utilize any other suitable method to ascertain such representatives.”

This provision was amended by the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947 to delete the “other suitable method” language after Congress found that “the American workingman…has been cajoled, coerced, intimi­dated, and on many occasions beaten up, in the name of the splendid aims set forth in section 1 of the National Labor Relations Act.” H.R. Rep, No. 80-245, at 4 (1947). Thus, a history of union threats, coercion and violence are directly responsible for the current language in the NLRA that requires a secret ballot.

To this day I have yet to see a single honest and coherent explanation of why any employee should be denied the protection of a secret ballot. When employees are denied the ability to vote in secret, they can be coerced, threatened, bribed or denied employment. If you really fear management as you claim, then that is all the more reason to be in favor of a secret ballot. But the fact that unions overwhelmingly support card check tells me all I need to know about which side expects to benefit from strong-arm tactics in union organizing campaigns. And if that is not the intent behind union support for card check, what possible need is there to deny workers the benefit of a secret ballot?

For anyone interested in this topic, I would also urge you read about the reason our nation adopted the secret ballot for political elections in the late nineteenth century. Over time, the secret ballot has become one of the bedrock principles of democracy throughout the world. Even the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the importance of periodic and genuine elections “by secret vote.” Universal Declaration of Human Rights art. 21, Dec. 10, 1948. The fact that unions would busy themselves by trying to strip this fundamental right from Americans tells you how truly unworthy they have become of your support.

Mar 25, 2009 - 12:05 am 44. don:

The best way to break the back of the corrupt (politically compromised) union movement in this country is to give workers in companies at risk a stake (as part of their compensation) in the companies at risk. When you become an “owner” there is an attitude adjustment. Productivity, quality control and safety become common focus because all own success, or failure.

Mar 25, 2009 - 4:10 am 45. Samizdat:

David S.
Your answer defending EFCA is exactly what I thought you would say. It overstates worker interest in unions and big labor. It also makes a political statement that completely ignores the negative economic impact on workers of the effects of implementing this bill. ” Coordinated attack on the right to organise ” and ” Lengthy elections” under the bill would be remedied by castrating capitalists and ending the concept of a real election where workers could exercise a right of sufferage in private.
What is it about the Wagner Act and all the other labor legislation that leaves you still wanting? Do you remember what happened when Wagner was implemented by that paragon of virtue, FDR? The recovery from the depression withered and unemployment went back up to near 20%. How would a similar out come today aid labor?
It ain’t about aiding labor, it’s all about political power, that’s the real story. Even with all the labor legislation that is pro union you are still losing membership. It speaks volumns about how intelectually bankrupt the union movement is. Workers know it causes more problems than it solves.

Mar 25, 2009 - 4:15 am 46. D. Grant Chee:

There exists a love hate relationship about U.S. unions. There exists a love hate relationship about employer’s. There is no paradox here or
need of teeth nashing; just some common sense compromise by both labor and employer’s will do
both sides justice. A man who refuses the wisdom of compromise is usually unemployed or out of business. There is a need for fairness in labor and a need for labor to be fair.
DONG CHEE #00069

Mar 25, 2009 - 6:32 am 47. savage24:

Just remember “I was against it before I was for it”. Wait and see how sweet the pot gets before the vote. He is still a RINO and that will not change.

Mar 25, 2009 - 7:41 am 48. Dotar Sojat:

Paul Tsongas once said that you can’t be pro employee if you are anti employer.

Mar 25, 2009 - 8:29 am 49. David S:

@43. Common Sense:

Please refrain from trying to put words in my mouth. The problem with a secret ballot is that the employer is given the opportunity to harass and fire workers before the vote occurs. It’s not that complicated. By your same logic, the fact that employers overwhelmingly opposes card check tells me all I need to know about which side expects to benefit from blocking it.

Nobody claimed that unions are perfect – they just happen to be better than the alternative.

Peace.

DS

Mar 25, 2009 - 9:14 am 50. Mark Buehner:

“The problem with a secret ballot is that the employer is given the opportunity to harass and fire workers before the vote occurs.”

The Union has the same opportunity, no? The elephant in the room is that given a secret ballot, less people vote union. Doesn’t that provide pretty compelling proof about just who is doing the bullying generally?

Would you support a law where each employee had to sign their vote alone, in the presence of the employer? Then why the opposite? Lets get real, nobody is even really pretending this bill does anything but legalize union strong-arming.

Mar 25, 2009 - 9:55 am 51. Reaganite Republican:

If you want the rest of the country to look like Detroit, just pass the card-check legislation that Obama seeks to pay-back his shady union-leader supporters with.

In today’s world, if someone else is willing to do what you do for less, you’ve got a problem. There’s simply no way to force employers to pay you more than what you’re worth over the long run, as the company will be destroyed by competitors with labor purchased at the market rate.

The gangster methods and ludicrous job rules of the UAW only worked for the short term benefit of a few, as the company, workers, and country all lose out as the enterprise is bled white. If you want to earn more money, you better obtain a marketable skill… the days of $50/hr for putting hubcaps on Cutlass Supremes is long, long gone.

When Reagan pushed the unions back, 20M jobs were created, and real GDP grew 30%. So who does the UAW help? Not American industry or workers in the long run-

With card-check, union goons can show up at your doorstep at 10pm to “ask” you to join the union. And guess what? You WILL sign- lolLike most of Obama’s leftist proposals, there’s no precedent to suggest restoring union power will help the country as a whole- it’s historical revisionism, at best.

Barack takes care of Barack #1… but political backers like Tony Rezko and unions are a close second. The country’s interests are a distant third, if that.

The UAW has been nothing but a tumor on the neck of the free-market capitalist system… and look what it got us.

Mar 25, 2009 - 9:59 am 52. Marc Malone:

#46 Chee – You are operating under a flase assumption that both sides are interested in “common-sense” and “justice”. Unions are not interested in what’s best for the workers. They are a political enterprise. This is the best job they can get, and they get fat at the trough. The more members they have, the more money they can justify for themselves.

Compromise is good for the company and for the employees, but it is not good for the unions. Unless they can show that they got more than what’s fair, of what use are they? They are the equivalent of a sports agent. If he gets no more for you than you could have gotten for yourself, why bother to pay him 10%?

What workers need is union-lite. Just enough to keep employers honest, with very low cost to the employees. However, there is never any such thing. It’s like being a bit pregnant. Eventually, you become more pregnant.

Arbitration is also not the answer, as it’s too inflexible. Unfortunately, there is a need for unions, as some employers just never get it. They get short-sighted and greedy, and shoot themselves in the foot, taking the workers down with them. Only intense and numerous competition among businesses for labor remedies the situation for workers. A booming economy is the only answer.

Mar 25, 2009 - 10:10 am 53. David S:

@50. Mark Buehner:

“The problem with a secret ballot is that the employer is given the opportunity to harass and fire workers before the vote occurs.”

The Union has the same opportunity, no?

Um, no. The union doesn’t have the threat of termination as leverage. That’s the ace in the hole for the employer – and can provide a powerful incentive for workers to act against their larger interests.

The elephant in the room is that given a secret ballot, less people vote union. Doesn’t that provide pretty compelling proof about just who is doing the bullying generally?

I’d love to see the data you’ve got to back up that assertion. The data I have seen indicates that most workers would vote for a union if given the opportunity.

Would you support a law where each employee had to sign their vote alone, in the presence of the employer? Then why the opposite? Lets get real, nobody is even really pretending this bill does anything but legalize union strong-arming.

Organizing is a matter for labor to decide – and the method should be the choice of the workers as well, not subject to the desires of the employer. Fear mongering about union intimidation is not justified, given the much more disturbing history of management aggression.

Peace.

DS

Mar 25, 2009 - 10:58 am 54. Rubicon:

Poor Arlen. He realized he screwed up big time & the polls told him almost any primary challenger was going to do him in. So, Arlen decided to try to win back some conservatives by backing something he thinks they support.
Conservatives will not vote for you because you conceded on ONE issue Arlen. You blew it. When you voted for the “porkulous” legislation, you lost any chance of winning the primary. Now, if the voted FOR card check the unions would have muscled some of theirs to re-register & supposedly vote for you. But I think you know they cannot get enough to come over because you lost so many conservatives already. The unions & other liberal groups would have to get ALL Democrats to vote for you. Most Republicans are already looking for the alternative candidate. And yes, that even means if we lose to a Democrat in the election. You see, most figure, what’s the difference? You or a Democrat? Seems like its the same side of the coin no matter what!
So.. goodbye Arlen. I wish I had never known ya!

Mar 25, 2009 - 11:18 am 55. T:

David,
Your citation of a pro-union think tank, funded by the “Democracy Alliance” – George Soros, Rob Reiner, Norman Lear, and the SEIU – is less convincing than you might wish. Your “points” also fly in the face of reality: unions are certified regularly. Intimidation is already against the law. And when given the chance to vote, many workers decide they do not want to support fat-cat union bosses.

If you think there is a great benefit to the country from unions, why not explain why Detroit is not humming along? Is it perhaps due to legacy costs from the union and restrictive work rules? Not to absolve management, they were incredibly weak in giving so much. But that is kinda the goal, isn’t it? To weaken management, slow down change and ensure that the workers control the means of production?

Mar 25, 2009 - 12:13 pm 56. Common Sense:

David S writes:

“The problem with a secret ballot is that the employer is given the opportunity to harass and fire workers before the vote occurs.”

No, not legally. Taking an adverse employment action against any employee for exercising his right to join, or not join, a union violates the National Labor Relations Act. The law already addresses this issue. If the potential for pre-vote harassment is your real concern, then you should be lobbying for better enforcement or greater punishment of offenders — not stripping employees of a secret ballot.

In contrast, a secret ballot makes it far more difficult to retaliate. Strip the secret ballot away, then you might as well wear a bullseye on your back when you vote in a union election or are asked to sign a card.

Finally, I did not put “words in your mouth” when I traced the history of the secret ballot in union elections. You previously claimed that I offered “no reason to believe that card check would lead to intimidation of workers by organizers.” The history of the NLRA and the secret ballot show otherwise.

One of the great ironies here is that in countries like Mexico where union organizers have more legitimate fears of retaliation, the unions have demanded and won the right to a secret ballot. Here, however, American unions are busy trying to deny those same rights to workers so when it comes time for threats or retaliation they will know who you are, how you voted and where you live.

Mar 25, 2009 - 12:54 pm 57. deguello:

What? has this poltroonish,tumor,decided to start taking testosterone and regrow testicles? Who cares? It’s too late,clown. Deguello to Spector:”DROP DEAD”!

Mar 25, 2009 - 1:46 pm 58. deguello:

#53:David S (we all know what the S stands for),you’d make a great union organizer …in Cuba! Scratch a liberal:find a Stalinist!

Mar 25, 2009 - 1:49 pm 59. Paparon:

What good is a ballot if it is not secret? Other than secret, the ballot is void. Secret ballot, a basic right,it is not unumerated in the Constitution, so the 9th amendment’s “certain rights” should not be denied.

Mar 25, 2009 - 4:04 pm 60. deguello:

T#55 Well written,cogent post!

Mar 26, 2009 - 5:18 am 61. wancow the islomogynist:

What I’d like to know, people, is why Unions are NOT subject to Anti Trust law…

Mar 26, 2009 - 10:20 am 62. mwl:

@53. David S:

The union doesn’t have the threat of termination as leverage. That’s the ace in the hole for the employer – and can provide a powerful incentive for workers to act against their larger interests.

This statement fails the giggle test. Big Labor may not be able to fire you, but there are plenty of other means of “leverage” at their disposal to “persuade” you to sign that card. Big Labor, too, decides what your “larger interests” are; you have little say in the matter.

When I asked a pro-union friend of mine how unions can get away with some of the things they do, his response was to point out that “cops are union.” Can you feel the chill? You should.

There is plenty of potential for unions to be just as unscrupulous as you believe employers to be. Hence, while I do think there is room for reform in the NLRA, I strongly oppose the EFCA bill as it stands.

Mar 26, 2009 - 10:50 am 63. Still Bill:

Arlen, why is your decision to vote against “card check” a close call? An intimidated worker is not a voter you “god dam” fool. Unions don’t do shit for workers except lose jobs and pay union leaders big salaries. Get real man! How old are you?

Mar 26, 2009 - 4:37 pm 64. whyyeseyec:

Arlene Splincter is a professional backstabber. Never trust him.

Never fall in love with a politician. They`ll break your heart every time…..

Mar 27, 2009 - 10:41 am 65. Bilgeman:

#58 deguello:
“you’d make a great union organizer …in Cuba! Scratch a liberal:find a Stalinist!” (to David S)

No he wouldn’t. David S couldn’t organize an orgy in a Havana whorehouse even if he had a wad of crisp new $100 bills from a Union PAC fund in his wallet.
And yes…that particular method is in the arsenal. Hidden cameras and opposition reserach and all.

(BTW, we called the Seafarers Political Action Donation-SPAD-”SILENCE!-PAY AS DIRECTED”)

Mar 27, 2009 - 8:00 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: