  Mrjoshua Member Username: Mrjoshua Post Number: 1123 Registered: 03-2005 |
Trump Cards By THOMAS J. BRAY December 28, 2006; Page A15 The Wall Street Journal, op-ed DETROIT -- It hasn't been the merriest of holiday seasons in Michigan. Recently Ford Motor Co. offered modest buyouts to 38,000 hourly employees, more than half its unionized work force in the U.S. General Motors Corp. and its former parts division, the now-bankrupt Delphi Co., did the same for 40,000 hourly workers, about a quarter of their union work forces. There is talk that Daimler will dump its Chrysler division. All of which is another massive blow to what used to be called the "union movement." The United Auto Workers is down to slightly more than 500,000 members, compared to 1.5 million only two decades ago. Nor is it just a Michigan problem. Including public sector workers, unions now represent only about 12.5% of the U.S. work force, down from 20% in 1983 and about 35% 50 years ago. The decline in union membership leveled off last year. "The good news is that the annual hemorrhaging of union membership slowed last year," confessed James P. Hoffa, president of the Teamsters. "And that's not really good news." Thus not-so-Big Labor, which has dumped millions into organizing campaigns without much success, is scrambling for new ways to beef up its membership rolls. The latest hot idea is "card check," in which unions demand to be recognized as the bargaining unit for a workplace if a majority of the workers merely sign a card indicating their support. Under current law, companies are required to recognize a union only after a secret ballot of the workers -- and unions have been losing an increasing number of those elections. Now that Congress is back under Democratic control, unions sniff a win. Card-check bills sponsored by Democratic Rep. George Miller and Sen. Ted Kennedy last year had 215 co-sponsors in the House, just shy of a majority, and 42 co-sponsors in the Senate. Union political operatives made it clear during the recent election campaign that any Democrat who opposed card check could forget about campaign backing in the future. Republicans still have the strength to filibuster such a measure to death, and President Bush might veto it. But a weakened GOP and president might be tempted to let it through, particularly if it's attached to something they want. If so, it is likely to be seen as a fundamental reversal of the anti-union trend unleashed by Ronald Reagan's crushing of the Air Traffic Controllers strike in 1981. The card-check tactic already is being used with some success. More than half the workers who joined unions last year did so in card-check sign-ups to which companies had "voluntarily" agreed, according to the AFL-CIO. Congressional action would make the card-check procedure routine. Sen. Kennedy, whose bill is titled the Employee Free Choice Act, claims federal card check legislation "would level the playing field" by removing "large loopholes" in existing labor laws that supposedly allow employers to fire union organizers and intimidate workers prior to organizing elections. Union officials like Stewart Acuff, the AFL-CIO's organizing director, complain that elections "just don't work." But it's more than a bit odd for union leaders, long proponents of what they are pleased to call "industrial democracy," to object to the secret ballot. As for Sen. Kennedy's claim that he merely seeks a choice for workers between card-check and a traditional ballot, imagine you are Joe Lunch Bucket on your way to work. A beefy organizer greets you at the plant gate and asks you to sign a card in favor of representation by a union. Are you really going to say no? The fact that unions now call card-check their No. 1 legislative priority should be seen as a sign of weakness rather than strength. Labor's far more ambitious schemes to insulate themselves from international competition, such as trade barriers, haven't gotten very far. And labor's ability to use mandatory worker dues for political purposes -- which amounted to more than a quarter of the AFL-CIO budget in 2005 and probably far more in 2006 -- is under legal pressure at the U.S. Supreme Court. Even card check might not produce the desired results. Dana Corp., a major auto supplier, several years ago agreed to a card check campaign at two Virginia plants, which were duly organized by the UAW. But both plants are now scheduled to be closed because of mounting competitive pressures both from abroad and non-union plants in the U.S. True, public sector unions have been growing. But even there voter sympathy may be limited. In November, voters in Michigan by a wide margin voted down a ballot proposal backed by teachers unions that would have guaranteed annual wage hikes at least equal to inflation (as well as a state bailout of pension and health care benefits). And that was even before the true bill for piling unionism on top of civil service status for government employees is made clear by new accounting standards that begin taking effect this year. Unfunded pension and health-care liabilities for state and local employees, the new figures are likely to show, could top $1 trillion nationwide, a huge potential tax liability. Will voters -- even in union households -- really be in a mood to make it easier for an entrenched interest to deliver dubious services at high prices? In short, Republicans could be making a serious miscalculation if they bow to union demands for card check. Many workers themselves would view it as a sellout of their basic rights -- trading away the secret ballot, which gives them some leverage over union bosses with whom they might disagree, for short-term political gain. It will be interesting to see whether today's GOP will stick to a principle that ought to be an easy sell with most Americans. Mr. Bray is a freelance journalist who lives in the Detroit area. | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 938 Registered: 02-2004 |
Mr. Bray, because he had no union to represent him, was unceremoniously dumped by the Detroit News after many years of obedient service. Unbowed by his public humiliation, he continues to serve his master. Woof! | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 463 Registered: 08-2006 |
What's the beef with card checks? If the employer is a good one that is committed to treating the employers fairly, then the union would lose the election. Why would the bosses want to deprive the people the right to organize, unless they know they have something to lose by having a union come in? Like I said if they are good people to work for that all ready give the employees fair wages and benefits they should have nothing to worry about. Good catch ORF, puts this jerk in perspective. | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 1154 Registered: 12-2003 |
I seem to recall Bray also got into a tussle with David Bonior when Bonior went into the News to protest the treatment of strikers. He demanded an audience...was on his cel phone and supposedly Bray tried to grab it. | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 941 Registered: 02-2004 |
Slapped it out of his hand and then insisted on having Bonior arrested. Rev. Edwin Rowe of Central United Methodist too. Bark! Bark! Bark! | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1489 Registered: 11-2003 |
On the other hand, I'm not sure what's so wrong with the current secret ballot method that it needs to be changed. Most voting in our democracy is done by secret ballot. | ||
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_ Post Number: 1650 Registered: 12-2003 |
The beef with card checks is the elimination of secret ballots and the possible coercion that may take place. Instead of a nice democratic vote you would now be accosted and asked to publicly sign a card/decision. Add to the fact that if 50% + 1 sign the card the business can decide to only negotiate with the union or negotiate with both the workers who signed and the workers who didn't. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 2347 Registered: 11-2003 |
Sorry, doing away with elections is just plain un-American. There's no getting around that. | ||
Yvette248 Member Username: Yvette248 Post Number: 329 Registered: 10-2006 |
Didn't the board administrator just post a message for all of us to use EXCERPTS with LINKS instead of copying the entire article on this site??? I know he just did a week or so ago. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 4414 Registered: 10-2003 |
Neo-cons know they are exempt from all the rules the rest of us "beneath them" are subject to observing. | ||
Mrjoshua Member Username: Mrjoshua Post Number: 1124 Registered: 03-2005 |
Once again, the WSJ is subscription only and by posting the entire article I am helping to educate those on this site who continue to believe they can get something for nothing. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 4417 Registered: 10-2003 |
Oh hell, the term "union" drives Mrjoshua so crazy he still supports the CSA. | ||
Rustic Member Username: Rustic Post Number: 3072 Registered: 10-2003 |
" I am helping to educate those on this site who continue to believe they can get something for nothing." ... by giving them something for nothing ... Q.E.D. (Message edited by rustic on December 28, 2006) | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 5538 Registered: 09-2005 |
Poor booboos - now they have to resort to eliminating secret ballots. Next thing: lights on in the bedroom, shades up. Sounds like what the left refers to as the "radical rightwing" | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 943 Registered: 02-2004 |
"Secret" elections have been misused by management since day one. Coercion? Ha. Workers have been more in danger from their bosses than by any union. It's simple. Card checks make it easier and safer for workers to join a union, that's why the right wing is afraid of it. | ||
Al_t_publican Member Username: Al_t_publican Post Number: 112 Registered: 06-2004 |
How is it that Honda and Toyota seem to be prospering in this country? My grandfather was a personal friend of the Reuther brothers in his youth and worked at Packard for 20 years where he was a UAW steward. I never became saw the union as being good or evil, but sometimes I see it as being unnecessary. | ||
Mrjoshua Member Username: Mrjoshua Post Number: 1125 Registered: 03-2005 |
"... by giving them something for nothing ... Q.E.D." I have to start somewhere Rustic. ORF and Stylin don't venture beyond People or Star Magazine and they need to be educated about how the real world operates. Any organization that holds a gun to the head of the person who writes their check is inherently evil. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 2349 Registered: 11-2003 |
How are card checks "safer & easier" when they are pretty much done in public/the open, compared to secret ballot elections...which are done in private? I'm a little fuzzy on that line of thinking. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 2354 Registered: 11-2003 |
Didn't I already ask this question? | ||
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_ Post Number: 1654 Registered: 12-2003 |
It just took me longer to type  | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 2358 Registered: 11-2003 |
Damn, _sj_!!! | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 2360 Registered: 11-2003 |
BTW, you didn't have to delete your post. | ||
Ordinary Member Username: Ordinary Post Number: 93 Registered: 06-2006 |
Jams, What does CSA stand for? | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 466 Registered: 08-2006 |
If the employer's are good ones, then they should have no issues letting their employees vote on union representation. No employee that is being treated fairly, makes living wages, receives benefits with no exorbitant premiums, and exists in a workplace where promotions and OT are doled out fairly, without favoritism, would ever want to pay union dues. I say this is why you don't see unions down south at the Jap's plants. The people that run those factories know how to keep the workers happy. It' not because the bosses are good at scaring the workers away from voting a union in, like Mr. Joshua would have us believe. | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 1161 Registered: 12-2003 |
Cambrian, You're wrong. There are lots of open shops where people willingly pay union dues. It's a matter of protection. Just because your boss likes you today, doesn't mean they will tomorrow. If you're an at will employee, you have no protection. | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 467 Registered: 08-2006 |
Yes, job security was implied in my message about being treated fairly. | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 468 Registered: 08-2006 |
You have to sign something that states you agree to be an at will employee. If the job is a decent one they won't make you sign that, then you are not an employee at will. | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 1162 Registered: 12-2003 |
No, Cambrian...if you haven't signed a union card then by definition, you are an at-will employee. | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 469 Registered: 08-2006 |
That does not sound right. All the at will jobs I ever had, I had to sign something stating as much. If they don't have that on file, I have a right to retain a lawyer to get my job back in the event I'm fired. | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 946 Registered: 02-2004 |
Cambrian, the anti union forces at work in the southern auto factories used violence and fear to keep the unions out. Have a talk with any union organizer who worked down there, or talk to the workers who wanted the union, they were always watching their backs. | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 470 Registered: 08-2006 |
That may be true ORF, I am in favor of Unions too. But I'm sure if you went to any after hours bar outside an Auto plant in TN or SC and asked factory workers if they wanted a union, the majority wouldn't, they would likely start spewing the right wing rhetoric we hear here. But the minute their needs were not meant I'm sure they would find a way to organize. I've always believed unions only go where they are needed. With the exception of Wal Mart who has a steady turnover of people and a successful brainwashing campaign. | ||
Track75 Member Username: Track75 Post Number: 2468 Registered: 10-2003 |
A non-union Michigan employee is presumed to be at-will, whether you sign a statement to that effect or not. The statement just helps the company a bit in the inevitable lawsuits. Still, an at-will employee can't be let go for an illegal reason. And verbal or written assurances of continuing employment might in some cases undo the at-will status. That's why companies get you to sign an at-will statement and why they document the reason for firing an employee to death, so they have a good defense later if the employee claims they were fired for their race or for being a whistle-blower. The non-secret card checks sound about as democratic as the old USSR elections that reelected their dictator with 99% turnout and 99% approval. | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 948 Registered: 02-2004 |
I wish that were true. The time and effort spent on repelling organizing in the south was truly amazing and money that could have been spent much better. I'm going to ask a labor lawyer pal about your statement. You might have had to sign a card, I wonder if it was in places that had campaigns going. I've had plenty of at will jobs and have never been asked to sign a thing like that. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 4429 Registered: 10-2003 |
Ordinary's question: "Jams, What does CSA stand for?" Confederate States of America | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 1163 Registered: 12-2003 |
Cambrian, No you do not have to sign any document to be an at-will employee. Anyone you know who is management...they are at will. Do you think every manager at every company in Michigan signs a document saying they're at will? No need to make them, they are at will. Anyone who isn't in a union, or who isn't a free rider covered by a union contract, they are at will. | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 1164 Registered: 12-2003 |
Cambrian, This is what happened, to a company right here in your town. This non-unionized company paid its employees the same pay and benefits as its unionized competition down the street, to keep the staff happy and to attract good talent. And, yes, the bosses figured, if we keep them happy, we'll keep the union out. Fast forward to an angry top boss who one day, for no more than a whim, decides to fire 15 people all at once. Because it isn't a unionized workplace, he got to fire whomever he pleased; the guy who didn't smile when he said hello, the female employee who'd just gotten pregnant, lots of good people who didn't deserve it. Black Monday, as they called it, and it so shook his staff that they called the union and the place was signed up within 24 hours. Fast forward a few more decades. The guy who perpetuated Black Monday is long gone, but do the workers still want a union? A majority do, yes. In this profession, unionized workplaces have defined pensions, better pay scales and more job security. A boss can't come back from lunch drunk and just fire people. So there you go. You don't have to have unhappy employees right here, right now, to have union supporters. They want the protection of lawyers, they want the grievance process, the pension, benefits, etc. | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 471 Registered: 08-2006 |
I like what you are saying about the need for unions, but the whole at will thing, I'm still skeptical that everyone is at will if they don't sign anything saying they are at will. I guess if I had such a job as that and I got fired for no good reason, when I hauled that boss's sorry ass in front of the judge because I was suing his company for three years back pay....what's that boss gonna say if I can't produce something with my signature on it saying I agreed to be an at will employee? "Every one in Michigan is an at will employee unless they are union"? Depending on the judge, believe it or not there are still some that are sympathetic to the working man, will either be irritated at the boss's arrogance and callous attitude towards his employee, or the judge will be irritated with me for daring to question my boss's vast wisdom which was is so obviously greater then mine as I am only a lowly peon worker. My point is if the company merely says I'm 'at will' because everyone is, I can say if I never signed anything therefore in the absence of nothing I interpreted there was system at work were people were discharged fairly with the exception of me. Also a personal note, I was a union employee that was fired for no good reason other then my boss did not like me, after a year out of work I am looking at getting a year of wages from my boss. So, the union helped out by providing a grievance procedure and the use of their lawyer, for which I am eternally grateful, but it's nothing I couldn't have done without a union. Without I would have had to find my own lawyer, and depending on how much money was at stake would have determined how good a lawyer. And I still constantly get a cool message from the union for making them work at this, the company kept expecting me to eat the wages I was out and come back to work, I refused and that really bugged the union. Yes, the unions are a benefit, but don't be fooled into thinking without them we are powerless. I recall as a teamster asking some Fed Ex guys why they were not union and they cited examples of people that got thier jobs back by retaining a lawyer. | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 1165 Registered: 12-2003 |
Cambrian, In the rare instance that an anti-union guy like Track and a pro-union person such as myself agree on something, it's a good bet that it's right. |
