Obama Commits to Supporting Unionization
In a matter dear to the hearts of the progressive labor movement, an Obama spokesman has reaffirmed the incoming President’s commitment to support the Orwellian-named “Employee Free Choice Act”.
The measure, which progressives claim to be “pro-labor” is more aptly described as pro-unionization, with all the unexamined flaws that attend thereto. What the law would do is actually remove from employees their only opportunity to express their real feelings about potential union representation in a secret ballot and force employees instead to express their will solely through a card filled out and signed under the direct supervision of a union organizer. Make the “wrong” choice on the “card check” and the employee could be vulnerable to job loss if the union is formed anyway or other forms of social or even physical intimidation. Rather than the boogyman of intervening coercion by business, such fears are precisely the reason that “card check” drives tend to show the appearance of more support for unionization than secret ballots do. After all, which is more likely: That employers have found a way to monitor and influence employees in the secret ballot, or that union organizers have found a way to monitor and influence employees filling out a card check right in front of them?
The commitment from Obama is bald political payback. Union leaders were strong supporters of Obama and they lavishly contributed to Obama’s campaign from the coffers of union dues extracted and spent without workers’ consent under the pretense of funding collective bargaining. And union officials clearly hope to use the new coercive powers granted to them by a compliant Congress and President to reverse decades of workers choosing to not have union representation and its associated fees and added bureaucratic supervision by union representatives.
If there was ever a good candidate for the first Republican filibuster, this is it.
UPDATE: The probable pro-union tilt in the Obama administration has been reinforced by the appointment of a union activist for Labor Secretary. This might be an appointment for Republicans in the Senate to resist. The Labor Secretary is supposed to be a neutral arbiter of labor laws that protect workers from both employers and unions, not a cheerleader for unionization. While Obama’s other cabinet picks thus far have been generally excellent, the appointment of a union organizer as Labor Secretary is the kind of low-profile, high-impact appointment that can cause an incredible amount of damage to worker’s rights during a time when jobs might already be hard to come by.
Unionization is not an inherently bad thing, but like they corrupt business practices that led to their emergence in the early 1900s, they too have been blindsided by greed.
Yeah, it’s not like companies make things hard for unions, and harrass those who try to start one…
At least the companies are not empowered to directly monitor how the workers vote on a potential unionization and to harass, intimidate, threaten, or even physically attack those who make the “wrong” decision.
In short, stop trying to change the subject, Tom. “The other guy does it too” is not a valid response for a five-year-old, so it shouldn’t be a valid response to a blog post either.
It’s not changing the subject, it’s pointing out that there’s a reason people are pushing for rules to make unionization easier.
Trying to figure out where I said “The other guy does it too”, but I haven’t been successful yet. Which is surprising, given that it’s a one-sentence post…
Teamster since 85. The more militant of our union brothers, as far as the company is concerned, decided that the union brothers were getting screwed so they tried to get a new union in place. Big mistake. The Teamsters fought it off and delivered the worst contract since I started working for the company. My bonehead brothers have sinced realized that they messed with the wrong people as we lost much of what we’ve gain over the past few contracts.
Why did they think they were getting screwed? They know that our company commits the highest amount to the pension fund of all Teamsters. In some cases, quite a bit more. But we are to recieve the same retirement pay as all other Teamster brothers, and they didn’t feel that was right. And yet these are the same people that tell me every day that the rich have a responsiblity to pay more in taxes because they can afford it. It boggles the mind.
You did in #2 Tom.
This act is one bad thing. It resorts to open thuggery amongst Union heads to grow their ranks. Unions should also welcome a private vote, although given their declining influence – it’s easy to see why they are needing to resort to it.
Teamsters – many moons ago when manager of a local airport – the Teamsters flew in one of their jets. Beautiful colors – we were just instructed not to take picture of the tail number in case a member looked up the tailnumber and found out their union dues were funding it.
“It resorts to open thuggery amongst Union heads to grow their ranks. Unions should also welcome a private vote, although given their declining influence – it’s easy to see why they are needing to resort to it.
”
Right on Jason and Interested, and I find it laughable that the party that calls Republicans “heartless” would support a “heartless” move like this. What of the individuals right to express their opinion without potential of recourse? This throws that idea right out the window. Unions have their place, and can be great for workers rights, but here is where they forget about individuals.